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

Links to World Gazetteer don't work

Moved to WP:URLREQ

Podcasts to be used as: References or External Links?

I posted this on the talk page of Mona Lisa and have been directed to check here.

Can podcasts be used at all? If yes, is it as references or external links? I want to contribute quoting the episodes from the two widest known podcasts on Art History: ArtCurious and The Lonely Palette.

Here is an example from ArtCurious about Mona Lisa: https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It also has the transcript.

Please suggest! - Veera.sj

Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

As part of an effort to improve the links at {{Find sources}} (something I'll be seeking further input on here once it gets farther along), I have been looking at newspapers commonly described as a newspaper of record for various countries. For Australia, the two publications most frequently cited are The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, sister papers in Melbourne and Sydney that share some articles. However, they're currently missing from RSP. So, how should these be seen?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Please indicate in your !vote whether it applies to the SMH, The Age, or both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)^{Edited 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)}

Please see comment at #20:18, 13 Aug for further explanation about why I am launching this RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (SMH/The Age)

• Option 1 for both: never found any (systemic) issues with either, and they're as newspaper as record as you can get. I'm more familiar with SMH but have still encountered The Age multiple times. When writing content I have in my head that these are top-tier sources and I'll read and summarise them before anything except other top-tier sources like NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC: no evidence there's a particular Wikipedia article with a cite that's under dispute. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC, there appears to be no actual dispute to comment on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Agreed with Bilorv. Nothing wrong with an RfC about a source's reliability. We have those all the time, and it doesn't have to be tied to a particular dispute at a particular article. The purpose here (updating {{Find sources}}) is good and clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1 - although they are state-based papers they are based in large cities and have a long-standing national following as a reliable news source in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1. Having read the explanation, now I understand what it's being about. At least I saw no obvious reasons for their unreliability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The suggestion that these two excellent newspapers are anything but RS is ridiculous. If they change their standards, we could revisit this. At the moment they are about as good as it gets. If a news item says something, it has been checked for accuracy and on the rare occasions that an error is made it is promptly and prominently acknowledged. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 these are serious newspapers in major cities, with professional journalists and editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 noting the comments by David Gerard and Pete - they are, and have been over time reliable sources. JarrahTree 10:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the underlying question behind this RfC, yes, these reliable sources would be considered Australian newspapers of record. – Teratix ₵ 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

General discussion (SMH/The Age)

Notified: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Meta-discussion (SMH/The Age)

• We absolutely do list The Australian at RSP. RSP isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of every countrys major newspapers, which are assumed to be generally reliable, only thosed that are frequently discussed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oops, self-trout about the The Australian. I edited out the comment I initially made that we don't list any Australian publications. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• We should not be opening discussions just because a source doesn’t appear at RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This; RSP should only be sources that are common targets of debate as an RS (whether it clearly is one or isn't). That said, I see no harm in a separate page of listing the newspapers of note and reputability for major countries as an RS subpage/essay, as this is often a question asked. This doesn't necessarily that their reliability may be later brought into question if they aren't already listed at RSP, just that we can take these generally by default as good sources. --Masem (t) 17:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    I find this position really confusing, and I think it's rather particular to the regulars on this noticeboard. The ship has long since sailed on whether or not RSP is a listing of major publications—it very clearly is, and creating a separate page doing the same thing would be an extreme exercise in forking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    If that ship has sailed I’m sure you can point to a relevant consensus or series of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    You're the one asserting that a rule exists about which discussions are appropriate to bring up here, so the impetus is on you to demonstrate consensus for that rule. I looked through the instructions at the top of this page before opening this thread and the others, and I found no such rule listed. The only thing approaching that is the advice to provide examples of disputes about a source. In this case, my note about module development fulfills an equivalent function of explaining why I'm seeking consensus about these sources.

    Another way to look at it, if you prefer, is that these publications have been brought here a bunch of times before (search the archives), just not in a formal enough way to justify an RSP listing. If we're willing to have a listing for The New York Times, then it seems very U.S.-centric to not allow listings on other countries' newspapers of record. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    You appear to be ignoring the “P” in RSP... The NYT has been discussed ad-nauseum (theres literally a discussion open right now just above this one), I would also note that unless theres been other discussions a single discussion won’t qualify a source for inclusion in RSP so I’m not really sure what the point of this is, you would have to do this sort of open question repeatedly for each source which just seems disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria, it states For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Given that, it seems we need to add RfC tags for the discussions here to count. I'll go ahead and do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Given that theres not actually a dispute here I don’t understand how you can make an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Agreed with Sdkb on this. There are downsides to the growing reliance on RSP (just seen someone argue a gossip rag is reliable because it's not listed in red at RSP, only its parent newspaper is) but it's far and away better than before we had it, and it doesn't make sense to be omitting obviously reliable sources when as thorough a list as possible is useful to both people who are not familiar with the sources (because they're not from that country, say), and people not yet familiar with Wikipedia's standards in practice (because you can read WP:RS and WP:V 100 times but without seeing some examples, you can't actually tell where our line is). — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Was there ever any serious question about this? I'm not offhand familiar with The Age, but it seems to me it should be relatively uncontroversial to add at least The Sydney Morning Herald as a reliable source to the list. If someone objects to that and says it's unreliable, I guess then we need an RfC, but I don't see why we do at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade, the RSP rules state that an RfC is required to list a source unless it has been discussed multiple times before. An editor objected above to adding it to RSP, so the RfC tag here is necessary. Apologies for the bureaucracy, but this appears to be the necessary path to a listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Can Sdkb please link the prior discussions which led to the RfC being launched? We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question, and I do not appear to see any evidence of this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question. Is that a rule or just your opinion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's been common practice here for a long while, and that's why it's the wording at the top of this page about when to launch an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• To iterate on my comment above, I think it would be good if we had a list of newspapers of note for each major country/region that we presume reliable. Some of those may already be listed on RS/P but the point of the RS/P list is to include entries that have a point of contentious (whether in good faith or not) from multiple discussions as to list them as RSP and avoid having the same discussion over and over again. It seems silly to have RFCs on new entries when there hasn't been a point of issue with these works before, so just that they can be added. But by having this other separate list, noting that unless the work is listed at RSP and thus confirmed to be reliable, that list is a presumption of reliability which could potentially be discussed later. So that we'd have one list, RSP, that are sources that have had reliability or lack thereof asserted through multiple consensus-based discussions, and then this other list that is generally safe to presume reliable until proven otherwise (unless already included on RSP) but have not had the consensus discussion to prove that all out. --Masem (t) 17:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem, I don't think any such thing exists as a publication that is so clearly reliable that we don't need to worry about it being challenged—any publication reliable enough to confront tough issues is necessarily going to generate controversy. We have the NYT listed but not other countries' papers of record because there are a lot more U.S. editors than those from any other country, but that's just systemic bias. Regarding the point of the RS/P list, it may have originally been intended only for keeping track of repeated disputes, but as Bilorv put very well above, it's very clearly now being used as a (non-comprehensive) list of what we think about the major sources of the world. I get that we don't want to allow editors to start launching giant discussions about the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner just because they can, but this really isn't that—these are publications used thousands of times across Wikipedia and that have been repeatedly mentioned on this noticeboard before. There is no need to drag heels just to cling to an antiquated idea of what RSP is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from Sdkb: @Peter Gulutzan, Horse Eye's Back, Hemiauchenia, Masem, Seraphimblade, and Spy-cicle: Okay, so I appear to have stepped into a hornet's nest regarding the issue of when it's appropriate to launch discussions here. That's largely on me for not explaining better why I'm seeking input on these publications, so here's a more complete explanation. I hope we can drop the pitchforks.

The {{Find sources}} template is used primarily on talk pages to help editors find relevant sources to improve pages. It currently has nearly 800,000 transclusions, which means that an extremely high level of consensus is needed to make changes to it. One problem with the template that has been raised several times on its talk page is that the only newspaper it links directly is the NYT, which works fine as a newspaper of record for the U.S. but doesn't really make sense for, say, an article about Australia. Myself and a few others are working on remedying that, building in the capacity for the template to automatically determine an article's country and provide an appropriate newspaper of record if we've identified one for that country. That work is still at an early technical stage, which is why I referenced it a little obliquely above. If you'd like to help out, please do; otherwise, just wait and we will be seeking consensus here and at other prominent venues before anything goes live. For the initial launch of the feature, we're planning to include nine of the major English-speaking countries. I want the list of publications to be as straightforward as possible, so that debate doesn't get snagged around the question of which publications to list. Having all of them greenlisted at RSP seems an appropriate way to achieve that, and the RSP instructions state that a single RfC is sufficient for a listing, so that's what I'm doing here for the four countries out of the nine whose newspaper of record isn't yet listed. Again, the publications we ultimately choose will be shown on hundreds of thousands of talk pages, so it's essential that we affirm that they are considered reliable sources, and this is the reliable sources noticeboard, so it is the place to do that. The discussion at the other three seems to be going fine and producing useful and actionable consensuses; I hope that we put all this meta stuff aside and do the same here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Restating the situation like this, this I would approve of, since you're talking being able to cementing the use of the known RSes in a well-used template. Assuring the community agrees these are RSes would prevent long-term arguments on that template that we're using sources unvetted by the community. I wouldn't agree that RSP should be used to fill in all good RSes on WP that otherwise haven't been the subject of perennial debates, but clearing ones that are to be used in a highly visible template makes a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 21:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• If that is the case, you should ask directly whether a source deserves to be called a newspaper of record and should be put in the template, since that is a substantially higher bar than simply being an WP:RS (and would confuse editors less when you start asking that question for sources that seem plainly and uncontroversially reliable.) I think that that's a reasonable question for RSN (since it's a question about a source's reputation). An affirmative answer would probably lead to the source getting listed as green on RSP anyway, though. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: I think whether or not a publication is a paper of record is a different bar than whether it is reliable, not a higher bar. For instance, looking below, it seems that many editors feel that The Straits Times is the newspaper of record for Singapore but that it's not always reliable. As I said, I will certainly be asking about selections for the template once it reaches that stage of development, but those selections need to be both reliable and publications of record. Right now, I'm asking only about the reliability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of the Mail & Guardian

The Mail & Guardian is a weekly newspaper based in Johannesburg. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (M&G)

• Option 1: had to do some research on this one. The Mail & Guardian does robust journalism, not much bias creeping into its non-opinion pieces; I've no reason to doubt its About us claims that it maintains editorial independence from its advertisers (except where signposted), and it's got a Corrections and clarifications process that looks great. Of recent news alone, The Guardian and Sky News cited it as a source and Washington Post asked its EiC for a quote. Our article has an Awards section too, though I haven't properly evaluated it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: They have a great ethics policy and corrections and clarifications process. Polls show that they're widely considered the most reliable newspaper in South Africa, a country which "has one of the most diverse and independent media in Africa with a high degree of press freedom" according to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: the previous two commenters have expressed it well. I would consider the M&G the most reliable paper in South Africa (at least of English-language newspapers). The usual WP:RSOPINION caveat applies to opinion pieces, which on the M&G website are clearly tagged as "Opinion". - htonl (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard: How else are sources supposed to be added to WP:RSP then? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is not for compiling a catalogue of assessments of all known sources. An RFC should be raised when there is an actual dispute at hand - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, although I don't read it as frequently as I used to all the information I find there is generally reliable. I have found it to be a reliable source on South African related news for many years now. I still regard it was one of the most reliable news sources in South Africa.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (M&G)

Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. I also note that (unless I'm missing it) we do not appear to currently list any South African publications at RSP. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

When you have a hammer, many things look like a nail. After gathering low hanging fruit, move up the tree. If the fruit doesn't fall, shake it down with increased vigor. -- GreenC 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As a heads up, there is a list of South African publications as reference sources for use on Wikipedia that was compiled as part of Wiki Project Africa's sources list. It has not been updated in a while (two or three years now) and it could use more input from others to update/improve its accuracy and completeness.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Notified: WT:South Africa. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Gunn

Is the following a reliable source on the topic of Armenian terrorist organizations in 1970s-1980s?

Gunn, Christopher. Secret Armies and Revolutionary Federations: The Rise and Fall of Armenian Political Violence, 1973-1993.

I would appreciate third party opinions. We've had a discussion with fellow editors here: [1] Outsider opinions would be really helpful. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How does it meet our criteria? Google Scholar gives 2 hits, one a dissertation and the other seems to be a collection of conference papers but I can't read the language and have no idea in what context it's mentioned. Where is it mentioned in scholarly books? What makes Gunn an expert? I think WP:UNDUE covers this, it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, it really has to be a notably exceptional thesis to be used and I’m not finding anyone talking about it or referencing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." I note the author is now an associate professor at Coastal Carolina University. But as with any source, the situation matters. TFD (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not where the period falls in that particular sentence, pretty sure its "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.” Which isn’t exactly saying the same thing now is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• His research, from what I could see, exhibits pro-Turkish bias (this sentence says it all: It is significant that the first attack of a terrorist group allegedly dedicated to extracting an admission of guilt from the Turkish government for alleged crimes against the Armenian people would be directed towards the World Council of Churches in January 1975 - see paper), and, as he admits in his paper (p. 103-115), the interpretation he proposes on that specific phenomenon is not mainstream, as he tries to pinpoint (p. 110) what he sees as flaws in the dominant narrative about ASALA and the Justice Commandos (A re-evaluation of the accepted origins of these Armenian groups exposes inconsistencies in the standard narrative and invites an investigation into the “deeper roots” of Armenian terrorism suggested by earlier scholars.). His endorsement, sort of, by the Turkish MFA to discuss 1915 also makes me wary of him. Mention with attribution, conserving appropriate WP:WEIGHT (that is, the pro-Turkish standpoint). Please also find other sources mentioning the murder, which Gunn does not mention but whose interpretation is more prevalent. If you can't do that, better not cite it at all because of NPOV concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Christopher Gunn is an Assistant Professor of History who focuses on Middle Eastern Studies and political violence. And @Szmenderowiecki:: having an alleged bias does not necessarily make someone unreliable if they are an expert, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It would be better to use formally published articles that stem from the dissertation work (individual chapters are often published as separate journal articles), such as perhaps this, this or this. Otherwise the dissertation could be probably used sparingly, so long as it is not used to verify outlandish claims, nor lend undue weight to any subject or opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not cover the cases when said sources, explicitly or implicitly, engage in denialism. That's going more into WP:FRINGE territory, which is not covered by BIASEDSOURCES. Btw, since we strive to get the best sources available, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements"; I cannot vouch for this source's impartiality. The article, however, does not strictly discuss the events of the genocide, but rather one of the episodes inspired by the Turkish denial thereof, so yes, the paper is OK, but no, I can't allow it alone, because this view is, by author's admission, minoritarian.

  Strictly on the question of reliability of Gunn, I'd say: with reservations due to strong bias, therefore, attribution seems best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I do not intend to use Gunn on the topic of Armenian genocide. But he does use the term "Armenian genocide" as well, for example in the sentence: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide..." But I'm looking for more sources to discuss individual terrorist acts, and in particular Assassination of Galip Ozmen. We know now that the assassination was perpetrated by Monte Melkonian. But his version, presented by his brother, is obviously aimed to present himself in a better light, i.e. he claims that he shot children by accident. This version is presented in the article. Gunn provides also a different view. Basically, there are 2 versions. Quote from Gunn: Melkonian claimed that he was unable to see who was in the car because of its tinted windows. The State Department report, based on eyewitness accounts, stated that assassin waited in front of Özmen’s home, watched the family get into the car, and then attacked. I cannot verify State Department report, entitled “Turkish Diplomat Assassinated in Athens; Armenian Secret Army Claims Responsibility,” ATHENS 08453, Aug. 1, 1980. If someone could, it would be really helpful. Alternatively, I wanted to attribute the claim to Gunn, but some editors objected. Which is why I decided to ask the community for their opinion. Grandmaster 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  This report is neither available to me, but if you want to cite the State Dept report via Gunn, I see no problems with doing that (but you might probably look for some AP reports, for example, as they might include some of the information). It is just I'm afraid that this source might be easily misused, as I outlined earlier.

  There must be more resources expanding on that murder - citing Melkonian's brother is OK but it would be better to supplement it with third-party scholars who analyse Melkonian's actions; and by that I don't mean Gunn only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is that Armenian terrorism is a very little researched topic. There are books like Francis P. Hyland. "Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects", 1991, or “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, by Michael M. Gunter, 1986, but Gunn's is the most recent research, which takes into account new information that emerged since 1990s, such as declassified CIA and FBI files, memoirs, etc. I cited AP and UPI reports, but they don't go into much detail. I think best would be to cite State Department with attribution to Gunn. Grandmaster 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  That wouldn't appear to be the case as Gunn talks about "the standard narrative", "earlier scholars" etc., which would imply that the topic is well-researched but that the author thinks the guys were wrong in the cause for the terrorist attacks. In any case, there's some more info on the murder: [2], [3], [4], [5]

  The topic is researched quite extensively in Turkish, but I don't speak it, and Turkish sources IMHO should be dealt with extra care due to the official position of Turkey of genocide denial, which tangentially influences how they speak of i.a. the activities of Armenian terrorist groups (i.e. terrorist attacks due to the will to revenge for Armenian genocide vs. terrorist attacks for claimed repressions and mass murders against Armenians in 1910s that never were, the latter of which seems to be Gunn's position). But for simple factual assertions, including for quoting the State Department documents, I see no reasons not to cite him. It's just any conclusions about the intent, or causes, that we should be careful about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'm familiar with those sources too. They do not add anything new, because de Waal and Kiesling simply quote Melkonian's book, and Hyland is from 1991, and Feigl from 1986, and since then a lot of new information became available. As I said above, there were only 2 dedicated scholarly researches on the topic, and Gunn's work is the latest one. Others, like de Waal, only touch upon the terrorism in the context of general Armenian-Turkish relations. But I agree with you Gunn could be used to state facts about particular terrorist acts, and terrorists organizations. To me, the work appears to be very well researched, and peer reviewed too. Grandmaster 08:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in the discussion started here, I don't see a clear consensus that Gunn is even reliable or not to begin with, and OP is "thinking" that we should cite State Department with attribution to him? Gunn claims he quotes from the state department, if Grandmaster can cite those State department papers, go ahead and add please. Other than that, my opinion is that Gunn isn't a reliable source attributed or not, especially on contentious topics related to Armenia and Turkey: per this discussion, and per fellow editors in here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• 'Comment The alleged bias in the source seems to be that it categorizes the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian Revolutionary Army as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. These groups killed scores of Turkish diplomats and their family members as well as bystanders. They are universally referred to as terrorist groups in mainstream literature.

They had three demands: recognition by Turkey of the genocide, compensation and Armenian independence. The fact that these were laudable goals or extensive support from the Armenian diaspora does not mean that one cannot question their methods or write about their activities. This is no different from writing about the IRA, PLO or Kurdish groups that engaged in terrorist acts.

The thesis is a reliable source, per policy, not because of who wrote it but because it was vetted by experts. That makes it more reliable than say an article by a reporter with a journalism degree.

When the author referred to alleged crimes, he was referring to a 1975 article in the New York Times that presumably used the term or similar wording. At that time the genocide had far less recognition than today. But he uses the term crimes without qualification in the Historiography section on p. 10.

TFD (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see your argument here. At least from my standpoint, they were terrorists for all intents and purposes. But the source he quotes in the paragraph in the research paper on the very similar topic, which I quoted and added emphasis to, says "Ibid., 12. See also Department of State Telegram, GENEVA 6267, USMISSION GENEVA to SECSTATE WASHDC 5186, and August 11, 1975" (ibid. refers to "Popular Movement for the ASALA, ASALA Interviews (Great Britain, April 1982)"). NYT does appear in the following paragraph but only to cite the number of Armenians emigrating from USSR, not to echo the tone of coverage at the time. Nor does the usage of word "crime" in the sentence was the successful transfer of responsibility for the crimes of 1915 to the entire, collective population of modern Turkey imply he recognises it, as the sentence sums up the few pages where he describes the efforts of Armenian diaspora to shift the genocide blame from the Ottoman govt to Turkey and the Turks (or that's what he writes). He does not say "yeah, the genocide happened, but the guys were evil and terrorists and so on".

I also don't agree with the argument below as it does not really answer the question about reliability for events in 1970s-80s, not 1915. Nevertheless, some quite evident bias is seen throughout his scholarship and not the one that could be justified by reasonable differences of interpretation of sources. He frequently cites Michael Gunter, who also holds non-orthodox views on the Armenian question (essentially, bothsideism), even as he is the go-to scholar for the Kurdish question. I don't believe Gunn's dissertation to be totally out of whack, however, at least not to the degree that would warrant its dismissal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even for the research paper's topic, Gunn shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Gunn's writing is very sensationalist and more closely resembles yellow journalism than a research paper. Examples: "these death sentences came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (65), "it is now clear that Armenian activists cared very little about whether or not their targets were men, women or children, let alone whether or not possessed the capacity to defend themselves" (83), "the diaspora would now support the assassination of any Turk and that carrying out these death sentences made one an instant hero, whether or not the victim was a diplomat, spouse or even a child" (108), "Melkonian proved that the hate instilled by Armenian propaganda campaign was enough to justify the murder of Turkish children" (122), "including the targeting of children" (277), "death sentences for Turks came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (321).

For how much he tries to champion them, Gunn seems to have no problem residing in and accepting money from a country founded on the murders of millions of civilians, women and children included. But I digress. Unlike Turkey, ASALA never ordered the deaths of spouses or children, and Gunn provides no citations for any of these. He should also be aware of this if he's reading the sources he cites.

Gunn also blames the invasion of Cyprus entirely on Greeks and makes no mention of Turkish imperial ambitions. Ironically, Gunn even mocks someone for mentioning Turkish troops shooting women and children: "One Greek-American constituent of Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY) lamented the “’heroic’ exploits of the Turkish paratroopers, who upon landing in Cyprus opened their automatic weapons upon helpless women and children”" (123).

For someone like Stanford J. Shaw, who is universally discredited as a historian and openly known to have had connections to many Turkish institutions, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative". Yet Gunn calls George E. Danielson a "staunch, faithful and solid ally of Armenian nationalists" (122). When does a biased source cross the line to an unreliable one?

Gunn writes that Gourgen Yanikian was "deranged" (321) and makes no mention of him being a genocide denier who lost 26 family members. Gunn implies his motive was "adulation and glory" (321). This goes far beyond bias, it is outright falsification. His dissertation contains too much lies, bias, and distortions to be considered of any value even for 1973-1993. --Steverci (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your opinion, which you expressed on talk. But none of the quotes above show any bias. It is quite obvious that ASALA resorted to indiscriminate violence, and would kill anyone who stood in their way. There cannot be any argument about that, it is enough to see terrorist acts like 1983 Orly Airport attack or Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack, the sole purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible, including children (who actually died in Orly). If someone plants a bomb at the airport or fires at passengers with machine guns, it is quite obvious that the perpetrators do not care who they kill, the only purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Yanikian being deranged is supported by official sources that Gunn quoted, which also show that his story is very dubious. I see no evidence that Gunn took money from the Turkish government. And you have no problem with citing Gunn selectively, like here: [6] You say you have no access to this source, but because Gunn quotes it is Ok to use. But when Gunn quotes the US State Department, he is unacceptable to you. How is that possible? The source is either reliable, or it is not, it cannot be used selectively to support only one narrative. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as intentionally targeting children the same way as politicians were, as Gunn dramatically claims multiple times without evidence. I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously if you're going to claim the "sole purpose" of the bombs was to "as many civilians as possible" for the fun of it, never mind any Turkish crimes against humanity. Even Gunn doesn't make lies that outrageous. The example you linked is not comparable because we have an Armenian source (Melkonian) and Turkish source (Gunn) confirming he was a spy. This is why biased unreliable sources can still be useful in certain context. Just look at Gunn's Linkedin page to see who is paying Gunn. There is not a single reliable source making the "deranged" claim, which is exclusive to Gunn and possibly other Turkish sources, and there are more reliable sources saying otherwise. Officially, the court ruled that though he would permit evidence of "impairment of his mentality ... going to show a diminished capacity," he would not permit "any evidence of straight insanity". Further proving Gunn intentionally censored information that would hurt his Turkish jingoist narrative, further proving his unreliability. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how any crimes against humanity could justify planting bombs in airports and indiscriminately killing civilians, including children. And yes, that was intentional targeting of children by ASALA, because terrorists knew very well that there were children among passengers. I see nothing on Gunn's Linkedin that would indicate that he is being paid by Turkish government. And Yanikian being deranged is information taken from FBI files. He was clearly a sick individual, who killed innocent people. Grandmaster 07:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Provide a source that ASALA hoped the bombs would killed children, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gunn admits he spent years in Ankara and Antyla and was supported by Turkish "academics" and politicians. All claims of insanity are obviously just Turkish slander in an attempt to 'delegitimize' genocide victims. The only sick individuals are the ones Yanikian shot. Quote the FBI files or it's just more of Gunn's propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not include in any article that ASALA hoped to kill children, it is just a fact that they killed many children. For example, in Orly they killed 2 French children, Melkonian shot Turkish diplomat's daughter, etc. Facts speak for themselves. When indiscriminate bombing and shooting is used, it is quite obvious that they deliberately endangered lives of children. There is no point in arguing about that. Studying Turkey requires traveling to Turkey, it is logical, and it does not mean that the researcher is not independent. And you can do your own research and check the files that Gunn quotes. You have no problem using him as a source when it supports your narrative. Grandmaster 08:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The subject wasn't those killed in bombings though, it was assassinations of diplomats and other politicians who were specifically targeted. Gunn uses sensationalist language to imply children were targeted too, when they weren't. If Gunn wants to use undue sources, then he should be treated as an undue source. Simple as that. Narrative has nothing to do with it. As Animalparty suggested, Gunn's only possible use could be for non-outlandish claims, if that. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable I wanted to point out that Gunn using the term "genocide" does not make him any less of a genocide denier and a negationist in the slightest. Gunn cites various well-known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw. On Shaw, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative" which should leave no doubt Gunn is, like these predecessors of his, just another Turkish-funded propagandist pretending to be a scholar. Turkish historiography has become more sneaky in recent years, often trying to sneak in genocide denial more subtly, and feigning an innocent guise of "neutrality" when called out. From the words of a historian:

“ In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government. A number of authors have worked with Professor M. Hakan Yavuz and published works with the University of Utah Press. While there are differences in emphasis and interpretation among their works, these writers are to a large degree sympathetic to the defensive attitudes of Turkish government and military officials, favor evidence and accounts exculpatory of the Young Turk policies, and emphatically reject the notion of genocidal intention.

References

”

Again, after decades of being exposed for their lies, Turkish institutions made the decision to be more deceitful instead of being more truthful. Turkish sources that show the slightest hint of historical negationism should be immediately disqualified as reliable. --Steverci (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the source is not about genocide, it is about Armenian terrorism, and it is intended for use only in the articles dedicated to this particular topic. I haven't seen any real argument that could question the reliability of this source in connection with terrorism. Grandmaster 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please summarize/close this discussion? Do I get it right that the general consensus among uninvolved editors was Mention with attribution? Grandmaster 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that Gunn is a very biased source promoting almost entirely undue claims, and that the only way he could be cited is for things he wrote that aren't universally disputed, for which in most cases there are better sources that should be used instead anyway. --Steverci (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It would good if someone uninvolved closed this. Grandmaster 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

APAC News and Michael West Media

Does this piece published in both APAC News[7] and Michael West Media[8] support the statement on the page Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

In August 2021, ASPI was criticised by APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein, for censorship of ASPI's own Wikipedia article using "sock puppet" accounts. Noting that "For ASPI there is no greater crisis than criticism, it appears, a level playing field can always be titled in its favour”.

From what I can tell APAC News is a blog both edited and published by Marcus Reubenstein and Michael West Media is a group blog primarily edited and published by Michael West (journalist). While APAC marks this as an opinion piece Michael West Media does not. To me neither source appears to be reliable and we also have a failed verification here because while the author heavily implies that they don’t strictly say it, although a reasonable reader would be left with that impression after reading it... The piece appears to advance the theory that the Waskerton sock cluster is being run by ASPI without actually presenting any evidence of it, they also misidentify Telsho as a Waskerton sock not an ineedtostopforgetting sock which may be the root of the error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging the already involved @Burrobert, Ultranova1337, Onetwothreeip, Nick-D, El C, and 60.241.141.45: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry if this is overly nuanced to the above ping, but stressing that I'm actually the WP:UNINVOLVED admin who protected the page and who also recommend to Horse Eye's Back that they should bring this matter here, to RSN (and to do so sooner rather than later). HTH! El_C 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot that the term had different connotations for an admin. A better choice of word would have been “aware” or similar, your interactions have been in a purely administrative role. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• The quote contains a misspelling which was also in the original. The correct word is "tilted", not "titled".
• I don't have a problem with the two sources. Michael West is an established journalist and the site that he founded has an editorial team. The writer Marcus Reubenstein has "twenty years of media experience" in various well-known media companies. The article is an opinion piece needing attribution, which has been correctly made.
• The Waskerton/ineedtostopforgetting error does not affect the writers argument. The point he was making was that the ASPI may have been using socks to curate the page. Whether there was one master or two masters does not hinder the argument.
• The wording may need some adjustment. A more accurate version of the first sentence would be something like "In August 2021, APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein suggested ASPI may have been using Sock puppet accounts and other methods to censor its own Wikipedia article". I think "suggested" rather than "criticised" more accurately reflects the content of the article. The reason I have added "and other methods" is that Reubenstein's suggestion is not limited to the use of sock puppets. He also mentions "Wikisneaks". He points out that the article has been edited by two accounts which seem to have a direct connection with the subject (we note that on the talk-page). He also says content critical of ASPI has been "scrubbed" from the page soon after it has been added. He doesn't attribute that to the sock puppets.
• The second sentence is not a sentence so needs to be rewritten. However the quote is correct.

Burrobert (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a sidebar but how you know thats a misspelling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "a level playing field can always be titled in its favour" makes no sense
• "a level playing field can always be tilted in its favour" makes a lot of sense and conforms with the argument that the writer has been making throughout the article.
• "tilted" could easily be misspelt as "titled" as it only requires the transposition of two letters.

Burrobert (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is asking the wrong question. An opinion piece can be assumed to accurately reflect the views of its author(s). The author and operator of the website are both professional journalists, so there should be no problem here. The issue being discussed on the article's talk page is whether this is a notable opinion. I personally think that it is for the purposes of noting the commentary it provides on the Wikipedia article on that article's talk page (e.g. the 'in the media' template), but it does not warrant inclusion in the article proper. The Michael West Media site appears to fall under WP:PARTISAN as it while it has professional journalists on staff, it does not include a statement of its editorial policies/processes and is openly campaigning on several issues. If what are clearly reliable sources pick this op-ed up, it might warrant inclusion in the article proper as being a notable opinion. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: the problem with that would be that its not marked as opinion on Michael West Media, they’re running it as a featured news article. Its only marked as opinion (specifically commentary) on APAC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that all articles on the Michael West Media site are op-eds under the definitions set by Wikipedia's guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

They can’t all be, they have a journalist and a reporter on staff if their about us page is accurate[9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not marked as opinion or commentary on the APAC website, where it has "comment" tagged. The source should be assessed on the basis of its presence in Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

”Comment” appears to mean “commentary” in that context, why would you say otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael West Media is not a "group blog", it is a fairly prominent Australian news website. The news website has a very clear point-of-view, but this does not exclude sources being used on Wikipedia, especially if it is to cite an opinion. The article is an accurate representation of Marcus Reubenstein's views on the subject, and is clearly a notable opinion. We do not need to discuss in the article any of the source's minor inaccuracies or any potential implications that readers may find. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Can you please provide supporting evidence for this being a news site that has been accepted as reliable? For instance, mainstream media sources or academic works that state this or use it as a basis/reference for their work? Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D It would depend on what you mean by reliable. It's certainly a prominent source of news so it meets the standard for being a notable enough opinion to be placed into the article, within its context. You might want to try searching the news articles of the more mainstream established news sources, since most results on internet search engines will direct to Michael West Media itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, The New Daily has used the Michael West Media website a number of times, such as [10] [11] [12] [13]. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Those appear to be articles by Michael West, not about Michael West Media. Being a journalist generally doesn’t qualify someone to become a publisher and editor all on their own, which appears to be what Michael West did after being laid off. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, they clearly refer to Michael West Media. West himself was most notable for writing articles in Sydney Morning Herald among others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No really, check again. The author on all four pieces is “Michael West @MichaelWestBiz” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. If there wasn't any reference to Michael West Media, I obviously wouldn't have brought them up. Did you not look at the end of the articles? Anyway, this discussion should be closed and we should move to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article, where we can discuss how the criticism and analysis of the subject should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so you realized that Michael West was the author of all four pieces the entire time? Whats the point then? Michael West mentioning Michael West Media doesn’t do anything for us reliability wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Michael West mentioning Michael West Media isn't what has been shown. I was helping Nick-D with their query, and gave them an example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You just showed us four examples of Michael West mentioning Michael West Media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The examples are The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the examples from The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media... All written by Michael West. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No, written by editorial staff, who are not Michael West. The articles themselves are written by Michael West, but obviously not everything on the page. This would be very obvious if you looked at the entire articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It is of course not relevant here who wrote the words, it is only relevant that The New Daily as a publisher sees fit to refer to Michael West Media. We could just do without the misinformation that the words in reference were by the article's author, Michael West. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

At least some of the words in reference are in fact made by the article’s author, unless of course unknown editorial staff are taking the liberty in writing in the first person as him. Do you perhaps have references made in slightly more reliable sources in pieces with authors who are not Michael West? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are asking, but Michael West himself is not particularly relevant. Michael West Media (not Michael West himself) is being referenced by The New Daily editorial staff, and also the author Michael West as published on The New Daily. When using Michael West Media as a reference for Wikipedia articles, we should make sure to do so in line with our editorial policies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you feel that the edit you made was in line with our editorial policies? Because as far as I can tell its not supported by the source, they simply don’t say that even if they’re reliable. See WP:VERIFY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Which edit? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The edit you made which this discussion is about, you were the last editor to restore the text under discussion here. For reference [14]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the source say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• The issue here is DUE WEIGHT. If only one media source has made note of Mr. Rubenstein’s commentary about ASPIRIN, then it probably does not rise to the level of coverage we need to say it should be mentioned in the article. And, if other media sources have discussed it, we can cite those instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: as it stands no media source has made note of Mr. Rubenstein’s commentary, its the same piece by Mr. Rubenstein which has been published in two different outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

In which case, it is probably UNDUE to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's demonstrably untrue, Michael West Media has certainly noted it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to you demonstrating it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And I look forward to you no longer lying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You may want to retract that accusation, especially if you're going to be misrepresenting sources, as you are doing here. Cjhard (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's constructive to get into personal reflections on this page any further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest you do as Cjhard has suggested and retract that accusation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ronen Bergman

Is Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First a reliable source for Wikipedia, and in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? It seems obviously so, with rave reviews everywhere, but two new editors disagree. See here. Third party input is required.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem that he caught at least on one inaccuracy [15] . He writes about Wagner that he was in Germany during WW2 and apparently that not true. So I am not sure if we can trust him on other stuff Shrike (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is that Bergman -en passant- mentions things which happened in the early 1940s; but he never (AFAIK) interviewed those who were involved then (I assume most are long since dead). IOW: he would have to rely on third hand accounts. When it comes to what happened in Lebanon in the 1980s, we have a completely different situation: Bergman inteviewed those who were directly involved. Did they lie to him? Possibly, but AFAIK: no WP:RS has claimed that. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

How would anyone be able to do that, when at least with regards to the claims made about the FLLF, he doesn't name those who spoke to him? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Bergman spoke to Meir Dagan, among others. (Yes; he has since died; but that is hardly Bergmans fault), Huldra (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

And Dagan strenuously denied that the FLLF was targeting anything but military targets, a fact that was completely missing from the article until I pointed it out, and even now does not get equal weight to the accusations against him. But I was referring to the other quotes in the relevant passages - "One Mossad officer of the time said", "Another Mossad man who was in Lebanon at the time said,". Anonymous sources we know nothing about, so obviously neither they nor 3rd parties could step up and confirm or deny. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "

Lol, "military targets" had a rather wide meaning for Dagan, when we see what FLLF actually targeted, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC),

Shrike. What happened there is that you accepted - and it is pretty obvious - Bergman as a reliable source for one particular datum, and cited him. You had zero problems with him as a source. On that particular point, Bergman, as Zero's edit indicated - happened to be wrong. Every diligent reader know that errata crop up in the best historical works. That's what reviews show. If a review can list a large number of errors, then that makes an RS's automatic reliability questionable. By that criterion, Walter Burkert's magisterial Homo Necans would be unusable because he made an error in citing a Greek verb on p.76. RidiculousNishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, I thought he was reliable source and was mistaken and I accepted my error. These source was not used for citing some Greek verb Its historical fact that you want to use it for. Shrike (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to what Shrike wrote, but there are also other issues: Bergman is a published in a popular, non-peer-reviewed press, and relies extensively on anonymous sources so there's no way to ascertain his claims. At a minimum, any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact. Contrary to what's stated by the original poster, that's not currently the situation in the article mentioned above - Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners - For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true" Inf-in MD (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD what you did above is called a self-goal. You stated:-

any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact . . For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true".

That has nothing to do with Bergman (though he endorses the fact). In our article that paraphrasesanother source by Amir Oren, and refers to a well known fact attested by other scholars.

The complaint named four people who it said were partners in deceiving the government (and Military Intelligence): Eitan, then the IDF chief of staff; Avigdor “Yanush” Ben-Gal, the head of Northern Command; his intelligence officer, Shlomo Ilya; and Dagan. The head of Military Intelligence, Yehoshua Saguy, appointed an officer to look into the matter, and the accusations made in the complaint proved true. Begin didn’t want to believe it, especially on the eve of an election. *Oren, Amir (20 May 2016). "Meir Dagan's Most Daring War Was the One He Helped Prevent". Haaretz.

So, stop sowing confusion here: the talk page is bad enough. Let's wait for third party input.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to Bergman in our article as well, and is of course not the only example. The entire first paragraph of the article, after the lead

"The FLLF was set up in 1979 in the wake of the massacre of an Israeli family at Nahariya by militants belonging to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF).[2] To that end, Maronite Christian, Shiite and Druze operatives were recruited in 1979. The operations which it carried out against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon were coordinated by Meir Dagan, reportedly without informing the IDF, the Israeli Defense Ministry, the Israeli government and its various defense agencies.[a] David Agmon at the time head of Israel's northern command was one of the few people who were briefed on its operations[2]. The aim of the series of operations was to: cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill them with a sense of insecurity.[2]"

is sourced exclusively to Bergman, but is provided as fact, unattributed, in the encyclopedia's voice. That does not square with your presentation of the issue, above as if it was "in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? " Inf-in MD (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Reviews NYT, Intercept, JPS. Best seller, prize winning author, yada yada, self-evidently reliable so I think it is better to ask whether the source is reliable for something specific.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Has Bergman been criticised by other reliable sources, were any major inaccuracies found? If not we should assume it's okay to cite him. Given the nature of his sources I would attribute his claims rather than stating them in wiki-voice. It seems that it's more of a due weight issue: Bergman's claims should be used alongside other reliable sources (I have no idea if they confirm or contradict his account). Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, Bergman himself acknowledges that not only could there be inaccuracies in the book that he is unable to verify, but that he was likely being used by his interviewees to promote possibly fictional narratives:

"Perhaps most strikingly, Rise and Kill First is in certain ways a postmodern masterpiece. Because his work is unauthorized, Bergman candidly acknowledges its potential inaccuracies and the motivating biases of his sources. “It is clear,” he writes, “that some politicians and intelligence personnel—two professions highly skilled in manipulation and deception—were trying to use me as the conduit for their preferred version of events, or to shape history to suit themselves.” While Bergman made efforts to verify those accounts independently, it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished.

[16] Inf-in MD (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, trying to throw sand in editors' eyes. Michael M. Rosen is a San Diego attorney. He wrote a view of Bergman, criticizing Bergman for subscribing to ‘the dated and dubious conventional wisdom that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law.’ Since when? That is the default position of the ICC and international law. Perhaps he hasn't heard that in San Diego. In his review Preemptive Self-Defense? Israel uses controversial, extrajudicial tactics to target its enemies. Claremont Review of Books 14 January 2019 he states that Bergman was aware some of his (1,000+) Israeli insider/informants might have tried to manipulate him, and that Bergman strove therefore the verify their accounts independently. I.e. he was subject to a risk of informant bias, and did what historians or anthropologists or journalists are trained to do, read for spin, and sort out the facts by cross-checking to avoid potential inaccuracies. It’s Rosen’s spin that what he admits is a ‘meticulously researched intelligence tell-all’ is 'postmodernist'. Nothing to do with postmodernism except in the attorney's imagination. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) stop the personal attacks (2) a request was made for reliable sources criticizing the book, and that is what I have provided. That you don't agree with the criticism is immaterial. The gist of the criticism is "it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished." - and that has nothing to to with the critic being a lawyer, or what the ICC says about Israeli settlements Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis No to your first question. No to your second. If you click through the edit sequence at German Templer colonies in Palestine beginning here, you should begin to grasp the double standard here used by User:Shrike and User:Inf-in M (who by the way was editing a page he had no right to per ARBPIA3 at the time). In brief, both editors never challenged the use of Bergman for citing the idea that the German assassinated by Jewish militants was a Nazi. However, once the topic changed, when Bergman was used to document Israeli terrorism in Lebanon, both Shrike and Inf-in M changed tactics. There, they said, Bergman wasn't reliable? On what grounds? Because Zero had initially challenged his reliability for the specific datum re the German Templar. So this objection is frivolous, well, frankly, cynical. They accept Bergman if he documents a murdered German was a Nazi, but not if Bergman quotes Israeli operatives admitting they organized a proxy terror group in Lebanon in the 1980s.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) Don't move my comments so that you can place yours ahead of them. (2) Don't misrepresent my editing (or zero's) on German Templer colonies in Palestine. As anyone can see, What Zero removed was the well known fact that Wagner was a Nazi collaborator, while leaving Bergman in as a source, - [17]. I did not add nor remove Bergman, or argue for or against his inclusion, but simply sourced the contested materiel from other sources - JTA[18] and the BBC[19]. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Please desist from changing a request for external input into a polemic. No one will read this if you or I keep intervening. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

So you just want external input, eh? What this all about then - [20]? "Rules for thee but not for me"? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Use with care. Thanks for responding to my questions. I think the right thing to do is to use it with care, Specifically, I mean explicit attribution and cross-checking each claim with other reliable sources. If, for a given claim, there are no other sources it's probably better to refrain from adding it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It has been used parsimoniously, with care. The specific material on the FLLF is sourced by quotes and paraphrases directly from eyewitnesses or insiders directly privy to the operation. We also use attribution. We use three sources that confirm that operation existed. An official prime ministerial investigation confirmed it in 1981. Your remark is being interpreted as a warrant to exclude 'material for which he is the only source.' You'd better clarify that: because it gives a new wikipedian support for his idea that our remit extends to excising anything not directly supported by multiple informants in a book that won the National Jewish Book Award as the best publication of the genre of historical writing about Jewish history published in 2018. Attribution is the norm here, not the concession of a right by editors to judge, which the above comment suggests, where a passage here or there in a book, is adequately sourced. On two occasions in the past Israeli journalists reporting this episode had their work suppressed by the military censor, not because it was false, but because it was an embarrassment. We are not supposed to arrogate to ourselves as editors a similar role on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While all this back and forth is mildly interesting, it remains the case that the best way to "refute" a source is to bring contradictory sources for balance rather than attempting to shoot the messenger. The source is very well known, if there are things in it that are controversial, I am certain that someone, somewhere will have written about that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable if used with care as all books of this genre should be. Bergman is a well known and highly respected journalist, considered to be one of Israel's premier journalists on security matters. Unfortunately, the book contains background about the 1940s that relies on uncited material that is not always accurate. One case identified by me is mentioned above and I know of another case that I have communicated with Bergman about. On the other hand, the content which is relevant to this present case is the result of Bergman's interviews with military/intelligence people in a position to know the truth and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Bergman has misrepresented what his interviewees told him. Also note that the key point was confirmed even earlier by another respected Israeli journalist (Oren, see the article). The proper response for those who don't like to read this stuff is to find reliable sources that dispute it, not to argue endlessly for its suppression. Zero ^talk 02:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll also mention that Bergman's revelations are really not all that extraordinary if one knows the history of the conflict. There wasn't much shock and horror at the news, more of a yawn actually. Zero^talk 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the same page as Alaexis and Zero. nableezy - 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as per Zero. Alaexis's point is well-taken: to exercise care to add other sources, and cross-check, though there is no controversy about the substance of his oral-testimonies-based reconstruction of this episode, and a large range of multiple references underline his conclusion. So Alaexis's conditions have been met. Bergman is particularly reliable in representing what Israeli intelligence sources say they did, or heard, which is the case here, as a clear majority concede, including also Huldra, Nableezy,Selfstudier (not opposed), myself, making 6 against 2 (Inf-in MD,Shrike). We can close this.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis's "conditions" are not what you state above. What he stated is that materiel sourced only to Bergman should be excluded, and material sourced to Bergman and others should be explicitly attributed. Inf-in MD (talk)

What I tried to say was that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and if there are no other sources than Bergman for such claims they probably should be left out. It's not clear from this thread which claims are sourced to him and anyway I'm not really qualified to opine on whether they are exceptional or not. Alaexis_¿question? 19:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not an exceptional claim, since it was stated independently of Bergman. The only thing Bergman added to an historical record of (a) an internal investigation by Sagi, ordered by Menachem Begin, which affirmed the rumour was true in 1981 ( b) independent research by journalists in 2009 and (c) in 2016 outlined some details so that (d)Bergman in 2018 merely completed the picture by interviewing at least 3 Israel military and intelligence official personally involved in, indeed some actually planning and executing, the carbombings. The fact was ascertained, all Bergman did was elicit admissions by the actors involved. So by definition Bergman's matter makes no exceptional claims. It is no longer a claim but an ascertained historical fact. This thread is extremely confusing: the evidence on the article page, to the contrary, is rocksolid, though duly noted perspectively, and under attribution. The only exceptional claim here is that of the plaintiff, in so far as anyone can understand the reasoning, which for me only shows, perhaps due to inexperience with editing, un familiarity with how Wikipedia works. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If that was true, it would be possible to source all this alleged "rocksolid" historical record to better sources- academic ones, peer reviewed books, multiple mainstream journalism . But as it stands , the article's first section which recounts the history of the FLLF , relies exclusively on Bergman. Inf-in MD (talk)

Read the article for once, and stop complaining. It is documented by multiple crosschecked sources even beyond what the average requirement on Wikipedia stipulates.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You should try reading it. The article's first section which recounts the history of the FLLF relies exclusively on Bergman. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Bergman is reliable with attribution, I would also note that there is no such thing as an error free work of non-fiction... Its more a platonic ideal than something actually achievable by mortal writers and editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for a list page on a fringe topic (skeptoid and wp:parity)

Page: List of Cryptids

Entry: Loveland Frog

Sources:

• Brian Dunning, Skeptoid
• Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra... By Michael Newton
• Offut, Jason (2019). Chasing American Monsters. Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-0-7387-5995-1.
• Misc news coverage e.g. Cincinnati.com, Fox19.com

We're having a bit of a disagreement on sourcing for List of Cryptids. Several entries were recently removed (diff 1, 2, 3, 4) on the basis of sourcing. On the talk page, Bloodofox has alleged that, since this article concerns a pseudoscience, we need to meet a high burden for our sources and only use academic works by folklorists. They have alleged that published works by Cryptozoologists are not acceptable, per WP:FRINGE, and have similarly objected to entries with news coverage, and a source by Brian Dunning of skeptoid. (Bloodofox, please correct me if there's nuance I'm missing!)

I don't believe this is a correct reading of our guidelines. This RSN discussion about Dunning was from only 4 months ago, and appears to conclude that Dunning (and skeptoid) are a reliable source for this kind of content. WP:PARITY also seems to indicate that we can use sources from adherents to cite the beliefs of those adherents when the subject matter is not covered in academic works.

I also believe that, as a list page, we're only citing the existence and notability of the entry, and that can be done without appealing to our policies on promulgating pseudoscience and quackery. Each of these entries have their own wikipedia article which should have higher sourcing standards than just listing them on what amounts to a category page. Input would be appreciated, as I don't feel we're making progress as is. Pinging User:Elmidae and User:Nayerb as other participants.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fringe proponents do not make for reliable sources and, further, do not misquote me. This again? First, I have at no point said we require sources solely from folklorists, so go ahead and strike that out. While adherents of the subculture fixate on a handful of monsters (like Bigfoot and Mokele-mbembe) that folklorists do write about, the subculture also bumps into fields like biology, as the writings of biologist Donald Prothero make very clear (his well-known Abominable Science! is dedicated to the subculture/pseudoscience). Folklorists, biologists, and anthropologists write about cryptozoologists and their subculture/pseudoscience. That is, when adherents and the subculture are notable enough to draw their attention. It's a tiny but Very Online subculture that has historically attempted to coop English Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for its purposes, as fringe subcultures so often do.

For readers unfamiliar with this subculture, cryptozoology is quite closely connected to Young Earth creationism (cf. Cryptozoology#Young_Earth_creationism) and a variety of other fringe movements. Like other fringe subcultures (such as, topically, anti-vaxxers or Flat Earthers), it has long had a reputation for its aggression towards mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (you'll see examples of this aggression from adherents associated with these articles on Wikipedia, too), and misrepresentation. Cryptozoologists have historically frequently presented themsleves as pith hat-wearing experts to media outlets and in turn media sources have also long uncritically echoed claims from adherents (cf. Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Cryptozoologists are also notorious for "hunting" for monsters they've read about in works like The Monster of "Partridge Creek". There are no standards in these circles.

So, as anywhere else on the site, and in particular regarding fringe and pseudoscience topics, it's obviously of high importance that we require commentary from experts and fortunately that's exactly the case (cf. WP:FRIND, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:PROFRINGE, etc.). In fact, let me go ahead and quote WP:FRIND here:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

In fact, we cite scholars throughout our coverage of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology, including on our coverage of topics like the Loveland Frog. They don't treat monsters as Pokémon to be hunted but chart the often complex reasons for their development and explore the broader cultural landscape surrounding them. As anywhere else, if there's reliable no coverage, it's just not notable enough for inclusion.

The big issue with list of cryptids has always been that literally every entity in the folklore record is perceived as (or at least described as) a Pokémon-like critter to be 'found' by a small circle of cryptozoologists somewhere on the internet (who referred to them internal to the subculture as "cryptids", a term coined by the subculture to avoid the word the rest of us use—"monster"), with a significant amount of subculutre members hellbent on finding "proof" that those darned atheist are so very wrong about evolution. This is why it's important to keep that list restricted to the creatures the subculture has historically particularly fixated on, like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. It's a magnet for poor sourcing and drive-by edits. The list is also a focal point for subculture adherents, who have historically attempted to organize off-site to change it and related articles to what they'd prefer (again, typical for these kinds of articles).

Now, editors all too often pop up out of the blue and attempt to lower our sourcing standards on fringe articles on the site. They often want us to cite adherents for 'balance'. One wonders why they're not instead asking for higher standards rather than lower—for which there is an obvious answer. But maybe a better question is why do we still have list of cryptids when the entire topic can simply be handled better in a paragraph or two at cryptozoology?

As for the podcast website from a 'skeptic', this is an obvious WP:RS fail. Pinging editors who have extensively edited articles I've mentioned above (and mother others in this space): @Tronvillain:, @Dlthewave:, and @LuckyLouie: :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree that we should preference scholarly articles but Disagree that we should exclude sources like Skeptoid. We need to trust consistency and follow consensus. RSN discussions have said Skeptoid is an RS. It's not in-universe, therefore it is also independent. News sources which are not directly relying on cryptozoologists would also apply as independent RSes. Just because we preference scholarly sources does not mean we don't use non-scholarly independent RSes. We can avoid using the sources of adherents, but still use non-scholarly sources for determining what is WP:DUE. Scholarly sources are better, and it matters that these monsters are not mentioned in them. But that is not the only thing that matters.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Shibbolethink. I don't think the list concept is particularly helpful, and agree with Bloodofox generally. But Skeptoid is a data point that can be considered; even having said that, I don't think a reference there is enough to establish notability, though it could be part of the picture. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and point out that Skeptoid, a podcast, has absolutely no editorial board or any kind of fact-checking, and its driving force, Brian Dunning (author), appears to have no background in anything relevant. In terms of reliability, this may as well be Uncle Randy in Boise's podcast. This looks like a pretty obvious WP:RS fail to me and the above linked discussion never went anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Some editors like to keep these types of RS-failing sources around to cite when it's convenient. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But there are a number of RSes that seem to treat him as an expert...Smithsonian Magazine[21], Popular Mechanics, on several occasions, e.g.[22], LiveScience[23], Snopes, for whatever that is worth now. Again, if consensus is against me, that's fine. But though he's not an A+ source, he strikes me as enough of an expert in the weird and woo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Note that Skeptoid is not just a podcast. It's a website containing a print article on the topic which may have been derived from the podcast [24]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• There are apparently several sources beyond the ones mentioned that are used in the frog article, including a folklorist. I don't see why the sources that justify the article don't also justify the list inclusion? Can't you just replace the questionable sources with the folklorist/news media coverage to justify the inclusion on the list? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the sources in question do not mention the subculture, which is ultimately pretty obscure. (Note however that here's long been a push by subculture members to insert references to cryptozoology—and the subculture's word for monsters, "cryptid"—into every nook and cranny of the English Wikipedia.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Then it looks like the issue is about suppressing this interpretation "Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is unsubstantiated." in favor of the "Pokemon hunter" version. But if the definition is ambiguous, it makes sense to include the frog thing on the monster list, rather than exclude on the basis of favoring one interpretation, in my view. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The term in reality means, as OED puts it, "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". FYI, scholars don't use the subculture's emic term, "cryptid", except when discussing the subculture: See extensive discussion at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach. This is because "cryptid" implies a monster is 'hidden' (and therefore waiting to be found). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Bloodofox that cryptozoologist and WP:SENSATIONAL "news of the weird"-flavored sourcing be avoided in this list and legendary creature articles in general. But I agree with Shibbolethink and Dumuzid that Brian Dunning is a good WP:FRIND source, and is especially usable when folklorists and people like Donald Prothero have not commented on a topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm with LuckyLouie: We need to use quality sources, and Skeptoid is acceptable if better sources can't be found. I would add that the distinction between "cryptids" and creatures of legend/myth/folklore is important. We can't just add any and all folkloric entities to the list; they have to be of interest to people who are searching for them in earnest. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

discussion break 1

• Consensus so far appears to be that skeptoid is reliable for this. Aside from that, I'm seeing a few voices suggest that we should be using "quality sources", and of course I agree with that; we should be using the best available. A personal blog, for instance, doesn't cut it. But a published book by a Cryptozoologist should be sufficient to source the claim that Cryptozoologists believe a creature falls into their subject. It obviously is not enough to cite claims about the creature's existence in reality, or discuss the reliability of reports. But our content guidelines make it clear that "John Smith believes X" can be cited to John Smith. So "Cryptozoologists call this frog a cryptid" should be citable to a published work by a Cryptozoologist which does exactly that. We should of course use the best available, and when academic works are available, we should prefer them. Since these articles ostensibly have reliable sources establishing notability (some may not, and should be deleted... but that's another topic), we should be able to use a source from their full article to back up their being listed here. It would be a weird standard to say we can write a full article on the topic, and call them a cryptid in that article, but not point to it in a list.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day of course we should use the best sources, but sometimes we have to use Crap sources if we are representing the views of those crap sources. As long as we attribute it and do not present it as fact, but as opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

So, if one cryptozoologist had once a thought "oh, this seems to be a cryptid!" and immediately wrote it down and published it, and if nobody ever agreed or even disagreed with him, it would end up in a Wikipedia list? This is one of the things WP:PRIMARY was made to prevent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Where I said "a published book by a Cryptozoologist", I wasn't referring to primary sources. For instance: Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra... (pg 163 for the frog) is a secondary source. Of course, if we only have one single source that ever mentions a topic, it doesn't meet our guidelines on notability. But we're talking about subjects that do meet WP:N, and have full articles covering them already.   — Jess· Δ♥ 11:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as this would be one view and thus might fail wp:undue. But if a number of sources said it (and they are all cryptozoologists) then yes it should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRIND makes a good case for avoiding sourcing a topic or claim to a fringe source when independent sources have not taken notice of it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, books by cryptozoologists should absolutely not be considered reliable sources for a list like this, or anything. They're fringe, and a list cataloging all fringe claims is promotion of fringe. If independent sources, at least on the level of Skeptoid and higher, haven't taken notice of it, a list on Wikipedia doesn't need to be ballooned to lend credibility to cryptozoology—there are cryptid wikis and webpages for that. --tronvillain (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What claim are we citing, exactly? I am in strong support for meeting WP:N to create these articles and citing an array of independent sources to do so. These articles are covered in published books, news coverage, and quite a bit more, depending on the article. Any article which doesn't meet that burden should be deleted. What we're talking about here is pointing to them in a list. In what context is a topic cited well enough enough to have an article, but not cited well enough to be referenced in a list of articles about its topic? I don't see how we should have higher sourcing standards for a list of articles than for the articles themselves.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think maybe the premise of the list is the problem, i.e. the list is intended to catalogue anything a small minority have ever called a "cryptid". However since publications by that small minority do not meet WP:RS, WP:FRIND and WP:DUE, they can't be used. This confusion and conflict has resulted in things like Flatwoods monster being catalogued in our list under "animals", when there is no indication anyone anywhere is searching seriously for what was basically an optical illusion experienced by overexcited residents. Bloodofox is right when he infers that such a list caters to a decentralized minority subculture promoting a deprecated POV, because it reflects how anyone who says they are a cryptozoologist wants to catalogue things, rather than what the bulk of independent sources say about these things. I believe he is also right about merging the list to the main article. After pruning out the pop culture-driven and thinly-sourced cryptids, the list would reflect only the most notable "cryptids" within cryptozoology, such as Bigfoot, Nessie, etc. as determined by high quality sources. I think a list of creatures that a minority subculture has pursued is very appropriate to an article about that minority subculture. Lastly, I came across this old merger proposal that was never closed but leans toward support. Some interesting perspective, if anyone wants to read through the discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying completely, Louie, but I disagree that the list isn't a topic that is notable in its own right. There are a large variety of "list of cryptid" works out there, and in addition, allowing our readers to navigate the topic fully is also a benefit to our coverage. A compilation of the articles we have on cryptids does that.

Regarding the Flatwoods Monster, I see no mention of "cryptid" or "cryptozoology" anywhere in our coverage; I assume the same is true for the sources, so it should be removed from the list. It absolutely makes sense to prune the list to only creatures which are referenced as cryptids. My objection to the original edits is that they were pruning creatures which are referenced as cryptids everywhere they are covered.

There have been several mentions of "what anyone who wants to call themselves a Cryptozoologist says... vs independent sources". I don't think that's in dispute. If independent secondary sources are covering the topic, we should prefer them over a self titled Cryptozoologist. Obviously. But what is in dispute is what to do when we don't have that kind of coverage (like skeptoid), and only have works of Cryptozoologists. I don't think its our job to vet Cryptozoologists, and where they call themselves by that title, write books covering the topic, and are referenced elsewhere as such, it's only our job to summarize their views (with due weight).   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think an Rfc survey is in order for this, to lay the arguments out and get some outside eyes to weigh in. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. I'll migrate discussion back to the talk page, and start an RfC about inclusion criteria as necessary. Thanks for the input!   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Metro soaps carve out

Editors are beginning to remove information cited to the WP:METRO as it is considered generally unreliable. However, I'd like to propose a carve out on their soap opera coverage. The soap sector of Metro has a full editorial team which must follow strict embargoes on content; these embargoes are set by the production companies of the soaps themselves. They also get details about the articles from the production companies from press events (like here) and often interview the cast members of the soaps, meaning the information they put out on their soap articles is verifiable and correct. I can't speak for the reliability of Metro as a whole, but their soap editorial team are reliable, and losing the source as a whole would severely damage the WP:SOAPS community on here. – DarkGlow • 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Agree, personally I find the print version of Metro quite politically neutral and much more reliable than The Daily Mail, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider culture reporting

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?

Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".

• 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 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Option 1 at least anecdotally, I've used the site and found the writing to be pretty good on culture topics. That doesn't mean every article is suitable for Wikipedia per other rules and guidelines, like NOTNEWS. For example this article might be suitable in gaslighting or influencer. It's journalism that quotes academic experts. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input, GreenC. NOTNEWS and other policies/guidelines are always a consideration, regardless of the source. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I have yet to see anything from Business Insider Culture that would not qualify as a WP:RS. ––FormalDude talk 08:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 but I'm willing to change my view if someone can offer a counterexample showing unreliable culture reporting. I haven't seen one yet; the reporting appears to be objective and factual, although somewhat gossipy and therefore somewhat unsuitable in my view (but then I tend to avoid pop culture articles anyway). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, after going back and forth between 1 and 2 a few times. I often come across culture articles of theirs that are useful and as reliable as other sources, particularly other internet-focused sources like The Daily Dot (RSP entry) and The Daily Beast (RSP entry). I wouldn't necessarily weight them hugely for notability, and I might be careful when it comes to BLP-sensitive claims—it sometimes seems a bit sensationalist/tabloidy. However, even in articles like this, I've not really seen fact-checking concerns. I don't like that they've not addressed a correction I requested on this article that, in the first sentence, misspells the person the interview is about (it's "Thorn", not "Thorne"). However, I am yet to get a correction acknowledged by newspapers of record or indeed any source, even in cases of simple misspellings. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If it's unreliable for BLPs and not very usable for notability, surely that's an option 2 - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Utility in notability is not related to reliability, whilst WP:GREL is about Generally reliable in its areas of expertise—this allows for a certain amount of areas of non-expertise (for instance, The New York Times is not a MEDRS per WP:MEDPOP) and for cases where the source is not going to be reliable even within its areas of expertise. I think it would be consistent to go for either options 1 or 2, but I opted for 1 because I don't think the issues are severe enough to lump it in with much worse "marginally reliable" listings. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - doesn't lie that I know of, but questionable when used as evidence of notability. The considerations in the previous RFC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#RfC:_Business_Insider still apply - they're notorious for space-filling clickbait and churnalism. If you're looking for endorsement of BI as WP:DUE, this is not the board for that - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is specifically for original reporting though, which would seemingly exclude churnalism per its definition? I am aware of WP:DUE and how this isn't the board for that and that wasn't the question asked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  That would still be Option 2 in a guideline, because the sort of detailed and specific per-article source assessment you're looking at wouldn't be covered by a broad guideline. "Option 1" is clearly not correct, per the serious issues noted by multiple editors in the previous RFC. If you're not in fact trying for WP:DUE, then you've failed to make clear what precisely you're trying to push through here, and precisely which editing conflict you had in mind - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard: What I had in mind for this was like how Fox News is split 3 ways at RSP. I figured there might be an ability to possibly gain consensus one way or the other per section, but apparently not. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. BI split into three different editorial teams: business, news, and lifestyle [25]. BI Culture would fall under lifestyle. In reality, I don't any evidence in RS that truly differentiates the various BI brands, so I would default to the previous RfC that showed a history of clickbait, bad editorial practices, and some factual errors. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - There are a lot of churnalized clickbait. Sea Ane (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. 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. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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). — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

TodayIFoundOut.com

TodayIFoundOut.com is an "interesting facts" aggregation website. It is extensively used as a source on Wikipedia. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

––FormalDude talk 08:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (TIFO)

• Option 3. Use with caution. Some of the entries cite Wikipedia as a source (example, click on "Expand for References" at the bottom of any article), and some don't. For those that cite Wikipedia, we shouldn't consider those reliable. For those that don't cite Wikipedia, we need to make sure that the author of the piece isn't synthesizing different sources to reach a conclusion. One doesn't see any in-line citations like we use on Wikipedia, so it's hard to tell which statements came from which cited source. If a fact found in TodayIFoundOut needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it would be better to find the fact in one of the sources cited, instead of citing TodayIFoundOut. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: well, let's start off by stating the obvious—something like this isn't a WP:MEDRS. Not all articles seem to have references—these are unusable. The ones which have references could be a good research starting point, but cite those references instead (after checking that they do verify the content you're writing, and that they're reliable). Based on this, most writers aren't going to be academics/experts in the topics they're writing about, which are very involved and complicated. Additionally, any kind of "random fun fact" website has a tendency to exaggerate, bend the truth and sensationalise in its presentation of material. Seeing that the exceptionally often wrong "Today I Learned" subreddit was an inspiration makes me concerned too. I can't see a case where I'd be happy to see this as a source. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I don't foresee a situation where a fact is covered by TIFO and not covered by a better, more reliable source. They are a tertiary source that often times uses Wikipedia as a reference. It is full of BuzzFeed headlines and loaded language. ––FormalDude talk 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per the comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (TIFO)

• Additional information about the source can be found here on their website. ––FormalDude talk 08:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Black Agenda Report

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the left progressive news site Black Agenda Report, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Black Agenda Report, at https://blackagendareport.com , is an online news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (BAR)

• Option 2. This publication was run by Glen Ford (journalist) until he passed away last month. He was a journalist with an agenda but as far as I can tell he was respected for journalistic integrity that carried over into Black Agenda Report. In that sense, Black Agenda Report seems generally reliable in the same sense that Mother Jones (magazine) is considered generally reliable, albeit biased. My main concern is that there appear to be opinion pieces mixed together with reporting, with no designation to tell which is which without reading them carefully. They also publish articles written by representatives of various advocacy groups, which are essentially primary sources. To the extent that the views of one of these groups need to be verified, these articles could be cited with proper attribution. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. It's a fairly radical/fringe site. Bellingcat states that they "routinely promote pro-Assad conspiracy theories" [26]. They promote Uyghur genocide denialism and are affiliated with the deprecated Grayzone [27]. Also, they were included on a list of websites that promoted Russian propaganda during the 2016 election (though, in fairness, the list has received some criticism) [28] [29]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 -- Only reliable for attributed statements to experts, not otherwise reliable. There is too much of a history of this site repeating propaganda and misinformation to call it reliable for anything else.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Too many unreliable stories and misinformation for them to be considered a realiable source. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. The articles like this one do not inspire confidence. Alaexis_¿question? 05:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 -- Only reliable for attributed statements to experts per Shibbolethink. ––FormalDude talk 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, although I’m a little less liberal than some of the others and would not use them for statements attributed to experts because of the rather obvious concerns about cherrypicking that come with a biased source. Sure the expert said that, but what else did they say? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (BAR)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References to Bellingcat critiques seem pretty misplaced here. Bellingcat receives both funding and other support from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is well known for its strong bias in supporting US National Security State and State Department objectives. --142.254.114.23 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

- DR. Swag Lord, can you point to a link showing that BAR is 'affiliated' with Grayzone?

- Shibbolethink, can you give examples of the 'propaganda' and 'misinformation'?

- Alaexis, can you specify what you find questionable in the article you cited. I've followed the Ethiopian conflict very closely and have found it to be very complex, with both sides of the conflict warranting allegations of wrongdoing, making it very difficult to 'pick a side'. .--142.254.114.23 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't followed it closely but it's my impression too that the conflict is very complex. In the article that I linked BAR are making statements that portray only one side as villains: "Tigray People's Liberation Front, or TPLF, ruled Ethiopia brutally from 1991 to 2018 with a paper-thin guise of democracy and ethnic unity", "The TPLF secured elite U.S. interests in Ethiopia", "Last November the TPLF attacked a federal army base in Tigray, launching an ongoing civil war to overthrow Prime Minister Abiy." Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say BAR is "affiliated" with GZ, but there is an overlap of contributors (at least two GZ editors write for BAR; at least one BAR editor has been interviewed twice by GZ) and BAR often cites GZ's reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Dissident Voice

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the radical left news site Dissident Voice, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Dissident Voice, at https://dissidentvoice.org , is an online news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and politics. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (DV)

• Option 3. After sampling a dozen or so articles on Dissident Voice, they seem to fall into three categories: opinion pieces, reporting from advocacy groups or their representatives, and articles by guest journalists or authors. For an opinion piece, to the extent that the author is notable and recognized as an expert on the topic being written about, Wikipedia could quote it with proper attribution to describe that author's viewpoint. The articles by advocacy groups (example) or their representatives (exampe) may consist of well-thought-out analysis but would be no different than primary sources using Dissident Voice as a vehicle for publication, in a similar manner of press releases. Finally there are articles published by guest journalists or book authors (example journalist, example news service, example author) that may blur the line between an editorial and actual news reporting, and in some cases are well-researched, which should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. They have a failed fact-check and they're practically never referenced by other sources for facts. Seems more like a partisan newsletter or blog than a credible news site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: That Snopes article doesn't say what you claim. Rather, it says Dissident Voice filed a piece as "satire". That doesn't qualify as "failing" a fact-check. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Anachronist, Satire or not, Snopes clearly says that the transcript was false and it first appeared on Dissident Voice. Snopes, for example, frequently gives false fact-checks to the The Babylon Bee, despite it being a well-known satire website. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3. as per Anachronist. The most recent articles include ones aggregated or reposted from Code Pink, the Centre for Research on Globalization (GlobalResearch, a conspiracy site) and Mickey Z's Facebook page(!), or opinion pieces. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 One of the hallmarks of reliability is that other reliable sources consider them reliable. I see no evidence of that. --Jayron32 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. Appears to be mainly a WP:TERTIARY source. ––FormalDude talk 09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (DV)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Note that one of 142.254.114.23 recent revisions on the Democracy Now! talk page has him pushing Syrian Chemical attacks denialism and pro-Assad conspiracy theories. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Jaydoggmarco is Incorrect. I am citing sources which make statements consistent with the following Associated Press article regarding alleged gas attacks in Syria: https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b - Regardless let's please stick to the task of assessing Dissident Voice --142.254.114.23 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Resumen Latinamericano

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the Latin American left progressive news site Resumen Latinamericano, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Resumen Latinamericano (English), at https://resumen-english.org , is an online Latin American news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (RL)

• Option 2 or 3. This seems to be a news aggregator, mostly. Most of the articles have a source listed at the bottom, indicating that the article is republished from somewhere else. In that regard, it would be best to go to the original source, and there is no need to cite Resumen Latinamericano (for example, this is sourced to Black Agenda Report so it would be best to use that source, not Resumen Latinamericano). An exception might be citing Resumen Latinamericano for the English translation of a good article published in a different language elsewhere (possible example). There are some articles that originate with Resumen Latinamericano (example) and those are decent sources that Wikipedia could cite when they consist of reporting and not opinion. There are examples of articles published elsewhere without disclosing the original place (for example, this on Resumen Latinamericano is identical to this on Dissident Voice as if the same author belongs to both publications), and these would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Most of the articles are from other blogs and do not cite any sources, Not reliable at all. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a news site, quoting sources, as would be expected in an academic article, would not usually be a requirement. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The original magazine is in Spanish here, the English page is much newer and seems to be simply a small scale extension of the Spanish original. The original Spanish magazine is quite widely cited academically. The English site seems to have less content, but should be assumed to be similarly reliable until proven otherwise. Of course, both sources are opinionated sources, as is every news organisation which talks about politics, so we should always be aware of potential biases. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. As pointed out by Boynamedsue, the Spanish version of this publication is almost three decades old. and appears to fall under the category of reliable, as so many similar international publications are treated on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Pyrrho the Skeptic: But it isn't really a "publication", it's a re-publisher of other publications, mostly. They have some original content but that's a small proportion of it, as far as I can tell. Are you making a blanket judgment about all articles they republish regardless of the source, or are you referring to their own content? Their own original content does seem OK, from what I have seen. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The site seems to be a small subsidiary of a Spanish website/magazine which is clearly RS. Even if it does republish articles from elsewhere, their selection should be assumed to have undergone the same checks that were necessary to publish in the Spanish site.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't a safe assumption. I am not seeing evidence that what they republish is being curated for reliability, particularly since they republish articles from outlets that are mouthpieces of authoritarian governments, which are generally regarded as unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2/3: Almost all its articles are aggregated or translated from elsewhere. If the originals are reliable, cite them; if not, don't cite. For instance, the most recent pieces are from alainet.org (Agencia Latinoamericana de Información es), DeWereldMorgen, People's Dispatch, REDH-Cuba, Cubadebate.cu and Granma. None of those are fake news sites, but they are all highly partisan and strongly affiliated with Communist parties and governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. At very least, clearly attribute to the original source, and acknowledge partisan positions and state links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RL)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

GreatNonprofits

The charity rating site GreatNonprofits, on which we have an article here, is used on dozens of articles, primarily on non-profits, where the organization's placement on the list on "top-rated nonprofits" is included among the ratings. Examples:

• Boot Campaign: "GreatNonprofits has named Boot Campaign a Top Rated charity annually since 2013, which requires an organization to earn at least 10 four-star reviews each year. Boot Campaign has more than 120 reviews with an overall average rating of five stars."
• Cambodian Children's Fund "In 2016, GreatNonProfits included CCF in their list of "2016 Top Rated Nonprofits"."
• GCFLearnFree.org "GreatNonprofits, a provider of user reviews about nonprofit organizations, named GCFLearnFree.org a 2014 Top-Rated Nonprofit based on reviews submitted by people who volunteer for or use the website."

Now, I'm certainly not claiming that the site is not a reliable source for the fact of what is on its own list. There is a real WP:DUE issue of whether their reviews are worth covering at all; their own page on their press coverage shows none since 2016. But the real question is whether they can be considered reliable source for statements on the quality of a charity.

• The "top-rated" designation is, in effect, user-generated content based mechanically on user reviews. "Any nonprofit that gathers 10 or more 4- or 5-star ratings and maintains an overall average of 3.5 stars, will win a GreatNonprofits Top-Rated award."
• The site encourages charities to try to bias the ratings. "You can start today by claiming your organization profile and then asking your supporters to share their stories of your greatness."

(Both above quotes come from their About page for their awards.)

I'm seeking one of three possible outcomes:

1. Inclusion on the websites list of top-rated nonprofits is sufficient for that rating to be included in an article,
2. mention of the top-rated nonprofits rating can be made if and only if there are reliable, third-party sources (i.e., not GreatNonprofits or the charity itself) making mention of it.
3. the placement on the list of top-rated nonprofits should not be mentioned in an article at all (barring some larger context regarding the rating, such as external controversy over the rating.)

Your (top-rated) insight is requested. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it reliable if it's based on user generated reviews. As an analogy, Rotten Tomatoes has ratings aggregated from critics and from users. We consider the critic aggregation reliable, but not the user reviews, and that's what it says on WP:RSP. The same should be true for GreatNonProfits. User reviews should not be used here.

I like what the US Government does. When I worked for the government, we could choose from a list of nonprofit organizations for donating a portion of our paychecks. The qualification for a charity to get on that list was simple and objective: No more than 25% of the charity's revenue could be spent on salaries or administrative costs, at least 75% of the money they collected had to be used for the benefit of the charity's stated beneficiaries. The list made no distinction about the cause: left wing, right ling, gay, straight, pro-life, pro-abortion, anarchist, whatever, as long as they met the simple objective requirement for inclusion. It's been a couple of decades since I worked there, but to this day that has been my filter: If a charity keeps more than 25% of their revenue or doesn't disclose it, I ignore them. That bit of information should be a key fact stated in any articles we have about charities. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say it isn’t usable for our purposes, not thats its necessarily inaccurate per say its just not what we would consider a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Immigration to Sweden

There's a dispute on the Immigration to Sweden page where the editor User:1Kwords is edit-warring to scrub RS content (including peer-reviewed studies in prominent criminology journals) because the editor claims a single source is superior to all the other sources and thus the other sources should be scrubbed.[30] Is this consistent with Wikipedia's RS and NPOV guidelines? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no; long answer - incorporate the govt report in the structure of the article, because it is indeed relevant and about the newest info available on the article's subject. It does not trump whatever has been published prior to the report, including the socio-economic analyses. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans accuses me of edit warring and threatens to block me when I am nowhere near the 3RR rule. My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication. It can be questioned whether a publication from 2014 should take precedence if it uses data from 2005. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you weren't breaching the 3RR rule, so that warning doesn't really seem warranted unless Snooganssnoogans decided to preempt a potential one, though I'm not sure if it can be done this way.

My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication That doesn't really matter and certainly it is not the reason to delete the rest of the research, because its findings might still have value as the information on crime is still relatively recent. I'm not really proficient in Swedish so I can't evaluate the way the government report has been integrated by EvergreenFir. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit changed only the summary of the Crime section to use the most up to date information. Using the visual editor, if the sources were used elsewhere in the article they should simply be moved. Therefore it is not correct to say that my edit "deleted the rest of the research" from the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is not an admin so it's fairly unlikely they threatened to block you. They may have warned you may or will be blocked if you edit war, which is accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but adding verified material from WP:RS isn't edit warring, that's how Snooganssnoogan's warning on my talk page can be perceived as intimidating and my edit was also misrepresented. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing material cited to WP:RS and pertinent to the article's topic without compelling reasons to do so can also be seen as disruptive. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: you're seriously mistaken. I strongly suggest you re-read WP:Edit warring if you want to continue to edit without being blocked. Edit warring is when editors repeatedly revert someone else's good faith change. It doesn't matter whether you're adding material or removing material although from what I saw you were doing both in your edit anyway, as highlighted by Szmenderowiecki, nor who's changes are right or wrong, nor whether your changes are sourced, and whatever else. Note it's obvious from this that it generally takes two to edit war, this is a well accepted maxim. Neither party to an edit war is generally considered right, again no matter who's changes may be right. Although generally speaking, per WP:BRD when there is a dispute regardless of sources etc, we keep the stable version before the disputed change pending discussion and consensus. But separately per WP:1AM etc, if one editor keeps making a change and multiple other editors are reverting them, the one editor is more likely to get into trouble. Per our policy it's only in cases like vandalism (which isn't good faith anyway), enforcement of overriding policies like BLP and edits from blocked/banned editors where it would not be edit warring, and none of this applied here. Also you've proven by your response that Snooganssnoogan warning was fully justified as you apparently did not even after the warning understand what edit warring was about. It's unfortunate you still did not understand, I suggest you pay attention to what you're being told rather than automatically dismissing such warnings because you think they're unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've seen stuff related to this source before; it seems to be a constant source of issues. As a source from the Swedish government, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) is a primary source for anything related to Sweden and should be used cautiously. It is particularly important to avoid using it in a way that implies interpretation or analysis, which leads the reader to a non-trivial, controversial, or WP:EXCEPTIONAL conclusion, or to try and "refute" the interpretation and analysis of secondary sources, since doing so is WP:OR. It is absolutely not the best source in this context - in the context of a highly controversial and politicized discussion, its primary status means that we have to be extremely careful when using it and should not cite it excessively. If the interpretation that 1Kwords is taking from it is mainstream and widely-accepted, it should be easy to find secondary sources backing that up. --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Publishing the report is the source of controversy and a politicized discussion, its publication has been delayed repeatedly. The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they are plainly controversial and a secondary source is unequivocally required in this case; if, as you claim, they are undisputed and uncontroversial, it should be easy to find a secondary source, but given the highly-contentious nature of the topic there is absolutely no circumstance under which you can cite Brå alone for any significant claims or conclusions regarding crime in Sweden - it should be removed on sight when used in that manner; using raw government statistics to argue a point is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. EDIT: Especially since, at a glance, some uses are clearly of the form "secondary source says X, BUT! An editor thinks that this line from the primary source refutes them!" That is blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Again, if you think the topic is uncontroversial, it should be easy for you to find secondary sources covering this. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the context I don’t think its possible to make the argument that "The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial.” with a straight face, you clearly appear aware that they are disputed and if you aren't aware consider yourself informed. Also I agree with Aquillion, there is no way to spin that in which it isn’t OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: your claim makes no sense. Perhaps the pure crime statistics are uncontroversial. But what you were trying to add made the claim that these statistics cannot be accounted for by other factors. This goes beyond the realms of pure statistics into complicated analyses which inherently tend to be controversial and disputed since accounting for confounding factors is incredibly difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The diff posted in the original post above shows very clear cherry-picking/WP:SYNTH from the primary source, and it is misleading to say the least to claim that this is "uncontroversial". The sourced information removed by 1Kwords should stay, together with the sources. It is concerning how many of 1Kwords' edits seem to be within this subject area, and always creating an anti-immigrant spin on facts. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Maritsa

In the talk page, some editors do not acknowledge the various historians who write in books about this battle. And they say that historians do not care what they write about books. So I would ask someone to say if these are reliable sources. These are writers Caroline Finkel, John Julius Norwich, Richard C. Hall, Sedlar Jean W. Thank you. See talk page [[31]].93.138.142.12 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See wp:v and wp:or, it is not enough to prove it exists, it has to say what you want to say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Note one source up for discussion is King Vukasin and the disastrous Battle of Marica By Vladislav Boskovic, which may be a vanity press publication. Does anyone know anything about it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Feminism in India

Is FII a reliable source for any content on Wikipedia? What about passage of WP:N?

• Added later: For example, does this interview contribute to notability of Sulagna Chatterjee? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Largely no - No visible editorial policy, a requirement of WP:NEWSORG. Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars. Not seeing any journalism awards. Etc. TrangaBellam (talk)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  AshLin, target? By !voting that they are indeed reliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's patently obvious that that random US site that you challenged and then defended was thrown in for precisely this purpose when your targeted attempt to purge media sources targeting Indian women was predictable questioned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Drover's Wife, SheThePeople isn't a US site and I don't think TrangaBellam is attempting to purge media targetted at Indian women, at least not intentionally. They seem misguided and unfamiliar with women's media, which is unfortunately a systemic issue on here. For example, FII is much more established and higher quality than SheThePeople (both are reliable), but the latter has an article on Wikipedia and the former doesn't which is what I suspect is the root of their assessment. Anyways, I'd vouch for them conduct wise, having seen them around and request for people to instead focus on discussing the sources, which might be a good thing in the long run for sourcing purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you reiterate unsubstantiated accusations without knowing a damn about Indian media (random US site), you will be at WP:ANI for breach of WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. This organisation conducts serious research which indicates expertise in the situation of women in India. It will likely often require attribution as it clearly engages in advocacy, and therefore opinion, but its reliability looks good. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• How do you gauge the reliability? Is my claim of Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars false?
• What about the specific case? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Very sorry, but you might have too many sites here. In my way of thinking, to have more than one is to strain other volunteering editor available time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, it certainly has an editorial policy, is cited by reliable sources (e.g, [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], etc) and employs subject matter experts. Reception from reliable secondary sources is also positive, Livemint describes their articles as "high quality" and Vogue describes them as an "award winning" organisation, among others. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Livemint is conflicted and for a seven year old media organization to accumulate four mentions in media don't inspire much confidence. Now I am not based in India and might be missing vernacular response.

  Tbh, I can't see a single case where their views would ever pass WP:DUE. Imho, The Wire, The Scroll, India Spend etc. do a far better job of feminist journalism without clutching at straws. The site is entirely filled with shallow ~< 500 word articles by post-grads. (1, 2 etc. for some of the strange ahistorical stuff they publish.)

  Anyways, how would you answer the specific question raised - do interviews in FII lend to notability?

  P.S. : Thanks for the first substantial argument. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  How is that Livemint article conflicted? I can also see dozens of secondary sources mentioning FII in 2021 alone. I can't say anything for that charecterisation other than that it's wrong, of course not all of their articles are useful on Wikipedia, some are opinion pieces like personal essays and advocacy calls which should be handled per WP:RSOPINION, i.e not used when written by post grads since as you say it would be undue. Otherwise their news articles are reliable, they have journalists (e.g; [37], [38]) and scholars (e.g; [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) among their authors and quality pieces from guest authors (e.g; [44], [45]).

  For history, news sources in general are not reliable and you can easily find low quality pop history pieces from any mainstream media. Some of the new digital media may be better on history but they are an exception and not the rule.

  I don't think interviews specific to FII need a separate assessment, if there is some secondary coverage (usually present as an introductory paragraph) of a person in an interview than it can contribute towards non trivial coverage. So with regards to the linked article in specific, very borderline for notability. They are reliable for opinions and views of the person being interviewed but isn't independent. Non-independent coverage can be used as primary sources for content. On its own, it wouldn't be enough to demonstrate notability but can add towards meeting WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Tayi Arajakate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Note- Few months ago, verified twitter account from feminism in India tweeted that they have opened multiple accounts in Wikipedia to edit Wikipedia articles related to females. But they did not mention which accounts. But thos COI accounts still exist in Wikipedia. Feminism in India is like some social organization and not some reliable source. While they can have notability to exist as an article in Wikipedia, but their own website articles can't be used to as an RS to write other articles. --2402:3A80:1C42:5063:F889:E64C:C252:4C57 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Tayi Arajakate, and per the FII About section, "Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation has engaged FII Media Private Limited for the purpose of reporting and publishing stories of public interest. IPSMF does not take any legal or moral responsibility whatsoever for the content published by FII Media Private Limited on their website on any of its other platforms." Via the Media in India article and per The Indian Express this means it is funded by "the first concerted endeavour to fund online media ventures in a country where burgeoning mainstream print media and television firms are backed by corporate houses which is seen as a conflict of interest and antithetical to free and fair reporting", that also funds outlets including The Wire and The Caravan. As to the specific example, there is WP:SECONDARY commentary available in addition to the interview, so it supports WP:BASIC notability. As a side note, there is a pending Sulagna Chatterjee AfD nominated by TrangaBellam. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Beccaynr, IPSMF has also funded Swarajya, which has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. IPSMF funding proves or disproves nothing. User:Tayi Arajakate can add more details, probably. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, TrangaBellam, per WP:RSP and the IPSMF website - your statement in the AfD [46], FII is a glorified community-blog suggests their funding source could be a relevant consideration in this discussion. Also, FII was recognized for their work by the Digital Empowerment Foundation, received a Manthan Award, and an award from the WSA. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it can tell us that the organsiations it has funded are journalistic endeavours with an editorial structure but not much more than that. Reliability for them in the end depends on what they do and a plethora of other possible factors, Swarajya for example is deprecated due to disinformation and malpractices such as doxxing, but sure it has journalists running it and it has an editorial hierarchy. Now FII hasn't been reported to have suffered from any similar issues (i.e misinformation) which would be detrimental to its reliability.

On a sidenote, IPSMF isn't really free of the influence of corporations. It's a non profit investment fund and has an independent board with journalists and academics on them but its backers are ultimately corporate actors. It's not unfeasible that they may be able to influence who the foundation funds even if they can't directly interfere in the editorial operations of the organisations themselves (or at least they haven't tried to do so yet, there are a number of lets say firewalls between them). Taking Swarajya again as an example, it has a fairly obvious (Kovai Media) connection to Infosys, one of the corps behind IPSMF though if there was intent behind this is speculative. Also note that some of the organisations it has funded have since disengaged from being their dependant, The Wire for example. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Economic Times Brand Equity

Is this article considerable as a reliable independent source for evaluation of notability of Sulagna Chatterjee? See Paid news in India and WP:TOI. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - ET is a subsidiary of TOI, a news-organization notorious for paid news. See previous discussions on RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - There may be considerations of bias in favour of India in international affairs, but this is a serious website relating to marketing/branding. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did you read the linked RfC(s)? Ping Newslinger. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• The linked page does not suggest that it cannot be used as a reference. There is no reasonable suggestion of promotional content here (beyond any other newspaper profile/interview) and the content is uncontroversial and irrelevant to politics and history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Did you read the article about Paid news in India? Anyways: On the genesis and flourish of paid news: The Indian Media Ecosystem, K. Hardinge, Goethe Working Papers, 2018, p. 17:
• ... By late 90s, the market was booming and filled with multiple magazines catering to different marketing audiences: Brand Equity, Impact, ... The TOI model would be fundamentally integrated with their revenue models, as the lines between outright advertising, paid promotion, and news got thinner. These magazines also provided an opportunity for new entrants in a variety of sectors to be ... TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Independent? No, they don't always clearly mark what's sponsored content and what's not, undisclosed paid news is endemic in BCCL publications unfortunately. They shouldn't count towards notability, nor used in anything beyond the most unremarkable factual information though I'd stop a step before calling it generally unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Women's Republic

Is this website a WP:RS? Does coverage in this website count to notability? If reliable, is this suitable for use in BLP articles? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Added later: More specifically, does this interview contribute to WP:N of Sulagna Chatterjee? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• No - Editorial policy is non-existent (or unknown). The people in charge of the site are not mentioned either. Treat it as a blog: use it for the most uncontroversial of purposes. Coverage in the website fails to count towards WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  AshLin, your accusations are not substantiated. Please stay on the topic and explain how Women's Republic passes NEWSORG. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  TrangaBellam You are clearly attempting to invalidate sources wholesale for a particular article or series of articles, I suggest linking to that article/articles so we can see the context in which these sources are being used. It is quite unusual that a source that a serious user posts would be invalid in all circumstances, therefore reliability is contingent on the use being made of the source and questions of notability. This appears to be more of a content dispute than an issue for this board. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It is quite unusual that a source that a serious user posts would be invalid in all circumstances - What does this line even mean? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The locus of the discussion is simple. Can a website, which does not disclose their editorial policy or mention the involved people, be treated as a reliable source? Not as difficult, as you are making it to be. If you are bothered about particular use-cases, does this interview count towards WP:N? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Let me elucidate. It's actually quite rare for a source which is completely unreliable to be added to a page. Almost everything used as a source on here is reliable to support something, even if that something shouldn't be in the article. If you don't give the context of what it is being used to support it is almost impossible to give you an answer.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  And, I gave you a context? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Besides not following the policy instructions of this notice-board, User:TrangaBellam is attempting to influence an AFD by getting the sources of its citations declared as non:RS. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  More misplaced comments. There is not a single policy which forbids bringing disputed sources at AfD to RSN. Discussions (even RfCs) are regularly held for sources without any particular use-case. See the ongoing RfC for Jacobin, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New Zealand Herald etc. Many such broad RfCs are also linked from WP:RSP. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  You are right that there is no policy regarding this, but bringing the sources here before nominating for deletion would have been better. As the subject clearly has significant coverage in these sources, a consensus here that one or more of them were reliable sources would have satisfied WP:GNG and meant that AFD nomination was unreasonable. There is no mention at the talk page of any concerns about sourcing, and there should not have been a nomination for deletion without starting a discussion regarding sourcing, as the unreliability of these sources is the only plausible grounds for deletion. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you're done opining on every other thing in a circular manner (which belongs at AfD), maybe you can argue about this particular source? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's definitely reliable for the opinions of the writers, if they are notable enough, that could confer notability. As for the intrinsic notability of this source, I am unsure, and waiting to read what other users have to say. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Every source is reliable for the opinions of the writers. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Adequate specific proof has not been shown of how the content on the website is consistently unreliable, hence my view is status quo. Individual content issues can be discussed in WP:CONTENT. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  More specifically, does this interview contribute to WP:N of Sulagna Chatterjee? You seem to have missed that. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Shethepeople.TV

How reliable is this website? Does a feature count towards WP:N? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably Yes - There's a famed journalist at the helm and no immediate red-flags. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I am targeting the source by asserting the source to be reliable and led by a famed journalist. Strange white-horsing for someone who took a fortnight to agree here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• This seems to be a nomination of questionable-faith, randomly throwing in questioning of a source the user supports amidst a bunch of very targeted challenges of publications aimed at Indian women. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Based on my experience with the SheThePeople website (I have regularly reviewed articles and cite their work on WP), a feature should count towards WP:N - it is a well-established and wide-reaching journalism platform. Also, per their Terms and Conditions, they clearly distinguish between advertising and content, i.e. "Sponsors have no control over the editorial content. If a sponsor is involved in our content or editorial we will make it clear." Beccaynr (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo-Makers

In recent days, Yahoo India has collaborated with Makers to profile various women before eventually pulling out of India due to unrelated issues. Does these coverage count towards WP:N?

• For example, does this interview contribute to notability of Sulagna Chatterjee? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ambiguous No - Their homepage read:

  MAKERS is a media brand that exists to accelerate the women’s movement through stories of real life experiences that ignite passion and action. MAKERS India acts as a catalyst for positive change for the women’s movement in India. We aim to create compelling change through inspirational, positive storytelling of real-life experiences.

  Does not inspire confidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm not even sure what the argument that it isn't is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the retired banner from your user-page and then, re-read my quote. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Could you maybe stop being so unpleasant to people? It is unlikely to be productive.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• No case has been made that it might not be. Could this possibly be clarified?Boynamedsue (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Github

Would github be considered a reliable source? My guess would be no because github is mainly user-generated content, but I just wanna make sure as someone requested a source to be added and the source was for github. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Github itself isn't a source, it's just a place for people to create accounts and upload code and other stuff. All content is entirely user generated. If it's GitHub documentation itself about Github as an entity or service, maybe, but otherwise no. The only reason I can think of is X provides the source code for Y on GitHub. Maybe A code does B, but I think that would be better to have a third party reliable source make the statement about what the code does rather than the, possibly, original research of reading the code and making the claim. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does "someone" have a name and is it possible to say what the suggestion was? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

They don't have a name (as far as I know) because they're an IP. THe suggestion is on Talk:Genshin Impact Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that suggests there is some modifications being made by that code, makes a suggestion that there is a security concern but it's not evidence that one exists. Would need a reliable third party source, not someone's code on GitHub about a problem that may or may not be confirmed to exist. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright cool. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: pinging Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on a given WP:RSCONTEXT. I would generally discourage its use unless you want to make very specific statements verifiable. I would also strongly recommend to read previous discussions concerning Github:[47] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It definitely depends on a given WP:CONTEXT and also the other criteria of RS, one can ignore the venue. I would suggest that some repos might have a good reputation within their technology niche or show the RS criteria of ‘editorial’ control and third party reputation - perhaps the MS Azure docs, or the Google flutter, or Redhat Ansible. Otherwise something might be a suitable RS dependent on the reputation of the author, or by third parties referring to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for stating that some software exists, or a specific version was released on some date, or a change happened. It's not a RS to confer notability on software, or a coder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I agree with my fellow @Walter Görlitz. The Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) should be shown by sources of more higher quality in order to avoid violating WP:OR. At best, they shouldn't be first-hand reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• GitHub is user-generated content repository, and most of its contents are "primary sources". It is sometimes a good source to add a reference to the release date of the latest stable version, for example. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Nimer Sultany

Nimer Sultany is an Israeli Palestinian native of Tira. He has two works specifically on Israeli Palestinian relations (2003)(2005) commissioned by the Haifa based Mada al-Carmel Arab Center for Applied Social Research. He later earned a Doctorate in Juridical Science (SJD) from Harvard Law School, reputedly the most advanced degree of its kind, and is now Reader in Public Law at SOAS. He is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and author of an award-winning book Law and revolution: legitimacy and constitutionalism after the Arab Spring (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Driveby editors mainly, almost none engaging on the talk page, are consistently reverting out an article by him in The Guardian where he correlated the crime problems in his native city to the effects of vast land confiscations. He is dismissed variously as 'an activist' (no evidence), 'not an expert on Israeli land issues', or on the grounds that it is POV-pushing to cite him. Several reliable sources on that page cite independently the fact that Tira lost two thirds of its land to Israeli expropriations, so all Sultany does is correlate social problems in his town with the effects of those historic confiscations. I believe his place of origin, his proven published work on Israel's Palestinian minority, and his acknowledged status as a legal scholar of the highest order justify citing him on this one point . The talk page discussions are here and [48]. Neutral third party input on his RS-ness would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He is of course reliable for his own claims as everyone that writes something in the internet but he is not expert about crime in Arab Israeli population and in Land confiscations we have no way to verify his claims as he bring no sources to his claims.If his claims were correct there were no problem to find in it in peer reviewed publications in this situation we can not use publication that was printed in op-ed.

I want to note the source about alleged land confiscation is sourced to another activist Sabri Jiryis that not academic and cannot be considered reliable either. Shrike (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment Sabri Jiryis is demonstrably an academic. His page links to a bibliography of 10 papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, so, at best, Nimer Sultany citing Jiryis is an academic citing an academic. Being an activist and being an academic are not mutually exclusive, and the fact that an individual is an activist does not automatically impune their reliability. What is the evidence that Sabri Jiryis is unrealiable? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course Jiryis is an academic. He headed the Palestine Research Center in Beirut before its contents were confiscated, and the building destroyed by an Israeli car-bombing.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oped in Guardian's commentisfree. Not an article, an opinion only.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Even assuming that Nimer Sultany is stating pure opinion in his Guardian comments, the guidance at WP:RSOPINION is quite clear that statements of opinion ARE acceptable as long as it is clearly stated who the author is and that it is opinion. Nimer Sultany is still a notable academic, so referencing his opinion, while clearly stating it as such (as the page in question does), is totally acceptable. It is not self-published work, but is vetted by an editorial team at an independent news outlet considered reliable under WP:RS/PS. Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Expert opinion I have not been involved in that article but afaics "activist" appears derivative of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus the usual shoot the messenger approach.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Opinion- from an OpED. Might be suitable for the article body, fully attributed and presented as an opinion, but not for unattributed statement of fact. Other than being an academic, what exactly makes him notable? Inf-in MD (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It was removed when the statement had attribution. Secondly these tamperings with the lead violate WP:MOS WP:LEAD summary style. We have a whole subsection on crime, and editors are removing its summary from the lead, simply because, among other sources, Sultany is used. I.e. pretext. Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

when I removed it, it was stated as fact in the lead: [49]. It is now attributed in the article body, which is fine, but the fringe opinion does not belong in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you call his opinion 'fringe'? To call an opinion fringe, which suggests that it is somehow marginal and readily dismissed, you need to have a body of evidence indicating that the truth is somehow otherwise, i.e.: here, that the crime, poverty etc. are not linked to decades of land confiscation. NB: crime is extremely strongly correlated with poverty, so if decades of land confiscation caused poverty, all of this would be sort of obvious in the first place. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Being a Reader, which denotes an appointment for a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship, in law (the subject in question) at SOAS, a world-respected academic authority on the Middle East, makes him notable. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Readers or equivalent full professors in the academic word. The US alone has almost 200,000. Being one does not automatically make you notable.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is trying to write an article about him. I don't need to prove his general notability. He is a professor who is qualified to voice opinions, particularly in the area of law and criminality, and have those opinions heard. And, as a legal professor at a respected institution of learning, he can be reasonably expected to speak reliably. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is qualified to voice opinions, but when considering which opinions to include in article, we need to judge how notable they are. So again, what make him notable? He doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He would appear to satisfy WP:GNG if you’re considering creating an article... Why jump to a secondary standard when the primary is met? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you think he passes the general notability guideline? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for a lecture on neuroscience? I’m not really qualified to tell you how I think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he passes the notability guideline, and you have not explained why he does. have at it. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean why and not how then? If you had asked for that I would have explained why to you: I googled him, there appeared to be more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I googled him as well -he has less than 30,000 results, and most of these do not appear to be independent of him - his bio at SOAS, his twitter feed, articles that he's written for different outlets. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you have examples of that? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Expert opinion, this is an opinion and should not be used to support an unattributed statement of fact but as an opinion its usable. Sultany is certainly a subject matter expert, not really sure what the challenge to that is and his opinion is certainly notable or else The Guardian would not keep publishing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Expert opinion - included as an attributed for an academic expert. Notability has nothing to do with reliability, and per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources 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. Sultany is such an expert. nableezy - 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  No he's not. He's not an expert on the subject of Crime in Tira, nor has his work on this topic been published by independent reliable sources. Inf-in MD (talk)

None of the sources you introduced to write up a section on Crime in Tira (newspapers) are written by 'expert(s) on the subject of Crime in Tira'. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the field is criminology and crime among Palestinians in Israel. And here is a paper published by Israel Studies Review that is focused on that topic. nableezy - 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and I didn't present them as such - they are mainstream newspapers and media outlets like the BBC, that are considered reliable for facts, unlike editorials. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sultany wasn't editorializing. The page shows (and will show with several more sources) that land confiscation was massive. Sultany meentioned a known fact, and as a legal scholar native to that city correlated the crime wave to the strangled ghetto imposed on its inhabitants who once were 3000 on 30,000 dunams of agricultural land, and now are 25,000 hemmed into 8,000 dunams. There is nothing odd about that inference,- scholars do that- especially coming from a scholar who, unlike journalists, knows the city's history intimately. The most recent police report by Israel is that it is connected to diffuse unemployment and lack of prospects. That is an inference, and we reported that, attributed, as we did with Sultany. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please. His article is clearly labeled "Opinion", on the Opinion pages of a newspaper. The one Nableezy found now is a different matter - that might actually be usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please yourself. But I only took this here pro forma, since the answer is obvious. You are challenging the use of Sultany in The Guardian, where he states precisely what he states, in more theoretical detail in the article cited by Nableezy, i.e.,Nimer Sultany,The Making of an Underclass:The Palestinian Citizens in Israel Israel Studies Review, Volume 27, Issue 2, Winter 2012: 190ff. Now you say we might use the latter, but not the former. Huh? The only difference is, The Guardian mentions Tira. Everything else in the academic piece underlines what he states there, and three editors found intolerable to assert with regard to Israel, as opposed to everywhere else in the world, that poverty, land loss, correlates with crime. Since there is no difference, other than the use of Tira as a concrete article, it stands to reason that the Guardian article is usable precisely because it mentions the town our article deals with, as opposed to the theoretical article you prefer. Of course in this chess match, were one to accept your advice, and use Sultany 2012 and suppress the Guardian, an editor will then challenge the former, as you know well, on policy grounds, as WP:OR since it doesn't mention Tira. The games people play. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

and if you had produced this academic publication to begin with, instead of pretendign that an OpEd is not Opionion, or that any PHD or professor is automatcially an expert on any topic, we could have avoided this entire exchange. I think that publictaion is perfectly usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Accept the verdict of your peers. On four pages you have, virtually unsupported, exhaustively repeated your views, against a majority that can see no substance in them. This is tedious. Like replying to you that you expect me to scour everything Sultany has written 'to begin with' (I will add several sources presently to the page, which I have read and that took a half a day, while I have seen you quote nothing but googled newspaper clips 'Tira'+'crime'. This place is an encyclopedia, not a social forum or a screening medium to filter from view things one dislikes reading about.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So you were making things up when you said that he is not an expert in this field? Huh. nableezy - 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Highly qualified subject expert, which is all that needs to be said on the matter. Zero^talk 04:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite, I'm now thinking that there should indeed be a dedicated page for Sultany expanding on his subject matter expertise and listing his full bibliography. Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've sketched one, but with all of these extenuating challenges to the obvious ('stasis by attrition') I've had little time to work it in to shape. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Dexerto

The last RS post on Dexerto was from two years ago so I thought it'd be worth for their reliability to be reassessed now.

The article in question is PewDiePie and his pescetarian diet. PewDiePie has repeatedly mentioned his pescetarianism in videos before, but linking his videos mentioning it wasn't deemed reliable, so I got the only article explicitly mentioning his pescetarian diet from Dexerto: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/pew-die-pie-marzia-have-first-post-marriage-fight-minecraft-934791/. Even though the last consensus concluded that Dexerto was unreliable, I think that for a small trivial piece of information of something that has been confirmed by the person in question themselves, the Dexerto article is a reliable source, at least in the context of PewDiePie's diet.

edit: I'm not sure if this helps, but Yahoo Finance also mentioned them in an article earlier this year as an 'industry leading site (in) award-winning esports, gaming and influencer coverage, including news, interviews, reviews, opinions, guides and tournament coverage' here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeFan10025 (talk • contribs)

References

• Note – There is currently a discussion on this topic at WT:VGRS#Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo). — Pbrks (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Previously considered unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto. That their new partner fawns over them in a press release doesn't really change much. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for NewsBlaze.com

I am concerned about newsblaze.com, a website that is being used in an article. It seemed harmless at first, but when I went to its home page, today's headline stopped me cold: "Biden Administration Kills 10 Afghan Civilians Including 6 Children." Describing itself, the website writes "NewsBlaze is the alternative business and world news newspaper..." Regardless of one's politics (I have no political party affiliation), I find the content on this website truly biased. In a story on global warming, the website states "Sadly, Global Warming proponents have control over (America's) education system..." The website comments on religious issues, as well, saying American Jews are not like pre-Holocaust European Jews whom the website described as "defenseless and a prey to inculpable hate." It continues, "The Shield of David is the protector of the House of David. It is also fundamental to Judeo-Christian culture, embraced by the Founding Fathers, a part of Americanism." And, "Today, the Jewish kids are influenced by social media. They face BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) activists and anti-Semitic professors while others say nothing. To the people who founded Shield of David 'Never Again means Taking Action Now!' They are out to instil <sic> Jewish values of pride ... To share Judeo-Christian values. To come together under one big tent, one that the Biblical Jewish Patriarch Abraham personified and would be proud of." The website also had an article touting the voter fraud disinformation perpetuated in the U.S. presidential election. All of the quotes were taken from news stories, not opinions. Not every story is obviously biased, but it permeates through the site. I hope this is enough information to get you started on determining whether this source should be green-lighted, yellow-lighted or red-lighted. It does not bill itself as a right-wing or left-wing site, but claims to be a balanced news source, and that is only one of the reasons it causes me concern. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• We shouldn’t be using NewsBlaze.com for anything besides about self etc, they would be a solid red light on that scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• 360 uses in article space, that's a terrible site we shouldn't be using for anything. I find I can't read it in a web browser, it keeps auto-reloading the page - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• This paper classifies it as misinformational. It shouldn't be used as a source at all and ought to be depreciated if there's serious dispute over that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC below - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Newsblaze

Newsblaze claims to be a news site: "the alternative business and world news newspaper". https://newsblaze.com/ and https://newsblaze.com.au/ There are presently 348 usages in article space.

The pressroom page states: "Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time."

There are editors concerned at the quality of Newsblaze as a source, particularly given it does get usage on the encyclopedia.

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinions: Newsblaze

• Option 4. We should not be using this as a source on Wikipedia for anything, to the point that I'm not confident it could be trusted for WP:ABOUTSELF. It should be deprecated, and usages removed from article space. - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I should note: I wouldn't have done the whole RFC thing except for discovering to my horror that it's actually being used as a source in practice - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • David Gerard, just a procedural concern. RfCs should be a neutral short question, so I'd recommend moving everything except the first line, the third line and the options, under the discussion subsection. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I have done this - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• 'Option 4. Pretty clearly not a reliable source, and not one that a serious, reputable reference work (nor responsible editors) should go anywhere near. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per above. Also, the site barely even functions properly - I'm getting stuck in a redirect loop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I've reproduced the problem that ProcrastinatingReader had - might be a bug in their page. Other than that, OP's assessment that Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time is even incorrect because it's not news to begin with. As CNNNN once said, Take two glasses of know-how and add a teaspoon of truth. Stir thoroughly. For me it's more of a pinch, if not less - obviously to be deprecated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That was a quote from their site. I do think it fails at it - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

    You just wrote that The pressroom page notes: "Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time." It certainly does that, so I assumed you agreed with it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 for the reasons outlined above. This is a bad source. ––FormalDude talk 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I can't see any circumstances where anything Newsblaze says would be considered reliable. Even for themselves, as David Gerard states, I couldn't be sure it is correct outside of an email address. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• @David Gerard: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 4,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, I went into rant mode in the RFC text. I've shortened the text considerably, and moved my opinions and the cited support for them below - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Newsblaze

Apart from not being neutral, my summary of Newsblaze was long enough to break the bot! So I've moved it here.

The site(s) propagates conspiracy theories, fabrications and serious medical misinformation.

• Medical conspiracy theories: Vaccine scaremongering, citing NaturalNews as a source; more vaccine scaremongering; "Australia-Japan Virtue Signal Summit Guns Blazing", where by "virtue signal" he means masks and vaccines; hydroxychloroquine advocacy.
• "Did Twitter Delete My Tweets and Stop Me from Following Trump?"
• Their White House correspondent, Randy Foreman, "attends daily briefings", though he doesn't seem to have filed much since the Obama years. What he does file includes supporting the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory [50] [51] (enough for it to be noted by others) and giving credence to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.[52] Foreman was not invited to the briefings; he used to just sit in the New York Daily News seat, because it was usually empty.
• "Arab Fifth Column Growing in Israel"
• Climate change denialism: "Is Bureau of Meteorology Ignoring Science To Tell Global Warming Stories"; "killer windmills"; abuse of statistics.

There is non-conspiracy content also, e.g. treating Covid vaccines as good and climate change as real. But even both-sidesing this nonsense is bad enough.

The "curation policy" reads like an excuse for skirting copyright violation.

The site is also weirdly broken - in both Chrome and Firefox, all pages seem to reload continuously. I could only read some of these pages through archive.is. Perhaps it's just me.

Summary: this site appears to be a conspiracy theorist blog, with press release reprints and borderline copyright violations to fill it out.

- David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Sportskeeda to Video Game sources

I believe the 12-13 year old sports and Esports news website Sportskeeda, should be included as a reliable source to WP:VG/S. The website is immensely reliable. I propose it to be added to

WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming, or
WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports

Website URL: https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports

• I'm going to say this isn't a particularly reliable source. Given that they have an "FAQs for writers" page, I think much of their content comes from independent contributors with no clear credentials or authority, making it at best no better than something like Forbes contributors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for swift reply. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No further arguments or discussions from my side. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

PoliticalGraveyard.com

I noticed this used as ref at Shirley Brown (Florida politician). Per "The Political Graveyard is created and maintained by Lawrence Kestenbaum, who is solely responsible for its structure and content." it seems to be WP:SPS. Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Political_Graveyard, but it's used in quite a few WP-articles, though not necessarily in a BLP context.

Should it be considered RS for anything, and if not, should we do something about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think its really of any use to us, I don’t think we should treat it any differently from similar pet project grave finding or logging sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Illuminerdi

What is the reliability status of The Illuminerdi? Their content includes interviews, reviews, and "exclusive" content (which is generally casting information from their "sources"). I have noticed that a lot of their content has been correct. For example, they revealed the casting of Jameela Jamil in She-Hulk hours before it was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter. I wanted to know if it was reliable before citing it because its name seems a bit iffy. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MCURS states the site is not reliable. Not sure if there was a formal discussion somewhere, but that's probably the best place to look further. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Query on AFK gaming

AFK Gaming, the website that provides eSports news, seems pretty reliable to me. Please provide clarification.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for Video games, i.e to the:

WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports
or maybe
WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming

Website URL: https://afkgaming.com/

VG/S is a WikiProject construction, so best to post on the WT project talk to update that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Polish sources

A dispute has been raging in June and July about reliability of some sources in the context of Jan Żaryn, a conservative Polish politician, which spilt into WP:NPPSG, hence the scope of the request. Details will be mentioned in the "Discussion" section on the dispute, so that the RfC question fits in here.

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Polityka

Webpage: [53]

• Option 1. Volunteer Marek has referred to it as an analogue of The Nation for Poland, and that assessment is pretty much correct, with all implications arising from this assessment (RS, partisan source (left-of-center to left-wing), might need care in WP:DUE and WP:BLP issues, but reliable for facts). In other words, pretty much usable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd agree with "Option 1" and Szmender's reasoning if specific mention of BLP issues is made. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. No idea why the article Polityka wasn't linked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, superb source.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: OKO.press

Webpage: [54]

• Option 1/2. They feature a fact-checker, although users should be cautious about using "according to OKO.press fact-checker" statements, because at least one was found to be essentially an opinion piece (but it should not be excluded altogether - users should use their best judgment to determine whether the whole piece is actually about fact-checking, and only after determining that they should). On the other hand, for assertions of fact and for their investigations, I see no reasons for unreliability. Moreover, their coverage has been extensively used in scholarly works for citing factual coverage: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] etc. That said, it is partisan and disproportionately uses heavily loaded labels (such as fascist or homophobic, which should generally be avoided per MOS:RACIST) and the same caveat as with Polityka applies here. In neither the case of Polityka, nor oko.press, should this caveat be an automatic reason/excuse for suppression of information, even in light of discretionary sanctions, including BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - it would be more appropriate to say that they "have appropriated the language of fact checking". Their "fact checks" don't actually check any facts but offer opinions of a subjective nature and then they call it "fact checking". Like, anyone can CLAIM to be a "fact checker", but such a claim does't automatically make you Snopes or Politifact. In fact, by now, there's lots of hyper-partisan outlets (mostly on the right, but as in this case, sometimes on the left) who dress up their partisanship or even outright spreading of misinformation as "fact checking". Also, as Szmender notes, the overall tone of Oko's pieces is overwhelmingly hyperbolic and hysterical (a simple disagreement is presented as a "vicious attack" etc) and that's not even getting to the issue of cherry picking and selective use of context. Volunteer Marek 19:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. IMHO they are trying to be a Polish Bellingcat, but they are much more active, not as well respected internationally, and partisan. I do actually agree with their editorial line more often than not, but they are "new". Not seeing any red flags outside that, but they do have a very obvious bias and don't pretend it to hide it. Just like there are obvious pro-government media in Poland these days, there are obvious opposition media and they are smack right there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Superb reputation. Won Index of Censorship award in 2020 [65]. International media uses them, quotes them: [66][67][[68][69].Mellow Boris (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: naTemat

Webpage: [70]

• Option 2. Pretty tabloidish in some parts of coverage, but still usable for others. [71], for example, does not mention that in fact, the video had been selectively cut (though refers to CNN, saying this is "nonsense"). That said, its news sections (Świat, Dzieje się) are OK. There are better sources than that, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The assessment above seems correct. I'd avoid it for anything controversial. Tabloid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, since its reporting leans towards sensational.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: gazeta.pl

Webpage: [72]

• Option 1. Gazeta Wyborcza without the paywall, less investigative journalism than in GW and slightly less bias, because it does more routine reporting. Can't say much about kultura.gazeta.pl and kobieta.gazeta.pl for articles for Polish entertainment purposes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. When I looked into them a while back I got the impression that they were the GW attempt at tabloid market, as such their reporting is lower quality. But in general, still relatively good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, same reputation as the superb Gazeta Wyborcza with which they share many things but not the paywall.Mellow Boris (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Telewizja Polska (Wiadomości on TVP1, TVP Info, etc.)

Webpage: [73]. Note. We are NOT discussing pundits or talk shows.

• Option 3 for political or otherwise controversial content, not syndicated from PAP (Polish Press Agency), post-2015 They've even buggered their "fact-checker", making it a platform to spew mud on opposition parties, what can I say? The reliability of TVP news in general has even been part of research theses and scholarly papers: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], which quite uniformly say it's pro-govt propaganda. No wonder TVP news is the least trusted among major news outlets, according to Reuters Institute Digital News Report in 2021. Since the term "propaganda" not only means bias but unreliability, my assessment is such as presented. Even PAP-syndicated coverage is far from the golden standard, it's still orders of magnitude better than their own coverage.

Option 2/leaning 1, not syndicated from PAP, pre-2015. TVP has had quite a lot of influence from whoever ruled, and indeed the news were skewed towards whoever ruled Poland, [80], [81], but it was a far smaller extent than today. A sample from protest coverage has actually shown TVP in quite a positive light [82], but it's more of a sample rather than a general assessment.

Option 1 for non-controversial non-political coverage. Sports, culture, and news reports in which the government, or the party, has not got interest, or some really trivial facts, like opening of a motorway, are not something shouldn't be able to source to them; though often this info is syndicated from PAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's complicated, which is to say, I mostly agree with Szmenderowiecki. In fact I'd even consider Option 4 for modern "political or otherwise controversial content". It's propaganda-level - "all hail the current political party and its glorious leaders", extremely biased and simplistic. It is of course important to note that their older articles, as well as the ones on non-controversial issues, are still ok-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Polskie Radio

Webpage: [83]

• Same assessment as TVP. There is virtually no difference between the two. The news on the webpage have virtually the same structure and the controlling body (National Media Council, RMN) is the same, i.e. the government. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• More or less. There are differences between programs, Polskie Radio Program III used to be very respected in culture, but recently it got mangled by the new management and like all state media, suffers from lack of quality when it comes to anything political/controversial. Again, we need to be careful not to discard it in other areas, however, it was historically reliable, and it still is on non-controversial topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: TV Republika

Webpage: [84].

• Option 2 for non-syndicated content; option 3 for pundits A lot of what they publish is in fact syndicated from PAP, which should not be taken into account because it does not belong to TV Republika. Their own news reporting seems OK, though materials on history should not be used, unless an expert in the field actually writes/speaks to them. Materials previously published in the three sources below should not be used, either. Pundits are unreliable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government. Separating PAP from non-PAP here would be cumbersome.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Do Rzeczy

Webpage: [85]

• Option 3/4. While some might argue that I am being excessively harsh towards conservative sources, the case here is essentially Washington Times or Washington Examiner, but they have a notoriously fringe position on COVID; rejecting scientific consensus altogether and spreading COVID misinformation as can be seen on prominently displayed editorials by Warzecha, Lisicki, etc., [86], [87], [88], [89] and in news coverage such as here: [90], [91]. The same goes for lockdowns and other COVID-related issues. No, mass media need not conform to WP:MEDRS standards but at least they should not spread misinformation. And yes, [92] they promote anti-immigrant discourse by essentially fear-mongering; and for them, climate science has more to do with hoaxes and religion than science. WP:ABOUTSELF statements are attributable to the website, but otherwise it merits at least the red label. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• I concur that their coverage on controversial or political issues is highly biased, but I am not sure they need to be totally depreciated. Articles like [93] or [94] - the first two I checked - seem fine. I'd say the source can be used on non-controversial issues, and on issues related to politics and medical topics, has to be attributed. Well, for medical, it probably should confirm to MEDRS which it doesn't, so there's that. If we really want to depreciate it from some areas, I'd like to see examples of specific controversial sentences referenced to it? In the end, the conservatives need to have their POV represented too (as long as it is clearly attributed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: niezalezna.pl

Webpage: [95]

• Option 4. Even worse than above. Instead of Washington Examiner, we deal with Polish Breitbart here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You may be right, but what are your reliable sources about the bias / other problems with this source? The first two links we use are [96] and [97]. The first is on history and doesn't seem controversial, the second is on the politics and outside the general theme of stressing a controversial comment by a German politician doesn't seem to be factually wrong (it's just quoting, mostly). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Gazeta Polska

Webpage: [98]

• Option 3/4. In fact, it's the same as Do Rzeczy, minus the coronascepticism and plus the xenophobic/Germanophobic front pages and content ([99], [100], [101], [102], [103]). And yes, they like conspiracy theories about Smolensk air disaster (the other two outlets do not mention it that prominently but try to say there's some middle ground between MAK's report and the assassination theory), and [104] they aren't at good terms with climate science. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note. I'm commenting on post-2005 Gazeta Polska. It did have a different editor-in-chief prior to 2005 - I have not read their coverage before that, so I can't comment on it.

• Comment - one consideration here is the vintage. The Gazeta Polska that existed before 2005 is a pretty different animal that has existed since. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

OP note

As has been said, the discussion in the article on Jan Żaryn has become a mess. Not delving into intricacies of that waste of resources and time that could have gone to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures for display (Jan Żaryn), some details that you might find useful.

OKO.press has been objected to by three editors, Volunteer Marek (VM), Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella, on the grounds that it was too partisan and was otherwise unreliable for BLP purposes. Ultimately, one of the fact checks they have produced ([105]) has been found to be unusable as a fact-check, but the reasons for exclusion were different (unreliability, non-notability of the sentence discussed, possible differences in understanding of the words). Other articles have not been universally accepted as either prefectly usable or absolutely unusable. In a similar fashion, objections have been made to include the other three sources from the first four, though no particular determination has been made.

As for the other six resources, on 18 June at around 1:40 AM GMT, VM decided to delete, in three consecutive edits, seven sources from WP:NPPSG#Poland (a pre-RSP listing watch list), on the basis that the !voting in the previous discussions was unduly influenced. According to the edit summaries, VM said that accounts that have not been extended confirmed violated the discretionary sanctions enforced for Eastern Europe topics and antisemitism in Poland when submitting their opinion on the resources [500/30 restriction applies only to the anti-Semitism articles, not E Europe articles in general, though in particular cases, admins might institute these restrictions - my note], alleging that the voting was manipulated by sockpuppets and asserting that most of the voters who voted contrary to VM have been either WP:SPA or otherwise inexperienced users. Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated. The change went as follows:

OKO.press: rough consensus for RS -> no consensus; TVP, Polish Radio, TV Republika, Do Rzeczy, niezalezna.pl, Gazeta Polska: unreliable -> no consensus

Bob the snob was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, and Mellow Boris was tagged throughout as a probable SPA, but otherwise no other editor has been found to be guilty of any wrongdoing as far as I'm aware. Engagement in the discussions has been minimal, so in fact, there can't be any consensus (or "no consensus") labels put on discussions with 2-3 editors, as they are not representative. The only one that solicited more attention was about Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press, and even there the summary was rather incorrectly changed, in my opinion.

I invite users to evaluate resources once again, and hope more opinions could be solicited based on that.

Pinging all users who were participating in the discussions on RSN that were affected by VM's edits on NPPSG and Jan Żaryn discussing reliability of any of the given resources. (except for SarahSV, my condolences): @Abcmaxx, Darwinek, MyMoloboaccount, Mellow Boris, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Mhorg, CPCEnjoyer, Lembit Staan, Piotrus, Buidhe, GPinkerton, Astral Leap, V.A. Obadiah, and Rosguill: Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You list four possible options but your agreement with my assessment of Polityka suggests one of the options should explicitly address BLP issues. Like "generally reliable but use with caution when it comes to BLP, particularly opinion pieces from the source" or something. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I essentially said: copy the assessment from The Nation. It has the caveat for BLPs and I believe it to be an appropriate safeguard. As I have mentioned, the caveat should not, in my opinion, mean that the source is unusable for BLPs, but we should handle it with more care. It's more of Option 1/2 for BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated.: minor correction. I believe that VM's complaints in themselves are enough dissent, in the absence of a wide consensus for reliability, to merit listing as "no consensus". I have not recently evaluated VM's objections and have no opinion about whether the arguments are sound. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Since you are discussing 500/30 and sockpuppetry, I have to say that you are display an amazing level of competency on intricate wiki rules and politics, given that you started editing just few months ago, effectively since April, meaning that you've been here for less than half a year. Would you mind sharing a secret on how one can go from registering an account to understanding past ArbCom cases, policies like RS, reviewing DYKs and so on in just few months? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Four months is plenty of time to learn the ropes on how Wikipedia works. This comment is essentially casting aspersions that Szmenderowiecki is a sock without evidence. If you think that Szmenderowiecki is a sock of Icewhiz or whoever then you should present evidence at SPI, and not casting bad-faith aspersions here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - Regarding some of the editors you pinged:

• The new account Mellow Boris reactivated his account after one month of inactivity[106] to come here with their view[107].
• New account V.A. Obadiah hasn't been active since April 27, 2021,[108].
• Newish account CPCenjoyer hasn't been active since June 29/2021.[109]

I'm speculating Mellow Boris just randomly, luckily, logged in to Wikipedia, and found your message but how are the last two suppose to hear about your ping? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

OzRoads

Ozroads

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Discussion: OzRoads

OzRoads appears to be a WP:SPS stating: Ozroads is purely a hobby site, created and maintained by myself. Is commonly used as a cite in articles in this category with its validity periodically questioned. Thought it prudent to have it assessed by uninvolved editors. Uaterlou (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)