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

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

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

---

Jacobin is approved on the Wikipedia list of sources. Why are people saying I cannot use it to edit Russo-Ukrainian War when it is reliable? [1] Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Becasue you want to use it to Change "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", we are not saying its not reliable for its claim, we are saying the claim violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

For context, the discussion being referred to is here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You said it was "commentary" and not "news reporting", but [2] says that it "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

[3] says this too. "the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Although all content must be reliably sourced, but just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it has to be included (see WP:ONUS). You will need to find consensus on the articles talk page for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jacobin generally reliable?

Many people are saying that Jacobin is not reliable when I try to use it, but it is on the approved list of sources. Fellow editors: is Jacobin generally reliable? Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Is Jacobin generally reliable?

• Absolutely reliable. There was a conversation [4] where an arbitrator ruled that Jacobin "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". It is one of the best news sources in the English language: it has incredible integrity, and it publishes important facts-first journalism, and it holds power and capital accountable. Jacobin is fiercely independent and does not share the biases of western mainstream media. We need to use it so our articles can be comprehensive and factual because it is reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the pointy RFC tag. Above it appears that people are trying to explain WP:DUEWEIGHT, not saying the source isn't reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The tag is there because I want to request comments from the community of Wikipedia editors about this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is already a consensus on this source editor time is the most valuable commodity, and you're wasting it because you're unwilling to listen to what other editors are saying. As a new editor editing a contentious topic you should be listening to the other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back and look again, what people are telling you appears to be much more nuanced than that (for example the title being treated differently from the body). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds says that Jacobin does not fit RS with regards to September 11 attacks. I do not like that this generally reliable source is excluded in so many places. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's just a blatant, naked lie. What I said was that this particular Jacobin article did not constitute a RS for the 9/11 article, as it was entirely about a conspiracy theory. I specifically pointed out that we were not claiming Jacobin itself was inherently unreliable. I'll thank you to strike the above accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this at minimum and this article series is so dreadful that I'd question whether we can consider the Jacobin to be generally reliable. Generally reliable publications don't publish crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Depreciate. This is very bad source, full of lies and propaganda. Editor is propagandist. The CIA did not do 9/11 This is opinion and hyperbole source. Euromaidan was a popular revolution of dignity, not a nazi plot Euromaidan: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. This is not reliable and it is not news. The decision was bad. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not like quick ending [5]. I want to depreciate Jacobin. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oh great, a Russia-Ukraine bunfight at RSN, just what we've all been waiting for! Jacobin was discussed and found to be reliable. It's not getting relitigated now. Of course, being mentioned in a reliable source does not guarantee inclusion. If you want to argue about what goes into the article, please do it at the talk page. --Boynamedsue (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion was split equally. It was not good decision to be generally reliable. Too much opinion and propaganda, too little news. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: ScottishFinnishRadish and I have previously closed this RFC but were reverted by Chances last a finite time and Ghost of Kiev, respectively. Both the users have been made aware of WP:CTOP and warned for their disruptive editing. I won't close it again myself but stand by my closing note that had said, Re-closing this disruptive/malformed RFC started based on misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what others are saying. The topic of Jacobin's general reliability has been discussed at length relatively recently and is not central to the dispute here. Editors are free to continue discussing whether the particular article of interest is WP:RS and/or WP:DUE. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be speedy closed. The preceding discussion shows it's unwarranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Over a year ago is not “recent” and the recent publication of crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories (or, as presented above, actual pro-Russian propaganda) is a substantial enough problem to throw its reliability into doubt. This is worth discussing. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s more than recent enough. If we rehash everything every year or two nothing would ever be concluded. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The final !vote in that discussion is from August of 2021, so it seems more than ripe for re-discussion. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are not a good sign, but I have to look more deeply before committing a !vote. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, it might be better to add the standard four options at the top, just for convenience sake. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the contentious Jacobin articles added by the OP seem to be coming from the same author: [6], [7], [8], [9] (Branko Marcetic). Are there such articles by other authors on the site? –Vipz (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether we continue to consider the publication as a whole as generally reliable source, we should assess Jacobin articles on a case by case basis, taking in the author's credibility. I'd say that articles by Marcetic (a Jacobin staff writer who rarely publishes elsewhere) would almost be filed in the not-reliable category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to revisiting Jacobin with a new RfC, especially given the previous one was not terribly conclusive (and that this is apparently a source that dabbles in conspiracy theories?). But this is definitely not the right way to do it. It's either an issue of WP:POINT or WP:CIR on behalf of the user that opened the RfC. And given that several users have already explained this to them and asked them to stop before this RfC was opened, I think the behavioral element needs to be addressed before an RfC is formed under more reasonable circumstances. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This RfC should be closed as unnecessary, since Jacobin's reliability is not at issue in the present instance. OP has demonstrated a WP:CIR / WP:LISTEN problem which is behavioral in nature. The content they are seeking to add is obviously, wildly WP:UNDUE, as has been explained to them by numerous experienced editors. Generalrelative (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd concur with that close. XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would as well. I do think the 2021 RfC asked the wrong question and mixed up reliability and dueness, and a new RfC should confront that squarely (e.g. should Jacobin only be used as attributed opinion, or some such). Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue (so far) with one particular author on board of Jacobin, what's the correct approach? –Vipz (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It should also be careful to distinguish Jacobin magazine from its peer-reviewed offshoot Catalyst, which publishes some decent scholarship and scholarly reviews, albeit of course always from an anti-capitalist perspective. Generalrelative (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not that long since the last RfC. If we are considering it again, (a) was there an issue with the closing? (I note about 15 of 35 participants last time !voted for generally reliable, and I would have closed it as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" but with similar text) or (b) has anything changed, e.g. new revelations of bad editorial practice? (I don't think so, although possibly the war in Ukraine might have brought into focus some of the more fringe positions it publishes on Russia-related geopolitics). In short, I think we should probably keep with the old consensus unless there is some pressing reason to reconsider. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Flawed RFC No one has challenged its reliably until this thread. As such the original question is meaningless and smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. Let's get a speedy redo of Abecedare's close here, and throw this mess out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thirded. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable While I can understand the opinion that this particular discussion is pointy, I'm surprised anyone could consider an extremist propaganda piece like Jacobin reliable. It is the equivalent of Breitbart, just with a different political point of view. Both Breitbart and Jacobin regularly publish lies and distortions when it suits their respective political agendas, and would never publish anything not in line with those agendas. Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show they have a reputation for knowingly telling lies? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show anything at all other than your own opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jacobin is hardly comparable to Breitbart IMO. If I were to make a comparison to another publication with a political slant, It would be something like National Review or Reason Magazine.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. The magazine publishes fact-based articles and does not promote conspiracy theories, although it is indeed a biased source, so proper attribution should be recommended.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• A good point was made above that all of these problematic articles are by the same author, that to me would indicate that the issue isn't widespread enough to impact our assessment of Jacobin and we should instead rule that the author Branko Marcetic should be ruled unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Broadly agree but need to be a little careful. He occasionally publishes in outlets a little more reliable than Jacobin (e.g. The Nation, In These Times) and those sources might be usable if due. Of course, he also occasionally publishes in less reliable sources, and those we should remove on sight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  If an author is unreliable they're unreliable in every publication they write for, outlet has no bearing on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Don't think we are determining here if the author is unreliable, I have no opinion on that atm, but this RFC really needs to be shut down, it's all over the place, so I am going to take off the tag and turn it into a discussion instead if that's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  And please refrain from purging his content from the encyclopedia as you have been doing in the last hour. No consensus has been reached on the reliability of Marcetic's work. I have already reverted one of these instances.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  No thank you, don't forget to open a talk page discussion to get consensus for your desired additions! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Generally UNreliable - once it was (for some info) but it has gone way down hill and these days its content regularly strays into WP:FRINGE territory, with it becoming comparable to garbage like Mint Press News Volunteer Marek 16:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

I see that this has already been closed and my note is not about this edit or this source in particular, so I thought it'd still post it in case a future RFC is in consideration. It is common for reliable sources with an editorial team review to clearly distinguish categories, like: official news, paper editorials (op-eds), columnist opinions and press releases or reviews (i.e. concering companies or products like books or films). Some sources are mostly blogs that cannot be considered reliable by themselves and every post is a particular contributor's opinion, something that is rarely useful for sensitive material. For those with more structure, the author matters less because articles supposedly go through the team's review before publication. In this case, when a source is considered reliable or unreliable, it mostly relies on that editorial policy and attitude that would be expected to comprise self-policing, the retraction and correction of errors, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?

A May 2023 RSN discussion about Healthline raises the question about whether Healthline should be deprecated as generally unreliable or blacklisted as fabrication and spam on many of its health-related article pages.

Healthline: [10]

Healthline is frequently used by novice editors to source medical, nutrition, and lifestyle content. Its name implies health expertise, and its author(s) or editors are identified as having "medically reviewed" articles, despite most having no medical expertise (BS or MS degrees in non-medical fields). Healthline commonly cites individual primary studies to extrapolate to an anti-disease effect or "health benefit", a term used in many of its articles on foods, phytochemicals, and supplements.

Previous RSN discussion: Feb 2022 goji berries

Examples of spam health misinformation are Healthline articles on coffee antioxidants ("Many of coffee’s positive health effects may be due to its impressive content of powerful antioxidants"), anti-disease effects of black tea, "proven health benefits" of ashwagandha, and "proven health benefits" of blueberries, among dozens of others. Search "antioxidant" on Healthline and browse any retrieved article for the extent of misinformation (where only vitamins A-C-E apply as antioxidants for the human diet).

Diffs on goji - this talk discussion on goji nutrition and health benefits; continued further here.

Numerous others under my history, here.

It may be justified to blacklist Healthline as a perpetual source of fabrication and spam. Similar to reputations in scientific publishing generally, blatant misinformation destroys confidence permanently in the rest of the source.

Seeing an edit containing a Healthline source is WP:REDFLAG for revising or reverting the edit. There are no circumstances where a Healthline source could not be MEDRS-sourced.

Healthline should be blacklisted. Zefr (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What's the evidence that Healthline is actually spam ("the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages (spam) to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising, for the purpose of non-commercial proselytizing, for any prohibited purpose (especially the fraudulent purpose of phishing), or simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user", according to our article on the same subject), or even WP:REFSPAM ("a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation")?

It sounds like the only thing happening here is that editors use a source that they believe is reliable, but that better informed editors disagree with them, not to mention the few especially strict MEDRS supporters such as yourself. That doesn't actually make it spam. It's a health news website. It shouldn't be used for any purpose that we wouldn't use a newspaper article for, but I've seen no evidence of it being eligible for inclusion in the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. You could ask admins like Kuru or Ohnoitsjamie, but we don't normally add things just to keep people from complying with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

P.S. Of course blueberries have "proven health benefits". One might wish for a Wikipedia editor to write something staid and obvious like "Blueberries, like basically all fruits and vegetables, contain Vitamin C, which is essential to human health" rather than something breathless about blueberries being uniquely near-magical, but it's still true that they have "proven health benefits", especially for anyone who doesn't fancy a case of scurvy. (Mmm, blueberry season is just starting here...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I always go to the medical topics I know best to check the source. For Tourette syndrome (FA Tourette syndrome), the following healthline statements are utterly wrong (not just subtly wrong) -- samples only:

• It is a syndrome that involves recurrent involuntary tics, which are repeated, involuntary physical movements and vocal outbursts. Vocal tics need not be outbursts at all; gulping is an example of a vocal tic. This information furthers a stereotype about TS.
• The symptoms include uncontrollable tics and spontaneous vocal outbursts. Ditto, plus see Tourette syndrome for how wrong the "uncontrollable" is.
• People diagnosed with Tourette syndrome often have both a motor tic and a vocal tic. No, they must have both for a TS diagnosis.
• Symptoms are generally most severe during your early teen years. Concocted from I don't know where ...

Stopped there. Moving on to Lewy bodies (FA dementia with Lewy bodies):

• Dementia with Lewy bodies, also known as Lewy body dementia, is caused by protein deposits in nerve cells. 1. Lewy body dementia and dementia with lewy bodies are not the same thing. 2. The cause of DLB is unknown.

So, again stopped there. Adding this to Zefr's examples, yes, this site is rubbish and should be blacklisted. We shouldn't have to run around removing potential rubbish added by unsuspecting or new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that it's not spam per se, there is a precedent for blacklisting poor sources that are frequently misued as references, NaturalNews being the first example to come to mind. Now NaturalNews is in a category of its own in terms of being complete rubbish. Healthline's own article suggests that there is mixed opinion as to it being a "good" source. I'm OK with blacklisting a link on the grounds of it being a frequently misused poor source, but on the conditions that (1) we have a strong consensus that it has no use in Wikipedia as a references and (2) the existing 500+ links are cleaned up prior to blacklisting. Neither of those conditions are currently met as far as I can see. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Natural News discussion (not an RfC) resulted in adding to the spam blacklist. And Beetstra changed the spam-blacklist guideline to add "some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus" after I had objected about adding ancient-origins.net. A more recent example is that my request to remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist (since spamming if it ever existed was stopped) was archived. Thus there are indeed precedents, and I regard them all as bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

John's right about it being a big jump from nothing to deprecation or blacklisting, but another option is an AbuseFilter that says something like "Healthline.com is generally not a reliable source for medical information".

Another option would be to have a bot post individual messages ("I see you added <badsite> to [[Possibly medical article]]. This is generally considered a poor source for health-related content. Could you please replace it with a better source?") WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

it seems like overkill to jump immediately to deprecation or blacklisting. Why not start by clarifying on RSP that it is unreliable? I think we now have the necessary discussions and consensus for that. John M Baker (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it technically qualifies until this RFC closes, but I've boldly added it as GUNREL for now. If anyone wants to amend or remove, feel free. As for an edit filter... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not really sure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of it.

Their articles are written almost entirely by random freelance writers with zero qualifications, and then "medically reviewed" by "medical advisors" who are very frequently quacks:

• This reiki [11] was written by a yoga teacher and "medically reviewed" by "doctor" with a PhD in psychology from for-profit online Walden University (their psych PhD program is unaccredited!). Her bio asserts she's a holistic nurse, professor (at Walden), reiki master, clinical hypnotherapist, and expert in "complementary and alternative therapies, autoimmune disease, stress and coping, and obstetrics". She was also the advisor for this pro-homeopathy article and this throat chakra article that starts out "Chakras play a role in the flow of energy in your body. Running from the base of your spine to the top of your head, the seven main chakras each correspond to specific nerve bundles and organs in your body."
• This pro-chiropractic article reviewed by a DPT (with degree from for-profit University of St Augustine) who has no publications and whose professional qualifications list is so weak he included CPR certification. The article cites case studies, Frontiers junk, and weak reviews in weak journals.
• This credulous piece on homeopathic arnica spends a lot of text uncritically summarizing its health claims and mechanism while minimizing the fact that there's no evidence it works ("however, more research is needed"). It was written by a dietitian and personal trainer and underwent expert review by another dietitian.
• What Are the 7 Chakras and How Can You Unblock Them?, written by someone with a master's in counseling and medically reviewed by a yoga instructor. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on your post, I went back to look at the Tourette syndrome healthline author, and what I found is really weird. She appears to be a legit neurologist, but that doesn't mean she knows anything about TS. But as an indication that there are deeper problems at healthline.com, here she wrote a mostly accurate article for healthgrades.com. At about the same time (2022). If she's capable of writing (generally) acceptable content about TS, what went wrong at healthline? Are they just paid to rubberstamp rubbish without really checking, or what the heck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The TS healthline author is actually a nurse practitioner; the article was just "reviewed" by a legit neurologist. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming to correct that, and you beat me to it ... correct ... I was referring to the reviewer. In other words, she didn't even review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree Healthline should be deprecated, or at least considered generally unreliable. I think I've probably been duped by the "medically reviewed articles" bit in the past, I bet I've added it somewhere I shouldn't have as a result, thinking it was high quality as an RS. But these examples and the general evidence above has convinced me we should not consider it reliable, as what they consider "medical expert" is clearly not what Wikipedia considers expertise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think Healthline suffers from a problem with many health websites that see their audience wanting health-enhancing advice and not just health-fixing advice (compare with NHS). So they overstate the benefits and are overly credulous in much the same way as newspapers tend to be. Outside of that area, are they terrible? I know Sandy has VERY high standards for the topics she is concerned about, and many sources (including authors of reviews in professional journals) don't meet them. I had a look at their article on tuberous sclerosis and it is IMO absolutely fine. I had a look at epilepsy and didn't finish reading it but what I read seemed absolutely fine too. The language and style of the articles is heavily dumbed down. This has advantages (the general reader, wanting to add some sourced info on a disease, can at least understand the source) compared to what MEDRS might recommend (an -- often paywalled -- review using jargon and aimed at other neurologists). But when you start with dumbed-down source, it is difficult to raise the language level back up to more formal writing. But then that's not much different to the NHS website, and I wouldn't want to blacklist that.

Perhaps the best thing is to warn about its use for "wellness" topics. For general medical issues, it probably is ok, not ideal but not terrible. If someone wrote about "First aid for seizures" and cited Healthline, I don't think Wikipedia would be improved by an editor removing the source, removing the content or tagging the content as unreliably sourced. It would be fine, and a whole lot better than most people know about how to do first aid for seizures.

Btw, I get that blueberries are over sold as a superfood. But it isn't like someone is selling something harmful or just water or placebos. The claim above that they have "have meagre nutrient content" just just bunk. Of course fruit is mostly water, but these berries are packed with more of certain nutrients than other common berries and fruit that people eat as snacks or sides. We certainly want people/readers to eat them as part of a fruit & veg rich diet. Telling people their nutrient content is "meagre" is just as false as claiming they are "super" and more dangerous because the risk then is people think eat fruit-flavoured sweets or chocolate bars for their snack instead, telling themselves that blueberries are no better.

Another complaint. A "dietician" is a proper medical professional. Zefr's comment might make one think a GP or a cardiologist or a neurologist, being "properly medically qualified", might be better placed to talk about health effects of food. A dietician is absolutely the qualification one would want, and anyone who's dealt with a hospital dietician will know how professional and knowlegable they are. But like with anything, especially perhaps in the US, qualifications and learning can be put aside if one gets paid to write gushing articles about super foods. But I've been burnt by so called doctors writing on Wikipedia way beyond their area of expertise, to the point where what they write is nonsense and unintellible and they clearly don't understand the source text at all. So a "medical qualification" isn't a guarantee that someone is competent to write about all areas of medical knowledge. A cardiologist who once took a few lectures on epilepsy medications, aged nineteen and thirty years ago, is not imo an expert on epilepsy.

Lastly, wrt Healthline "cites individual primary studies". The rule against citing primary studies is a Wikipedia quirk because our editors are not assumed to have medical knowledge themselves. Applying that rule to other publications is wrong. The Lancet review that we might prefer to be used as a source also "cites individual primary studies", it just, hopefully, isn't so credulous and gushing. -- Colin°^Talk 09:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Colin - addressing the nutrient content of blueberries, 1) compare the analysis of our blueberry article where the Daily Values (for a 100 gram amount) only of vitamin C, vitamin K, and manganese are at moderate levels vs. a more nutrient-rich plant food like spinach. The blueberry nutrient contents are meager.

2) Then read again the sensationalism of unproven anti-disease benefits for blueberries in the Healthline article, "medically reviewed" by a dietitian (not a medical expert). One needs no better example of fabrication and misinformation than this for deprecating/blacklisting Healthline, and there are dozens of Healthline articles with similarly deceitful anti-disease claims.

3) Note also that anti-disease effects of the Healthline article derive from primary research and leaps of interpretation from preliminary unconfirmed findings to a headline on disease prevention. That is WP:SYNTH.

4) on your comment, "For general medical issues, it probably is ok": find one WP medical article or statement where a Healthline source exists now, and where a better MEDRS source isn't readily available. This is where WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDORG sources are needed; reviewing them proves that Healthline has no place in any of these guidelines. Zefr (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, Colin, but by allowing hosting of these marginal and sensationalized and inaccurate sources, we allow them to continue to exist (and in this case, they are doing nothing but paying professionals to rubberstamp rubbish). Wikipedia is big enough and important enough that we can be the factor that keeps them in business. If the student editors don't find these sources, they'll have to move on to real sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, readers would have no idea that we only consider Healthline "good enough" to cite for basic non-wellness things; what they would glean from a Healthline source being used in a medical article is that Healthline is an acceptable website for all medical information.

I also maintain there is a huge difference between a "medical professional" and a "medical expert", and another gulf between "expert" and "expert in the relevant field". A member of the American Society for Nutrition is what I would expect for the expert adviser on a medical nutrition article, not someone with a bachelor's in nutrition + internship (all that's required for an RD) or a master's. And I definitely would not want a dietitian who went anywhere near the Integrative and Functional Medicine scam. The blueberry article makes some egregious extrapolations from primary studies--like claiming a 4-week blueberry/apple juice regimen led to a 20% reduction in oxidative DNA damage when actually the study tested single-strand breaks induced by H2O2 tx in ex vivo lymphocytes collected after avoiding all antioxidant foods for 5 days and then again after the diet regimen (there was no separate control group), and the study itself states within the whole study population effects were modest and strongly biased by large inter-individual differences. Despite this, we did find a significant protection against H2O2-induced oxidative DNA damage. However, we also observed a significant increase in BPDE-DNA adducts induced ex vivo upon intervention.

Likewise, someone with a PsyD/PhD in psych is not qualified to be reviewing articles on TS written by a freelance writer, health reporter, and author with zero credentials. Predictably, there are several issues with the TS Healthline article, including the claim that There’s no known cure for TS, but most people can expect to have a normal lifespan. There is not enough longitudinal data to assert that "most" TSC patients will have a normal lifespan (certainly not without medical treatment! This source states Furthermore, although TSC patients are known to experience higher mortality than the general population, there are few reports on the death rate, standardized mortality ratio (SMR), and estimated life expectancy), and the article operates under the assumption that the patient is a child and will receive all necessary early interventions (as if universal healthcare is available everywhere). The writing suffers from the lack of sophistication expected of people with no training in biology, delivering such clumsy and ambiguous lines as Scientists have identified two genes called TSC1 and TSC2. These genes can cause TS, but having only one of these can result in the disease. Is this trying to say that a mutation in only one of the genes is needed for disease, or is it alluding to the fact that only one mutant allele of either gene is needed (autosomal dominant)?

There is legitimately no reason for Healthline to be used as a source anywhere when there are far better non-scammy sources available for every imaginable use-case. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Zefr compares blueberries with spinach and cites USDA raw data. The reason we don't allow editors to conduct original research is that they come up with misleading falsehoods based on their interpretation of primary sources, like "meagre" for the nutrient content of a healthy berry or do wrongheaded things like comparing a berry you eat as a snack with a leaf you typically eat in a cooked meal (compare instead with raspberry, strawberry or grapes if you want to consider an alternative). You cherry pick three nutrients out of dozens and compare 100g of each, when one might typically eat different weights of such things. If a source you wanted to attack did that, you'd use those mistakes against them. Later you accuse them of WP:SYNTH. Em, SYNTH is a Wikipedia only thing. Nobody outside of Wikipedia can ever commit that crime. They are allowed to do it. They might not be any good at it, but we let our sources do it, and if we didn't nobody would ever be able to draw conclusions.

You ask "find one WP medical article or statement where a Healthline source exists now, and where a better MEDRS source isn't readily available". That isn't how "reliable sources" or WP:V or even WP:MEDRS works. We have no rule anywhere on Wikipedia that editors can only ever use the best sources. Your opinion of "readily available" likely differs from most people and most potential editors. You might know to to use PubMed to find recent reviews that are freely available and to recognise decent journals from the predatory and dubious. Do you think many people using Pubmed to search for blueberry nutrition are going to pick the good stuff? Most people use Google, and that's what "readily available" means to them. And even assuming they find a good medical source, it may use jargon. Often it might just contain low-level information (like those USDA tables) that we absolutely can't just glance at and write things like "meagre" in our own words. In other words, those "MEDRS" sources are hard to find, hard to use and very easy to misuse. A source that tells it at a level our readers understand can have advantages for many editors wishing to write but as I said above, there can be problems with sources that lack depth.

Wrt picking holes in the TS article. These are minor flaws. Anyone here want me to review one of their Wikipedia articles and I can guarantee to find similar and write a whole paragraph about the flaws in one sentence. Again, that's not how we judge sources. For the record, I agree the two quoted sentences about the genes are wrong. It should say "A fault in one of these two genes can cause TS". (Essentially, you need both of these genes to be working to avoid TSC).

Wrt lifespan, its complex. The sentence you quote is essentially ok, and widely repeated in the literature (The NHS says the same thing). It used to be thought everyone with TSC was badly affected and all had learning disability, epilepsy and skin manifestations. But that was only picking up people in hospital or institutions. Population studies show more have it and don't know until they have a child who gets it worse. The whole question of what percentage of people with TSC (in a population) have X, Y or Z symptoms is difficult to ascertain if you only really get studied if you present in hospital. So the extreme variability of the condition makes it hard to write one sentence about lifespan. This paper attempts to estimate and comes up with a lifespan from birth of 70 years. I don't know their statistical methods enough to know if they attempt to include people with TSC who didn't end up as TSC patients in their hospital. I don't know how they work that out for people dying age 70 then (2019) who would have been born in 1949 and faced a remarkably different medical outlook (no MRI, limited brain surgery capability, few epilepsy drugs, life in an institution). My mind boggles really about how you might work out how long someone diagnosed age 1, say, with TSC might live? You'd have to, for a start, assume there no more medical advances, which based on recent advances, seems both unlikely and unfairly pessimistic. They compare this to the US average of 79 using this source and it was indeed correct in 2019 but has fallen since to 76. This UK source shows how going back even to the 1980s shows a big drop, particularly for men. But what is "normal". You could put your statistical pedant's hat on, or you could say well I guess it means I will likely grow old. And, em, 70 is old.

But would a MEDRS sourced claim "The lifespan for people born with TSC in the US in 2019 is 70 years" be any more educationally helpful or better than what Healthline say in their whole section. Our reader thinks, "Wow, my child with TSC is going to live to be 70. That's not bad." But that's just not true though. If their heart tumour is too big, they'll die shortly after birth. They may develop a blockage in their brain ventricle that requires a shunt, and then that gets infected and they die. In early teenage they may get a tumour growing in the brain that needs removed and they die on the table. In their twenties, they might get sudden death in epilepsy. In their thirties, their blood-rich tumour on their kidney might suddenly burst and they bleed to death on the way to hospital. If female, in middle age they may well get LAM and may die horribly or get a lung transplant, with all the risks of that. Or they may be lucky and rich enough to get one of the newer $$$$ TSC-specific drugs like everolimus. And even if medically physically healthy, they are prone to neurological and psychological issues, with all the risks to health and self harm that involves. I'm actually struggling right now to think of another condition that comes with more "ways you might die, but might not".

Yes, Healthline is aimed at a US/Western audience who are encouraged to get the best healthcare and with that they might live a long life. The Healthline article has a section "What Is the Long-Term Outlook for People with Tuberous Sclerosis?" and does say "Because symptoms vary so greatly in each person, so does long-term outlook" but you didn't quote that bit, because it doesn't help the case against them. It doesn't differ, fundamentally, from the "Outlook" section in the NHS page.

So, apart from missing "A fault in one of " when they mention the genes, what's the problem. You claim the "The writing suffers from the lack of sophistication expected of people with no training in biology". Well, for a start it is aimed at a general audience. Please read some of the NHS pages and you'll find extremely unsophisticated writing, and deliberately so. But do you really think "training in biology" comes with a "writing medical/scientific articles for a lay audience" module? I've reviewed and read enough Wikipedia articles written by doctors to know that is no guarantee of quality writing (or even, seeming to understand what they are writing about, and not getting basic stuff like prevalence and incidence confused). Look, any one of us can rant and pick faults, and their Wellness material is definitely to be avoided, but I think in terms of Wikipedia's requirements for sources, for standard medical content, I'm not seeing a general problem that is sufficient for a blacklist. -- Colin°^Talk 09:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would address more specifically whichever editors you're calling "you" since I did not say many of the things you claim "I" (or any one person) said.

Drawing clinical generalizations from single studies is discouraged for all tertiary health information providers, not just wikipedia. Healthline purports to be a tertiary source, not a secondary review article or medical journalism outlet (but medical reporters guidelines also strongly emphasize citing secondary evidence-based reviews over primary case control studies), so it should be held to higher standards in how it justifies an intervention. Wikipedia editors who do not know how to find and recognize high-quality readily-available biomedical sources should not be editing biomedical information in the first place, but when they do then having a filter to flag bad sources of info prevents us from unintentionally endorsing those sources.

Wrt picking holes in the TS article. These are minor flaws. Anyone here want me to review one of their Wikipedia articles and I can guarantee to find similar and write a whole paragraph about the flaws in one sentence. Again, that's not how we judge sources. For the record, I agree the two quoted sentences about the genes are wrong. It should say "A fault in one of these two genes can cause TS". (Essentially, you need both of these genes to be working to avoid TSC).

Stating in the first paragraph of a tertiary health information source aimed at laypeople that "people with TSC can expect to have a normal lifespan" is bad. The NHS source is orders of magnitude better because it faithfully reflects the heterogeneity in lifespan and morbidity and presents a realistic picture of potential treatment burden all in the same section:

The outlook for people with tuberous sclerosis can vary considerably.
Some people have few symptoms and the condition has little effect on their life, while others – particularly those with a faulty TSC2 gene or obvious problems from an early age – can have severe and potentially life-threatening problems that require lifelong care.
Many people will have a normal lifespan, although a number of life-threatening complications can develop. These include a loss of kidney function, a serious lung infection called bronchopneumonia and a severe type of epileptic seizure called status epilepticus.
People with tuberous sclerosis may also have an increased risk of developing certain types of cancer, such as kidney cancer, but this is rare.

This is in contrast to the outlook section on HL which is the last section. And the study that found a lifespan of 70 wouldn't be a MEDRS source anyway as it's primary (and focused on LAM), so how a hypothetical editor would use it on wikipedia is irrelevant. (Oh, and please do review my contributions to stable theory ;)).

If the extent of the problems with Healthline was just the tendency to dumb down material on disease overview articles to the point of ambiguity I wouldn't advocate for its deprecation. Of course I don't believe training in biology corresponds to effective lay medical writing; what I do believe is that a source that claims to provide "medically reviewed" medical information should be held to a higher standard than "psychologist/nurse with zero research background/expertise in anything relevant to the topic reviewing the output of an unqualified freelance health writer". The big issue is wikipedia implicitly endorsing the site as a whole by citing it for mundane statements that could easily be sourced from higher-quality MEDRS by any competent editor. Even if it has some accurate unobjectionable content, HL still contains thousands of articles directly platforming, promoting, or at least failing to criticize CAM nonsense (like natural treatments for Lyme disease, this What are the bet homeopathic treatments for tinnitus? article with the summary Homeopathy for tinnitus is not considered the first line of treatment, and research is mixed on its effectiveness (no, research is NOT "mixed"), or this mind-bogglingly uncritical and falsely-balanced article that presents debates over the safety and efficacy of administering diluted rabid dog saliva to a child (or as its blindingly disinformative search result summary states A homeopathic physician in Canada used saliva from a dog with rabies to treat a boy who was having behavioral problems after contracting rabies himself) as merely a difference in opinion among experts (quoting homeopaths (of course referred to as doctors) and a virologist as if they're on equal footing)). If a news site was spouting this type of shit it would be blacklisted immediately, we should not have a lower standard for MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious who I was talking to about blueberries and who about TSC. But sorry if it was confusing. You say "Healthline purports to be a tertiary source". Does it? I can't see that term anywhere on the site or on our Wikipedia article about them. WhatamIdoing can probably comment better on this matter, but in my understanding the PST source categorisation is down to what exactly the writer is doing in those sentences we might cite and not in what JoelleJay or any editor thinks they are. Our examples of what each of these three source categories tend to include are just examples and a given source may be primary for some things and secondary for others. That HealthLine is taking primary research science papers and writing about them when extolling the virtues of blueberries, say, makes them a secondary source for that particular set of facts (dubious or otherwise) and there's nothing you and I can do to say "No, you can't do that, because I say you are a tertiary source".

The "Hierarchy of Evidence" that the guidelines you link don't correspond with Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or guidelines about generally avoiding primary sources. That there is a hierarchy of evidence quality should of course be considered by any health writer, but their concern is not PST but the accumulation of weight of evidence in a statistically valid way using a scientific method of analysis.

At the top of the pyramid are "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses". These only cover, I don't know, a small percent of medical knowledge. Essentially, does it work, what harm does it do, and maybe when should I use it or avoid it. A meta-analysis might tell you that everolimus shrinks kidney tumours in TSC but won't tell you what percentage of people with TSC get them, why they get them, what they look like on a path slide or ultrasound or MRI scan, what the guidelines are for monitoring them, what the surgical approach is for handling a bleed... A systematic review won't tell you, other than as an aside perhaps, about the two genes involved and how TSC2 is contiguous with PKD1 so some people have faults affecting both. For that kind of information, we need literature reviews, fact sheets, advanced textbooks, etc. And those aren't mentioned in your journalism guidance because they aren't sources of news for a journalist to write about.

In medical writing outside of Wikipedia, there are no banned sources. Nobody wagging WP:SYNTH at you. There is indeed a hierarchy of evidence just as I suppose journalists have their views on whether they are being told political porky pies or reliable facts by their sources. But the point is whether someone is any good at it. The difference between the BMJ's news features covering the latest research findings and HealthLine's news features covering the latest research findings is down to how good their are, their degree of professionalism, and whether and how their readers respond to that quality or lack. They might both cite the same studies/sources. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So far, what I've learned from this discussion is that our articles on foods are missing information about serving sizes. A typical serving of blueberries weighs about three times as much as a typical serving of spinach. The 100-gram standardization lets you quickly compare berries against berries, but not berries against leafy greens. One serving of spinach has approximately the same amount of protein and many vitamins (but more fiber, some vitamins, and most minerals, except for Zinc and Phosphorus) as one serving of blueberries. For a healthy person (e.g., not on Coumarin, no iron-deficiency anemia), the real-world effect of eating some blueberries and eating some spinach is not very different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed someone had replaced a Healthline source with a ClevelandClinic source. So I followed that and found them pushing a story What You Should Know About Sugar Alcohols. That article cited several research studies of quite varying quality and size. For example "But a recent study shows that one sugar alcohol, erythritol, may be much worse for your health than anyone realized. It found that erythritol is closely associated with an increased risk for “major adverse cardiovascular events,” including heart attack and stroke." I can't read the whole paper, but just the abstract made me nervous. The Science Media Centre tears it apart. Another Are Spray Tans Safe at the bottom cites this study. Guess where that study sits at the hierarchy of evidence pyramid? I assume some medical editors think that source is fine as it is a big non profit health organisation, rather than just some money making website.

Wrt the Tuberous Sclerosis claim about "most people can expect to have a normal lifespan" your arguments now seem to boil down to a complaint that the section that fully covers the "outlook", mentioning that the disease "vary so greatly in each person, so does long-term outlook", is the "last section" as though putting "outlook" last in the order of sections is a crime worthy of blacklist. And you complain about the one sentence summary of that section being in the lead section (or as you put it "first paragraph of" -- it isn't the first paragraph, but actually the sixth, the very end of the lead). I'm not quite sure how the practice of summarising the body in the lead is also a crime worthy of blacklist.

The point of the 70-year-lifespan source wasn't that I thought a wikipedian should directly cite it, just that there is some evidence that 70-years might be an average. I'll leave citing a secondary source for that fact as an exercise for the reader, not important to our argument. I'm merely saying that we could describe the lifespan of TS in many ways and doing so in one short sentence is unlikely to give a full picture, and could be criticised. But then that's why it pays to read down to the end of the article.

Heathline sure has a lot of problems. But I think editors commenting here need to be very careful that their complaints stack up (e.g. there really wasn't anything wrong with the "normal lifespan" claim, and that's repeated by reliable sources) or that they are being used fairly (e.g. Cleveland Clinic is doing exactly the same thing as Healthline and while it likely isn't as credulous about the latest wellness rubbish, it makes exactly the same journalistic mistakes when citing weak studies and making bold claims). The Cleveland Clinic doesn't even name the "medical professional" who wrote/reviewed the work, so you can't go google them to trash their credentials. -- Colin°^Talk 13:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic is well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic and shouldn't be cited for these claims either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic, as evidenced by the fact that they fired the guy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do think JJ is right about that particular point (otherwise not wading into this entire back and forth). I think there's quite a few HQRSes whicsh support The Cleveland Clinic is well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic.

E.g. scholarly and otherwise HQRS mentions that Cleveland Clinic has a long history of promoting pseudoscience

Moreover, contrary to what is implied in the SIO's response, reiki and homeopathy are far from irrelevant to the practice of integrative oncology. Reiki, in particular, is offered to cancer patients in many academic medical centres (for example, the Cleveland Clinic)... The Cleveland Clinic, ranked the 2nd best hospital in the United States by U.S. News and World Report in 2017,40 runs multiple CAM centres, including the Wellness Institute, Centre for Integrative Medicine, Centre for Personalized Healthcare, Centre for Functional Medicine, and a Chinese herbal therapy clinic.41 Some of its CAM centres have received significant criticism over the years for having leaders that hold non-evidence-based beliefs that can cause harm to patients. Nevertheless, Reiki treatment, training, and education are now available at many esteemed hospitals in the United States, including Memorial Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, New York Presbyterian, the Yale Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Sources

CC is not alone in this, of course. But the overall trend for well-regarded academic medical centers to promote pseudoscience is precisely why we don't prefer such lay-facing sources in WP:MEDRS, as both you and Colin are definitely aware! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The comment above that banning a source prevents us from unintentionally endorsing those sources makes me think the community might have a difference in fundamental values – a different concept of the point behind citing sources.

Given the way that citation metrics are used in career advancement decisions, I understand that some academics are trying to cite only papers that they think are "deserving" (e.g., you cite the paper that already cited the hoax, instead of the hoax paper itself, to avoid boosting the citation impact for the hoax), and in some fields, to promote what's sometimes called citation equity by choosing papers, when you have a choice between reasonably equal options, that aren't from people who are already well up the existing structures of power and privilege (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing/Events/April&May23#Citation equity & justice and https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/ask-dr-editor/diversity-in-citation-practices-auditing-your-list-of-references-contributes-to-better-science/ for a little more on this). This has some tangible academic benefits (e.g., if you're writing about fertility, why wouldn't you mention the existence of single mothers, or poor people, or gay people, or teenagers, or child marriage, or religious minorities, or racial minorities, or immigrants, or prisoners, or all the other subgroups? Could it be that you didn't think about that subgroup because that's not part of your own personal background? Maybe if you took an hour to deliberate look for, e.g., what the women of color in your field are writing, you might discover something that would enhance your own work) but also has some non-academic effects (e.g., the authors of the paper you cite might have a slightly higher chance of getting tenure).

In this sense, I think there may be, among scholars, a sense that to cite a paper is, at some level, to endorse it.

On wiki, though, I think that we have traditionally cited sources just because they're convenient. Citing any plausible source (assuming it says the same thing that you put in the article) proves that your contribution is not original research, because even if the source is wrong or unsuitable, you didn't make it up yourself. Our significant bias towards open access sources is driven by practical forces: those are the sources that most editors can actually read. Citing a source isn't endorsing the source; it's just completing a relatively unimportant item on a basic checklist and moving on. After all, "smoking cigarettes raises your risk of lung cancer" is 100% true and WP:Glossary#verifiable regardless of whether the sentence is followed by a good source, a bad source, or no source at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the reliability of Healthline.

Wikipedia deprecates use of publications that routinely provide false or misleading material, even if not every article they put out suffers those issues. HL has a clear history of promoting harmful medical quackery, which is about as bad as you can get source-wise, and offers zero unique coverage that would warrant a whitelist since its articles are written by unqualified freelancers whose subjective interpretations we definitely DON'T want. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

We may not want it to use it, but I object to claiming that Wikipedia is "endorsing" any source that we cite. We use sources, but we don't endorse them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We aren't endorsing a source by using it. We also are not defaming a source in a legal sense by calling it "unreliable for our purposes". We, as a community, are making no claims wrt whether such sources are useful for other purposes outside of Wikipedia.

I think, in a colloquial sense, one could say that a pass at RSN is the community "endorsing" the source's general use in Wikipedia. But not an endorsement in any other meaning of the word. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I support a blacklist of Healthline. Healthline (which as a Red Ventures company has sister sites Medical News Today, PsychCentral, and Healthgrades) is not reliable. First, many of their articles will reference articles from PubMed Central with the annotation "Highly respected database from the National Institutes of Health". This is misleading because a listing in PubMed or PubMed Central does not indicate that a paper is reliable.

Second, many articles are low quality and "teach the controversy" about pseudoscientific topics. For example, Healthline has a "medically reviewed article "What Is Qi Deficiency, and How Is It Treated?" about a condition that does not exist. There are other articles legitimizing the pseudoscientific concept of Qi like this one "5 Acupressure Points for Gas and Bloating"

Third, Healthline has commercial ties to a number of dubious companies, and refers people to buy their products, sometimes contrary to mainstream medical recommendations. See this one: The 10 Best Vitamin B Complex Supplements, A Dietitian's Picks or their prominent supplement section. Worse, they have run sponsored content like this one: 5 Reasons To Love Integrative Therapeutics or this Here’s How This Next-Generation Probiotic Strain Can Transform Your Gut. There are also commercial links to some dubious at-home testing companies like Everlywell. Some tests, even if technically valid, should not be run without a doctor recommendation and high pre-test probability.

Fourth, many articles seem to have been created for SEO and social media sharing purposes rather than for any legitimate purpose. See examples by searching the site for the word banana.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More on Red Ventures and its priorities: Healthline was purchased by Red Ventures in 2019. To the extent that Healthline may have been reliable prior to the change of management, it is clearly not reliable now. Red Ventures also owns Bankrate, The Points Guy, CNET, Medical News Today, PsychCentral, Lonely Planet, and Healthgrades. After Red Ventures purchased CNET, it was reported that CNET was creating AI-generated content and content that was favorable toward advertisers and affiliates. In a 2021 NY Times article, a former Red Ventures employee said the company is “all about profit maximization.” Further:

The company [Red Ventures] found itself in the publishing business almost by accident, and is now leading a shift in that industry toward what is sometimes called “intent-based media” — a term for specialist sites that attract people who are already looking to spend money in a particular area (travel, tech, health) and guide them to their purchases, while taking a cut.

It’s a step away from the traditional advertising business toward directly selling you stuff. Red Ventures, for instance, plans to steer readers of Healthline to doctors or drugs found on another site it recently acquired, HealthGrades, which rates and refers doctors. Red Ventures will take a healthy commission on each referral.
— New York Times, 2021

ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Compelling information that speaks to how we evaluate reliability. CNET is already red-listed at WP:RSP; it sounds like we should be looking at all of Red Ventures rather than just Healthline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support blacklist. Healthline have been cranking out articles and videos supportive of cholesterol denialism and also publishing dangerous misinformation that saturated fat consumption is not a risk factor for heart disease. They have also published articles supporting alleged benefits of coconut oil which are based on weak evidence [12], the ketogenic diet [13], [14] etc. Not a reliable source for medical claims about health. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support deprecation and blacklist. Another Red Ventures-acquired content mill. Like CNET and so many other Red Ventures properties, chances are quite a lot of this is actually being created by AI now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support deprecation and blacklist The risk from allowing this source that I see is that it easily hoodwinks unknowing people into trusting its "medical review" and believing it's a reliable source, when it clearly isn't. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. During the discussion, I noticed User:Zefr, who proposed the blacklist, had replaced a HealthLine source with one from ClevelandClinic. When I accused the latter source of some of the editing approach that voters here had criticised HealthLine for, User:JoelleJay appeared to suggest that one should be binned too for being " well-known as a pseudoscience apologetic". Maybe we should ban the Lancet as well for being a well known promoter of fraudulent MMR research. I think the statement above "Wikipedia editors who do not know how to find and recognize high-quality readily-available biomedical sources should not be editing biomedical information in the first place" indicates what's going on here. Elitism. Well Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. What we've got here is a willy waving game by experienced Wikipedians with access to the finest sources who would rather that the great unwashed weren't allowed to edit here and pollute their articles with citations to publications they wouldn't be seen dead reading. I mean, HealthLine and Cleveland are clearly aimed at the general reader, not "experts like us". Finding flaws in others writing is an easy game and but this forum isn't here to boost our egos that we are better than that lot over there. They're the competition and so it seems we mustn't be seen to endorse them.

If folk want a medical encyclopaedia where only experts are allowed to edit, try MDWiki. I don't think Wikipedia should just give editors a bigger hammer with which to hit other (new) editors who haven't reached their level of expertise in policy and enjoy their privileged access to sources. This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is here for anyone to edit, and we live with that. -- Colin°^Talk 11:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right analogy. Lancet and Cleveland Clinic are top-notch at what they do (or at least in other areas of what they do), and make occasional mistakes (as does the NEJM from my typical Jankovic example). Lancet corrected their mistake (the NEJM didn't, but I digress). They aren't reliant on Wikipedia or search engine optimization to push their visibility or reputation or to gain links or clients.

These sources like Red Ventures publications gain traction via links on Wikipedia.

Regarding your concerns of elitism, I don't have journal access unless I travel an hour one-way. These days, there is so much open access publishing, and so many books available at archive.org or via google book excerpts, that I'm not convinced that there is as big of a problem in finding good sources as there was ten years or so ago. Yes, several times a year, I have to ask people if they can email me a journal source, but that's usually because I'm trying to take existing content to a higher level of sourcing (as opposed to the average student or new or casual editor). If a new or casual or student editor is doing a major rewrite or content addition to sources like healthline, the sooner their efforts can be reoriented, the better for all; they learn better sourcing sooner, we don't have to clean up later. I realize (and am frequently reminded that) I'm not a "typical" editor, but then those that are apparently considered "typical" don't seem to stick around for the long haul anyway (eg, Special:Contributions/Sm999). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that editors who lack the competence to edit medical articles shouldn't be editing medical articles. Part of that competence is understanding MEDRS. With sooo many open access sources, plus the likes of scihub, we don't have any reason to permit poor-quality sources just because they might be the ones hypothetical new editors will use. There is a gigantic difference between "knowing how to use and find MEDRS" and "being a topic expert", so don't act like expecting the former is elitism.

Regarding Cleveland Clinic, several of its centers peddle alt med propaganda.[15][16] JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You are not going to find a medical journal or website dealing with nutrition that is entirely devoid of fringe science or pseudoscience. At some time or another journals make mistakes and publish nonsense, it is all down to quantity (in this case how often they do it). The British Medical Journal has a good tract record but have published a minority of papers supportive of acupuncture and have an editor who promotes vaccine misinformation. This does not mean the journal is unreliable. Cleveland Clinic may have published an article supportive of functional medicine but this doesn't invalidate the website or the good work they do, just like The BMJ is not invalid because they published some stupid papers on acupuncture. 99% of the time they are not doing this. Healthline is different because they are promoting fringe science, pseudoscience and nonsense about nutrition pretty much all of the time, similar to Frontiers Media. I don't think we should compare Healthline to the Lancet, BMJ or Cleveland Clinic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't compare HL to any journals. I'm just saying the Cleveland Clinic panders to alt med junk with its functional medicine centers and therefore is not a good source for anything touching on the fringe stuff it offers. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, the accusation of elitism was specifically at JoelleJay who quite explicitly stated that until editors reach their standard they should not edit at all. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Look, I get it that Healthline is awful for wellness stuff. But I also get that someone adds to our article what the symptoms excess sweating are or whether a drug is legal in the US or some other non-wellness fact, and currently they are having their edits removed or their source removed (making the claim unsourced) with a notice about "Healthline SPAM" which is a bad-faith accusation. When this proposal passes, as it seems to be, presumably they'll be unable to press the Save button or something like that. So, totally unable to edit Wikipedia with a non-contentious fact.

Did this edit improve Wikipedia? The article was unsourced entirely. The citation to Healthline was added six years ago by an editor who is a general practitioner and it appears a highly experienced Wikipedian (on multiple projects). We now again have an article that is entirely unsourced. I clicked on the source that was removed. It has a fantastic 3D diagram of the muscle in the neck that you can rotate about. Are their pages (they appear to have many) on the "Human Body" unreliable. I suspect not. Are their pages on general human body processes and diseases and disorders unreliable. I reckon generally they are not. But we are now going to prevent new editors from improving Wikipedia until they've achieved expert MEDRS status.

When I started on Wikipedia, I was translating a patient information leaflet that was in French into English (with Google Translate) and adding information about a drug that wasn't available anywhere in English. I made lots of mistakes about sourcing. It took me a while to realise you needed to read the whole paper and which kind of paper we wanted. I don't think I'm alone in having that kind of editing path. But the attitude of some here is to attack the newbies for not being perfect. In the fight against wellness nonsense and alternative crap, we end up making this the encyclopaedia only experienced exiting editors can edit, and the encyclopaedia with entirely unsourced random stuff. WP:MED went bad when it forgot to allow people to be imperfect. When having a list (as Zefr has linked to above) with which to go around removing good faith contributions and accusing others of adding "SPAM" to Wikipedia. Remove the wellness shit because it is shit, not because you are concerned with SEO.

Wrt open access, those editors with easy access to paid journals continue to have a huge advantage. But elitism is not just about access. It is about drawing up the ladder once you've made it. About denying a new editor base a chance to get on board. WP:MED went really bad in that regard, praising editors who spent all day bashing newbies. I don't want that mentality to return. Sure, we have a battle against misinformation and promotions of nonsense, but we also have a project that simply does not have enough editors to write and maintain what we have built. -- 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 09:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get it that Healthline is awful for wellness stuff. But I also get that someone adds to our article what the symptoms excess sweating are or whether a drug is legal in the US or some other non-wellness fact, and currently they are having their edits removed or their source removed (making the claim unsourced) with a notice about "Healthline SPAM" which is a bad-faith accusation.
@Colin, it seems to me this is a good argument for classifying Healthline as "Option 2" or "Option 3", but not blacklisting it. Particularly "additional considerations" option 2. Since it could still be useful for uncontroversial health claims outside of the wellness sphere. And, most of all, that it's use as a MEDRS has a lot more to do with the credentials and reputation of the author rather than HealthLine. Fair? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Restricting usage of an, at best, low-quality lay-source is not gatekeeping wikipedia editing, come on. No one has to be a MEDRS expert to find alternative sources for the very basic information someone would be using HL to cite. The "spam blacklist" explicitly encompasses links that were never spammed (some sites which have been added after independent consensus), so a notice saying

Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist. [...] Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: healthline.com

is not a "bad-faith accusation" of anything, it's a non-judgmental request to replace the offending link with a better source. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Depracate and blacklist per this article: [17]. This article does nothing but push pseudoscientific nonsense. In my opinion, Healthline does not maintain a lot of rigor. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• We're getting into TL;DR territory here, so I just started querying various topics that could be problematic, following the indications at the top. First test: crystals. Crystals for Sleep says there's no scientific evidence, but spends most of the article interviewing a "modern alchemist" as though they're an expert. Crystals for Manifestation. [...]. Next test: Reiki. How to use Reiki Principles to Boost Well-Being doesn't address the [lack of] science. Next test: GMOs. GMO Apples, Potatoes Hitting Store Shelves appears to serve the primary purpose of casting doubt on the safety of GMO foods. This one isn't too problematic, but does spend a lot of time talking about things that it then says aren't backed up by research (e.g. The main concerns around GMOs involve allergies, cancer, and environmental issues — all of which may affect the consumer. While current research suggests few risks, more long-term research is needed sure makes it sound like there are substantiated concerns). None of this is particularly promising, even if it's not as bad as the worst offenders in this space (Natural News, etc.). The thing is, it's already a site that focuses on biomedical content which fails WP:MEDRS, so the only reason to deprecate/blacklist is if (a) there aren't other uses for it (I haven't seen any), and (b) it's frequently added (that sounds like the case). Support deprecation, no strong opinion about blacklisting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

help with link spam to copyvio references at worldradiohistory.com

Per WP:COPYVIO, Wikipedia does not allow links to copyvio material, and that includes when linked from a reference. In investigating such links, I've found an egregious pattern of aggressively linking to worldradiohistory.com. This site hosts PDF scans of broadcast and music industry magazines, like Billboard (magazine), Broadcasting & Cable, Broadcasting, and so on.

There were about 2000 such links in the encyclopedia. I've cleaned up a couple hundred links, most notably in WGN America and in Superstation. Through these edits, I've convinced myself that these links are deliberately placed with great frequency:

• One {{cite web}} tag per page, rather than a range of pages in one tag
• Use of links in external links for parameters like page= in order to have more links
• dense referencing patterns, suggesting superfluous references to again increase the number of links

so I've become suspicious that these are deliberately placed as link spam, maybe for SEO or ad revenue or something else.

Here are some diffs of my fixes:

• changes at WGN Sports
• changes at WGN America
• changes at Superstation

What is the best way to fix these? Editing them out is quite tedious. Can the worldradiohistory.com website be blacklisted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging radio expert @Sammi Brie who may know more about this website. —Kusma (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

So there are a few pieces to this puzzle, Mikeblas and Kusma.

• I actually that I have a minor COI, not with the content hosted on it but with the site itself (I've contributed some non-content-related material to it). I also know the founder from being on the same discussion forums about radio. For what it's worth, the site FAQ notes, Much is used with the owner's permission but we can not sell it. Further, fulfillment would be a great burden for a non-profit site. There is also a take-down policy (which uses the site's former domain and name), and I have seen some publications removed at publisher's request. If more information is warranted, I can see about putting you in touch with the founder. I suspect some of the site's oldest US material (though probably not much-cited) could be PD, as there are some 1920s radio magazines in the catalog.
  • The take-down policy reads as follows: www.americanradiohistory.com makes digital versions of collections and publications accessible in the following situations: 1) They are in the public domain 2) In the case of periodicals, the journal ceased publication and no apparent rights holder is accessible wherefore abandonment is assumed. 3) www.americanradiohistory.com has permission to make them accessible 4) The item is out of print and the publisher can not be located for further clarification. 5) We make them accessible for education and research purposes as a legal fair use, or 6) There are no known restrictions on use.
• I know exactly the user who can be pinpointed to the referencing patterns, multi-page misuse, and dense style: User:Tvtonightokc. His page and writing style is so unbelievably dense that it has caused me concern for years—a concern I've raised on his user talk with little success (Special:Diff/1073719486). (Try reading KWTV-DT vis-a-vis KFOR-TV!) There is a reason that some of my GAs in this field actually saw a 40-percent or more decline in readable prose size when I worked on them. I also find myself fixing lots of these "individual-link" errors when I work on pages he has edited heavily.
• And I've added probably thousands of links myself in working on hundreds of such pages. I know Broadcasting and Radio & Records are also in ProQuest, but not in TWL's subscription to it, and later years of Broadcasting & Cable articles are in Gale General OneFile (which TWL has). Converting refs to use database links will be a chore galore, though it should be possible for a user even with TWL ProQuest access to search by article title of non-full-text items.

I'm hopeful there's some sort of solution where everything doesn't have to be wiped, but I obviously understand this as a site policy concern. Pinging someone I know who should also see this discussion immediately, Nathan Obral. I am also on Discord if you need further coordination. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the site is on very weak IP territory. I don't see the FAQ you're quoting, but what you quote ("abandonment is assumed" ... "educational fair use") just isn't the way copyrights work. The disclaimer visible on the site is more of the same. If the site did have permission to redistribute complete issues of magaiznes, it would claim so clearly and unambiguously.

Not everything needs to be wiped. It's just that the links need to be removed to comply with WP:COPYVIO. You can see this in the diffs I posted -- magazine, issued date (or number and volume), and page number remain; the link goes, and the via= param goes with it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe 2). and 4). are valid copyright exemptions. Per WP:COPYVIOEL ..links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Abandonment or being unable to contact the publisher doesn't mean copyright is no longer in effect, and isn't fair use. 6). Also seems shaky as copyright exists unless established otherwise (e.g. it has entered the public domain or the creator of the work has given up the copyright to the public). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Before sanitizing the links, let's get the problem pages figured out and dealt with first. Especially if the sourcing issues are coming from Tvtonightokc and his incredibly dense writing style, which has absolutely frustrated me over the years.

Sammi Brie and I entirely blew up 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment and rewrote the whole thing AND are in the process of merging that with Repercussions of the 1994–1996 United States broadcast TV realignment. You can see here how badly bloated and unreadable both pages were here and here. I noticed there were things poorly attributed, with one urban legend existing on MULTIPLE pages because of a long-dead website, Michiguide.com (here. here and here.)

Point being, this is an eternal cleanup job, and using WRH has helped my cause with trying to tackle all this stuff alongside Newspapers.com and NewsBank. (Sammi has access to GenealogyBank, I don't.) Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why shouldn't the links to copyvio be removed (to promptly the WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYVIOEL policies) before re-writing the articles? It seems straight-forward (but tedious) to relieve the links, but rewriting a couple dozen articles will take a long time. Maybe I've misunderstood something. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that there exists no choice but to rewrite the articles in question. When I redid the realignment articles, I made it a concerted effort to retain as little of the original text as I could, effectively working under the mindset it WAS riddled with copyvios (including redoing all of the inline refs, which were poorly set up and often didn't include things like page numbers).

I noticed the changes on WKEF and it is actually inexcusable that the local paper (the Dayton Daily News) isn't cited at all in the station's early years. There is no reason for Broadcasting magazine to even be used in an article like that unless it was for some unavoidable reason. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably a less confusing way to say this is, the articles are more the problem here and need to be addressed, no matter what. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time responding to limiting statements like "no choice but to rewrite", "there is no reason", and "no matter what". I think it's quite viable to remove the offending copyvio links leaving the complete (but lin-linked) date/issue citations behind. That can be done promptly, and any overall editorial concerns about the articles themselves can proceed concurrently and takes a long as needed -- but the copyvio issue needs to be addressed. Why do you exclude that path ... and all others? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This merits a comprehensive technical solution than just stripping out the URLs. I’m currently brainstorming a possible method that could be tried. YES it will mean more work in the short term but will spare incredible headache in the future trying to backdate ProQuest template insertions and not knowing what pages need to be fixed. The current stripping out doesn’t do me or Sammi Brie any favors as we need a path to find a solution first.

I have to consult others more technically versed to see if my idea is even workable before I propose it here, so I please ask for the benefit of some time here. But this can be handled in a much better way that can at least help me and Sammi and others. The current proposal is more a hindrance to us than a help, moreso because Sammi is the only one right now capable of FIXING them due to WMF not having the necessary PQ libraries on hand in the Wikipedia Library, I’m terribly limited here.

And yes, I stand by my assertion that the aforementioned articles need to be rewritten wholesale anyway, as further elaborated by Wcquidditch below. The topic fields of TV and radio have numerous articles that make me and Wcquidditch and Sammi cringe to no end, even as all three of us (and numerous other editors) have been working our butts off trying to fix them all. That to me remains a core problem here regardless. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The copyvio link policies exist because Wikipedia is negatively affected by such links. I don't think those policies have escapes for editor convenience. ProQuest is a subscription service, so updating links to point to it only benefits the few people who have access to ProQuest (and who have a subscription that includes access to those collections, and ...) I'm sorry, but I don't think the correction of the URLs should wait. "FIXING them" means removing the copyvio URL.

My understanding is that Sammie wants to convert the deleted links to ProQuest links. Presumably, they'd want add ProQuest links any appropriate reference (any references to Billboard or C+B, for example), not just any reference that used to have a URL pointing at copyvio material. Solving that problem isn't requisite to eliminating the copyvio issue as far as I can tell. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I strenuously and vigorously object to this insistence that only one solution can be had. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater without a fair and proper assessment of usage of links in WRH is wrong and I oppose it completely. It’s already been shown that some of the publications are in fact public domain or hosted on the website by the blessing of the publisher, so the blanket copyvio claims for every link on the site is entirely inaccurate and presents a larger array of problems in the long run for WPRS and TVS, denigrating those articles further than they are.

I simply cannot abide by such rash and harsh reasoning that we have no choice but to do something so rigid and inflexible. There has to be a much better solution to this problem. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Superstation... the article just needs to be redone outright. It's too burdensome and cumbersome to even be workable and I can't see how the subject matter is even remotely accessible to the lay reader who knows nothing about the intricacies of broadcasting. Same with WGN America. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 01:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the WorldRadioHistory links from Superstation (and a few other articles). -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re better off excising the affected sections or sending the entire article to AfD as it is impossible to rehabilitate them. The articles remain the problem and I remain steadfast on that. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Just a note, I've started overbuilding some of the Broadcasting (& Cable) references in articles of mine with the ProQuest IDs associated with them, e.g. Special:Diff/1157508502. I am going to need an army to do this on probably thousands of pages, and the fact that WMF does not have in its ProQuest bundle the right database will make this slightly more difficult for other users to carry out. (If anyone from WMF is listening, you want Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive, collections 1 and 2, which will solve the most-used WRH publications.) Plus, that still doesn't cover annuals; books; and other sundry matter. Another courtesy ping to Wcquidditch, one of our broadcasting editors at volume who will want to see this and who has probably added another large number of these links. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  As it happens, I already knew of this discussion and was already preparing a response! Couldn't there be some way to automate (with a bot or other tool) the removal of the links in question? That would probably aid with the tediousness. (Bad writing styles are a problem that should be dealt with too, particularly when they are as much of a chore to read as to edit — but not necessarily with the urgency of anything related to copyright policy.) As for sunsetting WRH as a path to cite these magazines… as someone who, admittedly, has (as Sammi Brie correctly noted) often used it to help source broadcasting-related articles, I have wondered at times whether its use actually complied with policy or has been a topicwide systemic linkvio. (This topic area has often been terrible at strict adherence to policies and guidelines over the years — off the top of my head, too many station articles still have non-free former logos that need to go, many more still bold the applicable letters of a call sign meaning against the MoS, the topic area was rather lax on notability for a long time, the perennial problems with OR, synthesis, and crystal ballery (and a lot of those can bring us back to what Nathan Obral said about the articles are more the problem here) — so uncovering another policy issue might be anticlimatic to some.) I cannot say I am completely surprised someone, after all these years, finally brought this up to a noticeboard.

  One additional note: Any cleanup of these links should also take into account the 12,347 links to americanradiohistory.com, the site's previous name, and the remaining 504 (mostly dead) links to davidgleason.com, the personal site of WRH's proprietor which housed its content early on. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Any link removal should be coordinated with a ProQuest ID tagging (as what Sammi Brie mentioned above). I do not have access to this because it's not a part of PQ's offerings in the Wikipedia Library. I don't know if bots are capable of things like that... Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Wcquidditch Removing the links is trivial if something like GreenC bot can handle this. But yes, I agree with a lot of what you have said. This field has had a years-long odyssey to anything approaching respectability and some really painful moments. For the benefit of non-topic editors, we had an RfC about adhering to MOS:ACRO and an attempt to update the SNG that was turned back with a suggestion to conform to the GNG, which may explain the state we're in. More broadly, is there a utility that can find ProQuest IDs (including some fuzzy matches) for a source given a date, possible title, and publication to search? If it exists, it would need to run on a lot of pages, but it would solve the vast majority of the issues with the most-used publications. The rest would likely be intractable annuals, books, and other material. There are also some 1920s publications, and possibly pre-1964 books, that would be PD in the US. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've written a tool that removes the links (and: via= and access-date=, plus any archive-tags, and converts the reference to {{cite magazine}}). That removes all the link information and leaves the publication name, issue date, and page number information -- all still available for a viable reference, and all supporting any conversion that might be desired in the future.

  This is working pretty well, but I don't want to fully automate it because I wouldn't be able to do adequate testing. I need to review the changes it makes each time before submitting them. WRH seems to be linked dozens of times from individual articles, while ARH seems to be linked here and there -- sometimes often, but only a few times per article. That makes cleanup slower. Also, this tool only addresses {{cite web}} references; raw external links aren't parsed because they don't have a consistent structure.

  So far, I've done this for:Loring Buzzell, List of Billboard number-one singles of 1941, KFDA-TV, KTVQ (Oklahoma City), TBS (American TV channel), WGN-TV, KOCO-TV, and KOTV-DT ... and probably a few others. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  • A note: my overbuild process for references has identified so far at least one publication so far for which no copyright renewal was ever filed that is in WRH's holdings, Radio Guide. [18] This publication probably should be exempted from link removal. There are also likely more obscure pre-1963 periodicals that are not specifically called out as non-renewed in the first renewals for periodicals listing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

    An audit should be done for all of the publications in WRH and to see what legitimately falls in PD and what doesn’t. A few of my Commons uploads survived a deletion request after verifying that a WGAR promotional album hosted in WRH (which I list in the bibliography for WHKW, by the way) did not file a copyright renewal and actually WERE verified PD. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 12:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

    • Duncan's American Radio should also be exempt — the author has given permission for the hosting of the scanned magazines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

David Gleason has been praised for amassing and digitizing his collection of magazines. The worldradiohistory.com website is described as trustworthy, used by scholars for research.[19] When people on Wikipedia are citing a magazine page hosted by a trustworthy online source, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, they do not need to cite the hosting service.

That said, if other editors want to check the cited source, the URL from worldradiohistory.com gives quick access. I would not like to see these convenient links removed. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm also compelled to point out, for what it's worth, that when modern-day Broadcasting+Cable marked its 90th anniversary in 2021, they linked to both the first issue of Broadcasting from 1931 as well as the 1982 obituary of co-founder Sol Taishoff… and in both cases, they linked to the copies hosted on World Radio History. Make of that what you will (even if it is little more than the periodical equivalent of a TV station embedding an unofficial YouTube upload of their own coverage of an old news story, something I've run into at least once)… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Where they have the licence from the copyright holder to host the material it's not a problem, but as I said in my previous comment "the rights holder can't be found" is not a copyright exemption. Being a useful research source isn't an exemption either. I don't doubt the site is trustworthy and that the content they are hosting is being preproduced faithfully, the fact the discussion is happening at RSN and not the copyright board muddies the issue at hand. If the copyright of something they are hosting cannot be verified it must not be linked to, WP:COPYVIO is quite clear about that. The reference to the magazine can stay, again this isn't really an RS issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Broadcasting's history and lineage can be best described as convoluted. Sol Taishoff bought several publications over the years and merged them into the magazine (even Broadcasting was born out of a 1933 merger with the even older Broadcast Advertising!) which is why you see the magazine titled in the 1950s as “Broadcasting—Telecasting”. The current rights holders might be maintaining a copyright either through Taishoff or Cahners but it’s not something that I can say with 100 percent assurance. Nor do I know about the status for the merged publications. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wcquidditch: A few days after you posted this, it kinda makes me wonder if B+C’s legal counsel is even aware that a third-party website is hosting back issues of their publication. But that B+C linked to one of these files in WRH for a recent story on their website, it unintentionally conveys endorsement on their part, does it not? This is not, NOT a clean-cut situation and B+C needs to clarify their stance as much as David (Eduardo) Gleason does. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The vast majority of the sources there that get cited appear to be books or magazines; it's possible to still use the site for one's research and simple fill out the relevant {{Cite book}} or {{Cite magazine}} without entering a URL field. We might have an issue with WP:COPYVIOEL here with respect to some back-copy texts, but I don't think that's reason to blacklist the whole website. I don't think it's any worse than archive dot org's user-uploaded content, and I doubt we'd blacklist the internet archive even though they presently host (for example) a full-length upload of Gone with the Wind, a film that came out in 1939 and is still copyrighted. It is an individual editor's responsibility to use the site responsibly, just as we do with the Internet Archive, but I think this can be managed without a whole-site blacklisting at this point. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  At this point, the fact that a wholesale blacklisting under blanket copyvio claims is even a thing and already taken place has incensed me to the point where I cannot in good conscience continue as an editor in these topic fields. I am completely opposed to offline sourcing in TVS and WPRS and find it particularly grating that I now longer have no access to correct actual cases of copyvio by other editors. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

About Issue*wire, stylised as Issue*Wire

Hi all,

Apologies if this is malformed - "Before starting an RfC please consider: is your question a one-off, or is it project-wide? Is it about reliability or prominence?" - posting on this page generates an RfC?

This website describes itself as "PRESS RELEASE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK Distribute your Press Release to over 150+ media outlets, magazines, major news outlets. Get Genuine Media Coverage and Exposure at Major Media Outlets" at https: //www. issuewire. com/

It is currently (5 Jun 2023) used as a reference in these articles:

• 2021 Azad Kashmiri general election, reference 7
• Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, reference 8
• Sushil Kumar 'Indu' Tiwari, reference 6
• Binod Chaudhary, reference 40
• Tom Morello discography, reference 70
• Santia Deck, reference 6
• Vasant Gajera, reference 4
• Bahari Ibaadat, reference 9
• NEC Software Solutions, reference 12
• List of press release agencies, reference 7 ?!
• Francisco Burgos, reference 4
• Horwitz Publications, reference 12
• Edmonton Soccer Dome, reference 23

It would appear to me that citations from a website that advertises itself as generating press release copy for other press releases would not be in any way considered a reliable reference.

Your thoughts about this?

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Press releases distribution companies generally host and have their byline on press releases generated their clients. Press releases are considered usable under the strictures of WP:ABOUTSELF. There are examples in your list of both proper use (Uncle Nearest, a whiskey company talking about its history and distribution) and improper (Horowitz Publications, with a comic book seller talking about a used comic book they are offering.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• edited to avoid black-listed website

Facepalm I should have know better when I clicked Publish changes and the relevant edit filter disallowed my edit before posting. As for Horwitz Publications, I see no issue whatsoever here. As for Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, I would first ask that a very large sample of their sippin' whiskey be sent to Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 at his home address <redacted>, <redacted>, Melbourne, Australia, as an interim discussion point.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your experience drinking the whiskey cannot be used as a reliable source on the whiskey itself, under WP:SELFSOUSED. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

LWN.net

LWN.net both publishes articles with editorial oversight, they edit submissions. They state they require a high level of technical competence for publishing articles.

However, they also re-publish mailinglist posts, I think for archiving purposes. Nothing wrong with that, but I would like to establish some reliability regarding wikipedia policies. I propose:

• Reliable for technical articles and establishing notability
• Primary source for published mailinglists

PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, we don't really need an RFC for this. LWN is treated as an RS in practice - they're an actual publication with standards and a tremendous respect in their field, but reprints are extremely obviously reprints. Is this a live issue in dispute somewhere? - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard Yes, see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158802872

I believe that a whole paragraph based on an e-mail that was re-published by LWN has no place on Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In the first instance, we could just say: @Yae4: it's really pretty clear that's a mailing list reprint, not an editorial piece, and it's standard practice that press releases are treated as press releases even when a publisher runs them - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the suggestion is generally correct for how to treat LWN. There are some LWN posts that blur the line a bit (mostly reprinting a mailing list post with some commentary) but their articles and analysis are clearly reliable and their pure mailing list posts should be treated almost as if you were citing them on a straight mailing list, but I think it makes them more valuable for citing simple facts which we do sometimes cite to PR/announcements about the subject themselves.

In this case in particular, however, I think that using the mailing list post to cite the certification by FSF is acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE since the X200 is otherwise discussed there? It probably should be cited to LWN in prose even if used as the source in the cite and just say something like "In 2015, the FSF announced that..."? Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

PhotographyEdits, (1) It was a single sentence. Calling it a paragraph is misleading, even if the single sentence stood by itself pending copy-edit. (2) It was emailed to LWN.net, but calling it a mailing list post is also misleading (see below for FSF cite).

David_Gerard, Even if it is a "press release", WP:PRSOURCE says "Press releases cannot be used to support claims of notability and should be used cautiously for other assertions." I used it cautiously to introduce and go with the immediately following PC World source summary on the same info'. Similar for a later ZDNET cite. IMO, it adds some weight and credibility when another independent publisher chooses to re-publish the announcement, with or without comment. FWIW, LWN.net today says it [has discontinued its press release section] to free time for more interesting news. I agree the FSF announcements were dull. IMO typical FSF announcements are not typical press releases, because they do not fit the mold of in general "have effusive praise, rather than factual statements." To the contrary, FSF announcements are more bland and factual. LWN.net does not appear to practice "churnalism". AFAIK they didn't publish every "press release" or announcement they received. The same basic info appears on "news" at FSF[20], where an update was added saying "This page was edited on May 19, 2017 to reflect the fact that this product is discontinued"; updates like that are a sign of "reliability" IIUC. I would have cited that, but wanted to postpone that discussion.

Skynxnex, Yes the X200 is covered a couple times: a mention citing Linux Journal, and the ZDNET source covers Libiquity's Taurinus X200. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

An outlet running a press release does not give the press release any weight. In fact, even barely reskinning a press release tends to be treated as just the press release in AFD or NCORP discussions - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The guidance quoted above does not say "press releases" cannot be used. Any opinion on citing the FSF "news" source directly? -- Yae4 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> t was a single sentence. Calling it a paragraph is misleading

That depends. See: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/paragraphs/

>A paragraph is defined as “a group of sentences or a single sentence that forms a unit” (Lunsford and Connors 116).

I think it was a 'unit' because of whitespace around it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling it "a whole paragraph" when it was a single sentence, makes it sound like more than it was. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Correction to what I said above about their editorial policy on re-publishing announcements: I observed as of April 2023, they were still publishing FSF announcements[21]. So, if they actually stopped as they said they did[22], as mentioned above, it was very recently. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• LWN is a reliable source. It can be used to establish newsworthiness, because what gets included in the weekly issue (even if it's republished and linked from the issue) is selective. That doesn't magically eliminate any conflicts of interest the authors may have, so of course one always needs to apply the usual care in using sources as with everything else. Nemo 06:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT

I don't think ChatGPT is a reliable source. The website itself claims that it may produce inaccurate or misleading content, and the WP article about it states that it has been accused of having left-leaning biases despite it claiming to be neutral, and the accusations were confirmed on a paper written about it in which the writer conducted 15 different political orientation tests on it (see ChatGPT article for more details). Also, when you ask it to cite sources in MLA, APA, etc. it might make up sources. It also makes up stuff *very* often. Should ChatGPT be listed as "generally unreliable" at the Perennial Sources? Félix An (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT output isn't 'published', it is an unverifiable one-off non repeatable response to user input, and thus can't legitimately be cited as a source in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Perennial sources are only for sources that have been discussed multiple times. ChatGPT is an obviously unreliable source so it does not need to be listed. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 09:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Some people might not know that though, especially newer editors, so it would be wise to put that before an influx of ChatGPT citations start coming in. I stand firmly by WP:ETN, and by making the citation policies clearer for newcomers, it is easier for them to make constructive edits. Félix An (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia opinion is pretty much to kill anything AI-generated with fire. So perhaps a more general note on ChatGPT and similar tools might be appropriate.

There's been discussion on wikimedia-l about use of ChatGPT in writing. I personally would like to discourage it, but a lot of people do find spicy-autocomplete useful as an assistive writing tool if they're mindful of their responsibility for every word in the output ... but that's probably not an RSN issue - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the essence of the draft WP:LLM policy. ~UN6892 ^t_c 13:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT usually lets out nonsense, jokes and hoaxes, who will think that is a reliable source? List these to blacklist if being repeatedly added. -Lemonaka‎ 02:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The perplexity.ai chatbot shows the sources it used in generating a response. -- GreenC 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not impressed: by this attempt. Brought there by RfC at Talk:Fifth_Industrial_Revolution. Burn it down? -- Yae4 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Was that article AI-generated? Félix An (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Supposedly, the starting stub. The edit summary when article stub was started says,

"as edited by Jean.julius... at 01:07, April 14, 2023 (Stub created using references and ChatGPT - an example of how human - machine co-learning is possible in a forthcoming 5IR. You may also help in expanding the article.)."

Aquillion just cleaned up some of the poor sourcing and BS (Thanks).

-- Yae4 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Google searches to establish common name - one book shows up about 5080 times

I hope this is the right place. At Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move 7 June 2023 we are discussing using Google sources. A Google scholar search for "Genesis story"[23] gives about 14,000 hits. Besides the fact that I'm not sure that at times it isn't picking up the two words separately, not as a phrase,[24] the book Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought shows up about 5080 times.[25] And of course Google scholar picks up unpublished works, self-published works and fringe. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Should I bring this up somewhere else? Doug Weller talk 07:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller: Google Books Ngrams Viewer -- GreenC 06:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC Yes, but how does that meeet my concerns? I see criticisms of it on various grounds not including my comments about self-published and fringe sources. Our article on it says "it is risky to use this corpus to study language or test theories". Doug Weller talk 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Trans Safety Network

Website: https://transsafety.network

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13739860

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13739860/officers

The website in question is operated by a Community Interest Company (CIC), which is managed by four officers, as per the provided link.

The central concern surrounding this source is its lack of independence and neutrality, which are crucial attributes for reputable journalistic or blog media. It is essential to note that this website is a commercial venture based in the UK and is actively managed by LGBTQ activists. These circumstances potentially render it unfit to be classified as an "independent source" for contentious claims in the LGBTQ sphere, given its inability to maintain impartiality and objectivity on the topics it discusses. A pertinent example can be observed in its critique of other organizations, such as SEGM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine

The article in question has been cited six times on the page: https://transsafety.network/posts/segm-uncovered/

In the aforementioned instance, an activist from the organization makes contentious remarks about members of a different organization. This doesn't align with journalistic norms or the standards of an expert-authored article. Rather, it appears as a form of activism and personal opinion from an actively involved organization, devoid of neutrality on the discussed subject matter. Consequently, the reliability of this organization as a source of contentious opinions or statements on LGBTQ topics is highly questionable, which leads me to advocate for its revaluation as an appropriate source on Wikipedia for contentious topics in the domain of the LGBTQ. ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As an activist group, they're definitely not a neutral source but that's different from not being an independent source. See WP:BIASED (vs WP:INDY). A source isn't independent if they have a direct conflict of interest: so for instance, SEGM isn't independent of itself, but other activist groups both for and against are independent of it. This is regardless of whether they have strong opinions on the topic. As WP:INDY says Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea.

I can't tell from a glance whether they're reliable for facts but my instinct from skimming is "yes, more-or-less". I don't think we should source them without attribution, though. Loki (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at its usage in the article, there are times when it may be mis-cited (such as the claim that ROGD by "the majority of the worlds' major psychological bodies" when the source only refers to it as a "broad coalition"), but for most uses it looks like it could be appropriate source under WP:BIASED. Note that I am not saying it is reliable, just that the reasons you point to, that it has a POV and that it is "commercial" (as most of our sources are) do not disqualify it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As others have said it's WP:BIASED but that doesn't mean it's not independent. I note in it's about us it doesn't claim to be a journalist endeavour. It's fine as long as it's attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Loki, Nat Gertler, ActivelyDisinterested.

This is precisely the point I've been making - given that the Trans Safety Network is an activist organization, I maintain that it shouldn't be cited for contentious subjects that are heavily disputed, or employed as a reference on Wikipedia pages of organizations whose views conflict with those of the Trans Safety Network's activists. For instance, the Trans Safety Network has been used to make several claims on SEGM's page (presently, reference #9: Moore, Mallory. "SEGM uncovered: large anonymous payments funding dodgy science"):

1. Aviva Stahl stated they were "pushing flawed science"[8] and Mallory Moore stated they have "ties to evangelical activists".[9]

Comment. However, it's not verified that the entire organization is linked to evangelical activists (we require at least two independent sources for this). I discovered that one member of the SEGM was cited by a newspaper associated with evangelists - that's all. Whether being connected to them is positive or negative is not for me to judge, but I've made my point.

2. In it, they advanced the controversial idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which suggests a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion. ROGD has been condemned as unevidenced and nonscientific by the majority of the worlds' major psychological bodies.[9][13]

Comment: Once again, for some unknown reason, we have a statement about ROGD (not SEGM itself) bolstered by another activist organization. This is unrelated, but the second source also refers to the concept of ROGD, not directly to SEGM, leaving us wondering how this information ended up on SEGM's page while it should most probably be on the ROGD Wikipedia page: 2nd source used (it seems for ROGD only): Coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science.

3. SEGM is closely affiliated with the non-profit organization Genspect: Julia Mason, Marcus Evans, Roberto D’Angelo, Sasha Ayad, Stella O'Malley, Lisa Marchiano, and Avi Ring are advisors for SEGM and are on Genspect's team or advisors; O'Malley is the founder of Genspect.[10][25][9]

Comment. While I don't dispute this, I assert that it's very usual for scientists and academics to be part of multiple organizations simultaneously. The question is, "Does it count as affiliation between two organizations" if some individuals are members of both organizations at the same time? This is something I'm curious about.

4. Trans Safety Network (TSN) reported that NHS pediatrician Julie Maxwell has been an advisor for SEGM since its inception; that Maxwell also works for the Christian anti-LGBT and anti-abortion sex education charity LoveWise UK and has offered to help push abstinence-based and anti-LGBT sex education in schools; and that since 2012, Maxwell has been a member of the Family Education Trust, a campaigning charity that promotes anti-LGBT views. TSN also reported that in 2019, SEGM Secretary William Malone co-authored a letter challenging the Endocrine Society's clinical practice guidelines on transgender healthcare with Michael K Laidlaw, Quentin Van Meter, Paul W Hruz, and Andre Van Mol, who are all members of the SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group the American College of Pediatricians. In addition, Van Meter is a board member of the International Federation for Therapeutic and Counseling Choice (IFTCC), an organization that openly supports conversion therapy for LGBT people. TSN reported that these authors frequently cite and collaborate with each other.[9]

Comment: This claim is the most contentious as it's highly disputed and solely based on one source - the same LGBT activist organization. Does the WP:BIAS policy not apply here?

5. In August, Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group and reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than $10,000.[25][9]

Comment: The situation is the same here. If I were to use SEGM (another activist organization or "research institution" as they claim) as a source for the Trans Safety Network, would it be accepted as an unbiased source? I believe the same principle should apply here.

In general, given that SEGM's Wikipedia page carries a "neutrality disputed" tag, and there's an ongoing active dispute regarding sources, should we be employing an active LGBTQ organization for contentious statements on SEGM or other organization's pages?

ParisDakarPeräjärvi (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

We use well-resourced groups with a reliable history as sources on things they oppose all the time. The Southern Poverty Law Center is expert on the hate groups they oppose. The Centers for Disease Control opposes diseases, but are considered a reliable source on them. "Biased" does not mean "inaccurate." The idea that we should discriminate against a group for being LGBTQ is a rather sad one. Which statement in 4 do you claim to be highly disputed, and what reliable sources dispute it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Oh, and as for "ongoing active dispute", all of the Talk page posts of the past week were focused on whether someone should be described as "the" founder or merely "a" founder... and that discussion has been closed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This website has been previously discussed on this board here, where many editors (correctly) noted that it's essentially a self-published source. I don't see why this should be used for contentious claims/labels or for facts about living people. Moreover, if it doesn't claim to be a journalistic endeavor, as has been noted by one editor above, then why is it any more reliable than XYZ substack blog? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify on the SPS point? It struck me more as an advocacy group than say a group blog or SPS. It should definitely be used with attribution, so it's problematic in points 2 and 3 above as it's unattributed. Also 4 is overlong and strays towards BLP territory, which should possibly be tone down. However 1 and 5 aren't an issue, it's attributed and it's not BLP. If there's arguments about whether some of the content is due, then that's not an RS issue and should be handled on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a group blog more than anything else; I don't see any evidence of editorial policies, fact-checking policies, editorial policies, et cetera. We still need to evaluate editorial control, and looking through the website I can't find any evidence of there being any semblance of editorial oversight. Their values page doesn't mention anything related fact-checking or editorial independence, nor does their about page. Absent some sort of editorial review process, we're left with something that's essentially a self-published group blog. And it's not one that is run by University professors or other sorts of people with the sterling credentials of subject-matter experts; the director seems to have written very little outside of TSN, and Mallory Moore (another frequent contributor) seems to tout only previous publications on TruthOut in her TSN bio, but there doesn't appear to be all that much on her TruthOut author page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have a point, but even then WP:SPS would only exclude them from BLPs not article about organisations. I can see their use in other sources that are considered reliable (PinkNews, Huffington Post, Independent, etc), so reliable sources consider them reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It would exclude them from statements about living people, whether the article is a BLP or not. As such, they could not be used here for the so-and-so-is-also-on-the-board-of-the-Meanie-Group statements. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No matter what Moore touts, she has written elsewhere. Here she is writing on relevant material for i (newspaper), and here for Freedom (that later one cited in a The Sociological Review monograph.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Having written an opinion piece in the i doesn't make one an SME, though the post published her Medium blog that was later republished as analysis by Freedom News is a bit more interesting. (I'm a bit disappointed that both Moore and The Sociological Review didn't find easily searchable uses of the term "gender ideology" in radfem contexts that predate the March 2016 comment section Moore highlights in the analysis, and which seems to refute the exact claim for which Moore is cited in that piece from The Sociological Review, but I digress.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The last time this came up, I did post an array of links that I felt established Moore as a SME. See my comment on 18:44, 28 June 2022 for those links, but she has been cited in other scholarly sources than The Sociological Review.

As for Moore and The Sociological Review missing the Trouble and Strife blog entry, there's a few plausible reasons for that. The simple one is that the site itself might have not been indexed by Google at the time. Also the term gender ideology doesn't actually show up in that article's text verbatim, though it does in one comment. Transgender ideology does appear in the article text, but Google's verbatim search isn't always perfect at that sort of expansion, though it is better now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Where is the policy on subject matter experts? Your post from above linked to an essay on the "Super-Mario Effect". Adoring nanny (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's part of WP:SPS, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Who's Who in Ghana

Used as a biographical reference in Samuel Amo Tobbin, but the article's nominator at AfD says Who's Who in Ghana isn't a reliable source. I would treat Who's Who in Ghana like other national biographical directories. This reference (the only hit on Google Scholar) appears to be to an unrelated and much earlier Who's Who in Ghana: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Who%27s+Who+in+Ghana%22&btnG= Two websites, and I don't quite see why: https://whoswhoghana.app/ and https://whoswhoghana.com If it's a reliable source, editors could use it to create more articles about notable Ghana people, who are probably underrepresented in Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I spent sometime looking into it, and editors should be weary of any "Who's who" as many are pay for inclusion. However this does seem to be legitimate. Inclusion wouldn't be enough for notability on its own and I'm not making comment on the other references, but this does look like a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In theory, such publication should have some editorial controls, even if most of the entries are submitted by the subjects. So yes, I'd call them reliable (except for REDFLAG statements), but not sufficient for notability due to "pay us to include you" business mentality pervasive for such publiciations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Two+ book reviews in Indian NEWSORG and their use in supporting notability

While as far as I'm aware, only NCORP, not NBOOK or any other SNG (or the GNG), mentions this noticeboard... The AfD for a book, Bose, was relisted by DRV due to the source review from delete !voters being somewhat deficient of sufficient context. The best two sources, to my eye, are

• Book Review | Relook at Netaji, the inconvenient one who made all the hard choices - Deccan Chronicle
• New book explores ‘hidden’ political legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose in 2010 declassified files - The Print

The byline identifies a specific columnist in the former. An additional two sources were identified by খাঁ শুভেন্দু as part of the best four, but I elected to not copy them here as they appeared less likely to satisfy "directly and in detail". Since the new participants have been more or less commenting on the same lines, I figured it was worth a shot advertising it here also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• 'The Print "review" (and also the ones in Times of India or The Statesman) are advertorials and thus not RS. Indian papers are well known for this type of thing. The Deccan Herald one is better, but still doesn't give the idea of a detailed review as such, more of a synopsis. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Commnted at the AFD. Good of you, Alpha3031, to bring this up here so that the AFD gets some fresh eyes, especially from editors familiar with book reviews and other sponsored content in many mainstream Indian publications. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for Acquiescence bias#Social desirability?

[[26]]. I don't see any evidence that "Clearer Thinking" meets RS, but I may have missed something. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the status of the site, the article seems to be a non peer reviewed study and therefore not reliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I found no information on editorial policy. In my opinion the "Research" section is unreliable because it presents non peer reviewed studies. The "Blog" section seems to consist of popsci articles and it's safe to assume that for anything useful there will be more reliable sources. To sum it up: in my opinion, most likely not reliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also be weary of their relationship with sparkwave.tech. In its about us page it says it gets a grant from sparkwave, but at the bottom of the page shows that the entire site was created by sparkwave. Looking into the privavy policy and terms of service of the site you see that if you have any issues you're meant to contact "info@sparkwave.tech". All in all this looks like undercover marketing and anything it publishes shouldn't be considered independent of Sparkwaves commercial interests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll remove it. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

whynow.co.uk

This article by whynow.co.uk is being used in the article Fishtank (web series). There is currently a deletion discussion for the page and the reliability of whynow will be useful for determining how significant the coverage of the series has been in RSes. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I say this publication is marginally reliable. Its about page contained no info about its editorial team and I saw only one use by others. But it seems like a decently large media organization with many staffs. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 00:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Pink News

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

---

I cannot imagine how or why PinkNews is remotely considered a reliable source. It is LBG/TQ propaganda (mostly TQ, these days as the lobby becomes increasingly brazen in pushing its agenda). Anyone who disagrees with them or with whom they disagree on almost any issue is automatically "transphobic", as well as a homophobe, a racist, and a white supremacist at the same time. The aggressors become the victims -- as in its reporting of the 2023 Glendale, California battle between schoolkids' parents and Antifas; the latter attacked the former but somehow it became the reverse in PinkNews' coverage whereby the mostly Armenian and Hispanic parent protesters became "right-wing activists" ([27]). Perhaps the fact that the parents got the better of the SoCal Antifa domestic terrorists galled/galls the PinkNews' editors. 65.88.88.54 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure what article and what citation you are claiming Pink News is inappropriately being used as an reliable source on. However, given that your complaint is that Pink News's coverage depicted a certain group as starting violence in Glendale, and given that their coverage of Glendale specifically states "It is currently unclear who started the violence", it seems that your complaint is not rooted in reality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

IP you're being misleading here. Nowhere in the article linked on the Twitter thread you posted does it say who started the violence. And as Nat Gertler pointed out, in their coverage a day later they explicitly state that it was unclear who started it. The article also does not call all of those parents who were present protesting "right-wing activists". It does however say that there are reports that a number of known Proud Boys members were present within the group of anti-LGBTQ+ protestors. This seems to broadly match up with the LA Times reporting of the same event.

Additionally, The Guardian's reporting on this also points out that local journalists had recorded that multiple rightwing activists who have a history of violence – and who live elsewhere in California – were present at the local school board protest, and that one journalist found evidence of Proud Boys stickers being left behind by those in attendence.

None of the reporting on the violence by reliable sources have mentioned any Antifa presence at this protest, though I do see that some unreliable sources are trying to claim as such. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Article in "International Journal of Aerospace Sciences"

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

---

I was adding following claim to Lithium perchlorate (diff):

• Anhydrous lithium perchlorate has been suggested as an additional oxidizer for ammonium perchlorate composite propellants to improve performance and reduce viscosity, making the propellant easier to cast.

I cited that article (there's some trouble with doi, so here's the direct link [28]]):

• Tian Ze Cheng; Mahir Tuli (2014). "Dissolving Lithium Perchlorate in Prepolymers for Easier and Cheaper Propellant Manufacture". International Journal of Aerospace Sciences. 3 (1): 1–5. doi:10.5923/j.aerospace.20140301.01.

And was warned by edit filter that I'm citing predatory open access journal. I've found their website: [29](warning: it's http), and now I'm confused. They are open access, but they have the editorial board and claim to peer-review submissions. That looks good, but I haven't much experience in those parts. So I have a question: is the article published in this journal reliable enough for the claim about use of LiClO₄ in APCP? Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 10:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of journals claim to conduct peer review. “Having an editorial board” means essentially nothing. You should treat articles from a garbage publisher like this as garbage. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I'll try to find something better to cite. Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 12:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've found million times better sources for more general use in propellants and pyrotechnics, so this is

Resolved

Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 13:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Sources on Holocaust death toll

Sources on the Holocaust give varying estimates for the total number of non-combatants killed by the Nazis.

An argument is made at Talk:Holocaust that the following sources are not sufficiently reliable to illustrate the upper end of that range of estimates in The_Holocaust#Death toll.

The sources, all of which indicate a figure of around 17 million, are:

1. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Documenting numbers of victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution
   • This provides a table of estimates for different groups, summing to a total in excess of 17 million.
   • For citations and mentions of this USHMM page in Google Scholar you can paste https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q="Documenting+numbers+of+victims+of+the+Holocaust+and+Nazi+persecution"+ushmm&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 into your browser
   • For citations and mentions of this USHMM page in Google Books you can paste https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&hs=oBf&q="Documenting+numbers+of+victims+of+the+Holocaust+and+Nazi+persecution"+ushmm&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmyPOlvLj_AhUOWcAKHRz0CqwQ0pQJegQIJxAB&biw=1547&bih=1592&dpr=1.2 into your browser
2. Donald Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia: The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (Columbia University Press, 2000, republished 2012)
   • This states that a Holocaust death toll including Gypsies, the disabled, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, political prisoners, religious dissenters and homosexuals would require acknowledging as many as 17,000,000 victims.
   • Cited e.g. by Amos N. Guiora: Tolerating Intolerance (Oxford University Press, 2014).
3. Martin Gilbert: The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy (Collins 1986, Rosetta 2014)
   • This states that As well as six million Jews who were murdered, more than ten million other non-combatants were killed by the Nazis.

Are these sources reliable enough to give a figure of around 17 million to illustrate the upper range of death toll estimates in The Holocaust? Andreas JN466 10:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No one there has disputed that these are potentially RS, the dispute is about choosing among various RS. I don’t see any advantage in splitting the discussion, it should continue on the talk page. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to what 100.36 said above, we also need to be careful that whatever sources for the toll we cite have a definition of the Holocaust consistent with what we are using in The Holocaust article. Picking the scope of the article based upon one set of sources and a toll based upon another set that uses a wider/narrower definition will lead to factual errors and be a form of source misrepresentation. Abecedare (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  For reference, we currently say in The Holocaust#Death toll that in addition to the six million Jews murdered, A similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and POWs—estimated by Gerlach at 6 to 8 million—were killed by Germany and its allies.

  The question is about the range of estimates for non-Jewish civilians and POWs killed by the Nazis. Gerlach's estimate of 6 to 8 million (for an overall total of 12 to 14 million) is lower than

  • the 6 million Jewish + over 11 million non-Jewish non-combatants listed by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
  • the 17 million total given by Niewyk & Nicosia in the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, and
  • the over 16 million given by Martin Gilbert.

  The definitions used by these three sources are as follows:

  • The USHMM page specifically lists Jewish and non-Jewish "civilians and captured soldiers" (exactly the same as Gerlach).
  • The Columbia Guide refers to Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, Soviet POWs, Polish and Soviet civilians, political/religious dissenters and homosexuals (i.e. various groups of civilians and POWs).
  • Gilbert refers to Jews and "other non-combatants" ("civilians" plus "prisonders-of-war").

  So the definitions match. It is the figures that don't. The question is whether the higher figures given by these three sources are sufficiently reliable to be quoted in the section. Andreas JN466 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is a pointless and unhelpful post. No one is saying that the sources are not at all usable on Wikipedia, only that there are better sources for this particular information. (t · c) buidhe 16:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am asking specifically whether these sources are reliable enough to use as an illustration of the upper end of the range of estimates. Buidhe has argued[30], for each of them, that they are not reliable enough to be used for that purpose in the article, and suggested no alternative source naming these or similar figures. What we currently have in the article is a single estimate that is over 3 to 5 million lower than the figure given by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Andreas JN466 16:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Note that the argument you described and the argument in the linked diffs are substantially different... I know you didn't mean to misrepresent them but saying that its not good enough for FA is not the same as saying "that they are not reliable enough to be used for that purpose in the article" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Buidhe keeps removing the higher estimate from the article (which, by the way, is not an FA) to leave Gerlach as the only estimate given. I can give a practical demonstration, if you like. Andreas JN466 17:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe instead of treating it like a battleground you take a second to try and understand where Buidhe is coming from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I assure you I have thought about it – this discussion has gone on for a while – but I am simply not convinced that I should pay Buidhe's viewpoints more attention than whatever Gilbert, Niewyk and Nicosia, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum have written about this topic. They are all known quantities in the field, with an international academic reputation. Buidhe is not. Moreover, Buidhe has not presented a single source arguing that any of these sources are unreasonable, or gravely mistaken.

  If Buidhe would like to get the USHMM, Niewyk and Nicosia to change their figures, then all well and good. Until such time, they are reliable sources, entitled according to our policies to have their views represented in our article on The Holocaust, and Buidhe is not. Doing what Buidhe wants would be to accept that a widely cited page on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and Gilbert's book are WP:Fringe publications. That is just one bridge too far for me. Regards, Andreas JN466 17:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  They do not at all appear to be saying that these sources are fringe publications (per their comments here and there they don't even appear to be disputing their reliability at all). Also note that if your beef is with editor behavior and not actually a reliability dispute then this was the wrong forum to bring your issue to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe instead of treating it like a battleground you take a second to try and understand where Buidhe is coming from. Maybe you could take a look at the discussion, which I just read in its entirety. I have enough else to do and don't intend to participate in this discussion, but yeah, it's a battleground and IMHO it isn't because of Jayen466. Buidhe has unilaterally redefined the Holocaust to include only Jews for a start. I've suggested that it's a WP: COMMON issue, to no particular avail, but maybe I just haven't been far enough back in the archives to see where the ngrams got pulled out. I am somewhat neutral on that subject, but the question needs to be resolved, say I, as someone who's been rehabbing Collaboration with the Axis powers for a few months now and is at the moment *not* using the Jews-only definition.

If we're going to make The Holocaust only about Jews in concentration camps, then we are going to need several new articles, though, and would do well to establish the topic architecture now. And until these articles are created, I see no reason why cited material about atrocities against the Roma or the Poles or anyone else should be wholesale deleted. There is no question that these numbers, whatever they might be, amount to notability.

Getting back to the numbers. All of my experience at this board says that if author A says x and author B says y then we teach the controversy and say that author A says x and author B says y. What we don't do is wave a hand at some unspecified archive and say it proves...whatever. Buidhe however believes she is right and is fighting hard to disallow the numbers at the higher end, citing various reasons. Possibly so they don't become fodder for a DUE argument? Hard to tell, since Buidhe is not exactly communicative.

Oh and sorry to dump all this as a reply to you, as some of it you probably haven't noticed, but Jayen is not the one with the battle ground mentality. I also invite interested editors to examine the carnage at Holocaust in Poland.

As for "wrong forum", hehe, AE thinks these are content disputes she is having. So let us talk content then. Without regard to who is causing the dispute, does it have any merit? That is what I would like to know. Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Those sources seem reliable to me. Regarding "there are better sources", well, that's debatable. Those sources are reliable and new. Who says that, for example, USHMM estimate is "not good enough" to be cited? The page cited above ([31]) is good enough for numerous books to cite it, for example, and while the quality of those books vary, some look relevant and reliable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

Wanted to notify users about a WP:RfC about the reliability of La Patilla. The discussion can be found here. If there is a way to centralize the discussion or move it here to WP:RSN, then that would be greatly appreciated!--WMrapids (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate of #RfC: La Patilla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources

Wanted to notify users about a WP:RfC regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here. If there is a way to centralize the discussion or move it here to WP:RSN, then that would be greatly appreciated!--WMrapids (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bulwark

According to its own wikipedia article, The Bulwark is an American neoconservative anti-trump news website. I have never heard of them before, but in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, specifically the Analysis section, the Bulwark is mentioned as:

According to The Bulwark, Ukrainian victory in the war "hinged" on victory in the offensive.

I have never heard of the Bulwark before, nor are they present on WP:RSP, so I am wondering if such a grandiose claim should be included in the article, especially since its from a less than major source. Scu ba (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken they had a recent reorganization and attracted some new writers. Generally reliable though may be biased. I think in terms of RS this is probably fine with attribution but a different concern is WP:NOTNEWS - will this still be relevant in a couple months or even weeks? Volunteer Marek 23:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an opinion statement. Seems WP:UNDUE in any case. As for The Bulwark generally, every piece of theirs I looked at appears to be an opinion piece:

[32] -- repeatedly talks about "dysfunction".

[33] -- "Here on earth, a**h****s are rewarded constantly with no sign of karmic abatement."

[34] -- Talking about Pence's campaign launch and accusing him of hypocrisy for backing the rule of law but not the Trump indictment.

[35]

"I do not love Chris Christie". Adoring nanny (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If we use it, I'd attribute it to the author rather than the publication. The author is William Nattrass, a freelance journalist. See his output here for consideration of whether he is an authoritative voice: https://authory.com/williamnattrass Bylines on international relations and geopolitics in RSs such as Politico, Telegraph, New York Times - but also in less reliable Spectator, UnHerd. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Did we consider Weekly Standard RS? Seems to have same editorial team and stable of writers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Rambler (portal) and 5TV (Russian TV channel)

These two sources - 5TV (Russian TV channel), controlled by Russian propaganda network RT and Rambler (portal), a web portal owned byRussian government bank Sberbank - are being used in the article on the Graham Phillips article to make "heroic" claims about the subject, whom other, actually reliable, sources describe as simply a pro-Putin propagandist who helps to spread pro-Kremlin conspiracy theories.

IMO it's pretty obvious neither of these are reliable but wanted to check in here first. Volunteer Marek 23:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, anything owned by Russia is not reliable. For that matter, I wish we would make a rule that nothing owned by any totalitarian gov't is reliable, ever. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. Why not start an RfC :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I started writing an essay to this effect a few months ago, but I never got far enough to actually publish it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Forbes Councils

I suspect that the answer to this is obvious, but since it's another weird term from Forbes I thought I'd double-check here in case anyone can spot anything I missed. Forbes now has articles like this, which look similar to their Contributor ones, but which, instead of having a byline of "contributor", describe the author as a "Forbes Councils Member" and, perhaps most amusingly, "Forbes Technology Council - COUNCIL POST - Membership (fee-based)". The description of Forbes councils says that Forbes Councils is an invitation-only, professional organization where top CEOs and entrepreneurs like you build professional skills and gain connections and visibility on Forbes.com., but, as noted, these are also fee-based, eg. from here (Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only, fee-based organization comprised of leading CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. I assume that these are just like Contributor pieces in that they have no actual editorial controls or fact-checking, and are therefore not WP:RSes. Should a note to this effect be added to WP:FORBESCON? I wouldn't usually ask when there's no active disputes over it, but this seems specifically intended to cause confusion between these pieces and actual news reporting by Forbes, and is subtle enough that it's likely to be missed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in thinking this looks like pay to publish? Springee (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think adding this to WP:FORBESCON is a good idea. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah, Forbes Councils is pay-to-publish. Here's how it works. We've discussed it a couple of times before: [36] [37] At best contributor, at worst paid advertising. We should definitely be noting it on RSN, this is the third discussion - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Rediff for politics?

I wish to understand what is the general consensus about use of Rediff.com as a source here. I recently started a discussion about MSN which educated me that MSN is just a web portal and not highly reliable and I tend to see Rediff in the same way and wished to understand if that is really so. Particularly, is Rediff reliable to be used in political reporting and opinionated pieces?

I came across Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal using this rediff source which was written by one Syed Firdaus Ashraf who doesn't appear to be any journalist or expert on the topics being covered + these are all extremely opinionated pieces. Do these qualify as fit for encyclopedic usage? >>> Extorc.talk 19:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Radio New Zealand (RNZ)

A journalist employed by Radio New Zealand dishonestly edited wire stories (mostly from Reuters) to fit a Russian propaganda angle. Employee in question is placed on leave and RNZ is investigating. They say this may have gone on for as long as about five years. They've corrected at least 22 articles so far; the altered versions may have been captured in web archives however and it's plausible someone might use them as a citation. I'm not proposing any changes to the reliability status of RNZ, but just making this board aware. Sources: RNZ, CNN, AP. VintageVernacular (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?

Is FossForce.com a reliable source for Free and open-source software (FOSS) articles?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable

With these edits at Libreboot, PhotographyEdits removed cited info, claiming FossForce.com (and others) is not a WP:RS: one, two, and 2021 article purge and proposal to merge

Prevous RSN discussions: None found.

Talk discussions : one found in 2019; thin consensus, including me, was not reliable. Newslinger called it a "group blogs with no reputations".

An author "Christine Hall" is cited on a few editor talk pages, but I don't think it is the same Christine Hall.

About a dozen articles cite FossForce.com.

Three cites that have been removed from Libreboot over time include:

• September 2016
• January 2017
• April 2017

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply: While the articles are mostly by one author/editor, I contrast FossForce.com with somewhat similar (at a glance) liliputing.com, which was deemed generally unreliable blog, self-published source in this RSN discussion and RfC. FossForce, to me, covers FOSS topics with more insight than just re-publicizing a single press release or vendor post, and discusses the info in some detail. FossForce also covers FOSS topics - not just new products up for sale - over time, as shown by the three cites above. While the FossForce website does show advertisements, it again contrasts with Liliputing by NOT being affiliate-spam directly connected to PR announcements about products being written about. Therefore, I feel this otherwise marginal source should be allowed, particularly for FOSS articles with few generally reliable sources.

The present intention is to use the 2017 cites to support statements about the History of Libreboot without the personal WP:BLP info. They have been used differently at Libreboot previously. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option #1 (invited by the bot) My actual answer is that I generally reject all such over-generalizations.....it should be about the objectivity and objectivity of the particular piece/authot/source with respect to the text which cited it. But if forced to make a generalization, that source looks to be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Summoned by the notification at WT:COMPUTING. Yae4, I again respectfully disagree with going straight from a one-on-one content dispute to an RSN RfC, without discussion on the article's talk page (WP:RFCBEFORE). At Libreboot, PhotographyEdits removed text cited to two sources, and you reverted it, agreeing they're not WP:GENREL, but arguing they should stay because they weren't discussed at RSN and are widely used at Wikipedia (FossForce is cited in 13 articles), and asking PhotographyEdits to point to a consensus discussion before removing.

But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. No one needs a consensus discussion, or an RSN RfC, to remove citations that they deem unreliable from an article. If you disagree with a removal, that should first be discussed on the article's talk page; if that doesn't solve it, you can start a non-RfC discussion here to ask for input on whether the source is good enough for the claim. RSN RfCs are for repeated disputes across several talk pages, or sources in widespread use, not to resolve mundant content disputes. BTW, I searched, and FossForce is only used in five articles (ItsFoss, the second source, is used in 2 articles).

When a specific statement is challenged, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus on the article's talk page to keep it. Skipping directly to an RfC here implies inclusion is all-or-nothing, where an outcome other than "generally unreliable" would mean the claim stays in the article. This is undesirable from a process standpoint. Best, DFlhb (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Acceptable use of primary sources on non-independent websites

Is it acceptable to include in articles references to primary sources (newspaper photostats, photocopies of signed eye-witness testimony, or photocopies of signed/sealed letters, etc.) that are hosted on websites that are not independent? For example, a personal website of a member of the clergy that hosts many articles in support of a specific point of view regarding a topic (non-independent), in addition to hosting many primary source documents concerning that topic/event. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)