User:Eggishorn/sandbox/scratchpad

Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom
At Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision Arbcom has proposed the following finding of fact (FoF):


 * "Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability. By contrast the most recent [RSNB] discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics."

Does the above accurately reflect the consensus at RSNB concerning this source?

Arbcom appears to be especially interested in use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs. Our Thomas John (medium) BLP and the use of Operation Pizza Roll – Thomas John from Skeptical Enquirer as a source in that BLP would be an example of this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That FoF is about the "historic" case and I think it's correct. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't come up much and when it has it's received support from experienced editors. The recent GSoW dramafest has caused renewed attention but this is mostly centred on what seem to me to be fruitless considerations of it as a "COI source" in respect of certain targeted editors. In my experience there's not often cause to use this source other than for very niche fringe topics (e.g. Thought Field Therapy) and then it may be useful for WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tyler Henry is another example, as csicop.org. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The conduct related to me and other editors has made it difficult for the community to arrive at consensus on this matter, so I would suggest putting a hold on this until the Arbcom case is closed. I will note that a concern that wasn't properly resolved in the past discussion here on SI was that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of facts they published. Me and others agreed that while not an SPS, this does make them a questionable source due to their lack of editorial oversight, although this perspective did not gain consensus. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "they take no responsibility" &larr; this is not accurate. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. There are esteemed scientific journals (e.g. PLOS One) which make no attempt to verify the accuracy of the research they publish, merely verifying that it's conducted correctly on the surface. Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it (and of course this has become a huge problem). Attacking SI because it does similar seems like yet another example of the special new harsh regime for "skepticism" that some editors seem very attached to lately. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective is a quote from their submission guidelines. Please do not make vague accusations about other editors,, as that will be disruptive towards reaching a consensus on SI. I'll leave the discussion until Arbcom case is closed. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not make "vague accusation", I specifically said a claim you made was inaccurate. So it was, as you showed when you quoted SI's actual position. I suggest what might actually impede consensus is making such inaccurate statements and then kicking sand up about "vague accusations" when those statements are specifically addressed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, what I meant by vague accusation was your last sentence. Describing criticisms as "attacks", describing behaviour or attitudes by editors as a "special new harsh regime for 'skepticism'" and the phrase "some editors seem very attached to lately" reads to me as a vague accusation, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SI is not a scientific journal, though. They are a general interest magazine with no fact-checking process. Because SI does not require authors to be academics (unlike The Conversation, which does), there is simply no way of knowing if something published on SI is a reliable source unless it is written by a scientist in their field. How could anything outside that narrow definition be reliable by our standards? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would suggest that it useful for WP:PARITY purposes when there is an existing, unrebutted fringe claim in an article. Apart from that, it shouldn't be used. BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an established generalist journal, and well-reputed: that reputation counts. "Scientific" journals are not automatically trustworthy - huge numbers of them are trash. For a few very niche topics, like Roswell, SI has some seminal content, like this from K Korff, who is an authority on UFO stuff. For pseudoscience, quack medicine, UFOs, etc WP:PARITY often comes into play and in that context SI is a cut above even "alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" such a blogs. I don't think anybody is proposing to use SI for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, or as WP:MEDRS or anything. It's only use is for providing sanity in niche WP:FRINGE topics, and as such its use should be limited and rare. You know: time cube, bigfoot, alien autopsies, morphic resonance. All that kind of stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be, but the majority of its uses are outside of WP:FRINGE topics, and within fringe topics it is usually used to both introduce and rebut the fringe claim, when it would be better to not mention the fringe claim at all. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn explained the context of the The authors, however, are responsible quote, for example with Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it. Those journals could write exactly that same sentence, and it would be true for them too. You people's reasoning that the sentence shows that the journal is not reliable is just your personal, rather colorful and one-sided interpretation of that sentence, carefully circumnavigating and ignoring a better explanation of its meaning that had already been given. I don't think you can actually point out a subject SI got wrong and doubled down on, as unreliable publications would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Like SI, Nature, Science, and I suspect most if not all other scientific journals have no fact-checking process or, at best, their checks of "facts" presented in submitted manuscripts range from limited (e.g., software to detect plagiarism) to non-existent. Also like SI, those journals do not require authors to be academics. So I am uncertain, Pyrrho the Skipper, about your criteria/standards for assigning unreliability to SI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nature publishes scientific research from academics which is reviewed by exclusively PhD-level editors and only a small minority is selected. That's vastly different from SI which has no requirement that an author is doing actual research, original or otherwise, or is an academic. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nowhere in the author guidelines for Nature (or Science) will you find a requirement that authors be academics. You can confirm that yourself at the journals' websites. FWIW, I will also add that not all of their reviewers are exclusively PhD-level, although by nature of the business that is the common outcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. That statement is false, as evidenced here and here. Your use of the phrase actual scientists is also incorrect, as any number of non-scientists (e.g., journalists, politicians, and even the general public) regularly have material published in those journals. At the risk of repeating myself, having no requirement (your term) that authors be academics/scientists is a feature common to SI, Nature, Science, and an uncountable number of other science journals. Because this is becoming tangential to the main thread, I suggest we move any further discussion to one of our Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Re: "I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right?", Not even close. Amateur scientists have made many important scientific discoveries that have been published in scientific journals. Forrest Mims is an amateur scientist who's work has has been published in Nature. Guy Stewart Callendar developed the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rising global temperature and created the first climate change model. He was a steam engineer. Though he had almost no formal training in mathematics, Srinivasa Ramanujan made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. It was a Jesuit priest who discovered that Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria. It was a retired carpenter who discovered two species of wildflowers growing previously unnoticed just across the bay from San Francisco and published his results in a botanical journal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but SI isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's the journal of a non profit. The farmer's co-op I belong to publishes a quarterly journal written by subject matter experts. I wouldn't compare it to an actual peer reviewed journal though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it was. The reasoning was, a bit shortened, "SI has no fact-checking process" - "Neither has Nature". The point is that a lack of fact-checking process is not a reason to call it unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I would say the problem is that the way WP:RS is written, lack of fact-checking would, in fact, be pretty fatal to reliable status. That said, I also agree that those who say the submission guidelines language indicates no fact-checking at all are overreading that bit, especially when taken in context.  Still damned murky to me, but hopefully wiser heads see things more clearly.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I shortened it too much. Your response does not fit the longer version because "SI has no fact-checking process" is not in the source, it is a Wikipedia editor's interpretation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to do this it should be a widely advertised, actual RFC. We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think it would also be a good idea to have it broken down into use cases, i.e. for WP:PARITY, in a WP:BLP, making contentious claims about a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like an RFC is needed, but my snap take is that they do not have editorial oversight. Certainly useable for the authors opinion but it would need to be attributed to them and then take appropriate weight concerns. I would be hesitant to use them to make claims about BLPs. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeez, Skeptical Inquirer now being targeted. There was a similar attack on Quackwatch, in 2019. Science-Based Medicine will probably be next. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a good thing when less reliable sources are removed or clarified. Why would you be against that? PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am against quackery and pseudoscience. These websites are very reliable at debunking nonsense and have many academics and scholars writing for them. IMO there is no valid reason to remove them from Wikipedia. They have been on Wikipedia for decades and improve many articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated above the issue is their lack of editorial oversight. While I will take your word for it that whatever they publish is right, that falls short of the bar set by Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be this persistent misconception that just because a source debunks nonsense/unreliable sources that it is itself a reliable source... Skeptics aren't inherently any more reliable than any other loose grouping of people. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that the reliability is "inherent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that Skeptical Enquirer has a reputation for accuracy and for printing retractions when they get it wrong. They also clearly label opinion pieces.

As for editorial oversight, see [ https://skepticalinquirer.org/article-submission-guidelines/ ]:


 * "The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript. Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal, although a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer."

IMO Skeptical Enquirer is generally reliable for factual claims, and that some (but not all) of their authors are recognized subject matter experts.

I would also caution some of the participants in this discussion to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. If your new comment basically repeats something you said already, you may wish to skip it. Everyone here is capable of reading the entire thread and we all heard you the first time. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised in previous discussions, so my apologies that I'm probably repeating some things. But in regard to SI: There aren't any glaring red flags, but I look at it as a source that requires caution, if only due to being highly partisan, and probably a bit too risky in regards to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have noticed significant problems with some claims in articles in the past. I think is generally reliable, but as a highly partisan source it should be used cautiously, especially in regard to contentious or serious claims.
 * Their editorial process is selective at best. It doesn't give me a lot of faith, but as the authors tend to be experts, I'm happy enough sticking with the generally reliable for factual claims bit.
 * The columnists are a different matter, especially as regards living people. Without a clear editorial process evaluating claims about living people, I think columns should be regarded as equivalents to SPS. Viable under WP:Parity in regard to their expertise, but not to be used in BLPs.
 * Good point about columns and BLPs.
 * Let's look at a particular column (I chose the first column in the current issue to avoid cherry picking):
 * The Philosopher’s Corner: Science Denialism Is a Form of Pseudoscience
 * The author, Massimo Pigliucci, is clearly a subject-matter expert in the areas of evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, and pseudoscience. Let's look at a claim in this column that might be used as a source in a BLP:
 * "My colleague Sven Ove Hansson of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has written an insightful paper about this... Hansson begins by distinguishing two kinds of bad epistemic practices that fall under the broader umbrella of pseudoscience: science denialism and pseudotheory promotion."
 * I see no problem with using this as a source in the Sven Ove Hansson BLP describing (with attribution) Hansson's paper. To my mind a blanket prohibition of SI columns in BLPs would be too broad. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument is "I found a random statement in one column and it is good - therefore it is all good?" Surely you can see the problem with that. - Bilby (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this strikes me as a mischaracterization, given the last sentence of Guy Macon's comments above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. The prohibition on using self published sources in BLPs is not based on whether or not they occasionally make accurate statements we could potentially use. It is based on the idea that without adequate independent fact checking, we need to assume that they are unreliable. The occasional accurate statement in an SPS does not mean that we can use them. That said, we have been able to use them as statements about the opinion of the author - so if Guy's claim was "we could write according to X ..." I'd be much more open to the argument. - Bilby (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So would you say a blanket prohibition would be too broad, and certain statements could be used with attribution? Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, just that is how we would use an SPS without violating BLPSPS. What I'd like to know if there is evidence that columnists are put through a proper editorial process before publication. What they say is that authors are responsible for the accuracy of their own content, and that "technical or controversial matters" may be sent to reviewers. But does that extend to statements about living people made by columnists? In a lot of these publications, online columns are treated effectively as blogs, so I'd like to know if they are treated differently here. - Bilby (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence supporting your claim that SI columns are self-published sources ("online columns are treated effectively as blogs"). WP:SPS says this:
 * "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * That is quite different from a column by a subject matter expert that goes through the usual editorial review that pretty much every printed periodical goes through before being sent to the printing press. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of these are online-only columns, so what happens with a printed periodical may not apply and there is nothing to suggest that they are reviewed. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support the characterization of Skeptical Enquirer as generally reliable for factual claims. Evidence for SI being de facto unreliable is lacking and, as evinced immediately above by Guy, a broad-stroke prohibition on using SI for BLPs would be harmful to the encyclopedia. That said, the use of SI for any content within BLPs, whether "positive," "negative," or "neutral" in nature, should always be done with care (as a matter of course) and explicit attribution. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Skeptical Inquirer
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source for facts?


 * 1) Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact;
 * 2) Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply;
 * 3) Generally unreliable for supporting statements of fact; or
 * 4) Should be deprecated.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Skeptical Inquirer

 * 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to pseudoscientific claims, fake products, and fringe theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: Other considerations apply - Articles in the source can be suitable for WP:PARITY statements, but due to their strong POV, and lack of editorial control (The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective - from SI's Submission Guidelines), editors should be cautious of their use outside of those areas, particularly regarding BLP's.
 * The columns should generally be avoided, with the only exception being when the author is a subject-matter expert and the article is not a BLP, given the lack of evidence of any editorial control, and the fact that some columns have been written with the intent of them being used as sources for Wikipedia BLP's.
 * I would note that while the articles are suitable for parity statements, editors should be cautious when using the source to both introduce and rebut fringe claims; in such circumstances, mentioning the fringe claim is likely to be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable and blacklist via the WP:Spam blacklist. The fact that it specifically makes no claim to fact-checking or accuracy makes it useless as a source, even for WP:PARITY purposes - anyone trying to cite parity to argue for this source needs to actually read what parity says; it is obviously inapplicable. Parity allows us to use non-academic / non-peer-reviewed sources and sources of somewhat lower quality in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source, but it doesn't allow us to totally ignore WP:RS, which would be necessary to use this source at all in any context; since Skeptical Inquirer performs no fact-checking, it is comparable to eg. Forbes contributors and provides no reliability beyond a WP:SPS. On its own that would just get a red / generally unreliable rating, but it has also been systematically spammed, and there's no reason to think that that is going to stop. The spamming of an unreliable source means this is a case for the spam blacklist, which exists precisely to prevent that sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * could you kindy expand a bit more on how SI has been systematically spammed? Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in another editor's mouth, but I believe he is referring to how some Wikipedia editors have (allegedly) written articles critical of particular individuals in Skeptical Inquirer with the intention that other editors they know would use those articles as sources on Wikipedia; this was one of the central issues in a recent ArbCom case. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI's article submission guidelines don't say that they don't fact-check anything. The full quote is The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. The Editor checks it, and if they need help they'll get another reviewer. The author is responsible for not wasting the editor's time with poorly researched junk. That's how more or less every non-peer reviewed publication works. If we were to disqualify SI on this basis I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It states "will often"; we can't determine from that when the editor decides to send it off to reviewers, or how often they decide to do that - all we know is that they place all responsibility for accuracy of fact and perspective on the author. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of several comments that led me to add a comment to the discussion saying that I think we need a resource educating Wikipedians about the realities of how oversight at publishers work. You are generally a well-informed editor, but I find this comment naive: publishing venues with any substantial momentum are regularly going to put their editors in difficult situations. We should not bring a narrow box-ticking mentality to assessing publishing venues but decide what level of trust we should put in the venue based on its fruits. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. Any examples? Honest question. JBchrch   talk  16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a peer reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. Their manuscript guidelines include: Authors are responsible for accuracy of their manuscripts, so ask colleagues to help review your draft before submitting it. National Defense Magazine is currently cited hundreds of times on Wikipedia. Their contribute an article page includes the text Authors are responsible for accuracy of all material reported. As User:Alexbrn notes in the discussion section, much is being made of a boilerplate phrase that can be found in the policies of many publications. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, and SI isn't. If National Defense Magazine publishes unreviewed texts by non-subject matter experts, then they should be booted off Wikipedia. JBchrch   talk  22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a non-sequitur. Are we going to discount the New York Times because its editorial processes rarely involve peer review? &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. See my support comment in the previous section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3: Treat as self-published. Per their Article Submission Guidelines, which indicate that they publish articles from outside authors with no review or fact-checking in many cases as a matter of principle (see "Categories, Topics, and General Information") correction JBchrch   talk  05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) . As a result, it's essentially equivalent to a group blog or, rather, one of those "academic blogs", which feature shorter works by subject matter experts—but, crucially, not only subject matter experts. Examples in my field of interest include the Columbia Blue Sky Blog or the Oxford Business Law Blog. In all of these cases, many works published on these websites are citable because they are written by authors who fit the WP:SPS criteria. But that determination has to be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who the author is, whether they are a subject-matter expert, and with respect to what field they are a subject-matter expert.  JBchrch   talk  04:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the link and looks like what you say ("no review or fact-checking as a matter of principle") is simply untrue: in particular, "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers". Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the sentence you're quoting: The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. So, in principle, no review. Maybe "as a matter of principle" was not the correct language, but this sentence says all we need to know: most of this stuff has not been reviewed. JBchrch   talk  22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you have accused me of saying "wrong things" below, I've made the correction that you pointed out. JBchrch   talk  05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. I generally concur with here. The idea that it has no editorial control whatsoever is not borne out by their statements, and I've yet to see a pattern established of them being, well, factually wrong. Nor does a source having been used inappropriately on Wikipedia translate to unreliability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There were a few examples in the previous discussion, but this article demonstrates the lack of editorial control. The underlying premise and conclusion is fine, but the issue is the method used - the author decided to invent a new field called "forensic caricaturing", which involves proving that two images are of different people by caricaturizing the photos, allowing differences to be more readily perceived. The issues with modifying evidence through subjective methods to prove a point are obvious, but were not identified by the editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The real procedure here was to look at the photograph and the sketch produced by the psychic and observe that they don't look much alike (anyone can replicate this part). The 'method' you are concerned about was just a means to make a graphic to go with the article: I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. I finally decided to create a new field, “forensic caricaturing. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The method was the means the author proved it, and that is the issue. The fact that they could have proven it through dozens of ways that don't involve modifying evidence through subjective methods is not relevant. Moved from here to try and make the conversations possible to understand. MrOllie, please move back if you believe that location is more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not "clearly wrong", and you did not "explain it above". Dorothy Allison is not a psychic, and the two pictures do not depict the same person. Nickell just used a way of emphasizing differences to make them clearer. As he wrote, I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. He could have done that, and the result would have been the same. SI is not "wrong", let alone "clearly wrong", it just used a didactic tool you did not like. You are grasping at straws, just as you are grasping at straws with your "imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me just point out that the author of the article being criticized is Joe Nickell, a formidable investigator and forensic expert. And this is not an example of lack of editorial control, or of a bad method. As a forensic expert myself, I have to say that his use of caricatures is just a clever, as well as amusing, tool to make the differences between the two faces more easibly distinguishable. There is nothing wrong here. The comparison with "using dowsing rods to figure out the shape of the Earth" is completely bogus.VdSV9• ♫ 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Modifying evidence through subjective methods is wrong. It might be entertaining, but publications that seek to be entertaining rather than correct typically have reliability issues - see the opinion content of Fox News, which has the same intent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read the data-driven reporting from The Economist , FiveThirtyEight  , The Atlantic   , etc. etc. Such pieces often "modify evidence through subjective methods". One must choose the reporting bounds, the resolution, even the color scheme.Data categorization, visualization, and interpretation are inherently subjective endeavors. Journalism is an inherently subjective endeavor      that strives to be as factual and objective as possible, but acknowledges its failure. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SI changed the data to make their point, while the examples you provided did not. If 538 had changed the educational rate of voters in counties to better indicate the trend, then it would be equivalent - but they didn't, and if they had we would be questioning their reliability. Alternatively, if SI had cut out parts of the images - such as only showing the jaw lines, to emphasise the differences between the two - then it would also have been equivalent, and we would not be discussing this example as there would not be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional considerations apply. I don't feel we can give this publication a blanket pass. It does seem to mix opinion and fact and lack a clear cut editorial policy. However, it does not appear to publish false information any more frequently than, say, The Times. Individual articles should be judged on their merits, which can be discussed at the relevant talk page. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok for some facts per WP:PARITY, although better sources are preferable. Not ok for BLPs. Fundamentally, this is a highly partisan site aimed at beliefs, actions and individuals they disagree with. As such, I do not believe that it is reliable when it comes to living people, much as is the case with other highly partisan sites. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: Other considerations apply (I figured I would make this a bit clearer). Under WP:PARITY there are times when this publication is useful, but only under parity: where parity doesn't apply (specifically statements that are not directly related to fringe topics), other sources should be used. For statements about BLPs it should be regarded as self-published. As an example of the former, it was raised elsewhere that this was used for a reference about "bomb dowsers" used in Iraq. Under parity, it is an acceptable source for "bomb dowsers do not work" as that is fringe; it is not a good source for "bomb dowsers are used in Iraq". In regard to the latter, I remain concerned about the editorial policy when it comes to BLPs, the lack of clarity about the editorial policy regarding living people; errors that I have found when checking articles from the publication; and the use of the publication to run campaigns targeting living people. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. Too much emphasis is being placed on peer review. Here are over 20 peer reviewed journals on homeopathy Here is a peer reviewed journal on cryptozoology. Here is a peer reviewed journal of 911 Studies. The question is does SI publish recognized experts saying true things? Yes, yes they do. Have they published misinformation, or lies? I haven't seen any compelling evidence. Is their track record as good as other reliable sources? Geogene complains above that SI is used when other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact This is not how sourcing policy works. Citing a random personal blog for "the sky is blue" in Rayleigh scattering is worse than not sourcing the statement at all. There is no reason to use low quality sources when better sources are available, see for example WP:BESTSOURCES. Problematically, SI often strays into high profile areas, into geopolitics, where better sourcing is available. Havana syndrome is another example of this. What if, hypothetically, one of SI's dubious experts decides tomorrow that Novichok isn't a real chemical weapon and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was a mass hysteria? Recent experience has shown that editors will go to that page to try to use it as a source, to "counterbalance" mainstream sources. Geogene (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Any source may hypothetically publish something daft. I'm interested in actual examples. Again, what is this "review of a cancer researcher's book" in SI you mentioned above? Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you saying here, Alexbrn? That since any source can publish nonsense, they're all of equal quality? Surely not. Geogene (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but a source isn't unreliable because of what it might do in your imagination. Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others. Again, what is this cancer review you invoked above as an example of SI problems? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others I agree with this point, but SI's contributors' field(s) of expertise needs to be defined. I view it as a usually reliable, but low prominence Parity source. Geogene (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why your cancer example is of interest. Link please! Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (...Sound Of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I missed this before, but it is baffling how refers to "SI's dubious experts", while referring to Robert Bartholomew an expert and authority on psychogenic illnesses, who wrote a book on the Havana Syndrome alongside Robert W. Baloh, a neurologist who wrote a textbook on the vestibular system and remains unconvinced of the evidence presented. All while defending the outlier conclusions presented on a paper with poor methodology from an advisory panel led by microbiologist and immunologist David Relman, with no background in either neurology, the auditory system, microwave or sound weapons, or psychology. And they do this even after a lot of the mainstream position on HS has shifted away from attacks and more evidence has been shown confirming what the "dubious experts" have been claiming all along. A lot of examples given here by others for the claimed lack of reliability of SI are of similar quality. VdSV9• ♫  19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What was his day job again? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whose? VdSV9• ♫ 19:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bartholomew's, of course. While you're at, could you clarify what the word "Honorary" means, in the title, "Honorary Senior Lecturer"? Geogene (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the relevant policy, Geogene. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. It says, Honorary appointees are not remunerated, other than reimbursement of expenses. So if VdSV9 calls this person an expert, what is his day job again? It's obvious this Bartholomew wouldn't pass WP:NPROF on this. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the policy also says that to be an honorary appointee, a person must have a national and international standing outside the University in their area of expertise. Now, it's certainly not binding on Wikipedia, but it does let me know that the University of Auckland considers him notable.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But not enough standing to justify paying him a salary? I suspect that University of Auckland considers all of their people notable in some way, and I also suspect they pay most of them. Few of them are notable enough to receive any coverage at all in an encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. A google news search suggests to me that he is likely notable, but reasonable minds may certainly differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what his day job is, don't care, and am not willing to go along with your red herrings. His specialization is in medical sociology, and there are plenty reliable sources to support the claim that he is an expert in MPI (mass hysteria), having written or co-written books and articles on notable publications about it. Do you want more information on Robert Baloh, with whom he co-wrote the HS book? VdSV9• ♫ 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You SHOULD care what he does for a living, because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate he's a world class expert. If a university WERE paying him for his expertise, that would be independent, objective evidence in favor of that expertise. That it doesn't is a red flag that you don't seem to be able to recover from. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This focus on drawing a paycheck strikes me as odd. Notability, expertise, and the like, should be, to my mind, a holistic inquiry.  While you're free to take employment into account, it is not for me a sine qua non for expertise, source usage, or anything else.  If consensus is against me on this count, I will find a way to survive.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I fail to see what the relevance of this whole Bartholomew expertise discussion to the wider SI debate. We're kind of just walking in circles here. I will say though, that for all intents and purposes Bartholomew is an expert in some areas of medicine, being published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and 's description of honorary positions is in line with my (brief) professional experience in the field. But again, this has no effect on the editorial practices, biases, and ethics of SI nor its use within Wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable wrt to facts. Opinion pieces still need to be cited as opinions. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact As others have been saying above, their main articles are fine to use as is, but any opinion pieces need to be attributed to the authors. The good thing, also as many have noted, is that their opinion pieces are almost always done by a notable expert who also often already has a Wikipedia article anyways. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to SI that I've been seeing taking advantage of the source's admission of negatively covering pseudoscience are those who would want said pseudoscience to be positively covered and are using this as an opportunity to try and remove one of the primary sources of debunking WP:FRINGE topics out there. Silver  seren C 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe most editors who question its reliability support its use for WP:PARITY statements, but have concerns about its use beyond debunking fringe topics. As your response appears focused on its use in fringe areas, is this a position you could agree with; can be used for parity, but should generally be avoided outside of fringe areas. Pinging LuckyLouie and Shibbolethink as well, as their comments were similar. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. SI actually describes itself as focused on "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" — which is the bulk of its content. And most Wikipedians agree (me included) that opinion pieces should be attributed ("According to John Smith..."). Here's the latest issue, can you indicate which content is unreliable, should be avoided, etc.? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is what it is primarily focused on, but use of the source often goes beyond that, and given the issues with the source it seems likely that this shouldn't be happening. In response to your question, I would recommend avoiding content that is not being used to rebut fringe statements. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Their "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" sync with mainstream scientific thought. Obvious caveats are that unambiguous SI opinion pieces should be attributed, especially in the context of BLPs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. As with many GREL publications, there are also opinion pieces published here, and those require additional considerations such as attribution, closer scrutiny for evaluating DUE, etc. As others here have said, the reporting standards of SI are not very different from most other publications in this area, or in popular journalism in general. It checks facts which are contentious with external review, it has standards for who it allows to publish, and it has an editorial process. I want to emphasize, the factual reporting of SI makes it an essential source for matters which have serious parity issues, such as pseudoscience, charlatans, the paranormal, hoaxes, and the occult. Many wiki articles about these subjects are overly laudatory, and lack a skeptical perspective to achieve NPOV balance in due proportion to reliable sources. They are overly reliant on in-universe content, because of a very common problem: The more FRINGE a topic, the more polarized the sources, and the more interested editors may be biased in favor of the subject. This is similar to Brandolini's law, or its sub-corollary that proponents of a fringe topic will almost always know more about it, and in more detail, in-universe, than critics of that fringe topic will know negative content. In order to maintain DUE and BALANCE, we need more reliable independent sources like SI to counter that common bias. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. All the reasoning above about no fact-checking is crap, and it has already been refuted in the section above the survey. To repeat: Even scientific journals do not check all facts. Peer-review, for example, does not mean that the peers go to the lab of the authors and check all the records. So, there are unchecked facts in scientific journals! Deprecate them all! There has not even been one single example given about anything SI ever got wrong. I am not saying there isn't - there must be, it is unavoidable that it will happen at some time in 40 years, even if you extremely careful. But the fact that not one of SI's detractors has named such a blooper tells you that its supposed unreliability is just hypothetical, not real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, you could have referred to this better, for example, by saying "08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)". (I guess that is whyt you meant.) Then I could have searched the page for that instead of for your name or XOR'easter's. Thank you for unnecessarily wasting my time.
 * Second, you found an example of something you disagreed with, not an example of something where SI clearly got it wrong. If someone wanted to quote that one in an article, they would fail because it would be WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it is clearly wrong, as I explained above - I would even go so far as to call the chosen method pseudoscience. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, I would implore you to re-read the article you link again. The 'forensic caricature' which gives you so much pause (and understandably so) seems obviously to me to be (1) tongue-in-cheek; and (2) a description of the method for illustrating differences--not in fact a heuristic for coming to the conclusion.  You can certainly take issue with the conclusion or actual method by which it was reached (which seems to have been "I see differences"), but I think your description here is a bit off.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am responding to this above, where the same discussion is duplicated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. I haven't seen anything published in SI that has been so egregiously incorrect as to call into question its reliability. Of course, such honorifics can be taken to extremes. I've seen people argue that obvious typos need to be accepted at face value because a reliable source printed it. The word generally is the key term here. jps (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable and worth noting that scepticism (sometimes spelled skepticism) is merely a public reflection of mainstream science, something ARBCOM would do well to acknowledge. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 05:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Of course it's generally reliable for supporting statements of fact within its topic—the authors and the publication are generally good and suitably credentialed. Is there evidence of any substantive and incorrect information in Skeptical Inquirer? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Shame on Shamus Sham? That mentions The Mystery Chronicles: More Real-Life X-Files,details with publisher: "The University Press of Kentucky (UPK) is the scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth of Kentucky". You might argue that someone with no qualifications in examination of faces is not a reliable source to point out that two faces have marked differences and are obviously not the same person. But to claim that conclusion is incorrect would be absurd—have a look at the photos. The question of whether SI is reliable of course depends on what fact it is being used to verify but if WP:PARITY were being used to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer, the source would be perfect. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The conclusion is correct, but that isn't enough for a source to be usable; the method the conclusion is arrived at also needs to be correct. An equivalent example would be someone proving the earth is round using dowsing rods; even though the conclusion is correct, the method means that we cannot use the source. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you did not read my question which asked for an example of incorrect information. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what the difference is? It doesn't matter why the source is unusable - incorrect method or incorrect conclusion - just that it is unusable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of time has been wasted (see Arbcom proposed remedies) mainly because participants have been unable to respond in a logical fashion. I asked if there is an example of SI publishing incorrect information. Your response implied that such an example can be found above. I hunted for it and found the article to be 100% correct. Now you are shifting the goalposts to say that this example is correct but is unusable as a source. Did you see where I pointed out that the article would be reliable to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer? Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that the article is correct. In the future, if you're going to respond, please make it logical. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it appears I was not clear. The example provided is an example of SI publishing incorrect information, as the method the conclusion is arrived at is not correct. This means we cannot use the article, even as a parity source - just as we could not use an article proving the earth is round using dowsing, even as a parity source, as it would be incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding simple logic, are you aware that "the method the conclusion is arrived at" is totally irrelevant for whether this is "an example of SI publishing incorrect information"? I might conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow by consulting a psychic. My method is bogus but the conclusion is correct. After all these replies you still have not identified any substantive and incorrect information published in SI. And you fail to respond to the point that the SI source would be suitable to counter a claim from a psychic. Please either answer my question with an example of incorrect information, or agree that no such example is known. After that, we can debate how SI authors arrive at their conclusions and whether a particular article would be suitable as a reference for a particular assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall - would you really consider an article claiming that the sun would rise tomorrow because a psychic told the author to not be incorrect? And I have responded to that point; per my !vote above, SI would generally be suitable as a WP:PARITY source. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall This is your opinion of how "correctness" should be determined. It is not wikipedia's. See, for example: WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This definition of correctness is widely held; for example: do you consider a person proving the sun will rise tomorrow with the help of a psychic to be correct? I also don't believe WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant to a discussion about whether a source is reliably "correct". BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have completely misapprehended Joe Nickell here. The claim he is debunking is no more solid than the method he is using, and that's rather his point. He is meeting the argument on its own terms and thereby argues that the entire premise is quite ridiculous. This is rather like when cynical commentators use the methods of creationists to "prove" evolution. The point of such exercises is not to say that such methods are the way things should be done. The point is to show that they don't even do what they claim to do. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is the issue. Neither the claim, nor the rebuttal, are reliable, and publishing either raises questions about the publisher, and suggests that at best they seek to entertain, rather than inform. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Marginally reliable due to it being a self-admitted biased publication that has a problem with issuing corrections. I don't have the entire collection of SI handy to provide issue dates, so I am relying on my memory, but there was an Editor's note some recent years ago where the magazine proudly proclaimed its content was non-neutral. It also once falsely claimed as a puzzle answer that the source of the quotation "Everyone who believes in telekinesis raise my hand" was writer Kurt Vonnegut (It's a one-liner by comedian Emo Philips). They never published a correction, so it makes me wonder how many other errors they wouldn't correct over its publishing history. I also note famous skeptical writers Robert Shaeffer, Gary Poser, and much earlier Marcello Truzzi quit their association with its publisher for similar reasons over bias. Its use as a source should be considered on a case by case basis.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They admit to bias, and so do we. What is the issue here? Why admiting to one's own biases would not be a good thing? I thought we were discussing reliability. Do you have any evidence to the claim that they have a problem with issuing corrections? I have yet to see a publication that never makes a mistake, and I don't expect them to catch and publish corrections to all of them. The one you caught may have slipped by, I have seen other mistakes they've made, but that's a long shot for claiming a publication has such a bad record as to be "marginally reliable". VdSV9• ♫ 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: "They admit to bias, and so do we...": Who exactly is we? WP:GOODBIAS links to a user page. GretLomborg (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just us, the reasonable people that try not to have our heads in the clouds. The only bias they have is a pro-science and pro-reality one. Everyone has biases, as does every publication, and admiting to one's own biases is not a bad thing and doesn't make it unreliable. VdSV9• ♫ 00:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Anchoring (cognitive_bias) is a useful read in this instance. Y'all are so perfectly biased, in your eyes, and so is one of the sources you most favor that there is a very high chance if it publishes wrong information or is contradictory to more reliable sources that rather than editing Wikipedia to reflect reliable sources' views on the issue, you will stick by whatever SI says. This is the main concern for those of us that do not trust SI's editorial policy to err on the side of caution when publishing potentially damaging BLP information or even when its contributors write pieces outside their area of expertise. This is why I highlight below in my vote some of the comments cited to regular SI contributors, even outside of SI context, such as Benjamin Radford (written over 100 articles for SI on all matter of subjects) being cited for the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation. The actual context is much more nuanced, with caveats such as most developing countries having incomplete or nonexistent reporting of suicides, and other causes (such as ingestion of pesticides to induce self-poisoning) being significantly more common. I would be very surprised if Radford was enough of an expert to be cited for that in an unverifiable way, as only 4% of all suicides in Pakistan are from self-immolation. Those that agree with me in this discussion are concerned about SI not fact-checking these types of numbers, and there is no public criteria for when they would (if a publication is explicitly biased, their judgement of what is "controversial" may not and probably does not fit wider journalism standards for controversy). In fact, it is in my opinion SI's reporting standards violate the US journalistic ethics code by not taking responsibility for the accuracy of their work as editors. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation. There are indeed distortions here, but it is not done by SI.
 * the source given is not the SI, it is Vice. So, the whole example is irrelevant here.
 * The source says, In developing countries, Radford says, self-immolation can account for up to 40 percent of all suicide. That means that there is at least one developing country where it is 40%.
 * Our article says, Radford claims in developing countries the figure can be as high as 40%
 * User:A._C._Santacruz says, the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation.
 * So, our article says exactly what the source says, attributing it to Radford with the words "Radford claims".
 * But what ACS claims is something completely different. She claims that Radford claims the overall rate for all developing countries is 40%.
 * ACS, would you please strike your false statements and your irrelevant statements using and ? We don't want the people who decide this to accidentally take them into account. See also User:Hob Gadling/Admit mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the way this RfC has been going, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction. (Yes, A. C. Santacruz really did just use a citation to Vice as an example of Skeptical Enquirer being unreliable!) The good news is that I have asked for an experienced closer at Closure requests and an experienced closer will know what claims to ignore. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I clarified above that the citation was not necessary to be from SI for my argument (even outside of SI context). Radford is a very frequent contributor to SI (251 articles up until now). He is not qualified enough nor expert enough in mental illness in the developing world for us to use him in Wiki in these contexts, especially for an unverifiable claim, through attribution. In this discussion some editors, including myself, have raised the issue that attribution should be used for subject-matter expert content published by SI. However, if editors that add citations to SI and their frequent contributors are unable to identify when the writers of articles they read are actually experts (which is important in a popular science publication like SI) that present issues in the implementation of such a community expectation of the source as "Marginal reliability - use with attribution". The Radford full quote is "In developing countries, Radford says, self-immolation can account for up to 40 percent of all suicide.'This woman was an immigrant from another country, and elsewhere in the world, such as India and Africa, self immolation, suicide by fire is far more common than in America or Western Europe. It's actually a fairly likely explanation.'". When combined with statements like "elsewhere in the world suicide by fire is far more common than in America or Western Europe" (emphasis my own), it is pretty clear to me Radford wasn't meaning an outlier case when mentioning the 40% — he was giving the reader a strong, general impression about a topic he has no expertise on.
 * On a separate point, Hob, please stop linking me to that essay. This RfC is a very nuanced discussion on journalistic practices, verifiability, sourcing policies on Wikipedia, and popular science source use within articles. Reasonable minds may differ, and calling my points as false and irrelevant is neither constructive nor civil. I particularly take offense at you raising the concern that closers might accidentally take my arguments into account. I'm discussing here in good faith, being diligent in my analysis of how skeptics are cited on Wikipedia, and presenting rationales for my opinion. Dismissing them wholeheartedly and in such a disrespectful manner is obviously hurtful, and I ask you to at least remove that sentence. There's no reason why this discussion ever had to veer into such personal territory and I'm stunned that even after your AE warning you're still testing where the limit of civility lies.
 * , making passive-aggressive remarks about me (Yes, A. C. Santacruz really did just use a citation to Vice as an example of Skeptical Enquirer being unreliable!) is not constructive to the discussion and borderline uncivil, please stop. Also, I would recommend you place the closure request notice in the Discussion section rather than the Survey due to visibility purposes. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Radford's quote is mathematically very clear, and your misquotation of it is also mathematically very clear. Both statements are clearly different. Your interpretations of other stuff beside the quote itself do not matter to this fact. Your statement was false and stays false; it is not a matter of opinion. It would have been very easy for you to amend your false statement to make it true, and it would not have hurt your argument (unless your argument is based on that very falsehood and crumbles if the falsehood is removed). Still, I did not expect you to correct it, and neither did Guy, based on past experience. Our expectation was correct. I have nothing more to say about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You know we can just like, disagree, right? It is perfectly normal and common in discussions about reliability or other nuanced guidelines for reasonable editors to disagree, even strongly. There is no absolute truth, just consensus. Not every discussion is an absolute right or wrong side against another, and it would greatly benefit the quality of the discussion if you stopped acting like this is a black-or-white question we're trying to answer, . In any case, Radford is "mathematically" not an expert on developed world suicide method prevalence, and his being cited through attribution for statistics regarding that field leads me to believe those that are members of the American skepticism movement are too anchored to see why its wrong to cite him in such contexts and thus would not be able to understand (and therefore respect) the standards for attribution of subject-matter experts as option 2 would recommend. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable - It seems strange to again have a thread about this source. It's often useful for WP:PARITY.  If the recent ARBCOM case was an excuse to repost this, it doesn't have to do with if this source is reliable or not...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 - Gen. Reliable - No meaningful evidence has been presented by the other side. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 - Gen. Reliable - Surprised this is even up for discussion, SI is an absolutely irreplaceable tool in the coverage of fringe.   Obviously, it has to be used with a certain amount of care, because they're advocates not journalists, but absolutely meets RS.   Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Marginally reliable—on top of the issues discussed above, the biggest queries I often have is—can this be replaced with a better source? And if it can't, is the topic actually something we should be covering? Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with topics that should be receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. We're not Quackwatch or a place to relentlessly catalog frauds and hucksters and pseudoscience just because it's pseudoscience. It's a different remit. If you can't find good coverage of a topic besides SI, I'd question whether the topic is actually notable in the first place. And if SI is the only place "rebutting" another POV, that implies fringe POVs. It should be used sparingly, and generally treated as a SPS and looking to the author given its lack of editorial controls. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. 's point about the importance of this publication for maintaining DUE and BALANCE is well made. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1/2: - Reliable but considerations apply for opinion pieces. I also don't think we should lean on skepticism magazines for statements of fact in scientific subjects. We have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for that. CutePeach (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to count a "1/2" !vote. Some considerations apply for all opinion pieces, even those that we determine are generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. And nothing in WP:SCHOLARSHIP in any way implies that other sources (WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED) are unreliable or marginally reliable -- just that we should "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent". Could you please make your !vote clear so we can get a clean count that nobody can dispute? Suggestions:
 * "1 with the usual cautions about opinion pieces and bias",
 * "2 [list of considerations as to why certain claims in this source aren't to be trusted in specific situations]",
 * "1 second choice 2",
 * "2 second choice 1".
 * Any of those or something similar will be easy to count and hard to dispute --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wanted to position myself between 1 and 2, but reading some of the !votes below, I now lean more towards 2. There is a real WP:ADVOCACY concern with the skeptic cabal on Wikipedia. I don't think they're a net negative, but they need to be kept in check to assure WP:BALANCE is maintained, and SI looks like it can disrupt that. It's not clear how SI's editorial team reviews submissions and distinguishes between fact and opinion, and I can see that as giving rise to sourcing disputes. CutePeach (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact - I have spent a long time thinking about this and looking for secondary sources and other mentions, but there's a funny issue insofar as it seems the magazine occupies a very specific niche. It is largely hegemonic in the kookier pseudoscientific field--you don't get scholarly journals which spend time debunking interdimensional bigfoot, to put it crudely.  That largely means its existence is sort of unexamined; when it comes up in major news sources, it tends to be noted and quickly ignored (from what I can tell).  That said, I would obviously be open if anyone has found better sources than I have (which is certainly possible).  Still, I think there is a general reputation for accuracy, without implying perfection, and to me, the fact-checking concerns are overwrought (though it would be nice to know more).  So, this is where I stand, though I reserve the right to change my mind as new information is adduced.  Reasonable minds may differ, of course.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It looks like they have sufficient editorial controls; while they take submitted articles they do send them for review and generally have a policy against publishing obvious falsehoods. The boilerplate "authors are responsible for their own content" is not particularly problematic for me.  -- Jayron 32 16:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply, with the usual opinion caveat. With that said, I have two specific concerns about it's use. First is it's use in BLPs, as it is clearly biased, and columns written with the aim to get negative information added to Wikipedia and search results is a real concern for me. Generally, I would treat any stings and the like as primary sources, and would not include them unless they are covered by additional secondary sources. Second is to make sure information sourced to SI is WP:DUE. If there are no other secondary sources covering something, especially in a BLP, it likely should not be in the article at all. If the only reliable source that says Subject A believes interdimensional Bigfoot faked the moon landed is also the source debunking dimension shifting yetis pulling hoaxes, it's probably not due for inclusion. While I'm less bothered than some others by its use when better sources exist, it should generally not be used far outside the topic of skepticism, i.e. in Anorexia nervosa. Also, I believe puts it best, Reasonable minds may differ, of course. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been giving this a fair amount of additional thought, and have decided to adjust my !vote. Firstly, there are many comparing SI to a journal. If this is true, it does not have a peer review process, and per WP:RS, Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. All mentions of using journals as sources hinges on them being peer reviewed or a well regarded academic press, which SI is not. WP:RS also says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. SI is not "high-quality" when compared to other high-quality non-scholarly sources. They do not have a strong, established editorial policy, or a team of fact checkers reading and vetting articles. High-quality non-scholarly sources, like the New York Times, have teams of fact checkers that verify facts in articles. They have strong editorial processes, and a published standard of ethical journalism. They have a reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. There's also the bias and advocacy issues. Again, using the New York Times as a benchmark, review the tone of and, While consultations can feel very therapeutic, he said, these online marketplaces are full of fraudsters, looking to trick vulnerable clients out of their money... This exchange is a gift to critics looking for examples of how Gwyneth Paltrow’s wellness media empire peddles expensive quackery in the name of self-care. They clearly state the issues with psychics and quackery, and call such things out, but they don't refer to people as grief vampires, or write in an overly sensationaist tone, Maybe I missed the press release and the Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded to Henry for breaking the natural laws of the known universe. Possibly the smoke from the burning of all the textbooks that now need to be rewritten has polluted the atmosphere to the point that I forgot when this discovery was announced. That kind of writing is fine and good, but it's not a high quality source for an encyclopedia. This Guardian article on the ethics of stings in journalism puts a large emphasis on editorial oversight, and again, that's not something we see with this source. WP:PARITY usage is fine, but usage in BLPs and making contentious statements should be limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply: it's a self-declared and heavily WP:PARTISAN source that covers scientific topics from a non-academic, popular journalism perspective. Just on this score it would be easily recognized by everyone as generally unreliable, if not for two facts: (1) for some aspects of some fringe topics, there is no other and better source, which makes it usable under WP:PARITY, and (2) there are quite a few editors who are specifically here on WP to fight fringe, and they have no qualms with applying different standards to sources which they regard as useful in 'fighting the good fight'. In particular, the !votes for "option 1. generally reliable" that cite WP:PARITY as a rationale should be discounted because, apart from the fact that WP:PARITY does not automagically render a source generally reliable, a source that is truly generally reliable in and of itself would never need WP:PARITY in the first place. Instead, the fact that WP:PARITY applies shows that additional considerations apply which in some cases may legitimize the use of an otherwise marginally reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality, and that we ought to find sources that are neutral and balanced in the debate between Swiss watchmakers and time cube proponents. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And we've had some discussions before about "we can never know anything" philosophical statements (that may well belong in a philosophy article but that is by no means appropriate in practice for Wikipedia)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if "Universal Skeptic Inquirer" exists, I am sure it is NOT reliable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for illustrating my point, y'all? Anyway, as you know, I take the view that we're WP:NOTBIASED, and that as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to always look for the best sources. This of course doesn't mean something 'between' an anti-fringe magazine and fringe magazines, but academic, peer-reviewed sources. The magazine can be cited when nothing better is available. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * that is a false equivalence, and a particularly hyperbolic one at that. SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact. It is not unreasonable for atheist, skeptical, or "free thinker" publications to be criticized as biased (similar to the way new atheists have been criticized as evangelical and militant). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As usual, in order to claim someone else has commited a fallacy, ACS has to create a strawman of what they said. And then follow it up with a non-sequitur. Just tiresome. VdSV9</b>• ♫ 00:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What strawman? SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact is a direct response to Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality. Additionally, I still believe that new atheists provide a very useful comparison to modern American-style skeptics in both how they organize and operate since to me they seem like two movements with significant overlap. It's not as much of a reach as you'd think when the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (a New Atheism-styled foundation) is a division of the Center for Inquiry, the parent company of SI. I'd appreciate some explanation on why that is a non-sequitur, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I advise not responding to A. C. Santacruz. There is no point in debating someone who reads the words "Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality" and somehow transmogrifying that argument into a strawman claim that SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact. Yes, it is a classic Straw man but nothing anyone writes will result in A. C. Santacruz seeing that. They will, no doubt, respond at length to this comment, but IMO we should all at that point stop beating a dead horse and let them have the last word, for the simple reason that we have a consensus and nobody involved is going to change their position. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying only to 'advise not to reply' and to take another ad hominem stab? Please do better. I'm collapsing this. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: Uncollapsed by ‎Guy Macon Alternate Account with the summary Either collapse the discussion or you can add a "last word" comment with your opinion. Please don't do both. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted. As I said, collapsing a section is (usually) OK -- but in general should be done by someone uninvolved, not someone who has taken a position in the discussion -- and adding another comment that accuses an editor of engaging in the ad hominem fallacy is also (usually) OK, but doing both in the same edit has the effect of unfairly giving the editor who made the ad hominem accusation an unanswerable last word.

Furthermore, BilledMammal's the collapse is a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline: "Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors" Do it again and we will end up discussing the talk page guidelines at WP:ANI. (Any uninvolved editor should feel free to collapse the discussion without tacking on a last word accusing one participant in the discussion.)

In such cases, reverting just the improper collapse while leaving in the added comment is controversial. If you just remove the collapse you may be accused of reverting part of an edit, which is to be avoided. If you revert the entire edit you may be accused of deleting other editors comments. even though reverting a a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline is allowed -- see WP:TPOC.

I also note the irony in collapsing a correct accusation of engaging in the Strawman fallacy with an incorrect accusation of engaging in the Ad hominem fallacy.

In the discussion above, the real subject of the argument ("Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality") was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one ("SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact") followed by "refuting" the false claim that the opponent never made. That is a clear example of the Strawman fallacy.

On the other hand, the definition of Ad hominem is "a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". I clearly attacked the fact that a strawman argument was being made and not any other attribute of the person making the argument.

I strongly advise everyone involved to carefully read Talk page guidelines paying careful attention to what someone involved in a discussion is and is not allowed to do. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also note the irony in uncollapsing a portion of a thread that had no active discussion and where you told people not to respond to an editor, then baited that editor because Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This is certainly the best way to reduce drama and have a nice civil conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted - what recollapse? I restored the comment you deleted, not the collapse. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The diff for the edit I made is . As you can see, I did not recollapse the discussion - please strike your incorrect accusations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2:Marginally reliable, See below - put it best. Parity doesn't grant a source reliability, nor should we take a popular science magazine as equal to journalism with a proven track record or peer reviewed academic journals. It would be mind-boggling to me for the community to accept History (American TV network)'s magazine as reliable for statements of fact. Additionally, their strong partisan point of view in their coverage of living people as well as their publishing of opinions by non-medical professionals in medical topics is highly problematic when using it on Wikipedia. I have little confidence in their editorial oversight. That's not to say their contributors aren't usually experts, but I think that's better covered by attribution than trusting a marginally reliable source. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to deny them equality with journalism, but their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism". If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. <b style="color:#070">VdSV9</b>• ♫ 01:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism" according to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim.
 * If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. are you implying sources like NYT or (the alternative you failed to comment on) peer reviewed medical journals are promoting fringe theories? Wouldn't this make them unreliable?
 * In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. This is a case of PARITY use that would be entirely covered my "marginal reliability".
 * The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. According to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim. I'd appreciate some clarification on the evidence (not opinions) that back your claims, especially since you seem to disagree option 2 would cover both parity and attribution uses. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the issues is how widely the source (or parent company) is being used for areas where the contributors don't have any experience. For example, Benjamin Radford (an educational psychologist by training and an urban legend/fringe popular-writer by trade) is cited for his experience in avalanches, suicide-by-self-immolation rates in the developing world (40%!), antisemitism by the Nation of Islam, short-term memory, and organ transplantation procedures. Massimo Polidoro is cited on Roman persecution of Christians and medical side-effects of chastity belts. They are frequently cited in areas that demand tertiary sources or as gratuitous fancruft, such as in articles about law, the immune system, and opioid addiction treatment. These uses are opposed to the type of expertise attribution is meant to respect. I haven't even looked at the claims they make in BLPs, but the issues I show above are already enough for me to not support the source as generally reliable (especially the MEDRS violations). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What a phenomemal misrepresentation of Radford. Radford isn't a "an urban legend/fringe popular-writer by trade", he is an urban legend/fringe debunker by trade. His background in psychology makes him particularly qualified as to the reasons why people belief in this sort of nonsense, and his work for Snopes speaks for itself. Likewise for Polidoro et al. They all specialize in debunking the utterly nonsensical claims of pseudoscience proponents. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think in light of the comments others have raised elsewhere in the discussion, I support Option 3, with option 2 as a second preference. It is clear to me that those most likely to add the source will fail to understand the important caveats and considerations "marginal reliability" would imply, such as the actual meaning of WP:PARITY use and the relation of SI to sources considered to be more reliable (such as reputable newspapers and peer reviewed academic journals). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is high-quality popular press and particularly useful in its niche: coverage of WP:FRINGE topics. Not WP:MEDRS, and any use for biographical content should be cautious. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact is i think inline with most of WP:RSNP, tho also think that the green color and "generally reliable" gives too much license and editors should be more critical of sources across the board. Problematic usage of the source:
 * Does not meet the WP:BLP requirement to adhere strictly to WP:V's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. There are most likely very reasonable usages of the source within a BLP context, but it's hard to look at for example: ...applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia and find good guidance for that. I think if a source is reasonable in criticizing a persons ideas rather than attacking the character of that person, and has some reputation as a publisher we can rely on, then that should meet the BLP burden. But there is no support for that view in the policies and guidelines.
 * |"America's Longest and Costliest Criminal Trial" an expert author and used for non-controversial statements in McMartin preschool trial and Paul and Shirley Eberle, but the content of the article at SI is beyond the competence of the publisher. Even though it is just a book review, this source should be used nowhere near this topic.
 * Elizabeth Loftus and Taus v. Loftus, another instance of SI going beyond its competence and here the publisher is not an independent source.
 * Stephen Novella's "It’s Time for Science-Based Medicine" in Science-Based Medicine, marginally promotional YMMV.
 * Strategic lawsuit against public participation WP:UNDUE and promotional
 * CVS_Pharmacy publisher not independent for topic
 * Criticism of Walmart publisher not independent for topic
 * Count my vote as Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply if the limited fact-checking, BLP concerns, and restriction to areas of competence for the publisher aren't strongly reflected in the closing summary. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After looking at the history of the articles where CSI is involved in lawsuits and the editors making those changes there is evidence of blatant misuse of the source. Combined with the inability of some taking part in the discussion below to take on board criticism and acknowledge the limitations of the source i think a much stronger warning and much higher burden for usage is appropriate. I realize this is an editor problem and not a real problem with a source, but if WP can't count on good judgment from those wishing to use articles from this publisher then more forceful warning in the RSPN entry is probably appropriate. At least Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply. fiveby(zero) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - leaning option 3, They admit to not having editorial oversight of the articles they publish. Full stop! Maybe they check some, who knows which those are? What we do know is they specifically say they do not on all their articles. That said, if it is by an expert in a field then considerations apply there. I would not use them for BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. My view of the magazine matches Guy Macon. SI has a good reputation and reports on topics that are important to Wikipedia. I haven't seen anyone offer strong evidence that they routinely publish inaccurate information.Talrolande (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Of course, being generally reliable for supporting statements of fact does not mean that SI is always the best source to use. Conversely, not always being the best source to use does not mean that SI is not generally reliable for supporting statement of fact. Cardamon (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3: It does not exactly inspire confidence when they inform: The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. They claim to sometimes have manuscripts reviewed when their claims are completely novel or especially controversial, but the overall impression I am getting is that the Editorial Board has little confidence in its peer-riview process. I think the primary thing distinguishing them from other sources we have denounced as having "meaningless" peer-review processes is the fact that they are somewhat up-front about it. I would say they should be treated as a self-published source, or maybe marginally better, but no more. I also firmly believe that without editorial review of every article, Skeptical Inquirer is not an acceptable source for claims about living persons, ever. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about it, the more firmly I am convinced that because we cannot be certain which articles have been reviewed, they should all be treated as self-published. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Skeptical Inquirer is reliable. It is has solid editorial oversight and is generally regarded as an authority in its area of expertise (broadly speaking, the rebuttal of bullshit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is has solid editorial oversight... But they don't, they even say that they don't. Its not even a question. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. ScottishFinnishRadish lays it out pretty well. 'Considerations apply' just isnt a high bar to get over when it matters. If you cant, then there is a different issue than how reliable this one source is.  Bonewah (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2, marginally reliable yes I think there are ways to use this source but they need to be worked out on a case by case. What we need in terms of editorial standards and reputation just aren't met here. I understand the knee jerk reaction that anything from a skeptical perspective must be reliable, but that has no basis or reflection in policy/guideline. A questionably reliable source does not become reliable because of its specific POV no matter how sympathetic we as editors may be to that POV. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. SI is often used on medical topics to justify definitive statements in the lead written in editorial tone in SI, and then pasted into Wikipedia as if its encyclopedic tone. This would clearly not be allowed elsewhere, so these standards should apply. There is no Wiki policy or guidelines that allows us to change our tone to editorial tone simply because it's psuedoscience. If we refrain from this type of editorialized source, we will have more encyclopdic tones in articles and less rhetoric. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - If SI places responsibility on the authors for accuracy, that's not fact-checking and is as reliable as the author themselves as primary. That's a no-no for BLPs but may be acceptable about non-BLP matters if written by an established expert in the field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. I don't have much to add to the discussion above except stating that reading it makes it very clear which users rely in erroneous information, misinterpretation of facts or statements, or fabulist fear-mongering statements about "what could happen if there was a publication which..." without actually providing concrete examples for their arguments and which users counter such arguments and state verifiable facts. Which is quite interesting in a discussion regarding reliability of a source like this.--Ebergerz (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ebergerz (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 mar 2022 (UTC)


 * I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Wikipedia (most are on the Spanish Wikipedia) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Wikipedia-space here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not hard to find out who this most likely is (a GSoW person) but I want to avoid outing. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammalI feel disinclined to answer to you as your question is irrelevant to the RFC and I don't like the implications of your attitude (that somehow it is incorrect for me to vote here and that you are somehow entitled to be a gatekeeper). Ebergerz (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you were Stealth canvassed to this discussion by GSoW, as I cannot see another plausible explanation for how you discovered this discussion, and you have not provided one - and if you were canvassed to this discussion, then it is incorrect for you to !vote here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you are assuming [A] that you know who is and who isn't a GSoW member just because they found an RfC that (like all RfCs) has been widely publicised, and [B] that you are implying that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on things like this RfC despite a recent Arbcom decision that chose not to impose any such resriction. More time making your arguments and less time trying to suppress the arguments others make, please. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammalThat is exactly what your previous post implied. And not only is it wrong, it is pathetically ridiculous. Again, I don't have to provide an explanation to you, and your lack of imagination is not my, or anyone else's, concern. The fact that I followed the ArbCom case and that I've used SI as a source dozens of times and I keep an eye on this discussions because SP WP does not have a list of reliable sources as such, so we use the english one, and decided to finally put in my two cents never crossed your mind. So please make a formal report for canvassing or strike your previous comment. Your gatekeeping is out of place, and is simply an attempt at bullying people with opinions that differ from yours. You should start answering the arguments instead of trying to discredit the people making them. as Guy just adviced you. Ebergerz (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammalI had not noticed that you had considered appropriate to add a note to my vote, without signing it and using something similar to the royal 3rd person it seems, calling yourself "An editor". I fixed it for you so it is correctly attributed now and avoids giving the impression of it being added by someone else. I will repeat what I said before: Retract your accusation, strike your comment (and delete that note), or make a formal report. There is not really a middle ground when making serious accusations like this. Not as long as you adhere to a minimal ethical standard, of course. ¿Do you? Ebergerz (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given your lack of previous participation at RSN, your explanation does not adequately address my concerns, and I will not strike them; I will leave them for the closer to consider - I note this is the correct place to discuss concerns an editor may have been canvassed. I have also removed your edit to the note on your post, as the previous form was from a standard template.
 * Guy Macon, you misrepresent my comment. My assessment of Ebergerz as a member of GSoW is based on general behaviour evidence, and my concern with their contribution is based on the concern, caused by their lack of participation at RSN, in RFC's, or in WP-space, that they were canvassed by members of the organization, and not on their membership of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated before, "your" concerns are mostly irrelevant, you are not the master gatekeeper here, and I doubt any evidence or response would be enough to convince you of anything you don't like, which is why I was disinclined to answer to you in the first place. By your logic any editor that opines for the first time here (specially if they disagree with you) would be suspicious of being canvassed. Truly you show an amazing lack of self awareness. You seem to have misunderstood my answer as an attempt to satisfy your demands. It was not, I was just exposing the lack of consistency in your argument of being unable to see "another plausible explanation". Regarding the template for the note, it is fairly obvious that if you are going to use it to note a concern that you yourself have expressed (and not someone else), you should at least sign after it, but there, I've fixed it for you in the standard way: the unsigned template. Ebergerz (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By your logic any editor that opines for the first time here would be suspicious of being canvassed. Not any editor who contributes to RSN and formal discussions for the first time. Only editors that do so and are part of a group that lacks transparency, usually communicates off-wiki, and has an interest in the outcome of the discussion. But if you do have a response or evidence, I would suggest you provide it - for the benefit of the closer, who needs to decide how to weight your !vote, and not for my benefit. BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Take them to WP:ANI or WP:COIN with evidence, or leave them alone. If you don't stop badgering them and casting WP:ASPERSIONS I will report your behavior to ANI myself. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not harassment to raise concerns about possible canvassing in a discussion; indeed, it is required to discuss it here, as it is important information for the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal For the 3rd time: Make your complain formal and present your evidence there (your were just pointed where to do it), or strike your accusation and delete the note. It is you making the claim, it is your responsibility to present evidence to back it up, It is not my task to present evidence of a negative and I have already clearly stated my position. You not presenting the case formally and with evidence to back it up, after being asked several times to do so, transparently shows how baseless your accusation is and that your intention is simply to intimidate whoever you think you can, who has a difference of opinion with you. So: harassment indeed. Ebergerz (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've presented my concern, and my reasoning for it. I'm not going to discuss this further, here or elsewhere - it's presented for the closer to consider, and that is as far as it needs to be taken at this time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal Well, isn't that nice for you? But that is not how it works. You can't go around making accusations willy nilli and not back them up. If your claim had not been contested, maybe leaving it at that would be ok. But this is not the case. So, go all the way, take responsibility, present a case and evidence or retract yourself. Ebergerz (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement anywhere that "prove" that stealth canvassing has taken place, and nobody is going to try to. This is not solely because doing so is inherently extremely difficult (perhaps impossible, depending on the burden of proof you wish to use); it is also out of respect for your privacy, because any attempt to prove that you have been stealth canvassed would inevitably involve outing you, and nobody wants that. Consequently, the standard response to suspected canvassed votes is merely to flag the vote in question and leave the closer to weigh it as they deem appropriate, which has already been done. I know it feels like you have been personally attacked and are not being given a reasonable chance to defend yourself, which sucks, but it's one of the inherent downsides of this awkward compromise editors have reached between individual privacy and the project's integrity. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this template is meant to be placed on editors' talk pages. I would in fact encourage you to discuss this issue at BilledMammal's talk page rather than here. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal My assessment of Ebergerz as a member of GSoW is based on general behaviour evidence Would you be so kind as to share what evidence you are using for this accusation? I would be very careful to avoid witch hunt territory, and to be above board as you are requesting others to be above board. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It would also be useful for the accuser to provide even a shred of evidence that being a a member of GSoW equals being canvassed. All of the evidence in the recent Arbcom case points to GSoW carefully avoiding such behavior, and Arbcom declined putting any special restrictions on GSoW members. It is likely that GSoW members are also interested in Wikipedia pages related to skepticism and would watch such pages. Skeptical Inquirer is listed in the following templates:

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * SI is niche but it's generally reliable and as a niche source, covers a range of topics not otherwise treated in depth.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. From a perusual of both the site and the contributors and the overal comments SI seems to have all the necesary trappings of a site reliable for statment of fact, which to be clear doesn't make it a paper of record just reliable under wiki terms. The opposes seem to follow three paths, one misplaced, one that reads to much into a discalimer, and one that is just seems patently false.  The first oppose path seems to be that certain users are over using the source due to various off site connections or beliefs. In all honesty, there is some evidence this is true, but this would be a matter for user intervention and does not speak in anyway to the reliability of the source.  The second path is a concern about the disclaimer that authors are responsible for the facts in the articles that they submit. While not all papers may publish this disclaimer, this is absolutely true for any contract worker who publishes on any site.  Any lawsuits or reputation damage will absolutely be shared by both the publisher and the contract writer.  Users have read into this disclaimer that therefore SI does not take responsibility for facts, which seems to be an invention and not based in any wording on the site.  The default in America is that publishers are just as responsible, if not more so, for any currated content.  The last path is that SI is a partisan source, which just seems completely false and not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.  SI seems perfectly happy to explain how silly pseusdoscience is no matter what political persuasian the paractionser is, so without evidence that argument should probably be discounted.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although "partisan" is often used in reference to a focus on a political party, it can also be used in relation to a cause. It is being used here in the sense of a fervent supporter of a particular cause (skepticism). - Bilby (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is a slightly less poorly though out argument, though it is still unevidenced so should probably still be ignored. It is also stretching the idea of a "cause" well past where a lot of mainstream newspapers and journals would run afoul unless you think "truth dies in the darkness" is any less value laden.  For the avoidence of doubt I don't believe either the promotion of journalism or skepticism are partisan causes.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just a personal opinion, but I tend to find that publications that are as strongly focused on pushing a particular POV as this one - whether or not I agree with the POV - end up showing a lot of bias and don’t necessarily take the care a more neutral publication would when it comes to fact checking claims that support their POV. That’s been my experience here, but I respect that others might see things differently. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is likely to be true in the general case, but there are publications that are biased and reliable sources for statements of fact. As WP:BIASED says, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Also note that WP:BIASED is not in the questionable sources section of WP:RS. And of couse in this long discussion nobody has come up with a single example of SI making a factual claim and getting the facts wrong. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you are wrong, because the beauty of opinions is that they don't have to be based on fact or knowledge, but without at least some evidence that your opinions about SI are correct I don't see the value that they bring to this discussion. Even two or three examples of where SI's fact checking was lacking would be a lot more convincing that what arguments I have read above. Even better would be examples of mistakes they made where they did not offer a correction AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * to be absolutely honest, every time SI turns up and I put forward examples, the aggression in these debates means that we end up on a long tangent that is ugly and disruptive, so I kind of gave up. But in the cases where I’ve had cause to really sit down and go through and article I’ve tended to find problems - the one which probably caused the most issues revolved around an article on Donald Young, where the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources, creating flow on problems here. It took a lot if work by multiple editors to make our way through them, and we had to turn to the sources used by SI instead of the article. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The last time we disagreed you opened a laughably poor sock puppet investigation on me, so I am not sure you have a lot of room to fault others for agression and ugly tangents. If you have evidence then show it because vague claims only necessitate others to track down what you think are issues, which is quite disruptive.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had trouble remembering what you were referring to, but yes, that was three years ago. But this is the sort of tangent I’m referring to, so there’s that. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So is that a no on showing evidence for your claims? AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m try to expand a bit on the example I raised when I get proper internet access. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, you can check the history for yourself and see whether Bilby's claims are accurate.

The article in question is D. Gary Young.

Here is Bilby's most recent edit to the article: Nothing about SI.

Here is the source in question (It was The Spokesman-Review)

Bilby's previous edit to the article was in 2020. Still nothing related to SI.

And that's it. No other edits to the D. Gary Young article by Bilby. I also searched the talk page archives for the article, and found no discussion of SI by Bilby or anyone else -- just a single mention is passing by another editor calling it a reliable source.

Finally, let's look at the only time SI mentioned Young:

D. Gary Young (1949–2018), Diploma Mill Naturopath and Promoter of Essential Oils by none other than William M. London.

See anything in that article that gets the facts wrong?

So my conclusion is that Bilby's claim ("But in the cases where I’ve had cause to really sit down and go through and article I’ve tended to find problems - the one which probably caused the most issues revolved around an article on Donald Young, where the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources, creating flow on problems here. It took a lot if work by multiple editors to make our way through them, and we had to turn to the sources used by SI instead of the article.") appears to be factually incorrect. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You couldn’t even wait until I posted the context and the actual issue before accusing me of lying? Well, at least Thingscare progressing as per normal. Thanks for that. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of lying. I said that your claim appears to be factually incorrect. The most common reason why someone writes something that appears to be factually incorrect is that they misremember what happened years ago, followed by them working from bad information, then by me making a mistake when I looked at the history. Lying is usually pretty far down on the list of probable reasons.
 * I look forward to your evidence showing that it took a lot if work by multiple editors on the Donald Young article to deal with factual errors in Skeptical Inquirer. I looked and could find no evidence of that, but I would welcome being proven to be wrong and will apologize if the error was mine. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the context also involves Young Living, where you can see there was a lot of interaction and work in the archives c. 2020 to try and fix the article, . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 10:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I raised my concern that every time we try to discuss evidence I get these attacks, and immediately I had you declaring me a liar before I had time to post a single diff, while AlmostFrancis raises an issue from three years ago that has nothing to do with this, I am disappointed by how absolutely accurate I was again. No, I don't think you'll apologise, and I'm way past caring. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to consider politely asking for evidence supporting your claims to be an "attack". Expect to be "attacked" everywhere you go on Wikipedia by a wide variety of editors. Fortunately, A. C. Santacruz (see above) chose to provide the evidence that you refuse to give us. I need to analyse the history of the Young Living page. If I find that Skeptical Enquirer got the facts wrong I will report my results here. More later, and a big thank you to A. C. Santacruz. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a small note that Bilby did not refuse to provide the evidence as far as I can see, they just said today that they don't have the proper internet access to do so. This could very well be the case if they don't have access to a computer where searching archives or (how I found the article) editor interaction analysis tools. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have stricken my comment.
 * I have looked at the Young Living talk page, and the discussion Bilby descibes appears to be here:
 * Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020
 * In that thread, Bilby had a legitimate objection. The claim made was
 * "The company offers the Raindrop Technique, a controversial procedure that involves, among other things, the application of undiluted essential oils to a person's skin in order to cure conditions such as spinal curvature."
 * This claim is unsupported by the sources cited.
 * The citation to youngliving.com just talks about spinal massage with essential oils. No mention of curvature or of curing anything. (See WP:ABOUTSELF for reliability of youngliving.com).
 * The citation to Skeptical Inquirer only noted that the Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC) and the Alliance of International Aromatherapists (AIA) say that RDT is marketed as cure for curvature of the spine.
 * None of this in any way demostrates that the sources are unreliable. If I claim that the NYT says unicorns exist with a citation that dosn't support the claim, does that make the NYT unreliable?
 * So is it true that as Bibly claims "the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources"? No. The sources say exactly what SI said they said.
 * Finally, is the claim itself true? I could find no reliable source that contains both "Young Living" and "spinal curvature" but a Google search shows a boatload of unreliable alt-med souces containing the claim. A google search on "Raindrop Technique" "spinal curvature" gave me similar results. So probably accurate, but unsourced and thus cannot be added to Wikipedia. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why I won't be taking part in this now. There are times where a reasoned discussion is constructive. But there are also times when the people you are trying to have a discussion with have already made up their minds and any attempt to engage just creates far more heat that light. I need to recognise the latter case more often and know when anything I say won't help because it won't be listened too. You immediately made it clear that this is one of those cases. - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand the weariness and won't criticize you for not wanting to participate in discussions where you keep getting bludgeoned. But one thing that editors should keep in mind is that in highly participated discussions like this one, persuading your "opponent" isn't always the objective; it's often a performance for the other people who are reading the discussion, particularly the closer. This is especially the case when introducing new evidence like you implied you were intending to; those who already hold an opinion will usually dismiss disagreeing evidence, but it will affect the decisions of others who are still making up their minds. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I generally agree with you, the problem is that when things get particularly bad whatever valid points you were making get lost in the noise. Then you just end up with an ugly discussion that no-one can parse and that just kills whatever value the thread may have contained. I tend to recognise I'm in one of those after it is over, but I need to get better at recognising them when they start so that I don't help waste everyone's time. - Bilby (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The huge amount of effort you are putting in telling us why you won't provide evidence to back up your claims, combined with the several hours I wasted going through everything you have posted in the last few years and the history of the two articles about Young and finding not a shred of evidence supporting your claims, leads me to the conclusion that you have no evidence. I am not saying you are lying. I think you misremembered what happened and are (as we all tend to be) reluctant to publicly admit to your error. This is the last thing I will say to you on this subject. You can provide the evidence, once again say that you won't provide any evidence, or stay silent. Whichever you choose you may now have the last word. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking the notes for D. Gary Young (1949–2018), Diploma Mill Naturopath and Promoter of Essential Oils shows one issue off the bat, it looks like a citation error was copied from a possibly retracted 2003 QuackWatch article. Bill Callahan's “Court Blocks Ads, Sales by Chula Vista Clinic.” ran in San Diego Evening Tribune, not the The San Diego Union. The author did provide a quote from one of the three referenced articles, showing that at least one refernce was checked. Not a huge deal using the earlier article as a basis for research, but i would expect that the citation error would have been caught if the author or anyone at SI actually checked all the references. If indeed references were copied without checking that is pretty sloppy, but that is a guess on my part as to what happened. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Couple of minor issues in the first part of the article, a quote taken from an investigation narrative rather than the final report, "sentenced to" vs. "suspendend sentence". Should probably also question why this in an obituary. Understandable but not confidence inspiring. fiveby(zero) 18:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank for the specifics at least now we are all talking about the same content, and it shows about what I was expecting. Taking a quote from the investigative narrative section of a published incident report isn't an error or even poor reporting.  Newspaper run quotse from far less formal reporting mediums such as press conferences, individual interviews, press releases, a puslished OSHA report if anything is on the hight end.  A "suspended sentence" is a "sentence" you could argure that suspened should have been kept, but it would only be an error if "jail", "prison" or "home detention" had been added.  The San Diego Union and the Evening tribune share a archive since they merged into the Union-Tribune so anyone checking sources would be going to the same place with the same search to check, so while that was an error it is an understandlable one and would not have changed anything in the prose of the text.  All newspapers make those kind of errors on a near daily bases, the New York times made a dozen or so on the 17th alone.  As far as I can tell there is no claim to this report being an obituary, it is filed under consummer health and explicitly state " a close look at Young’s activities can be illuminating for consumers who might be attracted to charismatic health gurus". AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2: Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply. To the extent that the source has a self-reported bias, and has been careless in vetting sources and inferences drawn from sources as long as those sources meet its bias, I see no reason to rely on the source as the sole source for contested issues of fact. If a claim is reported in this source, and not found in any more reliable source, I would question whether that is a claim that needs to appear in a Wikipedia article. If such a claim is reported in a more reliable source, I have no problem using both, so long as the SI article is not merely parroting the other available source. BD2412  T 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "careless in vetting sources and inferences drawn from sources as long as those sources meet its bias" Now we are getting somewhere, what is the evidence for this claim?AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Not just specialist; but explictly agenda-driven (even if admirable) source, to the point of trying to manipulate Wikipedia. Use for opinions of its writers or attribute in text. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3: Option 2 as it functions as a SPS due to Skeptical Inquirer's statement that "authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective". If there has been significant public and/or private evidence submitted that indicates this magazine has been systematically spammed, that is a much larger problem. Cedar777 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: Marginally reliable Generally agree with but I think it's a step up from self-published. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ -  Talk  00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. I have read the whole of this discussion and I do not see anything in the "2" or "3" comments that prevents me from ending up here.  Indeed, a number of those comments appear to be stating a claim of unreliability that does not appear to be proven.  I genuinely can't see a single comment that says "SI is unreliable/marginally reliable because..." and then goes on to actually provide solid evidence of that. As others said above, I wouldn't use it for WP:MEDRS, but then it isn't really vital there anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SI is unreliable/marginally reliable because according to their own website they do not always have editorial oversight. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Period, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: Additional considerations apply. After reading the above arguments and looking into the source, the best way that I think the source could be handled is if we were to treat it as WP:RSOPINION, for the following reasons:
 * The source is not a well-established mainstream news organization. It doesn't claim to be, nor should we treat it as such. According to its website its website An important and often misunderstood point is that CSICOP itself does no research and, with only several small exceptions, carries out no investigations of its own. It encourages research and the testing of claims and provides a central clearinghouse for scientists and investigators at universities and elsewhere who do that. Its official journal, the Skeptical Inquirer, provides a place for publication, upon editorial acceptance, of some of these investigations and for debate and discussion over their significance. In this way, CSICOP plays the same role as does any scientific society. The stance of the Committee on Skeptical Inquiry is that [t]he Skeptical Inquirer is its official journal, and much of its coverage is novel analysis and it frames itself through the language of being a scientific journal.
 * There are limits on how this journal can reasonably be used. More or less nobody in this discussion has substantially argued that it passes WP:MEDRS. Why? The answer is simple: editors are skeptical that the publication applies meaningful peer review and that the source is actually the quality of a scientific journal. I don't think I see anyone arguing that it has the same rigor as scientific journals, so we're now left with a source that itsn't a WP:NEWSORG and isn't high quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * It's Time for Science-Based Medicine is in some ways like having Mike Lindell from MyPillow write a column about his giza dream sheets. It's plainly promotional and the author may well have a financial conflict-of-interest in the blog given his role at the non-profit organization which owns and operates it. This is actually not super uncommon for opinion pages in mainstream newspapers (see: Gannett) and it's a perfectly fine practice when the interest is disclosed. But it's a sign that the publication is opinion-based rather than simply trying to report facts. It makes sense to check if there are only certain sections for which this is the case, but makes a point in the discussion section of this RfC that entities labeled "Feature Article" and "Special Report" contain articles that are clearly opinion. It makes no sense for its "News & Comment" section to be uniquely dedicated to news at the expense of commentary and it makes equally no sense to label its columnists as anything other than writing opinion.
 * The statement that [t]he authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective... closely reflects what The New York Times actually does, since [w]riters at The Times are their own principal fact checkers and often their only ones. I'm somewhat concerned about this (inasmuch as journalism is more dependent on individuals than I previously thought), but it's not a particularly black mark on SI in relative terms. As such, I don't see evidence that all of its content is truly self-published based off of the staement on their website. I find the claim that it's SPS a bit odd at face value; it's rather difficult to have a self-published print magazine/print journal when editors have to pick-and-choose what goes in it and thereby exercise editorial oversight. I'm not certain on the extent to which the regular columns are self-published—I'd use extra caution when making contentious BLP claims—but I don't see anything here that's strong enough to suggest that the source should be treated like WP:COUNTERPUNCH.
 * Arguments that Skeptical Inquirer is reliable because it's writing from a skeptical perspective seem to misread WP:BIASED; sources are not more reliable simply because they reflect our house bias or our political priors. What makes a publication generally reliable is its reputation for accuracy/fact checking, strong editorial control, and editorial independence. The source doesn't appear to be a strictly factual publication, nor does it appear to have editorial independence from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. As I've noted before, authors are also allowed to write substantially on articles where they have a conflict-of-interest. As such, additional considerations apply; the source is not WP:GREL.
 * In short, the closest guideline appears to be a WP:RSOPINION publication, where the reliability for particular facts should always take into effect the credentials of the writer as well as the area of competency for the editorial board. We need to be sure to use caution in BLPs and to not give the SI undue weight given its status as an opinion publication, but I see little evidence that it's entirely self-published. It's a marginally reliable source, but not a generally unreliable one. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: Other considerations apply per Apaugasma, A. C. Santacruz, and Mhawk10. Statements from SI should have in-text attribution.  I also think it should be banned from use on BLP's, due to the finding in the Arbcom decison about SI articles being written to be used as sources for Wiki articles. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact per, , , and many others. The fact they have editorial reviews on crucial matters is enough to convince me they are generally reliable enough for supporting statements of fact. Huggums537 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact they have editorial reviews on crucial matters... That is an inaccurate statement. PackMecEng (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So say you, but they show as much in their guidelines: ...The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript... (Emphasis added.) Huggums537 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly which is the problem. Sometimes they check what they are publishing if they feel like it. Which does not inspire confidence. PackMecEng (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...which is no different than what most reliable sources do. If anyone imagines that The New York Times or The BBC sends everything any author writes out for review they are dreaming. Oh, sure, everything gets a look-over from an editor before publishing, but only technical or controversial matters are sent to qualified reviewers, same as with SI. As the same document says, "The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective." BTW that bit about "The authors, however, are responsible" is straight from such guidelines as, , , , , , , , and  (just do a page search for "authors are responsible".) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really the same thing though is it? You are comparing how peer reviewed academic journals do something while guessing how new orgs do it. This is closer to news orgs or a blog site, nothing near an academic journal. So unless you have facts to back up your statements I would rather just go with our policy and how the source describes itself. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Skeptical Inquirer
Comment is it understood here that a GREL consensus means within its area of expertise? SI's area of expertise is in proving that Sasquatch isn't real, and that kind of thing. But I've seen editors try to use it outside that area, including for a review of a cancer researcher's book (no connection to FRINGE) and a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals). Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any actual examples to be considered? Or is this another case of WP:RSP-itis? Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that there's a discussion above on an ArbCom finding of fact, the point of this is to try to more explicit gauge community consensus on the reliability of the publication. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The FoF is just that, and not up for debate. But even arbcom seem to think the idea of a forced RfC for an RfC's sake is daft. What evidence are you bringing to the table here that would give "the community" something to chew on? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually fake explosive detectors are in the same realm as proving Sasquatch isn't real in my opinion. Both are based on magical thinking. I assume you are referring to dowsing rods and such similar things. Debunking these has been the venue of SI authors since its inception. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, SI was citing ABC News for their info about the dowsing rod devices being fake, so the Wiki article, Explosive detection should have directly used ABC, or any better source than that, and not SI. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * could you gives links for those two specific cases? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My intent in linking WP:GREL is to indicate that, though discussion on its area of expertise might be helpful if you think that there are some areas where it is more reliable and some where it is less. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Above, Geogene mentions SI's coverage of "a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals)."


 * This appears to be in reference to The Legacy Of Fake Bomb Detectors In Iraq.


 * Here is the BBC's coverage of this: The story of the fake bomb detectors


 * And here is Jame Randi on same: A Direct, Specific, Challenge From James Randi and the JREF


 * And here is our article: ADE 651


 * This is exactly the sort of thing SI writes about and is expert in. Skeptical publications regularly cover things like laundry balls, fake bomb detectors, magic cancer pills, etc. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly -- this was well covered by world-class journalists, including the BBC. So was a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters the best possible source for that? Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices? It's weird that SI was the source for that, and not Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic , or The Guardian or CNN . This was not a WP:Parity situation. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I get that you don't like SI, but "a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters"??? Evidence, please. A quick look at https://skepticalinquirer.org/ clearly shows that SI covers a much wider range of issues than you imply.
 * Re "Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices?", the author is Benjamin Radford, and it doesn't take an expert on bomb detection devices to determine that dowsing rods don't detect explosives. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they are asking why we want to use SI for such an article, given there are many better sources available - more reputable, more neutral, and with stronger editorial controls? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re, Look, I get that you don't like SI no, I've found that SI has its uses . Radford's BLP you linked to says he's into psychics, ghosts, exorcisms, miracles, Bigfoot, stigmata, lake monsters, UFO sightings, reincarnation, crop circles, and other topics, so I don't think what I said about SI's content is unfair. I agree with your point that it doesn't take an expert to prove that dowsing rods don't detect explosives, but I would take that argument a step further, and say that scientific skeptics are generally not "experts" at much of anything for that reason -- you don't need experts to refute obvious nonsense. Your typical scientific skeptic is just a self-taught hobbyist with a blog/podcast/YouTube channel. And that lack of expertise is why SI shouldn't be used anywhere Parity doesn't apply. Again, I don't have a problem with using it to say that Sasquatch isn't real in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this RFC is jumping the gun a little bit. The issues that have been brought up with the source deal with columns by non-experts, saying operations, contentious statements about BLPs, and parity. The discussion should be focused on those, rather than a general RSP style RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying there are additional considerations might well apply to the source regarding BLP? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They normally do. A source can be good enough for some statements, but still not meet BLP standards. That's more-or-less the argument regarding WP:PARITY - you can use poorer sources on fringe topics as there aren't always high quality ones, but BLP still applies and takes precedence. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I pointed this out above, but since it seems to be at the crux of the discussion - WP:PARITY does not generically allow "poorer" sources. The only thing it does is allow us to use non-peer-reviewed (but otherwise WP:RS) sources in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source.  (More specifically, as it explains, it exists to allow non-peer-reviewed RSes to be used to balance out low-quality peer-reviewed sources, which are common in certain fringe areas like creationism and homeopathy.  It's not intended to let us cite a complete non-RS.)  If a source has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy or exerts no meaningful editorial controls, PARITY does nothing to allow it to be used. The issue with Skeptical Inquirer is not that it lacks peer review, it is that it lacks any sort of fact-checking and accuracy at all, which is way, way beyond anything PARITY can heal. --Aquillion (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs. Also the tone and writing in many columns and articles shows disdain and outright hostility towards people. We shouldn't be importing that into an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please. That's a serious charge, and goes way beyond any evidence presented at Arbcom. Also, it would be very entertaining watching you try to create a policy of rejecting sources because you don't like their tone. You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people who get rich selling ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision this finding of fact also links to evidence. As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? Not helpful, SFR, and possibly an aspersion. I suggest that we all remember the basketball strategy of playing the ball, not the man. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a peek at what I was responding to, You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people... I have that same hostility and disdain as well, but I wouldn't use me as a source when I told a friend of mine from years ago that she wasn't "starspawn" or an "indigo child." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between... ...and... The first, which seems accurate to me, implies a COI problem -- the person who wrote the column should not add it to the article, either personally or by proxy. It does not imply that the column was in any way inaccurate or that it should or should not be used as a source (but it has to be used by someone with no COI). The second, which I don't believe happened, implies deliberately creating negative material for the purpose of the negative material ending up in a BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Susan Gerbic has written articles in Skeptical Inquirer, and has stated an intent of having those articles be used as sources on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living people. GSoW members have edited BLPs to include negative material sourced to Susan Gerbic's articles. This has created the appearance of collaborative editing to create negative BLPs."
 * "columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs."
 * ...and in fact, one of the voting arbs made this specific point (that the source being unreliable isn't the problem but the COI is):
 * "This isn't a self-published blog, it's (to the best of my knowledge) a reliable source which is clear about which way it leans - indeed, it is something we should be considering as a source when writing an article. However, subverting the content building process by co-ordinated pushing of these sources, especially in a way that can cause real world harm to living individuals, well, a line has been crossed." (emphasis added)
 * --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Watch some of the videos linked to in the evidence. She explicitly says she writes articles so negative information does up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how evidence works. You are the one making the claim. Either post a URL of a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that she writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles, or apologize and retract your claim. I have already identified a case (see above) where your paraphrase completely twisted the meaning of the original statement, so lacking a specific time stamp to a specific video I have to assume that you are doing it again. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the videos is here: 10:36 In effect, a subject was targeted who was largely unknown at the time, with 7+ columns then published in Skeptical Inquirer as part of the campaign. This helped to give the target, Tyler Henry, just enough notability for an article, which was then developed into a hit piece with a heavy reliance on articles produced for the campaign. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true Bilby - listen to what I said again. Tyler Henry was already notable - he had a TV show that was very popular. The articles written about Henry did not give him "just enough notability" but they did add to the article. I did not tell anyone what to say, I just asked if they would "write about Tyler Henry", if the articles they wrote were critical then that is what they discovered. I was talking about Google Rankings, I very clearly state that in this talk. "Someone" created the Wikipedia article, that was NOT me nor GSoW. This is all moot anyway. ArbCom has made it's decision and we are all starting fresh with a clean slate. GSoW and I have learned our limits and will be moving forward. Drop the stick please and be done with this. Continue bringing this up over and over again is not helping anyone. I hope this is the last time I will have to respond. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not revisit this, but this is about the reliability of SI, and it wasn't an issue I raised. But no, he wasn't already notable - your specific words in the linked talk were "I have done a lot of writing about Tyler Henry, and I did that because Tyler Henry was brand spanking new - he had no criticism, nothing was known about him". Other than that, sure, you didn't create the article - but it was then taken from 300 words to criticism to over 2000 words of criticism, heavily sourced to you and SI. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This IS about the reliability of SI but somehow Tyler Henry keeps being mentioned. He was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What you quoted I said had nothing to do with Wikipedia but everything to do with Google rankings. I started writing about him after his TV show came out, he was brand new but there was enough coverage in RS to create a Wikipedia article about him. The person who did create the Wikipedia page, started with two articles that were already in the public, my article was third. Of course the Wikipedia page grew from 300 words to over 2000 words, he had a TV show and was brand new, the media was writing about him and it escalated. If the majority of the content of the Wikipedia page was critical of him, then that is what the media and RS wrote. If the RS found when they wrote about him to be genuinely communicating with dead people, then they would have written that, and that praise would be on the Wikipedia page. The content is the content. Along with his rise in fame, was the rise in RS writing about him. I wrote seven articles about Tyler Henry, why would they not be used on a Wikipedia article? If you are challenging my expertise then say so. Look Bilby - I am giving a talk - I am not reading a script written out and fussed over by lawyers I am speaking at a skeptic conference, this is not a talk at a Wiki Conference, I am having to speak in broad terms. I'm not psychic, so I didn't expect that in 2022 I would have someone picking apart every talk I've given, and analyzing every phrase. Don't read more into a talk than is really there. Please drop the stick. Again this is all moot anyway.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link. The problem is that you are playing the wrong issue - I don't really care if you wrote about him before or after the first show. I do care, when evaluating the use of Skeptical Inquirer, whether or not it has been used to run campaigns against individual people, which have then been used as the basis for hit pieces in WP. The answer is yes, on at least one occasion. Which suggests to me that there are problems with the publication. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: "I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link", yes, you did, fixing the problem that ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond when asked for a link and a timestamp. Good work.
 * Watching the video, it becomes obvious why ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond. I specifically asked for "a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that Susan Gerbic writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles"
 * That's not what the video shows. It shows Susan Gerbic writing an article and hoping that that will rank well on Google -- a perfectly normal and allowable activity -- encouraging other authors to write about the same topic -- another perfectly normal and allowable activity -- and noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based upon what gets written on a subject by various sources. This is bog standard behavior. What author doesn't want to be on the first page of the Google results on a topic? I don't know how many times I have told someone "Write an article about X and get it published. Encourage others to write about X. When there is enough published material, the topic may pass WP:GNG and the article may survive WP:AfD."
 * What the video does not show is any wrongdoing by Susan Gerbic. None. And even if it did that would be a matter for Arbcom or ANI, not RSNB, and would be totally irrelevant to the question of whether SI is a reliable source. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we watched the same video. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a certain amount of mystification about what the best publishers actually achieve in terms of ensuring publications are accurate that is misleading some participants in this discussion as it has done in the past in other discussions of source reliability. Confidence in the reliability of publishing venues arises from three kinds of second-looks made in publishing: desk decisions made by the editor who has the final say on publication, peer review by experts, and fact-checking done by copy-editors. All of these are scarce, skilled labour and there is a big difference between the ideal and common practice at even the best publishers. I think we could do with some raising of our documentation of what is really going on in the publishing process. I'm concerned that there is a common tendency to think that having "high standards" in what we consider to be reliable sources improves the quality of our sourcing without enough awareness risks coming from narrowing our range of sources. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of confidently-stated rubbish about publishing in this thread based on an imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI. It is quite usual for a publisher, be they ever-so-eminent, to say that "responsibility for the factual accuracy of a paper rests entirely with the author". (This doesn't necessarily make it true). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Such disclaimers are typically written by lawyers in an attempt to avoid lawsuits. It's a lot like the "Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental" notice you see on TV show that are obviously ripped from the headlines. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI is exactly what this is. Very well put, and worth repeating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting how all the talk about peer review and editorial standards goes out the window once it's people "my side" who are concerned. We truly live in a postmodern world. Perhaps all these critical theory publications about the concept of reliability are not as wrong as I thought.  JBchrch   talk  22:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is called projection. It's more that you've been caught saying wrong things, and most editors prefer to deal in fact. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Saying wrong things" is a very personal interpretation of our discussion above. JBchrch   talk  04:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When your false statements are refuted by evidence, that's not "very personal interpretation". Again, you are projecting a postmodern take onto the situation. I suggest, if you want to contribute usefully here, it would be better to stick to the matter at hand rather than engaging in pathetic sneers about how it's "funny how" the other "side" supposedly thinks things you imagine they think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected the wording of my !vote based on your suggestion, nothing more. JBchrch   talk  05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a start, now if you could accommodate how material that undergoes a third-party editorial and production process isn't "self-published", and correct/delete your !vote accordingly, you would be in danger of stumbling towards the sort of competence which is actually useful at this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was self-published, I said we should treat it as self-published. JBchrch   talk  14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I reject any argument based upon "SI's area of expertise is X" or "There are better sources in area Y" that lack any evidence that the person making the argument is correct about SI's area of expertise or reliability. A claim in SI about, say, fake bomb detectors in Iraq, is as reliable as a similar statement in The New York Times and is a better source than the NYT if said fake bomb detectors turn out to be dowsing rods. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That would depend on what they were writing. If all they did was summarise an article from a more established source, then no, they are not adding anything more. If they are commenting on the unlikelihood of dowsing rods actually detecting bombs, then I don't see that you need any expertise to make that claim. If they were making the claim that dowsing rods were being employed by Iraqi military, then certainly no - I'd like a source that has some expertise and journalists on the ground in Iraq that could confirm that this was the case. Perhaps an in-depth discussion of dowsing rod physics? In the article raised previously, all they did was summarise an article from established mainstream media. In such cases, the original source is always preferable than a summary that may or may not be accurate. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is really not a good idea to have the expertise of SI article authors judged by Wikipedia editors who think that the mechanism of dowsing rods belongs in the area of physics. The Carpenter effect is psychology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There you go then. I hope they write that article, instead of claiming to be reporting on what is happening in Iraq. I promise to read it should such occur. - Bilby (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? Is this special report or this one by an investigator, host of the podcast The Devil in the Details, and a member of the Church of Satan opinion, factual reporting, or both? How about this one, which states One example demonstrating this point is our scoring for the prediction: “Australian cricket team does very well on tour this year” (Heather Alexander, 2009). We scored that as correct—but clearly there was a 50/50 chance: the team would either do well or they would not. If every prediction was like that, the average for correct psychic predictions would have been 50 percent. The more of those types of predictions that psychics make, the closer to 50 percent correct their average will get. And they make a lot of those. That's an incorrect statement for a number of reasons, a team could do neither well or poorly, some teams are just better or worse than others, and regularly perform well or poorly. Does that make the statement false, or an opinion? Reading further, you can see that the entire true, false or too vague is entirely subjective categorization. Does that make the entire article opinion? Basically, if there is no clear line between fact based reporting and opinion/editorializing, it makes it very difficult to use the source for any statements of fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Another example, used in Bigfoot is this, to support American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot, does not appear to be an article of fact, but rather an opinion supported with arguments. Per the article, I am merely pointing out, what should now be obvious, that many of the best non-hoax encounters can be explained as misperceptions of bears. The statements of fact in the article are all pointing to other sources, that would likely make better sources. It seems if there's support for using the source for statements of fact, we'll probably need consensus on exactly how far that reaches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. And I can just see some zealous (pseudo-)sceptic editor inserting into the WP Bigfoot article, in wikivoice, something like "Most Bigfoot citings are in actuality American black bears" with a citation to that article ("an RS"!) that "verifies" that claim. (Note: my reason for calling those that might engage in that kind of behaviour "pseudosceptics" is for the reason that, anyone that would blindly accept any claim printrd in SI, no matter how shoddy, cannot, by definition, be a true sceptic, unless "sceptic" has a secondary definition as the name of a dogmatic religion in which its adherents unquestioningly accept anything their authorities tell them to. I am aware of the term's unfortunate use by wingnutter climate change denialists etc and categorically state I have no sympathy for nor anything to do with those people.) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot cannot be derived from anything the source. So, Wikipedia editors attributing a statement to a source that does not justify using it is now a reason to call the source unreliable? I just corrected the faked sentence, which any of you two could have done. Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This editor seems to think I make some improvements. Please try to make fewer personal attacks, and instead address the lack of any clear line between factual reporting and opinion with the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I had to laugh at asking Hob to do "fewer" rather than no personal attacks. Modicum ad hominem, if you will. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way is it a "personal attack" to note that someone saw an error in an article, did not fix the error, yet still used it to score a point in a RSN debate? In what way is it a a "personal attack" to note that not fixing errors when you run across them calls in to question your commitment to improving the encyclopedia? I am with Hob on this one. If a Wikipedia editors attributes a claim to a source that the source does not support is in no way a reason to call the source unreliable. Not even close. In fact it looks a lot like grasping at straws. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia is a personal attack. Hob has had extensive interactions with SFR before, mostly in the fringe noticeboard iirc, and a cursory look at SFR's contributions shows a strong commitment to the wiki. The fact they failed to correct a mistake on an article when using it as an example in a discussion is impossible for me to see as a valid reason to imply their motivations for editing, as a whole, are not aligned with Wikipedia. It's just petty piss-fighting at that point and more of an indication of the battleground atmosphere in this discussion than an appropriate reflection of an editor's contributions. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not an accusation, it was a question. Its goal was to give the user a small shove to make them question their current focus and behaviour. Believe it or not, the same people can do right things and wrong things at different times, and telling them what they do wrong is not a personal attack and cannot be invalidated by the same person telling them what they did right in another case. Do I really have to start an RfC asking, "When someone misrepresents a source in an article, what should I do?" with the following options?
 * Correct the article,
 * Use the incidence to try to have source declared ureliable,
 * Start an Arbcom case to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them?
 * And then another one: "When you made a bad argument, such as using the misrepresentation of a source as an argument about the reliability of the source, and someone calls me on it, what should I do?" with the following options:
 * Admit the mistake,
 * Complain about perceived personal attacks?
 * Maybe we do need rules against that sort of shit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I didn't say telling someone what they do is wrong is a personal attack. I said that accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, which you did (making it a rhetorical question is not much of a defense in my opinion), is a personal attack. I would appreciate if instead of implying the Arbcom case was started (btw, not by SFR or myself but by ) in order to punish editors and their family/friends, you would try and de-escalate the situation. Our discussion here is doing nothing more than disrupting the actual discussion above on the reliability of SI. I understand if you are infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source, but your incivility is entirely unwarranted. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not want this discussion to go on a tangent, then do not make the tangent longer. If you want to complain, go complain in the right place. I am not infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source but at other editors' behaviour patterns. I just wrote an essay User:Hob Gadling/Admit mistakes about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I lose sight of what is important and make individual decisions that fail to build the encyclopedia. So does Hob. So does A._C._Santacruz. And ScottishFinnishRadish. And Jimbo Wales. The only perfect Wikipedia editor is User:example and I have my doubts about him. In such cases asking "are you here to build the encyclopedia?" should be considered a gentle reminder, not a personal attack. It clearly isn't a claim about someone's entire edit history. If you disagree, go to ANI, report the alleged personal attack, and see what happens. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, @2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40: you contributed nothing to the discussion except empty polemics, and you are in the wrong place. And words do often not have One True Meaning. Read the top lines of Skepticism: For the philosophical view, see Philosophical skepticism. For denial of uncomfortable truths, see Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, recent article A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation is clearly opinion with phrases such as "In my experience", while recent article The Kremlin and the Kabbalah: Is the Letter ‘Z’ on Russian Tanks a Reference to the Jewish Zohar? is clearly factual, correctly presenting attributed factual claims by Israeli spoon-bender Uri Geller, Air Force Lt. Col. Tyson Wetzel, and former Marine Capt. Rob Lee. It also correctly describes the content of the Zohar (AKA Sefer Ha-Zohar), which Geller references. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So there's no clear delineation, is what you're saying. This feature article is opinion, but this feature article is, ostensibly, factual reporting? This special report is opinion while this special report is factual reporting? Any determination of what is a statement of fact and what is opinion is left up to whoever is reading? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am seeing far too much gatekeeping (telling people that they are not allowed to partipate or that they are not allowed to make certain arguments), and most of it from a small number of editors.

If you don't like what someone writes, either respond with a counterargument or just ignore it. Ignoring comments that you don't think should have been posted is usually better than criticizing the person who posted them -- a bad habit which invariably leads to a long back and forth containing many more comments you don't like. It is almost always better to just ignore the comment and move on.

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to respond to or even read comments on Wikipedia talk pages, so if you feel that you are being subjected to something that you find to be unpleasant, you only have yourself to blame. If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

 * Closure requests
 * "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications... On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor... Because requests for closure made [at WP:RFCLOSE] are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion." --WP:RFCLOSE. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I find it astonishing that an attempt was made to delete the above comment, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the circumstances. Having stayed away from this poisonous discussion, except to mark my opinion, this just seems to be the last straw. I too would like to see a closer, or three, come forward. Balls of steel may be required. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an interesting test. Everything I write is immediately criticized by A. C. Santacruz as being biased, so I simply quoted RFCLOSE word for word with no added comments. In a clear violation of WP:TPOC, A. C. Santacruz deleted the post.
 * "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You closed an RfC and I didn't get my way. Prepare to be talked to death." --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I saw it as unnecessarily patronizing to the highly experienced panel of editors you have requested and see this, as part of your constant and incessant requests to close this thread (here, in AN, and multiple times at ANRFC) as taking enough editor hours to be disruptive. Just the notice at ANRFC is enough. I probably should have collapsed your quoting above and see how outright reverting was a step too far. The fact you did it as a test on my behaviour, however, makes it WP:POINTY. If editors believe there is no harm with leaving the message up there I don't have a problem with that, but there's no need to be pedantic about it. Additionally, you haven't closed this RfC as much as just overly quoted RFCLOSE for no discernable reason at all so I don't see the point in the youtube link either. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Guy… A.C. … Just STOP… BOTH of you. Please. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)