Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263

Timeline.com
Is Timeline a reliable source? I am considering adding the following information to the Xennials article:"[Xennials] represent a small population among a time period of record-low birth rate in America. There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984, representing only 36% of all Gen X births, or in 1984, merely 10.6% of the entire American population. (Multiple factors contributed to lower birth rates at this time, including more women entering the workforce, the oil crisis, higher crime rates, and a shaky economy.) On the other hand, beginning in 1977, Xennials mark the beginning of an upswing in birth rate, at 15.1%, compared to Gen X’s low point, a 14.6% birth rate in 1975 and 1976, respectively." --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * looks a bit bloggy to me, but does have an editorial staff. I would need to see their editorial policy before I come down on it being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is one result when I Google "What are Timeline's editorial guidelines?", but the link doesn't seem accessible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles
Is the March 14 HuffPost article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" reliable for claims related to paid editing in Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and other affected articles?

The HuffPost article was written by Ashley Feinberg, who is a "Senior Reporter" and not a "Contributor". This was also covered in this month's issue of The Signpost at.

I'm submitting this inquiry in response to 's request in Special:Diff/888253168 for "an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety" at. is the paid editor (Ed Sussman) mentioned in the HuffPost article. —  Newslinger  talk   17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this is an RSN issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliability of the HuffPost article has been challenged. It's necessary to determine whether the HuffPost article is reliable before deciding whether the incidents should be mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia articles. —  Newslinger  talk   18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And where has it been challenged? If it's on the ANN page, it can be discussed there. There's no need to fork the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was challenged at and . The WP:AN discussion focused on editor conduct and not the reliability of the HuffPost article. —  Newslinger   talk   18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Talk:Axios (website), Talk:NBC News, Talk:Caryn Marooney, Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, Administrators' noticeboard —  Newslinger  talk   18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of thing the article talks about: one paid user distracting a lot more volunteer editors, by invoking all kinds beurocratic processes. It's gaslighting.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User: Newslinger is not a paid editor so far as I know. This proposal comes from Newslinger, not me. I am the "paid editor" the article is about. BC1278 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your comment referring to me? (For avoidance of doubt, I am not a paid editor.) —  Newslinger  talk   22:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , of course not.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just forum shopping. The very extensive AN discussion/investigation is focused on the article, including RS issues. There is also COIN discussion of the article here: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Aside from the problem of forking the discussion, it also belongs at AN because their are a multitude of WP policy implications here, beyond the scope of RSN, e.g. regardless of a RS finding, whether a WP mainspace article including content about properly declared WP:COI is consistent with WP: COI] and WP:PAID. The Talk:Axios_(website) discussion looks like it will be decided on WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, not WP:RS. I'd ask that this discussion be closed and redirected to the AN discussion.BC1278 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are three aspects of the paid editing that resulted in discussion at three venues:
 * The content of the paid edits was discussed on the conflict of interest noticeboard, now archived at.
 * Editor conduct related to these paid edits, as well as paid contribution policies/guidelines in general, are being discussed at.
 * HuffPost 's coverage of the paid edits, and whether third-party reporting of the paid edits should be included in Wikipedia articles, were discussed in the edit requests at the two article talk pages I linked above with no resolution. You have previously asserted that "This article is wholly unreliable" at Special:Diff/890400952 and argued that a Wikipedia discussion "found it to be an unreliable source" in Special:Diff/888250126. This noticeboard is the correct venue to discuss a source's reliability, especially when contested on article talk pages.
 * An inquiry on HuffPost 's reliability focuses on article content, not editor conduct, and belongs on this noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   19:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate that the discussion not appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The multiple forums has gotten exhausting. I strongly disagree with Newslinger that only editor misconduct has been discussed in the AN thread. However, if there's value in having a centralized discussion about the reliability of the article this seems like as good of a place to do it as any. I would suggest that the article is not reliable for reasons better explained by here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My intention is to start a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of the HuffPost article's content, and not on whether the editor conduct is in line with Wikipedia policies/guidelines. At, described this as an "unprecedented scenario" and said: "when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario. There's no guidebook on how to deal with this". If it's impossible for editors to discuss just the source and its content, then please defer to the article talk pages and , and ignore this discussion. —  Newslinger   talk   21:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, in that same comment, I advocate for the common sense approach for the content-side to follow the administrative conclusions that have already been made, rather than blindly legitimizing a source simply because of the agency it came from. Swarm—  Sting ·  Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your position here. There are cases where an allegation, assertion, or opinion is significant enough to mentioned with in-text attribution. For example, "In March 2019, Ashley Feinberg of HuffPost reported..." is a true statement, and our judgment of the article's (un)reliability is a key criterion for whether it merits inclusion. This discussion is meant to gauge community consensus on this one point. —  Newslinger  talk   19:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Two more articles where it's appeared. --Ronz (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Huffpost is probably somewhat reliable for wiki scandal accusations, but totally unreliable for science coverage. Their science coverage is a running joke on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe Jwray (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. If an article can be rebutted by stronger evidence than itself, it should no longer be regarded as reliable. And HuffPost isn't exactly a good-quality source. See, for example, 's comment on the AN thread. feminist (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So have admins looked into this and determined that no paid editing occurred?Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean no undisclosed paid editing? We're here because of the HuffPo's coverage of disclosed paid editing which we know to have occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am asking what about the article is in fact incorrect. A lot has been said about how inaccurate it is, but what does it say that is inaccurate?14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)


 * Unreliable - Per my comments at WP:AN and Talk:Caryn Marooney. In short, for all the people looking into this, no one has come to the conclusion that the paid editor is actually using manipulative tactics to whitewash articles. The claims being made by the article would be objective policy violations, yet the article simultaneously concedes that there are no policy violations, and objective investigations into the accusations and the underlying incidents confirm this. Therefore, the article represents one journalist's sensational assessment of what an editor is doing, and there's no reason to hold that as being any more reliable than an opinion piece. As Someguy1221 said, CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies. Swarm—  Sting ·  Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: COIN identified about 40 live articles with Request Edits from me since 2016. About 95% of the Request Edit article are either single editor reviews or brief discussions, with plenty of proposals rejected or modified. I guess not sensationalistic enough for this reporter to mention. Only 5% of the Request Edits articles (Noah Oppenheim and Nextdoor) have extensive multi-editor discussions where I expressed strong disagreement with editors, but some of my proposals were nonetheless adopted by majority consensus. Yet the article deceptively says it is common practice for me to argue with editors until they are so exhausted, they give up and I somehow get my proposals approved by default. Certainly false for the 95%. And even within that 5%, the people I disagreed with hardly gave up.  Reviewing two specific disputes that HuffPo highlights: 1) The Ronan Farrow dispute discussed by HuffPo was with one editor, Jytdog. Even though three out of three editors  disagreed with his position,  he created an RfC to press on; and 2) on Nextdoor, the editors who disagreed with my proposal about removing the CEO's traffic offense !voted and made their positions known in the RFC. The inaccuracies and deceptions go on and on. The reporter, who came from Gawker, has | a history of apologizing for sensationalism. BC1278 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Besides the article's headline, which includes the disputed and opinionated term "whitewash", are there any factual errors in the article? The words "whitewash", "bludgeon", and "canvass" are not used in the article's body. I understand the article characterizes some of Sussman's actions negatively, even when they are compliant with Wikipedia's policies. As the article does not claim that Sussman violated any policies, I interpret the article as a critical opinion of the types of edits that are allowed by Wikipedia's policies, and not a personal allegation. Sussman's edits are presented as a case study. —  Newslinger  talk   22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's accept that premise for a moment (and I will admit I don't actually accept that premise as I was able to find something questionable in the article in paragraph 3). That would make use of the article valid only when addressing Wikipedia or when addressing Sussman, were he notable (which we can all agree he's not). It would not justify inclusion at Axiom, Oppenheim, Nextdoor, etc which is how it's being used. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree, but either way, that is a WP:DUE or WP:NPOV issue and not an WP:RS one. The source seems to me to be broadly reliable, especially on that point (ie. nobody is disputing that those companies employed paid editing; the question is whether we should include that on their articles.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The HuffPo writer does allege specific violations of canvassing policy, which she links to and quotes from in her article. (She says: "Although Wikipedia doesn’t technically forbid reaching out to others to ask for their insight, it does forbid [linked to WP: CANVAS] petitioning editors to weigh in “with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way.” ") She just calls it "lobbying" or "petitioning" instead of "canvassing." She says there was improper lobbying for an !vote about the removal of a passage about the CEO of Nextdoor. She says there was improper petitioning for a !vote about Ronan Farrow passage on Noah Oppenheim. The writer falsely leads the reader to believe that every notification in both matters was to a cherry-picked "sympathetic editor," rather than appropriate notifications under Canvas, such as alerting all previous participants in related Talk discussions.
 * The article's primary conclusion is that my the paid editor's "main strategy" for Wikipedia for getting Request edits approved are various forms of contentious editing. This is objectively false. A proposal-by-proposal examination of about 40 Request Edit articles identified by COIN since 2016 shows almost entirely routine requests and short discussions.
 * The HuffPo writer deceptively presents my paid editor proposals as if they are the final text approved for WP articles, when in fact, independent reviewer(s) adopted completely different language or decided on a different course of action. This includes passages in NBC News, Noah Oppenheim, Jonathan Swan. BC1278 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it? It describes them as proposals.  EDIT:  Also, why are you talking about yourself in the passive voice?  You're asserting (incorrectly) that it presents your proposals that way, correct? --Aquillion (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the "whitewash" if the proposals were not adopted? The author contends (wrongly) that my proposals are almost always effective ("he usually gets his way.") Then she cites a handful of specific examples. But she doesn't explain those proposals that failed or were significantly modified. Yet she does note all the proposals that were adopted. If she showed the final outcomes of the failed or significantly modified proposals she cites (e.g. completely different Matt Lauer language adopted by the reviewers in NBC News; my proposed  new paragraph about Ronan Farrow not used at all in Noah Oppenheim; different  Trump language adopted by the reviewer in Jonathan Swan; my proposal in NBC News to significantly expand the Matt Lauer language  not including or resulting in deletion of the Ronan Farrow section - impossible to figure out from the article itself, etc.) - it would show examples of the independent editor Wikipedia review process working well, contrary to the assertions of whitewashing. Similarly, the "mild" "tweak" she says I made to Sheryl Sandberg's page was actually  a proposed removal or complete rewrite of a false statement that Sandberg had been criminally indicted in Germany for "incitement to hatred"  - hardly a mild tweak and not at all a "whitewash" of the page, negating the very premise that lets HuffPo sensationalistically put Facebook in the headline. I can't go through the all of the article's false claims because the post would be as long as the article itself. I know it perhaps seems strange that a HuffPo article would be this messed up on a granular level, but it just is. This writer regularly uses | HuffPo and Twitter to attack people with venom.


 * AN already investigated the article's claims and as User: Swarm said, "The administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong... Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism." BC1278 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Reliable: HuffPo is reliable for the subject of internet culture. The piece is written by a staff writer and much of the research that went into it rings true. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable. Obviously we can decline to use it for any parts we feel it got wrong (as with any other source), and it's definitely worth spending time scouring for sources pointing out errors - we're not forced to report plain errors from a source unless the coverage is really overwhelming.  We can also wait a bit when a topic isn't pressing and we're reasonably certain someone will correct it, or if there's no corrections because the entire thing is so WP:UNDUE that no other sources have covered it.  But in terms of broad reliability, we wouldn't accept an editor saying "based on my personal expertise, this article from an otherwise-reliable source is wrong about [point, point, and point] and therefore must be entirely disregarded" on any other topic, and we can't start doing it here just because the topic concerns Wikipedia.  The correct thing to do when your expertise tells you that a source is wrong is to find corrections or sources that point out the error; if no such sources exist, then it's possible that the errors just aren't that significant relative to the article's overall point - or it may just be that every source got it wrong, in which case an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not the place to start trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the record.  EDIT:  Here is a secondary source citing the Huffington Post one, which at least illustrates a degree of WP:DUE (and adds some weight to the idea that we can't ignore or drag our feet on it even if we feel it got parts wrong.)  I'd also add that a lot of comments here seem to be missing the point in that they fixate on whether this editing violated Wikipedia's policies, whereas the broad focus of the article is clearly criticizing the idea that paid editing is happening at all.  People here might agree or disagree with that take, but it's not a reason to reject the article entirely as a source (and it points towards what I said above about most of the complaints about it not being as relevant as the people making them are saying.)  --Aquillion (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * New coverage from Wired firmly establishes due weight for this incident: "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia" —  Newslinger  talk   04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unreliable for claims of fact in the article in question The article at issue makes clear its "editorial position" on the topic "That may be true. What you can buy, however, are the services of a verbose, relentless Wikipedia editor willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that that public exposure is as flattering as possible. So, Axios did." is fairly clearly "opinion qua opinion".  As is "The vast majority of the people who propose and make changes to Wikipedia are volunteers. A few people, however, have figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia’s supposedly neutral system to turn a profit."   Where an article is clearly one filled with the opinions of its author, it ceases to be a reliable source for "claims of fact", which is the case at hand.   It has ceased to be simple reportage. IT is citable for "opinion stated sourced and cited as opinion" under normal Wikipedia practice. Collect (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Harry Scott Gibbons
I have previously been advised regarding Harry Scott Gibbons that he is not a reliable author, on a different Talk page, although he is one of the most authoritative figures on the subject of the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, I have thus taken the liberty to include him and the previous Talk page thread here for discussion.


 * Regarding the author, you state that he is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. I must ask you to show evidence of that. He is described in his obituary as a journalist and author. It seems that he at one point was a reporter/journalist in the Middle East, possibly for Daily Mail and/or Daily Express. I have, however, not been able to find one single reference to his work as a journalist, and I have not found any example of his being cited as a journalist. If he is regarded as "authoritative", I am sure there must exist something, somewhere. As for his work as an author, you mention his other works, which are also reliably published and starkly authoritative on the subject. He seems to have published two books, Tall woman and The Genocide Files. We can safely disregard the first one (a novel set in early North America). The Genocide Files was published in 1997, but the information about the publisher is a bit contradictory. Some places the publisher is given as "Charles Bravos", other places as "Savannah Koch". The ISBN, however, is the same in both cases, so we are obviously talking about the same edition. Trying to find out more about the publisher(s), I find that they have published two crime novels by M.C. Beaton Death of a Gossip in 1989 and Death of a CAD in 1990, and that seems to be it. (Both these books also have the same ISBN with both publisher names.) M.C. Beaton is the pen name of Marion Chesney, who was married to Harry Scott Gibbons. The "starkly authoritative" Gibbons (with one book written on the theme) is "reliably published" in a way that looks very much like self-publishing.
 * A sign of an "authoritative" author would be that he is cited by other authors. It is not easy to find many such cites, but I have found some, and I will quote a few:
 * For two detailed accounts, albeit with a Turkish-Cypriot bias, see Henry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide files in this book
 * Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand in Thirty Hot Days gives a very readable account from the Turkish perspective, whilst British journalist Harry Scott Gibbons does the opposite in his very one-sided book The Genocide files and Much of Gibbons' writings is no more than Turkish propaganda and more from this book
 * Although the following sources are at the service of a purely propagandistic effort and not to be taken seriously, the reader can still find a perfect representation of the official Turkish viewpoint in them about the 1963-64 conflict: Harry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide Files in this doctoral thesis

I can see a number of "issues" being cited, but there are two main ones here as to why Harry Scott Gibbons is not a reliable source, as far as I'm understanding: 1) any accounts of the events that cite him are, by their support of the same facts as also documented and cited by Gibbons himself, discountable as Turkish Cypriot-bias? and 2) he does not give a "readable account", but is very "one-sided" in his support for things as they were documented by international media, official accounts from the British government and then-some at the time?

Just to clarify something here. Harry Scott Gibbons is a journalist. He served in the Middle East, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and is the author of multiple works including books and articles, who I can right off say have been published by Charles Bravos/Savannah Koch/the Journal of International Affairs and then-some, without getting into deep-research about it.

I am to understand that we judge sources by what they are, not what they say? And Harry Scott Gibbons IS authoritative on the subject he discusses. He is a third-party to the events he discusses. He himself cites very authoritative accounts of the events he discusses. He is well cited by others touching on the subject he discusses. He offers very readable accounts of the events he discusses. His works should not therefore simply be discarded as unreadable, one-sided, Turkish Cypriot-bias, or simply his opinions.

Pierre Oberling, the author of "The Road to Bellapais", typically refers to him as he did in reference to "Peace Without Honour" on P.89 of his book: "This unfortunately much-neglected work by a British journalist in Cyprus contains the most detailed and reliable account of the 1963-1964 crisis thus published". Citations are made throughout this book with the permission of Gibbons.

The UK Houses of Parliament recognise and concede to the authoritativeness of Gibbons and his work by citing his work as the "well documented" evidence of what they argue the UK is already very well aware of regarding Cyprus.

By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?

I'm providing three of Gibbons' works here, for reference:

Thanks in advance.

Nargothronde (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seeing that this thread is soon going to be closed without any response, I feel the need to comment on the paragraph By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers? As the editor who has been "referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source", I resent the thinly veiled insinuation about my possible motives. I have asked to redact it, but they have not been editing since I made the request, so I feel I have to comment before the thread is closed.
 * I am partly responsible for bringing Nargothronde to raise the question about Harry Scott Gibbons as a source (although I would have phrased the question differently). In the hope of getting more response, I will try to rephrase the question in a new thread. --T*U (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

List of ethnic cleansing campaigns
This is an attempt to rephrase the problem raised in the section "Harry Scott Gibbons" above. Are the given sources reliable for adding this sentence to List of ethnic cleansing campaigns?

There was an ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the Turkish Peace Operation.



Source #5 has no quotation and no external link, but its inclusion seems to be based on this source:

Thank you! --T*U (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they may be for It has been asserted that here was an ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the Turkish Peace Operation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I then correct in assuming that this would only cover the sources that actually use the term (4, 6 and 7), since source 1, 2, 3 and 5 do not mention "ethnic cleansing"? --T*U (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, see wp:SYNTH.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I expected. Thx! --T*U (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest this It has been asserted that here was a campaign of aggression and violence aimed at the [Turkish people.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that would hardly meet the criteria for inclusion in List of ethnic cleansing campaigns as outlined in the introductory text to the article and in "Criteria for including events in this list" at the top of Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns... --T*U (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fred Rogers' sexuality
Should the Fred Rogers article include a paragraph like this?


 * Discussion about this is taking place here: Talk:Fred_Rogers


 * The source is the New York Times bestseller The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers by Maxwell King, published by Abrams Books. It bills itself as the first full-length biography of Fred Rogers and it says it is Based on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents.


 * The relevant quote from the book is: In a conversation with one one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: "Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive."31 (Page 208.) The book's footnote says: 31. Hirsch, William. Personal Interview. 7 November 2011. Audio. (Page 379.) Elsewhere the book describes Hirsch as a close family friend of the Rogers' (page 346).


 * I presume that the "Personal Interview" is a taped conversation between William Hirsch and the biographer. Meaning that the book does not contain a direct quote from Rogers about his sexuality, but rather is quoting Hirsch who is, in turn, quoting Rogers from memory.


 * The book's claim about Rogers' sexuality has gotten a decent amount of interest. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be attributed to the source, the book.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems clearly usable as a source, though there's room for people to debate WP:DUE weight. (I think the coverage demonstrates this, but it can at least be debated.  I don't think there's an WP:RS argument at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Matters such as "sexuality" which are based on conjecture and opinions of a single person are, in fact, weak to begin with. As such, use in Wikipedia articles is imp[roper to begin with, as otherwise huge numbers of people would be labelled "bisexual" buy Wikipedia which is actually an affront to the LGBTQ community to begin with. It is labeling of people which is one major issue, so unless there is self-identification, we avoid it. 'The nook neither states nor even implies how Rogers viewed himself. Collect (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the paragraph is indulging in "conjecture" or "opinion" or even "labeling". It's not saying "one source thought that maybe Rogers seemed bisexual" but "one source said that Fred Rogers said this". The question is, should it be included given that it's a bit of a "he said that he said that he said" situation. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why sexuality would be treated any differently in that regard, but FWIW the source quotes Rogers, meaning that this does establish self-identification (insofar as it can be established after death, ie. via a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the source doesn’t quote Roger’s... the source quotes Hirsch (who claims to be quoting Rogers). It isn’t a clear cut self-identification. At a minimum, we need to attribute the identification to Hirsch. Blueboar (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Collect and Blueboar; not appropriate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that when an unverified allegation is reported, that its veracity be explained, otherwise it's just gossip. It might be true, it might not be true, and the reader has no way of knowing without independent research. TFD (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an allegation. (Oxford Dictionary: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. Being bisexual is neither wrong nor illegal.) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It meets RS with attribution, but I'm not convinced it belongs in the article (nor can the article say "bisexual"). In what context, exactly and fully, is the book bringing this information up, and what is this part of the biography about? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I share the same concerns, specifically if it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article about Rogers. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with others, it meets the RS standard as a claim made by someone about Rogers. It can't be used in WP voice.  Even though it isn't a question here I also agree that DUE may be an issue if there aren't independent sources corroborating the basic assertion. Springee (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

So... do we recommend removing the statement from the article as being UNDUE? Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even a close call. Yes. Collect (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources from the same organisation
I recently came across a case at DRV where it was being argued that two sources (both admitted to be reliable and in-depth) were not independent because both journals were under the same ownership. The cited policy was GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In my opinion, this was not intended to rule out two different articles written by two different authors in two different journals on two different dates. I would like to establish where the consenssus lies on this. SpinningSpark 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would say that if the two journals have separate editorial control then they should be considered separate sources, although obviously it depends on the specific sources in question and the subject matter. signed,Rosguill talk 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for your comment, Rosguill. I am generally in agreement with you regarding your observation that having "separate editorial control" should be a reliable indicator that would serve to distinguish one source from the other. It appears, however, that the author(s) of the guideline chose to use the term "organization" instead of simply emphasizing "separate editorial control". Therefore, the proviso must be construed more broadly. In most cases, it is usually the publishing organization that sets the editorial policy for the entire group of publications and also hires the editors. The editors, in turn, work closely with the writers and authors of the articles. Sometimes, a group of editors within the same publication may possess a high degree of editorial independence (e.g. the former arrangement between The Volokh Conspiracy blog and The Washington Post). On most occasions, however, editors working on different publications at the same publishing organization are subject to the editorial policies put in place by the management of the publishing organization.
 * With regard to the immediate case referenced below, the email addresses used by several Femina personnel are based on a domain name (wwm.co.in) owned and hosted by the Times group – . The email of the editor and the Chief Community Officer - Tanya Chaitanya - is also listed on the page referenced before (*@wwm.co.in). This suggests that the Times Group exerts editorial control over Femina. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think is the deletion review in question. The original AfD discussion is at Articles for deletion/Vidyut Kale. The sources under examination are Femina and The Times of India, which are both owned by The Times Group. Here are links to the sources being examined for independence:
 * "Blogger Vidyut Kale on being politically incorrect" by Hemchhaya De of Femina (May 2, 2017)
 * "The real housewives of Twitter" by Robin David and Sharmila Ganesan Ram of The Times of India (Jun 25, 2015) —  Newslinger  talk   00:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3 —  Newslinger  talk   01:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s a good question, but it is not the first question. The first question is whether these articles, either of them, is independent of the subject.  The answer is No.  These two articles are both based in the author interviewing the subject, for the stories.  You could call them advertisements.  You can’t call them third party independent.  The subject’s involvement was integral to the product.  All information came from the subject, and is attributed to the subject.  You can extract a little opinion of the interviewer on the subject, but it is very very thin, essentially creating a narrative to string the subjects quotes and supplied information into a readable prose. At best it can only ever be called “second party”, not “third party”.  No, these sources are not independent of the subject.
 * The question asked is: Are these sources non-independent due to being published in different outlets by the same organisation? I see this as a mere downstream consequence of the subject working to create promotional pieces. She is the common factor, with a second common factor being the organisational contacts that she has done some deal with to produce these pieces.  So, no, not independent of each other.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The good thing about both articles is the journalists have taken some care to attribute sources carefully. If Vidyut was a company these would likely by on the back of a press release, here the journalists may have sought her out as a goto person that would fit into the type of article they wished to write.  I would note the 2017 Femina article mentions(promotes?) her blogging website but omitting it would have seemed strange also.  The journalist comment "Over the years, hers has been recognised as one of the most fearless voices in India's online space, chiefly for her politically satirical spoof websites on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other bigshots ..." is perhaps the most significant ... (though fearless may or may not be debatable as my understanding is Mumbai may be relatively tolerant).Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * “the journalists may have sought her out”? Did the journalist say this?  Does the article begin with the journalist explaining their interest in the subject, and how this interview came to be happening?  No.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gone down the path I feared it would and got bogged down in the specifics of a particular case. This is the very reason I didn't link to it.  Whether the sources are non-independent through both being interviews of the subject is a different question.  It is a good question, and may well rule them out for notability, but that was not the reason the source reviewer gave for ruling them out.  My question was whether ruling them out for being from the same publisher is a valid rationale.  It is an important question because some publishers, like IEEE and Elsevier, produce a huge range of journals.  Showing GNG on specialist subjects becomes a whole lot trickier if it is always necessary to find multiple publishers as well as multiple authors and journals. SpinningSpark 15:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I see this as a mere downstream consequence of the subject working to create promotional pieces. She is the common factor, with a second common factor being the organisational contacts that she has done some deal with to produce these pieces." Do you have any evidence of me seeking any kind of coverage ever? Why the ad hominem to replace an actual argument? This is the most illogical argument I have heard in this bizarre conflict. You don't consider the sources valid, you're the editor. Two articles in separate publications owned by same company, two years apart and by different journalists. You see this as evidence of them being promotional pieces. Where is the logic? Then why stop at these two articles? All articles in all publications by any journalist and for most subjects on Wikipedia could be dismissed as promotional pieces if no evidence is needed and the assumption is that news publishing is thinly veiled advertising. Why just two out of all my coverage. Could be every word ever written about me, my own writing, my Twitter account and this message too. Paid articles are possible. Paid Wikipedia editing is also possible and your tenacity is noteworthy - not just do you have an opinion, you are challenging dissenting opinions with new arguments. So you want to use your logic to yourself? Or is it that only you can go around pointing fingers without evidence?


 * Not like there is a rule that says you can't seek promotional pieces in multiple publications. Though of course, if you understood paid media, my coverage would get whoever paid for it fired. Sparse, too diverse to create a coherent PR image... I could go on. I could also provide proofs of journalists contacting me with interview requests after introducing themselves. I can't invent backdated electronic records, right? Unlike Wikipedia editors, publications have actual editors, where professional standards are mandatory before a single word being put out. But I don't think that is the issue here. The sheer diversity of reasons being pulled out of the delete hat are amazing. If I proved that the interviews were unsolicited, you'd seek to prove that the editor's uncle was my grandmother's neighbour or something. This has gone beyond absurd. Disclosure: I am the subject of the article that has triggered this absurd conflict. I have no idea who made the article, AfD'd it, challenged the AfD or is presenting these absurd arguments. Earlier my only interest was that if the article must be made, it was in the wrong name. Now I'm sitting with popcorn. I know commenting on my own article could get it disqualified. Frankly, couldn't care less. Not looking like article being made would be a good thing either if this is what passes off as "editor" Vidyutblogger (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I see this as a mere downstream consequence of the subject working to create promotional pieces. She is the common factor, with a second common factor being the organisational contacts that she has done some deal with to produce these pieces." ~ SmokeyJoe
 * "I see this as a mere downstream consequence of the editor working to discredit the subject by discrediting coverage about her. He is the common factor, with a second common factor being the organisational contacts that he has done some deal with to influence Wikipedia content." ~ the subject.
 * BTW, doesn't this count as COI with the subject if you have information about the subject and how coverage about them differs from regular coverage that has never been published anywhere including the most casual tweets by anonymous trolls? Clearly you seem to have a private source of information on the subject?
 * I apologize for the personal responses which are probably of no interest to editors. This whole conflict was funny while it was merely wrong or incomplete information about me. It stopped being funny with an assessment of me as dishonest. Vidyutblogger (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While each case will be different, it's clear that we'd treat two different articles by two different authors, even in the same IEEE journal as two different sources. It's also clear that some maganzines with two different names are really just different brandings of the same group.  In this case, ignoring the issue of interview/promotional/etc. (where I disagree with SmokeyJoe), the sources should be treated as being independent of each other.  Hobit (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using independent sources, Wikipedia talk:Notability —  Newslinger  talk   07:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am obviously not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I think something like this could be clarified by a logical process - if the articles are within a short span of time of each other covering the same event and there is no alternative source that would meet WP:GNG - same source. But if they are about different events or at different times by different authors, different research papers, etc then independent? I'd think that if a subject is notable, even if they publish primary research in one journal, it would be covered in others and listing a long list of published research from one source shouldn't be an issue as long as diverse coverage establishes that more than that one publication care. As in, looking at the larger picture - if the issue is simply of meeting WP;GNG and there aren't more than three sources, probably not notable? This is the sort of logic I'd apply when writing an article for my blog or a news publication.
 * The issue of my article (brought up above) is probably not a good example for this. News and politics generally has a wide range of publications. But a niche subject may have only a few good publications (obscure subject or locally significant, so coverage in local media, etc) covering it and multiple coverage in same source for different reasons or at different times too could matter. OTOH an avalanche of articles summarizing achievements of a politician before elections - could be "same source" and possibly even factually incorrect even when published in entirely different publications. Vidyutblogger (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On your last point, we are aware of churnalism and don't accept anything that comes from a press release, or looks like it comes from a press release, as adding to notability. The question raised here goes beyond that; it asks whether two sources that are both considered reliable are independent if under the same ownership.  "Reliability" and "independence" are two different requirements.  The first is required for all Wikipedia sources, the second is only required for those sources that are establishing notability (the requirement for a separate article).  Someone earlier in the thread gave the correct answer in my opinion – it is editorial independence that is important here, not ownership independence.  SpinningSpark 09:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

https://biography.jrank.org
Is Biography Jrank reliable? I'm thinking no, as its own sources are unclear ... ? Tacyarg (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This site appears to be republishing various Gale publications. Although the copyright notice at the bottom of the page ("Copyright © 2019 Net Industries and its Licensors") implies that the content is licensed, they do not provide details. —  Newslinger  talk   17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems —  Newslinger  talk   17:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Terms of Use are shady. Looks like typical pirate website. -- Green  C  18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned TOS suggests that this site crawls and adds without verification of copyright status. They state that they will respond to DMCA requests by the copyright owner if any infringement is reported. This little gem: The materials used and displayed on this website, including but not limited to text, photographs, graphics, illustrations and artwork, video, music and sound, and names, logos, trademarks, service marks, and copyright are the property of their respective owners. The display of third party trademarks, service marks or copyright on this website does not imply that a license of any kind has been granted. furthermore looks like a CYA on copyright status. As far as RS goes, if they're just re-linking Gale pubs, it is probably better to link directly to the originals in references. CrowCaw 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The same TOS can be found at education.stateuniversity.com run by the same people but with other ripped off content from the so-called "80-volume Cambridge Encyclopedia", which is fake no such encylopedia exists. The content appears to be actually taken from The Penguin Encyclopedia (2004). -- Green  C  04:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

More I look, worse it gets. These domains should be blacklisted before problem gets too much worse. Links are in 100s of articles on enwiki. Not just Gale but other copyright sources. -- Green  C  04:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've run across it a few times, have been treating it as unreliable, and noted there's been little discussion on it. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Natalie (website) reliable for showing notability of Neptune (owarai)?
There's a newish user who would like to help improve the article of this (comedy group?) but I know zero about reliability of Japanese sources. I'm not finding Natalie (website) in the archives/perennial sources, but since it's Japanese that might not mean anything. They're asking about the reliability for showing notability in particular. Can anyone help? I've been discussing with them at User talk:FreshUdon --valereee (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan —  Newslinger  talk   17:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, WikiProject Anime and manga had a discussion in the past about Natalie, and the general consensus was that it was notable for anime and manga topics. Not sure about application to biographies or about notability in general. My personal take would be if the individual source is in-depth (a page rather than just a paragraph), it would help towards demonstrating notability. Whether it could be used for other details would depend on what it's being used to cite (I've found it to be reliable for general announcements, and it's also had good interviews). Opencooper (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opencooper. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Paid Obituaries
Whereas a search of the archives yields a number of discussiosn on the subject, these look inconclusive largely because people mix up the un-related subject of newspaper obituaries with paid, commercial obits. I hope we are all clear that if the news page of the New York Times publishes your obituary, that is a news article from a generally accepted WP:RS. This RfC is not about that, however. This RfC is about paid obit such as:


 * Thomas Funerals

I propose that these are not WP:RS. On the contrary, obituaries published by funeral homes are the same as an advertisement; the only difference from a product advertisement in a glossy magazine being that instead of a corporate sponsor, the ad is being published by the family or friends of the deceased. XavierItzm (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * At worst, paid obits are WP:SPS and usable for simple statements of fact only. And, for future use, most "newspaper written obits" are based on information from the family of the deceased, and have been so for a couple of hundred years. Even in The New York Times, by the way. Collect (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Paid obits do not meet WP:SPS at all becase these are not self-published. The "self" in "self-published" is dead.  Gone.  Pining for the fjords.  Unless there is proof the deceased purchased and wrote their own obit, the obit must necessarily have been written by a relative or friend, or, perhaps, a neonazi or some other sort of national socialist, perhaps even a classic nazi, like TFD says below. XavierItzm (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * True i think what people meant was independent third party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only information that can be used is non-contentious information such as date and place of birth, marriage and death. Frequently, they whitewash individuals' actual biographies and they should be removed. This happened for example with Nazi war criminals. Do you have a link to the RfC? TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree,Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TFD, no I do not. XavierItzm (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the rfc tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. At this point, I don't think it's necessary to make this discussion an RfC. —  Newslinger  talk   07:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Quadrant Magazine
I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the rfc tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. —  Newslinger  talk   07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

historyofcuba.com
I was looking through the Spanish-American War article and found some very dubious information sourced to this site (the material I removed here ). Judging by, this is one man's pet project and he definitely does not qualify as a subject expert. Unfortunately, this site seems to be used as a source for many articles, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. historyofcuba.com is a self-published source. Jerry A. Sierra is not a subject-matter expert. Citations of this website should removed or replaced, and any information supported by these citations should be verified to a reliable source. —  Newslinger  talk   17:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history —  Newslinger  talk   08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate as a WP:SPS
An editor at Lauren Southern has argued that Hope not Hate is a self-published source and that self published sources can never be cited for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hope not Hate was cited for the following statement: The UK-based advocacy group Hope Not Hate has described Southern as an advocate of the The Great Replacement conspiracy theory (source) There doesn't appear to be a meaningful factual dispute about Southern's position: I won't link to her Youtube video, but she explicitly says "the great replacement is happening" and multiple additional sources link her to the theory - but an editor has argued that HNH is prohibited even with in-text attribution.

diff, talk page discussion


 * 1) Is Hope Not Hate an WP:SPS? WP:RSP just says its reliability should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
 * 2) Regardless of #1, is it ever okay to cite Hope Not Hate for a statement about a BLP with in-text attribution? e.g. "Hope Not Hate says X about this person"

Nblund talk 20:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just cite other, better sources that aren't political advocacy groups (e.g., ) and there's no reason to really argue about it.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * GreenMeansGo: I generally agree, and in this specific instance I think we were able to work around using it. But, like the SPLC in the US, the site often has more in-depth coverage of the far right than might be available elsewhere. Kyohyi is insisting that the site can never be used - even with in-text attribution - for anything related to a BLP. HNH and it's print publication search light are both cited quite a bit in BLPs (1, 2), so that policy would lead to some real difficulties for entries covering far right figures. I think it's worth getting a gauge on the consensus around this issue. Nblund talk 23:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All issues of reliability aside, you would still need to answer the question that, if a political advocacy group was the only source for the information, then why should we think that the content was WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article? We often include information for SPLC because the SPLC is itself widely covered by independent sources. If HNH is literally the only source available, then it's not very difficult to reach the conclusion that outlets not driven primarily by the goal of political advocacy simply felt the information was too trivial and uninteresting for a wide audience for them to cover it themselves, meaning we probably shouldn't either.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the most recent case, I cited Hope Not Hate because it offered a more direct statement (Southern is a proponent of the Great Replacement) where other sources were saying the same thing with less direct language. Several sources say "Southern made a video with this title", but - for whatever reason - they don't actually explicitly say "Southern made a video that advanced this theory". Discussions about due weight would be moot if we decided that it was a self-published source, because WP:BLPSPS says that we can never use them and WP:BLPREMOVE says that they must be immediately removed without waiting for a discussion. This would arguably still be the case even if another source did cover reporting from Hope Not Hate, as long as they didn't factcheck it. The same editor has made the same "self-published" argument about the SPLC, and this area tends to have a lot of wikilawyering and blp-crying. Nblund talk 14:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Attribution is always best with what is (in effect) an advocacy organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be a generally reliable source for far-right politics, especially those in the UK. As long as we treat it in a similar manner to SPLC (See WP:RSP), attributing when necessary and supplementing with good secondary sources, I don't see a problem. The claim that it cannot be used for BLPs especially BLPs of far-right individuals are wrong and disingenuous. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's fine to use it and intext citation should not be used for facts, unless there is doubt about them. We might say for example that reliable sources told Hope Not Hate something. The fact that Hope Not Hate opposes fascism does not mean it is less credible. Mainstream media are also anti-fascist. However, since it is a website, care must be taken to identify whether the source is a report by Hope Not Hate, or an opinion piece, or a contribution by a reader. TFD (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Being the person who was opposing it's use, I would have sympathy for this position if it could be demonstrated that Hope not Hate had some sort of editorial board akin to a traditional publisher. But I found no information on their site to support that.  Also, a number of the pieces had no by-line, and the piece in question was authored by a group whose membership I could not discern from the web site.  All in all I saw no markers that says this advocacy group acts like a traditional publisher in it's publication processes.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The CEO, Nick Lowles, was editor of searchlight, has extensive experience in journalism, his articles are published in numerous publications and he has written many books about the far right. Ity's treated as an expert source by news media, including The Guardian and in academic writing. No by-line is only a problem if each article's reliablity depended on the expertise of its author. TFD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually having the CEO be the editor doesn't really help. You remove editorial independence which is a defining characteristic of traditional publishers.  I'm looking for independent editors, one's that don't have a vested interest in the advocacy of the group (CEO's have a huge vested interest in their own organizations).  By-lines help determine if the author and the publisher are one in the same, which is y'know the issue.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thus as an expert it being an SPS is not an issue, we just need to make it clear it is only an opinion, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kyohyi: I think you're conflating independence with self-publishing, they aren't the same. In any case: Hope not Hate is independent of Lauren Southern - who is the subject of the citation. Traditional publishers do not generally have editorial boards that are completely un-involved with the company. The logic of WP:SPS is that anyone can start a wordpress site and put whatever they want to on it. This isn't true of Hope Not Hate. They have a a separate research wing. The byline for this source is the "Right Response Team". Nblund talk 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to using independent reviewers within a source, and a CEO is too involved with the organization to be an independent reviewer. The logic of SPS is that people without a conflict of interest need to review information before publication.  And that page shows a lot of advocacy teams, but no editorial group nor positions to review facts and findings.  --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting the claim that the CEO or research directors can't count? And what's the conflict? The key question is whether the author and publisher are the same, and they obviously aren't here - HNH is a sponsoring body for the work of a research team. Nblund talk 17:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an inherent conflict of interest between the role of a CEO, and the role of an Editor. In this case we have a CEO of an advocacy organization, so the CEO's primary interest is the furtherance of that advocacy.  Advocacy is not inherently interested in facts, it's job is to persuade (advocate for the cause), and attempt to persuade even if the facts don't line up.  That is the nature of advocacy in general, now good advocacy happens when persuasion and facts align, but we cannot allow advocates to make that determination (because again, their primary purpose is for us to believe).  A key role of editor is to verify facts in published pieces, in essence facts are primary.  This difference in primary purposes (Factual reporting vs. furtherance of advocacy) is why the CEO role is incompatible with the editor role.  Again, we need to remember this is an advocacy organization, and they have a vested interest in any research they publish in furtherance of their advocacy.  In essence, a research director is not going to investigate facts or publish facts which goes against the grain.  The roles are incompatible.  --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not clear exactly, how Hope Not Hate would benefit from fabricating a claim that Lauren Southern promotes The Great Replacement, but that's also just a made-up standard. All newspapers have a vested interest in breaking news, all journals have a vested interest in publishing new research findings. ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." I don't see any support for your interpretation that all advocacy groups are self-published sources or that certain job titles determine reliability in the text of any policy. Maybe you should write up an essay or propose these changes, but please stop pretending that this is a "textbook" viewpoint when it clearly isn't. Nblund talk 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend you go read some literature on Conflict of Interest, and self-regulation, because those are the points you are ignoring on why we don't use self-published sources. Traditional publishers like newspapers and journals have editorial structures built into their organizational structure.  It's part of why they are called newspapers and journals and not something else.  Advocacy organizations do not inherently have this, and it needs to be demonstrated.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability and viewpoint are two separate issues. The vast majority of peer reviewed articles and academic books beyond introductory college present a viewpoint, that's why they are written. People who write books on health and safety have a bias against illness and injury, that does not mean we expect them to falsify information in overstate the likelihood of illnesses or accidents occurring. TFD (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me, Peer review process is by it's nature independent review, and academic books are documents written by one entity, and reviewed and published by another. Again the mechanism is inherent in the process (as in it's presumed), advocacy does not have this inherency.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Marginal. How is their reputation compared to other advocacy organisations? For instance, both SPLC and Cato Institute have been recognised by reliable sources, so despite their political leanings, neither is totally unusable for BLPs, although I'd note that both appear to be less overtly opinionated than HNH based on their websites. Do they have editorial policies that ensure accuracy over advocacy? I doubt that HNH would intentionally fabricate claims, but it doesn't necessarily mean they exercise adequate fact-checking and quality control to ensure that they do not negligently publish inaccurate claims. I won't say it's never usable for a BLP, but until I see further evidence of reliability (e.g. media coverage or reliance) I won't say HNH is "generally reliable" for anything. Regarding the statement at dispute, I'd say that if other sources as noted by GMG have found it prudent to use a less direct statement, we probably should follow them as well instead of how an opinionated organisation puts it. feminist (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also hesitant to call them generally reliable, but they are frequently used by other reliable sources : The Guardian, BBC, and the New York Times, as well as a number of academic works cite the group. As for prudence: I think other sources were less direct because Southern's position was obvious from the context. Other works cite her as an example of someone who "picked up" The Great Replacement theory and helped spread it through viral videos. Saying "she's also a proponent" would be redundant in context.  Nblund talk 14:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then HNH is probably usable. I agree with Icewhiz below that HNH seems like an SPLC-lite and should generally be treated similarly. The question is now not whether it can be used, but whether it should be used in this particular instance. I much prefer the wording currently in the article (In 2017, Southern produced a video on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which posits that non-white immigration will lead to a "genocide" of white Europeans) than what is proposed, because the current wording is much more specific than simply stating that Southern is an "advocate" of the theory. feminist (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not a SPS (the easy part). Hope not Hate - as SPLC, HRW, the NRA (had to name some other leaning group), and other NGOs that have editorial controls - is not a WP:SPS. These are not personal blogs or websites, nor group blogs - but rather organizations that publish their findings / advocacy. Now - having said this is not a SPS - assessing Hope not Hate's reliability and reputation for use is another matter. To me - they are a somewhat younger and less established cousin of the SPLC. In my mind - on BLPs - we should use the SPLC attributed - and this applies to Hope not Hate as well. I could see an argument being advanced that Hope not Hate is WP:UNDUE, on a BLP with wide coverage, if their opinion hasn't been covered in a secondary manner - such an argument would have some merit. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason why HNH would be treated differently from the SPLC. It definitely needs WP:INTEXT attribution. They do engage in controversial opposition research against anti-Islamists, which is documented in the article Hope Not Hate, but also see, , page 37 of this, , , and while corrections are welcome, admitting to spreading falsehoods about living persons is not good stuff for such a recently-founded organization.  w umbolo   ^^^  20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As an advocacy group, it needs WP:INTEXT attribution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Official Star Trek encyclopedias, manuals, and guides
in the context of establishing notability of Star Trek articles. Specifically, as used in Away team (Star Trek term): Simon & Schuster, according to Memory Alpha, are "the current holders of the rights to publish official Star Trek novels and reference works." Are these still considered secondary sources, or independent of the subject? 93 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okuda, Michael; Denise Okuda; Debbie Mirek (2011). "Away team". The Star Trek Encyclopedia. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1451646887.
 * Sternback, Rick; Michael Okuda (1991). "Operations Management". Star Trek: The Next Generation: Technical Manual. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1439108560.
 * Erdmann, Terry J. (2008). Star Trek 101: A Practical Guide to Who, What, Where, and Why. Simon & Schuster. p. 76. ISBN 143911787X.


 * I have a hard time even comprehending how one would argue that an officially licensed work establishes notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek —  Newslinger  talk   07:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are not independent works and are not an indicator of notability. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As above. They are good sources for details in an article, but cannot be used to establish notability themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not notable as independent sources. Good sources of information as long as they are noted as non-canon works. remember, "official" means officially licensed and has nothing to do with their continued non-canon status. StarHOG (Talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy
Is the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy a reliable source for information of human genetics? There is currently a debate about it at Talk:Xiongnu, where this article has been used as a source. A number of users have expressed concerns about the journal's peer-review process (three days: "Received: February 25 2015; accepted: February 28 2015; published: March 31 2015.") and about the structure and nature of the article in question.

It is currently being used to support the following statements:

"Researchers have proposed that the 4 Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b (M-378) specimens in the Heigouliang host tomb may originate from the Indo-European Yuezhi society, who were, at one time, the elite rulers of the Xiongnu. On the other hand, the Y-DNA Q1a samples from the victim tombs were assigned to a North Asian origin."

I'll note that in my own brief research on the journal I've been unable to find an actual website (only broken links) besides the journal detail linked to above anda Facebook page.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genealogy--Ermenrich (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As the editor who first raised the time-line given above, I want to make it clear that such a short turnaround does not in and of itself prove a slip-shod process, but a three-day turnaround is a big red flag. Like Ermenrich, I am unable to find the type of detail that would best determine the quality of the review process, such as the identities, qualifications and institutional affiliations of the editor and reviewers.  What I can say is that the relevant section of the article includes several additional red flags, most notably inexplicable formatting.  The section being used for this citation is an Addendum, apparently by an entirely different author, which is just tacked onto the end of an article that has only the remotest relevance to it, and the addendum has a section number at the start of its text that makes no sense within the structure of the article, suggesting it was lifted from some other venue without change.  I struggle to harmonize this as the product of a stringent review process.
 * Setting aside the specifics of this article, I have serious doubts as to the quality of this journal as a whole. It appears similar to several others that were founded about the same time and produced by a combination of hobbyists, amateurs, beginners or as pet side projects, with reviewers for DNA studies being lawyers, genealogists and graduate students, or simply the rubber stamp of the publisher/editor, and which serve as both a venue for these amateurs to share their thoughts and for scholars to bulk up their resume while bypassing the stringency of the normal scholarly review process.  These so-called journals are almost completely ignored in the established scientific literature, and their content, in my opinion, do not meet the bar of WP:RS for scientific findings.  With insufficient data available, I cannot be sure the journal in question falls into this category, but it certainly gives me that feel. Agricolae (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers in Neurology - blacklisted or no?
Is this text appropriate to add to the CBD article based on this Frontiers in Neurology paper?


 * Previous conversation at Project Medicine: Help identifying medical source at CBD - reliable or junk

Both the Committee on Publication Ethics and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association vouch for the editorial process of Frontiers Publications. It had been added to Beall's list of "predatory" journals, though this Nature article shows that the blacklisting was controversial.

The text and paper was deleted for being "junk" in this edit. One editor at the Project Medicine talk page said they had never seen this journal rejected before, while others claimed it was predatory and should be rejected. Still others suggested I should look for "better sources", like individual studies on CBD and epilepsy. No one had a problem with my summary of the paper.

This meta analysis looked at over 200 individual studies. Because the study of CBD and the discovery of the endocannabinoid system is so new, meta analyses regarding CBD are few and far between. Frankly, I fail to see how editors cherry picking from individual studies trumps a meta analysis.

I would like to determine whether Wikipedia is blacklisting Frontiers, and if not, I would like to reinsert the information. The article, which gets about 6K views a day, presently has one sentence in the "research" section. Thank you,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Blacklisting is probably too extreme, but Frontiers would not pass a WP:MEDRES check on most cases. Frontiers is notorious for accepting almost anything, and pressuring its editors into having extremely lax reviewing standards, sacking them when they get too picky about what's considered publishable. Is it possible to publish good stuff in Frontiers journal? Yes. But not because things have been vetting to only allow good stuff. You could publish good stuff on vixra if you want. But you'll share company with rather eclectic people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say we should not be using it for medical content going forwards. And should generally work to clean up instances of it that exist in our articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your reasoning?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ping     petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on Frontiers Media. Not a great source / very reputable publisher. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a glance, I assume it's the listing on Beall's website that causes you to favor blacklisting, and that Nevertheless, both COPE and OASPA have retained Frontiers as members after concerns were raised does not in your estimation elevate their reputation.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   15:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a good reason Wikipedia isn't allowed to be used as a source - anyone can edit. Frontiers Media has some questionable editing history according to these comments indicating changes were made based on a blog post and 3 anonymous emails:
 * comment 1
 * comment 2
 * canvassing   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * among open-access journals, it has a very high standing. (2 out of 194 for frequency of citations, assuming this count is accurate). It does have a genuine "editorial board" which is in its favor. Thus, this is not an obvious black-and-white decision. If the authors have also published in mainline journals, I would favor usage, it the authors are otherwise unpublished, I would give less weight to the article. The idea of any "absolute blacklist" makes little sense. Collect (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2nd most cited nope, 2nd most cited neurology journal nope, 2nd most cited clinical neurology journal still nope, 2nd most cited open access clinical neurology journal ah there we go. And in that category, it ranks 2nd of 13. That's not bad, but that's not 2nd out of 194. Those are also the brute numbers, and have to be normalized against the output. And Frontier publishes at very high volumes. That's why impact factors are a better metric than raw citation counts. I doubt Frontiers in Neurology would fare as great there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frontiers in Neurology "Ranks in the 73rd percentile of journal Impact Factors in the JCR Clinical Neurology category, with an Impact Factor of 3.508" source   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it makes little sense, . However, it was treated as a blacklisted source with no other justification for rejection besides calling it "junk". So I am here trying to clear things up.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This was previously discussed at WT:MED and so is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not forum shopping, please don't assume bad faith. Above I included a link to and mention of our related conversation at PM. Project Medicine is not the place to formally blacklist a source, it is here. I went there to get a better idea about why it was rejected. Editors use the RS/N to check on sources that are questionable to see if there has been a community consensus on whether they can be used - this saves a lot of time. Visiting two noticeboards in this case was hardly nefarious.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, there was nothing resembling consensus at PMtalk, and if anything, it was your removal of the material that resulted in the most backlash. We had a few "I don't like it"'s in addition to yours, sans mention of PAGs, which is why RS/N is preferable. Mere opinions are quite irrelevant when deciding worthiness of sources, even if they're fine at the PM talk page.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Forum shopping, blacklisting not necessary (rserved for extreme cases, although this one is close), but not reliable for this text, and not often reliable at all. If we were to blacklist this, we would need to blacklist every predatory journal; that's daunting. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandy, can you expand? Why is Frontiers not reliable for this text according to the PAGs?
 * I will note that most of the removed material existed peacefully at CBD since my addition here on 8 January 2019; it was then edited by here. Zefr introduced a slight mistake in his copy edit, which I amended here on 5 March 2019, with a slight expansion to include more of the main findings. Half an hour later  removed the whole thing as "junk". So clearly, established medical editors (for lack of a better term) like Zefr do not recognize this source or study as problematic.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If Frontiers is to be blacklisted, let us form a consensus so that the result and arguments are searchable here for editors in the future.
 * I am new to the "predatory journal" idea. Beall seems like a primary source. Does anyone have a link to relevant conversations that supported giving Beall's list such authority at WP?
 * Frontiers is a member of OASPA and COPE, which makes Beall's listing questionable - if he is out of alignment with these established agencies, why is he considered reliable?
 * From Nature :
 * Critics spoke out against Beall’s blacklisting of Frontiers, maintaining that the open-access publisher is legitimate and reputable and does offer proper peer review.
 * Daniël Lakens, an experimental psychologist at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands and an associate editor at Frontiers in Cognition, tweeted: "Frontiers being added to Beall's list reveals the weakness of Beall's list: it's not based on solid data but on Beall's intuition".
 * Note that Frontiers is on the "whitelist" of the Directory of Open Access Journals, for what that's worth.
 * Regarding authors:
 * Pamplona - 37 articles
 * da Silva - 69 articles
 * Coan - 52 articles
 * Again, if Frontiers is in fact acceptable, and no one has an issue with the paper or summary, I would like to reinsert the text at CBD.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is better handled by an RfC? Let me know your thoughts.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: there does not appear to be a consensus here to blacklist Frontiers. Does anyone disagree with this assessment?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   15:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not blacklisted. But also, never used for anything other than mundane information. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. They publish science, not "mundane information". They are not blacklisted, so cannot be classified as "junk" and used as justification for rejecting science, as you did.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Frontiers Journal is not blacklisted. As for the study in question, it will need to be handled by a separate RfC; this noticeboard is best for handling simpler (one-part) questions it appears.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Frontiers is no longer included on "Beall's list". Editors need to show RS supporting claims of unreliability. Personal opinions are of no use.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Beall's list no longer exists. Consensus - from both forums where this has been shopped to - seems clear: we're not going to be using Frontiers sources for health claims. That would open the floodgates to a lot of dodgy content. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group
Frontiers is better than OMICS which we should blacklist. A bunch of OMICS stuff is copied and pasted. And most undergoes no peer review. They just lost a 50 million lawsuit for dishonest publishing practices. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. OMICS is pure unredeemable garbage. Exception made for the journals acquired through the acquisitions of Pulsus Group/Andrew John Publishing/Future Medicine journals prior to ~2016. Those journals might have remained reliable after, but they are very suspicious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Blacklist, per lawsuit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be blacklisted. Natureium (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, does "blacklisting" mean adding them to the spam blacklist, or deprecation? I definitely agree on deprecation: the FTC suit alleged that they fabricated >99% of the editors and reviewers listed for their journals, and they've been accused of trademark infringement for pretending to supply content to PubMed Central and the NIH - that level of fraudulence makes it near-impossible to trust them for anything. I suspect a bigger problem would be identifying OMICs journals in the first place since it's not always obvious which journals are affiliated with the group.  Nblund talk 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think blacklisting is right - sometimes these journals are useful in edge cases for unexceptional information (e.g. the claims made by altmed practitioners). But obviously we don't want to be using iffy journals for strong claims about anything, particularly - and this is what the WP:PROFRINGE editors most want to use these journals for - for claims of therapeutic worth. Isn't this what the WP:CRAPWATCH project is about? Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Heavy.com used as source for birthdate at Katie Bouman
Heavy.com is a clickbait-site that hastily throws together "five fast facts" about anyone who trends in the news. It's been added to Katie Bouman as a source for her DOB several times, despite the fact that Heavy.com acknowledges that they got the information "in a search of online public records," which I don't believe would satisfy normal WP:RS journalistic scrutiny. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clickbait to the extreme. I've been treating it as unreliable for BLPs. They certainly want to be treated as accurate and ethical, but so far I've only seen reasons why they're not. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually think that Heavy.com's journalistic style is pretty good. Their explicit mission of getting things done quickly means that they will not be waiting for hard copies from county clerks or cross checking everything they find with a subject's contacts, so that's something to be wary about, and may also weigh in on discussions about significance. However, they make a point of actually citing sources all over the place, which is something even traditional outlets are frequently terrible at. It's not perfect - the "citations" are usually just a link to the source, with no archiving or proper citation style to help you find a dead site, though sometimes you can divine it from the context. But in addition to this, the authors of the pieces actually use their real names, provide a contact email, and are mostly professional journalists based on education and/or prior employment. There is also an editorial board, and you can contact them to report errors. In summary: Professional journalists, signed work, cites sources, editorial review, and a mechanism for reporting and correcting errors. So I think for a lot of things, I would assume Heavy to be reliable, unless there some countervailing evidence of a poor reputation. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is, these all seem to be a facade. Fact-checking takes time. Crediting "in a search of online public records" seems a red flag to me. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. Checking the specific source, they provide no link to said records, so it would appear not to satisfy their own standards. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The birthdate in the article is now also citing "celebsiren" which doesn't look to be of much higher quality ($20 says they got the birthdate from wikipedia when they created their article yesterday) 199.247.45.10 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The heavy.com source is currently back in the (locked) article and has been added repeatedly to Wikidata. --81.158.160.117 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

American Veterinary Medical Association
On Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States there has been some disagreement on whether this source from the AVMA would be reliable for stating upper-level findings related to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, especially pertaining to dog breed. I feel that per WP:IRS this not only constitutes as a very reliable source, and since it is a literature review article, it should be given higher weight than articles which are not literature reviews. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veterinary medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs —  Newslinger  talk   01:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here from WP Vet Med. The only oddity here is that it is not in a journal, but set up by the association. I think a case could be made for this one that WP:MEDRS does apply (dog bites and humans, etc.). When a respected scientific organization puts out a report like that, it's generally considered on-par if not higher quality than a review (can't say for sure which one of those yet though as a first glance). I'm seeing a lot of misunderstandings about primary vs. secondary scientific reliable sources, and a ton of talk page discussion. However, is there specific content being disputed that can be easily pointed out here? I see a list of studies that's begging to be summarized into an encyclopedic form rather than listing each study individually. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems fine to me. The American Veterinary Medical Association is the accrediting society for American veterinarians, it is authoritative. MEDRS does not apply since the article is not providing medical advice. Presumably, the AVMA relied on medical doctors to conduct the autopsies, but the AVMA collated the information. TFD (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The organization is reliable and the literature review is thorough. However, the content does not really tell us anything. Unless a source can tell us the number of attacks per head of population of a breed, the inference that breed has nothing to do with the likelihood of attack cannot be supported. William Harris •   (talk) •  07:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This paper is what the AVMA is primarily citing for the claim that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness, which does appear to go into this kind of data. PearlSt82 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Points Guy
Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy? — feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail


 * Option 4 or 3 for content involving credit cards, Option 2 for non-sponsored content. The Points Guy is a website with 20 full-time employees including 14 staff writers. They earn money via credit card referral links. Their Advertising Policy page lists out the companies they have a conflict of interest with, so we can assume that any articles that involve a company listed on that page are unreliable. As the website's disclaimer states that compensation from credit card companies may affect how these products appear on the website, we should consider any article containing mentions of such products to be default unreliable, and remove uses of such articles on sight. However, the site also covers news and reviews on airlines, travel and related topics, most of them written by staff writers. The Points Guy was added to the spam blacklist on 4 December 2018, following 's assertion that the site "consists solely of sponsored content". This is false: not all content on The Points Guy is sponsored. Taking the website's two most recent news articles, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" and "US Citizens Will Soon Need a New Travel Registration To Enter Europe", the articles themselves do not appear to contain any affiliate links, and their quality appears to be on par with other travel websites (Time Out, Lonely Planet et al.) or newer Internet properties that also contain native advertising (BuzzFeed, PopSugar, etc.). At least some of the current citations to The Points Guy seem to be appropriate, such as those on Lufthansa and O'Hare International Airport. Considering the existence of usable content on the website, blacklisting the whole website on the spam blacklist is inappropriate, but since there is no way to only blacklist sponsored content, I consider an edit filter (a la Daily Mail) to be the best solution: prevent editors from making mass/spam additions easily, but allow legitimate uses of the source. The filter should warn editors to ensure that the article they cite does not contain any references to credit card products or any company they have a relationship with. feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: i would go for 4, except that being paid to write favourable material does not mean they have fabricated it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not usable for sponsored material  but reliable enough for straight reportage of fact. Collect (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 4 appears to be a reasonable compromise, considering that there are usable articles on The Points Guy, even though they are a small minority of the site's content and can be replaced with more independent sources in most instances. For example, the subject of "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" was covered by the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, and a local ABC News site. (I'm selecting option 4 because The Points Guy publishes mostly sponsored content, not false or fabricated information.)
 * I note that the site's advertising policy doesn't reflect the full extent of sponsored posts on The Points Guy. The site receives affiliate commissions for promoting co-branded credit cards (e.g. a credit card jointly marketed by Barclays and American Airlines, or by American Express and Hilton Hotels & Resorts), but the page only discloses the relationships with the banks, not the airlines or hotel chains (except Marriott International). There are examples of The Points Guy articles that don't promote a partnered financial institution, airline company, hotel company, travel agency, or airport lounge, but these articles make up only a very small portion of the site's content. —  Newslinger  talk   21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a better alternative to removing  from the spam blacklist would be to add   to the spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). —  Newslinger   talk   21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd note that their "Reviews" section seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g. Alaska Airlines, Ethiopian Airlines, WestJet Encore). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under the   domain; these can remain blacklisted. feminist (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I've requested whitelisting of  and   at . Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request.
 * While I have strong reservations about using The Points Guy 's coverage of subjects that it has a close financial connection with, I don't think there has been a comprehensive discussion about what counts as sponsored content, and how it should be treated on Wikipedia. As ad blocking becomes more prevalent, more publishers are turning to native advertising as a source of revenue, and there are many cases where it is unclear whether an article is sponsored, or merely non-independent. Other examples of sources that promote the products they review include Wirecutter and Sleepopolis. This is something that should probably be discussed more broadly. —  Newslinger  talk   00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal just published an article ("The Credit-Card Kingmaker") describing The Points Guy 's financial relationships with banks, airlines (via co-branded cards), and hotels. Key quote:
 * In my opinion, restricting only The Point's Guy 's coverage of credit cards (but not other topics) would be too narrow of a scope. The site's financial arrangements prevent them from providing reliable coverage of any type of loyalty program, and I wouldn't trust the site's rankings or reviews of any topic except for uncontroversial, unopinionated information (i.e. "This hotel chain has 3,000 locations" is okay if better sources aren't available, but "This hotel chain is TPG's hotel chain of the year" should not be used for Wikipedia articles). —  Newslinger  talk   21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, restricting only The Point's Guy 's coverage of credit cards (but not other topics) would be too narrow of a scope. The site's financial arrangements prevent them from providing reliable coverage of any type of loyalty program, and I wouldn't trust the site's rankings or reviews of any topic except for uncontroversial, unopinionated information (i.e. "This hotel chain has 3,000 locations" is okay if better sources aren't available, but "This hotel chain is TPG's hotel chain of the year" should not be used for Wikipedia articles). —  Newslinger  talk   21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really know which option this counts as, but I would not normally use this website at all. Popular does not mean authoritative or reliable, this is basically just a heavily monetized blog. Guy (Help!) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note I have put the whitelisting discussion on hold, there seem to be some general reservations here (it is replaceable, it is reasonable, sponsored content). I prefer to wait to let this RfC run its course.  We need to know now of the 'useable' information, how often it needs to be used, and whether we can handle that with individual whitelisting, or that blanket whitelisting is suitable.
 * (for tracking) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (for tracking) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 for non-credit card content, Option 3 for credit card content: As noted by others, TPG has several credit card sponsorships and generally places the sponsorship disclaimer appropriately. The news section sometimes has factual reporting but one can usually find the reliable outlet from which TPG sourced its coverage. They sometimes use social media posts but not as egregiously as tabloids tend to do. The site probably should not be on the blacklist and the news section certainly should not be on the blacklist. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm with Collect on this one, Option 1 for non credit card-related facts looks fine to me, but avoid for anything having to do with credit cards, and they're clearly both conflicted and willing to bend the truth. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For anything credit card related they are clearly unreliable and should not be used - a warning edit filter (which is option 4 if I understand it) seems correct. I am not seeing the sort of evidence of editorial controls (e.g. fact checking, retractions, etc) I'd want for other coverage. However, reliable sources do attribute news to them so I would go option 1 for non-sponsored news and option 2 for other information (e.g. airport/lounge/airplane reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 1 generally, though of course context is vital — for example, they may say something medical that’s even right, but are not an authority in that area. They are open and prominent with Advertiser disclosure, so I give then points for that and would use that disclosure in any specific question.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 ... I was asked to comment on this issue by Legobot; to do so, I tried to research the reliability of the content published by The Points Guy. I failed to find an adequate number of evaluations that I could cite. The highly respected Forbes magazine speaks highly of them but more as an Influencer than as a highly reliable source of information. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/#1b3613f73933 I found no sources that claim that the site publishes false information. But at this point, I do not have full confidence in The Points Guy. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Points Guy is a Forbes.com contributor, and the link in your comment is The Points Guy 's description of itself. A Forbes.com contributor's self-description is a self-published source, which is not usable for establishing credibility or reliability. —  Newslinger  talk   13:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I won't argue that Newslinger. Another interesting point. The reliable publication Entrepreneur (magazine) says: The Points Guy "remains successful today, with the help of additional revenue streams via parterships with companies such as Capital One" https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/324042 |publisher=Entrepreneur
 * If the site has such a partnership, why is Forbes magazine paying Brian Kelly to review Capital One credit cards?? Capital One Venture Rewards Review, The Points Guy, Contributor https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2019/03/21/capital-one-venture-rewards-review/#1c876c81b9f7
 * AND Forbes makes this admission in another article: "Forbes has partnered with The Points Guy for our coverage of credit card products. Forbes and The Points Guy may receive a commission from card issuers". https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2018/12/10/capital-one-transfer-partners-available/#4b23d83f49a4 Peter K Burian (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Option 3 is the best choice: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at . —  Newslinger  talk   10:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I had added some fully-cited content to The Points Guy a few days ago. That was deleted by another editor who then added a large amount of content with no citations. (It's easy to see all of that at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Points_Guy&type=revision&diff=891996458&oldid=890464452)

Is this acceptable in an encyclopedia article?Peter K Burian (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the new content mostly fails the verifiability policy. It looks like restored the previous version, then merged in the usable parts from the large edit. —  Newslinger   talk   08:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I did. However, the state of the The Points Guy article is irrelevant to whether The Points Guy should be used as a source in other articles. feminist (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

administrator@the-old-rectors.org.uk
From "the old rectory organisation uk" (Peter Robinson) I was told that my 1972 Triumph Stag was dispatched from the factory to Henlys Limited in London. administrator@the-old-rectors.org.uk

From the first owner that he picked up the car in 1972 at a Garage by the Grossvenor Square. Which could mean that Henly was distributing Triumph cars aswell.

Kind regards Peter Bächi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.189.204 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

NextShark (nextshark.com) for Soka University of America
Is NextShark (nextshark.com) a reliable source for information related to a sexual harassment and assault petition in the Soka University of America article (added in Special:Diff/892086344)? The source page in question is "Students Unite After Soka University Told Asian American Survivor to ‘Get Over’ Sexual Harassment" by Nadya Okamoto.

NextShark appears to be a lifestyle and entertainment news website targeted to Asian Americans. They have an editorial team. There is a previous noticeboard discussion of this source at. —  Newslinger  talk   09:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans —  Newslinger  talk   09:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the story is nearly a year old is this the best source for this? That does rather ring alarm bells (this is after all a BLP question).Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Royalark
Is reliable as a WP:HISTRS or even, WP:RS? Is used as a source over numerous articles. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I would think not. Although it sorta claims sources ... it does not tie specific information to specific sources. It appears to be the website of a single person - Christopher Buyers. this source doesn't exactly rate the site highly. A google scholar search of the author doesn't exactly show its in wide use. I'd say no. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly; I removed the source from about 4 articles on the same grounds before I stumbled on the fact that it was massively. Hence, RSN:-) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Such hobbyist sites are clearly non-RS. If they cite reliable sources for their information, those sources should be used instead. And if the information is not otherwise sourcable, that is a good indication that it is undue. See also this previous discussion concerning the website. Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Which one of the sources (references) is more appropriate for confirming the statement?
Intro to my question: I am preparing a draft article (where text most probably disappeared already) about the company where I work, Salt Edge. In a nutshell, it is a fintech company that integrates with banks' interfaces so that bank clients can connect all their bank accounts into third party applications (PFMs) and have an aggregated view of their financial data. So, up to this date, the company has integrated with 3100 banks in 61 countries. The best source that shows this info is actually the link to the website's page with integrations. Yet, according to reliable sources rule, I cannot include it.

Question: Which one from the following links is more appropriate for being used as reference then? The statement from wiki article is "Salt Edge is connected to 3100+ financial institutions and interfaces in over 60 countries (April 2019) worldwide for account aggregation purposes."
 * 1)  https://finovate.com/salt-edge-serves-up-open-banking-payment-infrastructure-for-testing/
 * 2)  https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/hk-fintech-startup-going-global-838380518.html
 * 3)  https://www.bankingtech.com/2019/03/salt-edge-teams-up-with-uk-based-pfm-app-emma/

Thanks a lot Anisoara Popovici (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules. If you work for the company, you really should not be starting a Wikipedia article about it at all — because you're not independent enough from it to write the article in a neutral point of view. To directly answer your question, however, unfortunately the answer is that none of those are suitable or appropriate references in a Wikipedia article: Finovate and Banking Tech are blogs, not notability-supporting media, and the last option is the self-published press release of a directly affiliated company. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks, Bearcat, for the reply. Yes, I did read everything possible on writing an article, the conflict of interest rules, etc. I found in the FAQ/Organizations that even if I work in this company, I can write the text myself as long as I apply the neutral point of view and not include any promotional text. (It may be helpful to create a draft of an article in a user subpage, for example here. You can also submit a draft through the Wikipedia:Article wizard, if you feel strongly that you can meet the requirements of neutrality and sourcing. However, be aware that even in a user subpage or through the article wizard, advertising is forbidden, so you should not create a draft unless you are reasonably certain you can do so within Wikipedia's expectations) - so I decided that I'll give it a try. After posting it, I'll ask someone from the community to check the text Anisoara Popovici (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Anisoara Popovici — well, there’s the official .gov corporate filings, and then a bunch covering mostly the Yolt connection — Crunchbase.com, money2020.com, globalbankingandfinance.com, thepaypers.com, fintastico.com, openbanking.org.uk, etcetera.  Not sure that it really would get a solo article or mention in a topic article, but in any case there should not be advertising or boastful claims, leave External links to the company for that.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks, Markbassett. So, if i understand correctly, this source is sufficient? - https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/salt-edge-enables-yolt-to-connect-its-users-to-more-than-3000-banks/ Anisoara Popovici (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Anisoara Popovici whether that one is sufficient depends on what is being done. I would think it would be enough to propose two lines for any topic article Salt Edge is part of like Financial data vendor and Data aggregation.  Put the proposed line at such a pages TALK, and include mention of your relationship and give a link to the company website... (Even if not accepted, it would than come up in searches.)  But a single RS or single Yolt story is likely not enough for a standalone article.  You’d need more to say and third parties who reported on it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I will direct you to wp:n. The sources may be RS, however, just not for what you want.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Birth record data overriding secondary sources and personal request?
A public figure uses one name in public. There is a source for birth record data which someone is using to include another name in this person's Wikipedia article. Some issues with the data is that it is not a name which the person uses, or wants in the Wikipedia article, and that it came from WP:OR of a dataset, and it is only sourced to a dataset.

The particular article is Talk:Jussie_Smollett[ and the user advocating for inclusion is. Here is the source.
 * link to database
 * California Birth Index

I am not sure that this is exactly a "reliable sources noticeboard" issue, except for the practice that Wikipedia typically does not use databases as information sources in articles. Could I get comments either here or there? Thanks.

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, may I offer the clarification that, unless you have somehow verified it, we don't actually know what the subject of the article wants, nor even that the person who has contacted OTRS is in a position to know what the subject wants. We only know that that person claims that the subject's given name at birth is was not the one we have stated (it is not the given name by which they are publicly known now, and possibly no longer part of their legal name). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is extremely clear that we do not source information from primary sources/public documents in this fashion. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I will be removing the claim. Please do not restore it. It is a great example of why this rule is needed: the chances are simply too high that somewhere along the line somebody mistranscribed Jussie's name.     Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it say primary source is ok if it's from the subject themselves? I don't really feel like starting a new question, but I'm sort of curious about this edit. The editor added DOB to the article referencing what purports to be the subject's mother. What is the burden of evidence to assure the source is really the subject's mother; and if that was established, would the page of immediate family members for info like DOB? Graywalls (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Somalia news sources
I came across a series of stubs about politicians in Khatumo State, Somalia (Biindhe, Abdi-Joof, Garab-Yare) that cited Somalia Report (English, also known as piracyreport.com), Horseed Media (Somali language), and Allssc.com (Somali language). My question for this noticeboard is if these sources are generally reliable for statements of fact, and if they should be considered generally reliable for assessing the notability of subjects covered by them. signed,Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not use any newspaper for a statement of fact (it should be an attributed opinion).Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Horseed Media appears to be reliable, I've found it cited in other reliable sources. Here's some examples:


 * This organisation's journalists have also been harassed by the authorities in the pursuance of their work . In my experience, this is generally a tell-tale sign that it's a news organisation independent of a corrupt government and its content is taken seriously (otherwise why would the police bother?). -Indy beetle (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not saying that this is the case with Horseed... but a corrupt government might harass a media outlet because they are the propaganda arm of an equally corrupt opposition group. Harassment does not always indicate legitimacy. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point. The situation I had in mind was the Democratic Republic of the Congo's censorship of Radio Okapi, a UN-cofounded news organisation, for interviewing insurgents. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

brigfield.org
Hello everyone. I have a question about whether or not the following source (What if we loved black people as much as we love black culture would be usable in a potential expansion of the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. The following part from the web page is the portion that I would use in the expansion:

"In the story “Little Eva, The Flower of the South”, people of color can also be seen as props to help portray Eva as being an angelic and perfect child.  The story represents “little colored boys and girls” as being dependent on Eva as she teaches them the alphabet.  This theme of Eva caring for the people of color in the story portrays her as being superior over them.  Smith’s essay on “race” discusses how some texts in children’s literature “homogenize and belittle people of color” and often set black people in the contrast of white characters.  “Little Eva, The Flower of the South” is a perfect example of this."

The website was done by a professor from the University of Wisconsin, Madison so it leads the above link some credibility. However, I have a suspicion that this may be a discussion board assignment and that the author (i.e. Angela Tucker) may have written this for a class. For those unfamiliar, some English classes assign their students to write a discussion board post on a certain topic and respond to other students’ posts. As someone with a M.A. in English, I have done these kinds of posts many times. For clarity, I have nothing against them, and I find them to be a useful education tool.

When I click on the author’s name, I can only see two articles written by this individual, including this one. That article directly talks about a University of Wisconsin, Madison class. I am assuming that this would make the page invalid for use on a Wikipedia page as it was most likely written by a student as part of an assignment, but I wanted to double-check here. Apologies for the long post. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is Angela Tucker?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Angela Tucker wrote the above article (which I said in my message and you can see from the link). She appears to be a student (at the time of the writing) and this appears to be an assignment for a class so I am assuming that would make it unreliable. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So (in effect) almost a student thesis, then no it would not be RS. It was not written by the expert, and there is no evidence of editorial control (and yes I know she wrote the article, its why I asked).Slatersteven (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I thought that would be the case, but it is always helpful to get a second opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Perez Hilton
I am requesting for comment about reliable sources of celebrity news sites, including Perez Hilton which is uncertainly reliable news source for citation in celebrity, entertainment and gossip. --Acajenka (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Cubano and Miami native Perez Hilton is the internet’s most notorious gossip columnist." At a stretch, you can use it as WP:BLPSELFPUB, but almost certainly not in other people's WP:BLPs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But I see it's a popular source: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Popularity does not equate to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence that it is an unreliable source?--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 12:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The selfdeclared "Perez Hilton is the internet’s most notorious gossip columnist" is a piece of evidence. Also, it's a WP:BLOG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No celebrity gossip source is Reliable  Simple rule of thumb, as far as I am concerned. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång made an error in their search. Here is the correct search:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&search=%22PerezHilton.com%22

I am inclined to start going through the list and removing it as an unreliable source, keeping the exceptions such as BLPSELFPUB. Any objections? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any blanket removals mainly because it makes tracking more difficult, but also because it causes loss of content which may be covered by other sources. Citations to PerezHilton.com should be replaced with more reliable sources if available (such as when the website cites another source for its article), or tagged with unreliable source if the content it supports is unlikely to be controversial. Finding more reliable sources to support article content is quite easy. E.g.
 * Content cited to this website should only be removed if either: 1. it is of a controversial nature that requires a strong source, such as with claims about living people; or 2. it is of a trivial nature and would constitute WP:Undue weight in the article. Many of the articles which cite PerezHilton.com are not BLPs or even biographies, so the requirement for sourcing is lower. feminist (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections. It's a gossip website and not a reliable source. It definitely should not be used in BLPs. Natureium (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've started going through the citations to PerezHilton to see if they should be replaced or removed. Note that instead of blanket removing them, I check each PerezHilton article to see what it contains, what it cites, etc. so that I can find more reliable sources for the same content. feminist (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tennessee Star
I've noticed on several occasions that editors have tried to introduce fringey and rightwing POV content by using the Tennessee Star as a source. The Tennessee Star looks like a normal newspaper (e.g. like The Tennessean) but is just right-wing nonsense masquerading as a local newspaper. It's part of a concerted effort by far-right activists to contaminate public discourse: "Launched in February 2017, the Star is part of a growing trend of opaque, locally focused, ideological outlets, dressed up as traditional newspapers. From the Arizona Monitor to the Maine Examiner, sites with names and layouts designed to echo those of nonpartisan publications — and with varying levels of credibility — have emerged across the country, aimed at influencing local politics by stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Read up on the Jackson v JQA 1828 vitriol - this is nothing new.  Biased newspapers have been around for ages, in every nation with any free press at all. And that is one of the reasons why, internationally, media with "bad opinions" are allowed to exist.      The only valid issue is whether it corrects errors, and not just its perceived political positions - like "pro-Brexit v anti-Brexit" UK papers, or pro-Catalan v anti-Catalan Spanish papers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only valid issue is whether it corrects errors
 * No, no it isn't: the question as stated, is whether it is genuinely an actual media outfit and not a propaganda outlet pretending to be an actual media outfit. --Calton &#124; Talk 00:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not remotely correct. WP:IRS describes several attributes of reliable sources. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. This site is demonstrably not a "well-established news outlet." Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. I'm not aware that any of these sites have any "reputation for accuracy" — indeed, they appear to have the opposite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and to that point, the politico explains that there is no separation of editorial and advertising boards at that work, that raises several issues related to disclosures of COI. While other major papers may have no line between news and opinion desks, they still have their distinction between news and advertising which is a key RS. --M asem  (t) 01:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers This makes me sad.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the pertinence of political positions, yes and no. No, if it's simply a matter of political leanings, and yes if it's a question of "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist", per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Regardless of the site's content, however, what needs to be established is a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This reputation is not established by the source claiming to be the "Most reliable local newspaper across Tennessee", and it is not assumed by default until proven otherwise. As the policy states, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires." Eperoton (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracy is what we are concerned with, not bias.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the Tennessee Star reprints as fact massive amounts of material from the Daily Caller - all of the following are on their front page at this moment       - since that site was deprecated as a source that publishes false material in this RfC, the Star needs also to be deprecated as unreliable. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is simply reprinting [the same unreliable content as] a banned source, I would think it would/should be treated like the other source, yes. (I know we treat different outlets' publication of the same wire story as non-independent.) -sche (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. They even credit the Daily Caller on most of the stories, whilst on others you have sentences like "X did not reply to the Daily Caller's request for answers", which sort of gives it away.  They also print stories from "ConservativeHQ.com", and you just need to look at the front page of that website ... Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Further: The "Maine Examiner" and the Ohio Star  also need to be deprecated.  They are effectively the same website, with a few "local" stories thrown in to give them the impression of "local news". Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's reliable (for all the reasons mentioned above) but it's worth pointing out that it's barely used at all. By a quick search, it's only been mentioned four times on talk / internal pages (including this one), and is currently not cited at all in article space.  It's worth noting that it's an unreliable source that makes some efforts to present itself as having a better reputation than it does, but if we try to preemptively ward off every possible generally-unreliable source, we'd never find time to stop.  --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If nobody is using it, or even proposing to use it, as a source on Wikipedia, is it legitimate to have this discussion at all?
 * It's a reasonable conversation to have now, especially if these "fake newspaper" websites are going to increase in number. Obviously, any article that's simply been copied from a site that's already deprecated can't be used anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations.
Turner Classic Movie has a solid Database for film. I also believe that it is NOT user-generated. Check out their TCMDb section. They seem reliable when it comes to year of release, cast & crew, even some areas have a Leonard Maltin reviews.

Main Page: http://www.tcm.com/

TCMDb section: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/?ecid=subnavdatabasehome

"To Have and To Have Not" film page: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3190/To-Have-and-Have-Not/

Give me your feedback.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force —  Newslinger  talk   07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the upper right hand corner of the database it states that it is "powered by AFI". The only part user-generated is the user review section. Some don't think that databases are appropriate sources any ways. If AFI has the database information available directly, I don't see a problem. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As above it's not user generated and sourced reliably so is a reliable source along with the AFI Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am not sure what AFI is, fantastic since it seems to move TCM forward as a reliable source.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no point using TCMDb since their data is coming from the AFI Film Catalog. Just use that. -- Netoholic @  12:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is to see if this specific one is reliable it will avoid citation hunting, when people like myself who don't know use it.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not against it per-say, but some of the AFI information is curious as AFI no longer seems to have information on a large chunk of non-American productions. So where are they getting information for those films on the TCM DatabaseAndrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Make google search of these titles that are abandoned on TCM if they are here. It will reinforce why TCM should be used as a citition. Thanks Andrzejbanas.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Runway Girl
Is Runway Girl Network a reliable source for topics relating to aviation? feminist (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on their staff list, it seems to be. But as with any other publication, that applies only to news articles, not opinion pieces or readers' contributions. And Weight must always be considered. You can't for example add information from this source to the article on American Airlines that has not received broad coverage. TFD (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Axios (website)
Is axios.com a reliable source? Here is their About page. They have been cited by Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, New York Times, Washington Post. They've issued corrections of their own articles. Thank you. starship.paint ~  KO   02:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Usable. Axios is a relatively new publication with a focus on American politics. As a newer publication, their reputation is somewhat weaker than The Hill or Politico, but they appear to be OK for uncontroversial facts. MBFC ranks it as left-center and Ad Fontes places it between "skews left" and center. However, they admit to using native advertising on their About page, so this is something to beware of. feminist (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Usable Most definitely. Axios was founded by two people from Politico, and the quality of work is comparable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. Axios was co-founded by Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz, a former Politico exec. It has serious journalism chops and quickly became well cited by the reliable media shortly after its founding in early 2017. As usual, reliability must be determined based on the specific source and fact, but I'd presume Axios sources to be reliable. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Kasem Ajram/Kasem Khaleel
I am not sure what this person's real name is, since he seems to use both. His book "The Miracle of Islamic Science", also titled "The Miracle of Islam Science" or, when credited as Kasem Khaleel, "The Arabian Connection: A Conspiracy Against Humanity", is used as a source on History of infrastructure, History of road transport, Mirror, History of the petroleum industry, Oil well, and Road. His books are available on Google books in snippet view only, and the only online thing I can find linked to him is this, which is just an excerpt from the book: https://www.mediamonitors.net/setting-the-record-straight-what-is-taught-in-the-west-about-science-and-what-should-be-taught/. Any ideas? Dragoon17 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to his bio at "Media Monitors Network," which you cited, his name is Kasem Ajram and he is also known as Cass Igram, Kasem Ajram Khaleel and Kasem Khaleel. You can also see this by clicking on his name in your link. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, that seems acceptable. TFD (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

TransAdvocate
''This discussion was last held in 2014, and it's time for an update. Mathglot (talk)''

May I ask confirmation whether Wikipedia considers The TransAdvocate (https://www.transadvocate.com) to be WP:RELIABLE? We've no article for The TransAdvocate. I see a previous discussion here, regarding "use in BLP, etc", which seemed to deem it WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Run by a registered non-profit with a mission of documenting and countering "media tropes and misinformation". Not a national newspaper, but neither is it personal blog or self published. The interview with Catharine MacKinnon appears a reasonable source for that detailed material for her views on feminism.
 * It is in use as a source on 23 different Wikipedia articles. The discussion about it is nearly 5 years old and was inconclusive at best, and did not recommend that it be removed as a source but put in context. --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Always check Reliable Sources Noticeboard first, for this type of question. As A145GI15I95 alluded to in the bare link above, RSN has this about it: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175.  That dates from 2014, didn't see anything else. Pretty much any blog is a WP:SPS although some are moderated (which is not as strict a bar as peer-reviewed). See WP:BLOGS.
 * To evaluate the reliability of a blog, as the guideline states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. A search for "Cristan Williams" shows she appears in about three scholarly works and four books. Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a blog, it is journalism with fees for submissions as 'honorariums'. The site is a form of fact checker site and a set of trans-related resources and historical records supported by a not for profit. Submissions go through an editorial review process and have the express purpose of "we don’t simply repeat the news, we report the news as uncovered through actual investigation"
 * There was no agreement to blank discussion from the article talk page and move the comments of others here (ref WP:TPO). It is perfectly fine to review sources on the talk page of the article they are being used in. There is no consensus that sources must be discussed here, or in which circumstances RSN is preferable.
 * --Fæ (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fae, sorry; a better solution perhaps, would've been to leave it there, and provide a pointer link from here. Can still do that now, but at this point, I feel shy about moving it again, but would certainly support its being done. Mathglot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rate it as a non-expert group blog (per WP:BLOGS). There is an editorial board, but none of them have a credentialed background in either psychology, medicine, or journalism - rather they are long-time activists and independent writers. It should never be used as a source about living people, never used for opinion, and I would avoid its use entirely except for what any authors say about themselves that follows WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Netoholic @  11:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is clearly not right, Netoholic. RfCs on advocacy groups have consistently found that they are to be considered RS on topics within their area of expertise; on non-MEDRS subjects, I see no reason why the qualifications of "long-time activists and independant writers" should not be considered reliable, as long as they represent experts who have published independently in their field and are not used as evidence about individual BLPs (the conditions specified in WP:SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't group all advocacy groups together - an advocacy group staffed by credentialed scientists, for example, is not the same as one staffed by "activists". What do you consider their "area of expertise", and by what measure is that expertise demonstrated? What is "their field", and in what publications have they been published as experts in those fields? I don't see much difference between this website and one listed above. Claiming to be a news site does not make it so. -- Netoholic @  19:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Their expertise is in gender identity, as are their publications. I would have thought this to be obvious. Nobody woukd be interested in citing this source on any other topic that I can think of. And I have no idea what this has to do with the Tenessee Star. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the editorial board has expertise in gender identity, which would generally require high-level academic credentials in medicine or psychology. They do not have expertise in reporting of gender identity issues, which would generally require journalism credentials. At best, the website should only be used as a source for personal stories per WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, I'm afraid you are not well-informed. Cristan Williams, for example, has multiple publications in Transgender Studies Quarterly, a leading journal in the field. Care to re-think? Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing sourcing from Transgender Studies Quarterly, are we? Cristan Williams may have gotten published there, but that does not confer expert-level credentialing enough to the whole of The TransAdvocate enough to bring it higher than WP:BLOGS. And "multiple" is a bit generous when you mean two. -- Netoholic @  02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am simply following policy per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" - this is exacrly the situation,e.g., with Cristan Williams content on The TransAdvocate, even if treated as self-published. There is no reasonable ground to treat TransAdvocate articles as less reliable than a personal blog with the same byline. Newimpartial (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As this thread has developed, I've come to feel support for the arguments presented above by Netoholic, and my opinion (if it matters) would be that TA should be considered an unreliable source. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the context within which this particular discussion started, it would be difficult to AGF about that specific comment. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear you want to follow WP:SPS, but let's read the rest of it: Exercise caution when using such sources and Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Even if you think Williams is an expert, the source is still self-published (Williams runs the website) and in this case the source is being used to reference Catharine MacKinnon - a living person. Additionally, even if you think Williams is an expert (something still not proven), that does not mean every other author on TransAdvocate gets to be considered an expert by association. -- Netoholic @  01:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A refrain I hear often around here is to consider whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose, like a theological news site may be reliable for quotations from interviews with theologians but not for archaeology, or might have biases that require attribution in-text. (I recall it being argued that RedState and some other such sources, for example, might be reliable only for quotes from interviews they did.) In the article where this discussion started, this source is cited in three places, for the attributed views—quoted from interviews—of Judith Butler, Catharine MacKinnon and Cristan Williams, the last of whom is an editor of the outlet but whose quoted views are also sourced to another source which means The TransAdvocate could be dropped as a source for that without affecting anything. The other two are notable feminists whose views are relevant to the article, being as it is an article on feminist views. Personally, I am inclined to think it a tolerable if marginal source for such attributed quotes from interviews; it does have a staff and is moderated. The source's name could be added alongside the speaker's, if desired, as is already done for some other sources in the article (for example, it could read "In a 2015 interview with The TransAdvocate, Catharine Mackinnon..."). -sche (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The article where this question arose (Feminist views on transgender topics) is largely a presentation of two opposing factions within feminism. TransAdvocate clearly favors one side over the other, making their reliability questionable for this particular purpose.
 * This question also arose after another editor asked on the talk page that we examine reliability of sources, and a third editor deleted content from CounterPunch and Feminist Current, citing WP:RS (whereas I've seen these two pubs sourced without question on other articles).
 * I wish to make very clear here that I'm not seeking some kind of "revenge removal" (if that's a thing on Wikipedia, and I am new here) on this controversial topic, which is why I didn't delete the TA content, and I instead asked about its reliability on the talk page. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case of Mackinnon, she did not say the quote being used in interviews with TransAdvocate - they are displaying a quote she said in a 2015 interview with NYU Shanghai student publication On Century Avenue. Its easy to miss, as the TransAdvocate puts those words in a big block quote and links to that other interview subtly (the link is in Catharine MacKinnon's name). Having a block quote like that usually implies that same quote is in the text of the article... I think this is a clear example of misleading presentation on the part of TransAdvocate and shows lax journalistic standards.  The article should be immediately corrected to point, at least, to the student publication source. -- Netoholic @  23:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Context is important. If the article is discussing the opinion of a particular feminist, and the cited source is written BY that feminist, and is directly attributed as being that feminist’s opinion, then it is a primary source for those view, then it is reliable. Now, the NEXT question is one of DUE WEIGHT... ie, should the article mention the opinion of this particular feminist or not.  THAT is not a reliability question, but one for our NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you point out, questions of due weight are o/t here; only reliability is at issue. And I agree that views by a feminist in her own writings and thus credited are reliable. Mathglot (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has an editorial board, and its interviews have been cited by the LA Times, Buzzfeed News,Salon, Broadly, and the Daily Beast, among others. I think we're reasonably safe in assuming that they aren't fabricating quotes from well-known feminist philosophers. Which would be pretty remarkable, and probably not a really sustainable practice in the long term. WP:SPS is not a prohibition on online publications, they obviously have an editorial process. They might be reliable for some uncontested claims of fact, but there are probably better sources in many cases. Nblund talk 16:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Birjis Qadr
This query is regarding Birjis Qadr article. Can I use this website to cite Qadr's date of death and full name? The website claims that it is being maintained by a descendant of Qadr. The current citation in the article for Qadr's date of death is unreliable and will be removed. Also, currently I do not find any other source mentioning Qadr's date of death. RRD (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say no... not reliable. The cited webpage claims to be run by a descendant of the subject, but that does not mean he knows what he is talking about.  It is still little more than a personal website.  Not having reliable birth and death dates is not a big deal.  Just omit it. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For a start as a decedent (assuming it is true) it is not independent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

RS possibilities for John D. Zeglis
Article: John D. Zeglis The article is weakly referenced, but he appears to be notable based on this which appears to be independent of the author, but of dubious reliability. The [Google search] brought up a bunch of sources. I'm curious to see which ones you all think would be helpful to establish notability or reliably used for facts (I believe the first 3 are okay):
 * 1)  -- this one looks okay to me.
 * 2)  -- this also look okay to me.
 * 3)  -- this one seems okay
 * 4) Bloomberg
 * 1) Bloomberg
 * 1) Bloomberg
 * 1) Bloomberg

I got up to page 8 of the Google search before I got tired of posting. I think some of these should be reliable, but I wanted to hear what other people think, especially for future reference for notability and reliability. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This might be better over at the notabilty notice board.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What's that and where might I find it? I have never heard of it.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (Not really a noticeboard, but a discussion page - still useful though). Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Black Kite. That doesn't really seem the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of individual sources for notability, but I will put a notice to this discussion and see if anyone from there wants to comment here.  I have reviewed a number of the subpages like WP:NCORP, WP:NOLYMPICS, WP:NARTIST, WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPERSON, WP:NPERSON, WP:NORG, WP:NALBUM, etc., but have seen nothing that answers the questions I have above about the kinds of very specific sources mentioned above.  Of course, I didn't read every one of those page completely, so maybe I missed something...  --David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice now placed here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability --David Tornheim (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These, on the whole, sources are RS, so the only issue would be are they enough, not are they RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated restoring of information that has been unsourced for 27 months
Bobby soxer (music) has had a global unsourced tag for 27 months. Any material tagged that long can very legitimately be challenged and removed. Slightmile has repeatedly restored it with no effort to provide a source, in violation of WP:V. How long does the information need to remain in the article unsourced? Another 27 months? Indefinitely? 75.191.40.148 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The content really shouldn't have been restored. I commented in the RFC at the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There’s an RfC about CBD and Epilepsy
Located [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabidiol#RfC:_Should_this_epilepsy_research_be_added_to_the_Cannabidiol_article? here].  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Texas Monthly
Would this source be considered reliable, per WP:RS?—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Texas Monthly does not meet "Scholarship" because it is not a scholarly source, but it does meet ""News organizations". However, as with all investigative journalism, it presents a problem of weight. By its nature, this type of journalism gives extensive coverage of information not reported elsewhere and hence does not have "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The way I have found to approach this type of information is to see how other publications have treated it. Reporters from other publications will determine how significant the information is and what if anything should be repeated. I would then use them as the article source. TFD (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How would one find other reporting? Texas Monthly has reiterated the problem as they find it. But given the tidal wave of 'reporting' from one side, how to find the other side? It's two articles versus a million!
 * Only by searching with the reporter's name did I find anything. HarpersBazaar A Salon article mentions an article in Texas Observer. Is Slate valid? A mention of the article in Austin Chronicle (can an alternative paper be mainstream also?). The author mentions an article in the Federalist. Oh dear, the 'L word - "It’s a biased article from a liberal publication". NYTimes references the TexasMonthly and Salon articles, and indirectly rejecting Johnson's story.
 * You suggest "I would then use them as the article source." What if other reporters merely refer readers to the original TM articles? And without saying the articles are false? How do you not cite the originals but cite the articles that just cite the originals? Shenme (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those other sources and a subsequent article in Texas Monthly have summarized the original Texas Monthy reporting and decided what's important and how credible it is. Their journalists have had time to consider any response that Johnson may have provided. Their consensus is that the reasons Johnson provided for leaving her position were disingenuous as originally reported in Texas Monthly. TFD (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Pretty much with TFD above, wrong question.Slatersteven (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Athensnews.gr

 * Article: Athens Polytechnic uprising
 * Users involved: me and

Is athensnews.gr a Reliable Source? Is this 1999 article, a Reliable Source for a historical event? I have never heard of Athens News. I am against using these kinds of non RS, as they are not helpful in weighing the events, or containing fallacies that are hard to spot. I am not against the text supported by the specific citation, what has been added is common knowledge among greeks as we are taught about them since elementary school. But we are having a debate about whether we should rely on these kinds of sources. Well, what do you say? Cinadon36 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For background here we are talking about a simple transcription of the seminal radio call of the students during the Polytechnic uprising "Etho Polytechneio". The fact is supported by two very RS news sources. We are not talking about any academic analysis to need peer-reviewed papers. Just a transcription. This is a frivolous report by an ongoing WP:BATTLE user. Dr.   K.  18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is another piece of information: Identifying reliable sources (history): Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.Cinadon36 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of Athens News. What an argument...Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He could have just clicked its article: Athens News. This is actually one of the best RS on the Greek junta and the surrounding events. Dr.   K.  19:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd. Here. Cinadon36 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd. This is a silly remark. Read the article and see the good reviews and the professional publishing houses that it was part of. Dr.   K.  20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP is not RS, so any reviews at a WP are not valid. Nevertheless, there is only one sentence at that particular article commenting the quality of the newspaper, citing "Lovegreece.info", clearly not RS. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It was part of the Lambrakis Press Group of newspapers. You can verify this on your own doing a Google search. Wikipedia is only a starting point, as you should have known. No more of these dense comments if you could. Dr.   K.  20:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide such a review so this discussion can close here? Cinadon36 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you go find it. I am not going to humour your incompetence. Dr.   K.  20:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE. Dr.   K.  20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Once more, someone cannot resist from commenting about other users. Please stay on topic. If you feel there is a CIR issue, report it at ANI. IDHT is not the case as I have told you I am ok with the text. As for Battle, it takes two to tango. Regards. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You lack the competence to understand that you can't write in English. That's not BATTLE on my part. Just advice. It's your BATTLE because you resist my advice with PAs and CLUElessness. Dr.   K.  20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeap, I am sure other editors are not interested in this rant, so... goodnight Dr.K. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Athens News was (and still is) well known. Even an Imerida (Atelier) was held recently in Greece regarding the influence of newspapers and magazines to the politics of Greece, where Athens News was a topic. IMO, Athens News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . As I have said from the beginning multiple times to the OP of this thread, Athensnews.gr is a world-renowned source, not simply RS. A simple Google Book search reveals Athensnews.gr is used as reference in many academic books from the who-is-who of publishers. However, this did not prevent this person from exhibiting a BATTLE attitude  and wasting peoples' time across many fora, including this one. A question comes to mind: Is this person incapable of a simple Google Book search before coming to this board to waste everyone's time? Or before he posed silly questions on this board, after he was told that his approach was wrong? Just observe his replies just above. Or before he edit-warred on the Polytechnic article adding silly tags on Athens News? I guess the answer is obvious. It is no.  Dr.   K.  22:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning Dr.K. You are talking as if it has been proven that athensnews.com is a reliable source of historical issues. We are far from it. More evidence is needed. How about those reviews you have hinted can be found starting from WP article? A google-search does not prove anything. Most probable athensnews is(was) RS for contemporary issues (not for historical ones). Have a nice day. Cinadon36 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As for Dr.K.'s comments on me ( I was asked to provide an answer ) A)it is he who started the BATTLE with comments that are far from polite. (see Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising) He frequently calls my comments "silly", "nonsense", he routinely asks me to stop editing WP and he exhibits a full-blown confrontational attitude. Even whenever I tried to cool things down, he won't stop. .  B)There is a dispute on whether or not Athensnews.com is a RS. It is only natural to place a question on this noticeboard. This discussion would have ended if there was one piece of hardcore evidence that athensnews is RS for historical issues. But there is not, so we should expect tones of OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not an honest accounting of what went on. I very politely told you that you could not write in English, something that is self-evident if you see the talkpage of the article and the highlighted text you were edit-warring into the article that was not written in anything resembling English. You took this as an attack, and doubled down on filibustering and NPAs. As far as the source, Athensnews.gr, is an eminently reliable source. I have already explained why, and I am not going to repeat my arguments here, just because you refuse to accept them. Now, you should respect this noticeboard and the regulars of this place, and stop filibustering by repeating the same comments over and over, and give these people a chance to comment, without having to go through the crap you keep adding. Obviously, you would want to have the last word. Have it. I am done here out of respect for the regulars and because I don't want to bicker continuously with you. Dr.   K.  16:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A)No reviews were presented to prove that Athensnews.com is RS. At the begining of the talk you pointed to a WP article and later you 've added a google search url. None of these are RS B)Anyone who 'd like to check who started rude comments and kept the flame on, can have a look at the Talk Page. C)As for the rest (you cant write in English etc) I wont even bother answering, out of respect of the regulars here. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for the record, and to put this nonsense report to sleep, I have expanded the article of Athens News, The regulars are welcome to have a look. Thank you. Dr.   K.  18:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Lots of OR and trivialities such as "The book Orthodox Constructions of the West. published by the Oxford University Press, uses the 2007 Athens News article Fighting for an authentic faith.[18]". Certainly can not be used as a RS on historical issues. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't we just agree to leave this up to the regulars to comment on, instead of having to listen to your nonsense? Leave a third party to comment on your silly report. You have a COI. You are trying to defend your silly report to the end. That's understandable, but wrong. Don't do that. This is a wiki. Let others comment on your waste-of-time report and put it where it belongs: to sleep. Dr.   K.  20:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr.K, why dont you leave your bullying and nonsense comments for somewhere else? You are trying to defend your silly claim that Athensreview is RS on historical issues. Dont do that. It is ridicuclus and wrong. Shows low grasp of WP policies. Now, please do not waste regular's time with more crap OR. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Get it through your head: Evaluating your report as silly and nonsense is not an attack against you. Don't play the victim. Once more, if your report is so great let other editors defend it. You, bickering to the end CIR defending your crap with WP:NPAs and WP:ASPERSIONS, is not persuasive in the least Also copying my style of comments is plain silly but then what's new. Dr.   K.  20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're both using personal attacks, maybe you should both stop, before someone notices. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been here long enough to know when comments like yours will come, and I try to avoid them at all costs like a poison pill. See how many times I have pleaded with that account to leave this discussion for other users to comment. In the beginning he agreed. But when I expanded the article and invited the regulars here to see it, he started the counterattack. I then asked him again to disengage and leave others to comment but to no avail. Then came the poison pill, as I knew all along. Dr.   K.  21:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So Dr.K. when you have a review for AthensNews, please ping me. Next time you call me or my comments silly, I am going to ANI for Personal Attack. you are probably right, but I was just answering back.Cinadon36 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cinadon36, I suggest you don't, because you are just as likely to be blocked as the other fellow, if not more so. Dr.K., I have no idea what to make of your comment. Good luck to both of you. MPS1992 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what from "let the regulars chime in" and "do not discuss this conflict with me any more" you did not understand, but I will never ping you for this matter. Because the expanded article speaks for itself, and I trust the regulars to render their verdict on it. I am also stopping communication with you on this matter so that I can stop this bickering. So no more baiting about pinging you. As far as ANI, you have threatened me many times with a report. As previously, I reply to you: Be my guest, any time. But watch for giant flying objects coming your way if you do that. Dr.   K.  01:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant that sooner or later, during a dispute, someone will come and comment that the fault was on both sides. I try to avoid this type of comment like the proverbial plague. That is why I was asking this person to let the regulars comment instead of continuing the bickering. Dr.   K.  21:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr.K., if you genuinely do not understand why some of your comments are perceived as personal attacks, then I really cannot help you further. MPS1992 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, if you check the background of my recent interaction with this account at Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising and also the main article itself, you will see the intransigence and other BATTLE behaviour of this editor. I am normally very civil and low-key. But when I meet this type of disruption I believe it is better to describe things as they are, rather than playing faux-civil, passive-aggressive games. Dr.   K.  01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * At this point, I have to ask both Dr.K and Cinadon36 to take a step back, STOP arguing with each other, and give others some time to examine the source and the context in which it is being used. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't have to ask me to disengage, Blueboar. I have been telling this account multiple times to leave this bickering and let the regulars of the noticeboard chime in. Just search for the word "regulars" on this noticeboard. 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to ask you, Blueboar, to ask the other account not to follow my edits in articles he is in conflict with me, as he did at Athens News. Dr.   K.  01:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I wont be replying to the other user any more. Cinadon36 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please help. He has WP:HOUNDed me to where he is at 3RR, rapid-fire edit-warring his harassing tagging of the article I recently expanded.  Dr.   K.  04:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * removed the OR tag from the article, claiming that this in RSN first, then we see if it is really WP:OR. So far, the addition of this tag cannot be justified. Why should we solve this at RS and not at the Talk Page? As for justification, I have explained why it is OR at the article's Talk Page. Cinadon36 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While you have expressed your views on WP:OR, you havent explained why exactly it is WP:OR, IMO. Your tagging doesn't appear to be constructive. That's why you have been reverted. Checking the history log, there appears to be an edit war on that article. Guys please stop that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 04:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SilentResident, you should not ignore the revenge-tagging and the HOUNDing by that account. He followed me to that article after I came to this noticeboard to announce that I expanded it and started revenge-tagging it, going to 3RR within minutes. So much for his declaration that he won't reply to me anymore. But I guess it's ok to follow me around and try to tag articles I improve. That's just unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT and cannot be ignored.  Dr.   K.  06:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As to the questions, firstly having people say using it as a source (especially without knowing what they are using it as a source for) or committing on what it does does not mean it is reliable, (look at the daily Mail). Having said that I can find nothing to indicate it is not an RS. If someone can demonstrate it has a reputation for telling porkies let me know. Until then its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thanks. That's exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned to wait for the opinions of the regulars. Better late than never. Dr.   K.  10:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your input. It is really important when third parties add their opinion. Nevertheless, I find your suggestion is having a small fallacy, as you assume everything is RS unless proven otherwise. I 'd say it is more wise for a source to be consider RS if it is demostratable that has a RS reputation. Also, here, ANSA says that AthensNews was employing 14 people. Seems too few to me. More importantly, my initial question, was not about AthensNews as a reliable source, but AthensNews as RS in respect to historical issues. We need scholarly articles for subjects like that, not tribute articles from small media with unknown reputation. Anyway, thanks for jumping in! Cinadon36 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it we do not have to proove a source is reliable, it has to be shown it is not reliable, and that has not been done. 14 hard working journalists are more reliable then 1,000 youtube hacks (for example). Size is not an issue (and neither is not being academic).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The number of employees is 14, that includes secretaries and other staff. I though size is important, because of "more eyes" reviewing every article. At WP:WP:QUESTIONABLE we read: Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. So, WP requires reputation for fact checking. Also, I haven't seen AthensNews editorial policy.Cinadon36 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Beware does not mean cannot use, This is about it not being used. I agree it cannot be used for a statement of fact, but can be for an attributed opinion. However your point about editorial policy is valid, the problem is this is a no longer published paper (as far as I know) thus it might be hard to find it. But again I am seeing nothing here (and quite a lot to the contrary) that this was not a well regarded newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid is right on this. If we are to cast doubts on a newspaper which is no longer being published, it requires evidence against its reliability, which doesn't seem to be the case here, at all. Contrary, the newspaper was regarded with respect by the locals and the Media experts even years after its circulation has ended, which speaks for itself. If we start casting doubts to the newspapers of old, based merely on our personal editorial opinions, then, I am afraid that 10%-20% of English Wikipedia's articles (roughly 1 million articles!) will need to be rewritten, or be flagged to have their information pending removal, just because of such problematic WP:RS approaches. This is a dangerous route, and I am vehemently against it. Unless you have evidence that this newspaper does not meet WP:RS, this discussion here has come to a natural end. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SilentResident, if you can verify that "the newspaper was regarded with respect by the locals and the Media experts even years after its circulation has ended", then the discussion is over. I can not find a RS making that claim. Can you? Also, I do not agree with your last argument. If we are doing something wrong, we need to address it, whatever it takes. Having to re-write 10% or even 90% of articles shouldn't stop us from fixing our policies. Anyway, I did enjoy our chat . It reached some philosophical issues. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the discussion: here we are discussing, not how popular it was or not, but whether it is unreliable or not. Like I said already once, above, (and I hate repeating myself): if you have evidence against the newspaper's reliability, then share it with us so we can see it. Otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Your failure to provide any evidence supporting your claims, dragging this discussion for too long, and resorting to edit wars with other editors. isn't the way to go, Cinadon36. Now, excuse me but I got better things to do. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear SilentResident, I am on topic, I am not dragging the discussion- I am providing answers to your claims and I do not feel I am failing as the burden of proof (that AN is RS) is on your shoulders. Anyways, have a nice day. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, with which I agree. This newspaper was famous for cooperating with world-class journalists who wrote articles analysing the junta during and after the dictatorship. Here are some samples: The real unsung heroes In the third installment of our July series, a Reuters correspondent remembers how the army colonels decided that democracy 'had to be suspended' in the land where it was born NICK MICHAELIAN, All was not what it seemed in early junta days In the fifth and last instalment of our July series, an Australian journalist takes a closer look at the months leading up to the fall of the junta and shows there existed an undercurrent of tension DAVID GLASS, A long, happy summer night 30 years ago In the fourth installment of our July series, 'The Times' correspondent in Athens recalls the historic hours of 23-24 July 1974 as Constantine Karamanlis returned to Greece MARIO MODIANO, The colonels' coup and the cult of the kitsch By Diane Shugart, Past present by senior Greek journalist DIMITRIS YANNOPOULOS. Also, from the Athens News article, it was used as reference by many academic publications and books. Quote:














 * This kind of publication record looks like world-class to me. Dr.   K.  18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional reviews from the article:














 * Athens News has an established and recognised role in the annals of the Greek Press. Attempting to belittle and undermine that record flies in the face of established and verifiable facts. Dr.   K.  22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I am not all that impressed with some of this, and do not think it says what the poster think it says. But it is enough (in the absence of anything at all to the contrary) that is is as reliable as any other news rag we call an RS. can we close this now?Slatersteven (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, it 's potpourri of quotes but I 'd agree that we can close this discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, it 's potpourri of quotes but I 'd agree that we can close this discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I third the closing proposal. I also thank Slatersteven for taking the time to provide his sage and subtle advice and comments. Dr.   K.  17:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This forum is not for discussing users actions, stop.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

headworks.io
We have an editor, M.vladislav26 (I'd link the editor, but that would alert them to this discussion) who has been adding links to blogs on headworks.io, which does not meet RS as far as I can see. The authors are not independently notable or recognized for their work in the field. The site itself is a consulting company. SEO at work? Is this grounds to blacklist or block the promoter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the edit that alerted me to the editor. When I reverted I saw that I had welcomed the editor earlier and so I started digging deeper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They have all been removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*headworks.io&title=Special%3ALinkSearch but the question still lingers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and added warnings for this to the editor's talk page. Just alerting them of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I don't specifically remember warning this editor, but it appears to be plain' ol spam. I don't see a problem with blacklisting, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam knows about this more than I do. This edit followed by this edit from the same user on the Russian Wikipedia connects the site to headworks.com.ua, which may or may not be useful.
 * Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)