Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289

Formally make Spotify a "generally unreliable" source?
Apologies if I'm not following correct procedures here, RSN isn't one of my usual haunts. I searched the RSN archives and RSP, but I didn't see any official determination of what kind of source Spotify is. I often see musician biography drafts (nearly all of which are autobiographical) source to artist pages on Spotify. As far as I can tell, Spotify artist pages are submitted by the artist or label, so they're self-published sources and usually full of puffery anyway ("so-and-so took the world by storm with their chart-topping first album 'We're Notable! Really!'" or something like that). Does this seem reasonable enough? creffett (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's unlikely that Spotify hires its own journalists to produce these profiles, so they are probably taken from press releases and material found elsewhere. This would also apply to Amazon.com, Last.fm and similar sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Only comment I would add is to make sure we provider users with what are RSes for album catalogs and equivalent for what spotify/etc. are being used for now. --M asem (t) 06:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources like Spotify, Amazon and Last.fm are generally reliable for things like album track listings, but they are not ideal. The real problem area is WP:BLP, and there should be a bright-line rule preventing their use in BLP articles. So in some ways, this is more on topic at WP:BLPN.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed on the bright-line rule, though these also pop up in band articles, which kind of straddle the BLP line. Personally, I think that if an artist/band is notable enough for an article there will be a review or something out there which mentions a track list, but I'm willing to compromise since a track list is a pretty straightforward fact. creffett (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The bios are mostly an old AllMusic dump. Some indie bands write their own bios. So in general, we should look for better sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The bios would fall under WP:SELFSOURCE or WP:BLPSELFPUB. Atsme Talk 📧 14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Prose, unless sourced to a known, reputable reviewer, are now and have always been considered unreliable. Track listings are better sourced to something like AllMusic, or a publication where an article has an actual byline. If none can be found, it's unlikely that the subject is notable, but this would be the only reason to use Spotify (or Apple Music, the iTunes Store, Amazon, or other sales channel) as a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A spot check confirms that Spotify uses the same artist bios as AllMusic, e.g. Spotify vs. AllMusic for Michael Jackson. In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews. If there are more reliable sources available (especially if the artists are living persons), I would prefer those. —  Newslinger  talk   05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They probably copy the artists' short form PR profile.--Pikavoom (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily Express and Daily Mirror
At Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources we have Daily Express being quoted as being similar to the Daily Mail. Well I think that needs to be slightly adjusted, as a newspaper they have in fact been more reliable than the Daily Mail, how often have you ever heard the Daily Express being shammed or getting in to trouble?

Also I don't even know why you have Daily Mirror being more reliable than the Daily Express and other papers, they really are the same as The Sun. I don't think Daily Mirror sources should be allowed on wikipedia. I have much more respect for the Daily Express over the others I've mentioned. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree the Daily Mirror should be depreciated.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the Express is different in character to the Mail: they show less evidence of false and politically motivated stories, but they have a remarkable tendency to publish conspiracy theories. UFOs, Diana bollocks, Maddie McCann and more. So yes, the Express is a pretty terrible source. The Sun has another specific problem, around involvement in phone hacking and other underhand methods, and of course its role in the Hillsborough coverup - leading to the Liverpool boycott and the startling finding that Liverpool is substantially more pro-European than other comparable places, attributed to less exposure to anti-EU propaganda in the Murdoch press.
 * I'm not aware of accuracy / fake news issues with the Mirror, though it would not surprise me. Any specifics please? Tabloids should all be on a "with caution at best" list anyway, obviously. Guy (help!) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This [], OK they sacked him but it means under Morgans leadership it published fake stories.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know, I had forgotten that Piers "Morgan" Moron used to be the editor there, despite being a Private Eye reader (he was a prominent fixture in Street of Shame). Guy (help!) 15:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think the Daily Express needs a slight rewrite on the list, yes they do seem to like to report on the bizarre, conspiracies, stuff like that. I felt more worried that The Mirror wasn't red listed! Govvy (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this story in the Express. It suggests that Elvis is still alive, while the right hand sidebar asks "Nostradamus 2020: Three predictions that came true - is coronavirus the fourth?" And the Express is supposed to be a serious national newspaper. It was at one time, but nowadays it spends far too much time on stories that look like they have been lifted from the Sunday Sport of WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER FOUND ON MOON fame.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea! I remember that they always say something like "WW3 ALERT" or "WW3 FEARS" in their titles.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , one of my claims to fame is that I was libelled in the student newspaper while at uni by its then editor, Dominic Mohan. He used to run clones of the Sport's ludicrous headlines. Guy (help!) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of problems with the Mirror; it has a far better reputation than the other tabloids. I see Express as one of the worst. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This []?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The thrust of that article is that this is uncharacteristic of the Mirror, of which the article is generally complimentary. The Mirror is certainly not 100% reliable, e.g. it often sensationalises as with that example, but it is widely considered a league above other UK tabloids and a league or two above the Mail and Express. If you look at stats on trust in news sources, at numbers of PCC/IPSO complaints/breaches upheld, or assessments by fact checkers, the Mirror performs better than other tabloids but worse than most broadsheets, while the Express performs similarly to or slightly better than the Express. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have linked already to the fake solders photos. I have said it before and I will say it again, all this proves is that all of our tabloids should not be RS. Here is is again (note sticking to the story []. We also have this [], which is enough for me to say we should not use a source that is "mixed" for factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second link, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Media Bias/Fact Check, since it is self-published by Wikipedia's standards. No comment on the rest. —  Newslinger  talk   06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Its the only one I found up to that point (apart form the DM own one). If you have a better one please link to it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Anyone who reads these newspapers knows that Mirror is better than Daily Express. In fact, I think the Daily Mail is slightly better than the Daily Express.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am talking about improving what is written in the summary for the Daily Express at the moment what is written is "" I really feel that needs to be improved, explain more what the Daily Express is about, not just tag it the same as the Daily Mail when it's run differently. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If publishing fake news about the Iraq War were reason to ban a publication, then we would have to ban all major media in the U.S. and UK. They all promoted the false story that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The Mirror was accused of publishing photographs of soldiers torturing prisoners. These photographs had been created by Private Stuart Mackenzie of the Royal Lancashire Regiment. Ironically the accusations he made turned out to be true. I think that current policy is adequate. In general we should use broadsheet publications rather than tabloids. In the same sense, a professor writing a paper on ancient Rome would cite academic sources rather than History Channel articles. It's not that the History Channel publishes false stories, it's just that academic sources are better. TFD (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The current advice seems adequate to me, both Express and Mirror should be used with caution but they can be reliable for non-controversial topics such as sport, film reviews, music etc, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussingFilm
Is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? This started at the WikiProject Film talk, where answered the following:
 * "You can ask here and/or at WP:RSN. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)"

I thought it belonged better here, where more people can state their opinion. El Millo (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see on their team page that they have an editor (though he is just one of the co-founders), as well as a stable of writers. For what it's worth, Digital Spy (which is reliable via WP:RSP for entertainment and movies) references the editor a couple times in its coverage. (Jlevi (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces
News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

says, "I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...)." [Kolya Butternut, 21:28, 31 March 2020, Talk:Joe Biden]

Is that how the policy should be interpreted?

TFD (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I thought I read something that speaks to this somewhere else. I think here the opinion piece can be used as a source to simply state that an allegation exists.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is my take, Opp edds cannot be used for statements of fact, only for attributed opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my take too. A good op-ed piece, if it starts making statements that are fact-like, will reference or link to the source they got that fact from, as a good debater would do so. Or otherwise they are going to cite an easily sourceable fact (such as in the current environment "There have been over 1000 deaths in the US from COVID." which editors can find a good RS to back up. If you can't find additional sourcing to back up such "factual" statements they need to be treated as a claim and subject to other polices re: inclusion. --M asem (t) 19:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail and RSOPINION
As most know, has been working steadily to remove Daily Mail refs per the result of WP:DAILYMAIL in that it fails RS for fact checking. No issue at all with that (though I believe there's better ways of handling "deprecation" than rushing removal unless it is dealing directly with BLP issues.)

This removal came up today where the DM was being used strictly under an RSOPINION - it is a DM staff writing, providing their opinion of the episode. I have no idea how critical the opinion is, and whether it actually is needed is the topic of a separate discussion. The issue here is that outright removal of a DM reference being used as a RSOPINION appears to fail the reason to remove DM links from the previous RFC, as its not being used to support any thing factual, just opinion. --M asem (t) 02:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a question of due weight. The Daily Mail is a tabloid with high circulation, but a questionable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the reviewer (Jim Shelly) does not appear to be notable. I would exclude Shelly's review from the article as undue weight. —  Newslinger  talk   02:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For me the Daily Mail is still a national newspaper, for its lack of basic fact checking and tabloidism they do still represent some element of political thought and general opinion. The "weight" in question for me is clear - as a national newspaper they clear possess it. It's basically irrelevant if the opinion of the person being published is of a given weight as their opinion is granted weight through being published (which is in and of itself an issue with the DM, but I digress).
 * Instead, for me, the issue is whether what is being said is actually significant enough for inclusion as an opinion in any case. Reading the content, the answer is 'no'. It's a throwaway line that barely says "X is is not Y but that's okay". There is no actual meaning to the discussion. Now if there was a discussion over the character / actor and several papers had made various comments then I could see some value in contrasting opinions but as a solo statement it is basically unwarranted without context about Jenna Coleman. Koncorde (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the DM's opinion on a particular topic is notable, it will have been noted elsewhere, e.g. electoral endorsements, which RSes often compile. If its opinion hasn't been noted, it's prima facie not a notable opinion - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of my question, I'd set aside the issue of whether the WEIGHT of the opinion is needed or not, and assume that editors beleive it is appropriate to include. This still leaves the question of whether the DAILYMAIL RFC meant to exclude the use of an RSOPIONION in this manner. --M asem (t) 02:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC appears to me to say generally prohibited, not "generally prohibited except for non-notable writers saying something in passing about Dr Who" - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weight and reliability are related. WP:WEIGHT states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because of this, questionable publications like the Daily Mail have low weights for their published opinions. Their opinions gain weight if they are mentioned in reliable sources; if this is the case, the original publication might be citable as a primary source (although this is subject to editorial discretion). Opinions published by notable people are more likely to meet the weight threshold, especially if the publication has high circulation. —  Newslinger  talk   03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Then fundamentally RSOPINION shouldn't exist.
 * If this were, say, opinions about Donald Trump, there would be no end to reliable sources to pull opinion from, and it would be extremely unlikely we'd have to pull a DM opinion piece to suggest anything not covered in the major viewpoints. That makes sense to omit DM.
 * But we're talking a TV episode here. The number of sources that provide reviews on this episode are far far less, probably a few dozen (Rotten Tomatoes gives 20) At this point, DM can be considered a significant viewpoint among those, though again, whether it is or not is a separate question that should be beyond this scope. It may not be in this case, but outright removal just because we're saying DM broadly is an unreliable source doesn't seem appropriate without having a discussion regardly the weight of its opinion relative to others. Or otherwise the statement should be that DM should be not included even for RSOPINION (which is not something read into the closure of the RFC, but could be added per a consensus). --M asem (t) 03:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we're interpreting the first sentence of WP:RSOPINION ("Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.") in two different ways. I've always interpreted WP:RSOPINION as a guideline that restricts the use of opinions in sources that are otherwise "recognized as reliable" for facts. Specifically, it requires in-text attribution for these opinions, which prevents these opinions from being "asserted as fact". Opinions from the Daily Mail are a different case, because they are published in a source that is otherwise considered questionable for facts. Under this interpretation, these opinions are not considered reliable, and they are generally excluded as undue weight. They can still be included if they are also mentioned in reliable sources. The first sentence in WP:RSOPINION can also be interpreted to mean that sources which are considered questionable for facts can still be used for their opinions. I never used this interpretation, because it works against the due weight policy and allows unreliable sources to bypass the verifiability policy's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" requirement by labeling their assertions as opinions. —  Newslinger   talk   06:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The second interpretation does not necessarily work against WEIGHT, as WEIGHT can only be assessed when there is a plethera of good RS sourcing to start with. Again, say we were talking Donald Trump and his handling of the COVID situation. Literally hundreds of opinion sources exists from our quality RSes that in generally all going to be around point "it was a poor response". I would not be able to evoke RSOPINION to say "well, I'm going to go include Breitbart's opinion source that says 'It was great!' and you can't stop me!" because WEIGHT overrides that for all purposes (eg that gets to FRINGE). That fully follows the line of logic you present.
 * But if we only have a handful of sources as the case of reviews of a TV episode where it is impossible to assess WEIGHT - not because we don't have RSes but because of simple statistical aspects. The fewer and fewer sources one has to evaluate WEIGHT, the less WEIGHT can really apply. If, hypothetically, only two opinion pieces existed for an episode, there's zero way we could judge WEIGHT or UNDUE at all. With 20-some sources we may be getting closer to a broad consensus on overall episode quality and what facets were strengths and weaknesses, but we're still major viewpoint deviations across the board that can't be judged by WEIGHT. Then and only then introducing the opinion piece an otherwise notable source (as the Daily Mail is for a UK TV show would qualify) to state their opinion can be an option open to editors that is in line with RSOPINION that is not violating WEIGHT. But editors are also not required to include it if they feel the point is unnecessary or effectively covered by others; if the DM's point is the same as, say, the Radio Times, then we'd encourage editors to just use the Radio Times. I'm all for discouraging editors from using DM for opinions but that should be a case-by-case evaluation and not forced in the same manner that we need to remove DM from anything BLP related. --M asem  (t) 06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your implication is that this was not removed as part of a case-by-case evaluation. This is not the case, and you'd need to actually show that each removal was not being thought about, when mine are. But you seem to be starting from the position that it might be a good source - hence your repeated defences of it over the past several months - rather than its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited.
 * If this example was really the best and most defensible use of the DM you could find, then it shows just how bad the other uses are - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I would add that if editors tried to use RSOPINION to inject "factual" assertions as opinions (eg passing off fringe theories as such), that's absolutely a non-starter. I totally agree we cannot have this go there, and I think it's rather clear that there a clear line between using the opinion on a topic from a normally non-RS, and presenting the assertions as opinions from a non-RS, particularly when one considers the topic to be covered. EG: RSOPINION is fine in the area of contemporary entertainment like TV and movies but it better not be used in political circles. --M asem (t) 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of creating a broad exception for opinion pieces in all questionable sources, I think the most straightforward option would be to hold a discussion/RfC on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews. If there is consensus that the Daily Mail can be used for these reviews, then we'll carve out an exception to the and  Daily Mail RfCs for them. Exempting all opinions from the verifiability policy would distort articles on less popular topics that don't have enough opinions for due weight to be assessed, by allowing opinions from unreliable sources for those topics. —  Newslinger   talk   06:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for this - it would be adding a carve-out unnecessarily. There is literally no reason to print "critical" analysis of fictional subjects from a deprecated source - and especially for what is actually some un-notable person's opinion in a known bad source.
 * We have literally no reason to care what the Daily Mail says about something - unless its opinion is covered in an RS, and then we can use that - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid interpretation, and I would suggest that it is actually misleading to suggest that an unreliable opinion gains weight and therefore reliability just because it is mentioned in another supposed reliable source. The Daily Mail has a very real and valid opinion as a major British newspaper even if we do not trust it for non-attributed opinion because of historic (and current) basic issues with fact checking. Koncorde (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy establishes that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." The neutral point of view policy states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Just because an opinion is published on a high-traffic medium does not necessarily make it due in an article (especially if it is not mentioned by reliable sources). Using a previously mentioned example, Breitbart News has an Alexa rank of 255 (which is comparable to the Daily Mails Alexa rank of 263), yet we regularly exclude its views as undue weight because it is a questionable source. —  Newslinger '  talk   03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But the Daily Mail was not deprecated for opinion - it says so under the deprecation entry - so if your interpretation is true we have just shadow-banned the DM while at the same time proclaiming that we have definitely not shadow-banned them, while again at the same time gesturing at ways that they could totally be in Wikipedia if they just got their words published in another reliable source. I cannot agree with that interpretation of the deprecation of the DM. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would point out there is no blanket ban on the use of the Daily Myth. However there is also the fact that we use the person as much as the publisher to determine weight (assuming this is an RS and not wp:undue question). So both sides may in fact be right, but also wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This was a fundamentally WP:POINTy addition of a link to the DM. Remember that, per the RFC, its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. Masem's addition of the deprecated source - for nothing more substantial than a non-notable writer's passing opinion on Doctor Who - was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION.
 * When editors bring matters to RSN, we always ask for examples of the problem they're talking about. If this is the best example Masem has of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the best example, then it was just tendentious editing - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To correct an error, I did not add that DM link, It existed in the article since at least 2016. I objected to its first removal hence the reversion. I did not "add" it.
 * But as to the idea of the writer themselves being his to judge the use of a review is not a good metric, it is the work itself one should consuder. (The author would only be important if the work itself was non notable). DM is still a major publication in the UK that covers its entertainment options, and reviews UK programming regularly. It doesn't matter who they assign the weeks episode to review, just that they are a major publication people read.
 * Also, that critic is actually notable. --M asem (t) 11:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Two sources, both of which do not appear to be about him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, under WP:BURDEN - which is policy - re-adding requires justification just as adding does. They are the same thing.
 * If this is the best example you have of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the best example, then it was just tendentious editing. - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, having to spend time to figure out and at least remove (the rather POINTy) PROD with additional sourcing that gives more notability to Shelley, he is definitely not a nobody here. He may not an immediate household name like Roger Ebert, but he's name is mentioned several times alongside other modern UK television critics like Brooker and Lewis-Smith, and to simply call him a "non-notable" at this point would be completely BS. Just because he may be writing for the DM does not mean his opinion is disgardable. Shelley has bounced between many different papers in the UK, both legit and tabloid, but that's not changing how he writes or how his opinion weighs. --M asem (t) 14:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I subscribe to the idea that a view that's only been published by an unreliable source fails WP:WEIGHT, and if it has also been published in reliable sources then we should cite those sources instead. However, per Newslinger, we should hold a clarifying RfC if there's a strong feeling among editors that DM is reliable for entertainment reviews.
 * It would also be helpful to clarify what the heck WP:RSOPINION is trying to say as it's regularly used both for and against the use of opinions published in unreliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, added the base language of RSOPINION back in Nov 2008, but as best I can tell not from any discussion at its talk page (archive that covers that period is Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 20, though I do point out later added the BLPSPS aspects due to an RSN discussion Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_20. As the lack of clear talk page discussion leave open debate to what the intent was, an RFC to get clarity on RSOPINION is fair enough. --M asem  (t) 17:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As best as I can remember, the intent was to say that sources such as OP-Ed columns can be seen as (primary) sources ... they reliably support an attributed statement as to the opinion of its writer, even if not reliable when used as a secondary source to support an unattributed statement of fact. (Ie: a statement noting that “Ima Blowhard wrote an Op-Ed saying Trump is a poopy head” can be supported by citing the Op-Ed where he said this... BUT the statement “Trump is a poopy head” may NOT be appropriately supported by that same Op-Ed).  Note - this does NOT mean that we must include Ima Blowhard’s opinion (THAT depends on DUE weight)... merely that IF we include his opinion, the Op-Ed where that opinion was stated is a reliable primary source.Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Relating this to the current DM discussion, there are three issues to address: 1- Due Weight. should an article mention the opinion of someone writing for the DM in the first place? This really should be answered by examining the qualifications of the author more than the publication. 2- Phrasing. IF the answer to question one is yes, THEN we have phrase what we write as an opinion, and not state it as fact. 3- Sourcing. IF we phrase as opinion, THEN the Op-Ed reliably supports the statement.  So... 1- first we need to ask if the Opinion of this specific TV critic is DUE? IF not then omit.  If yes 2) then phrase as opinion (attribute) and 3) cite the opinion as primary source. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Masem for bringing this up again. Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. See also the November 2019 thread Opinions in the Daily Mail and the February 2020 thread Daily Mail TV reviews. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the DM is not a reliable source, opinions expressed in it have no weight except when they are reported in reliable sources. So for example if the DM editorial page said that COVID-19 was a hoax and reliable news media reported they said that, then we could report what those rs said. But if it wasn't reported, then we could not add this information to articles. Bear in mind that there are many fringe sources that are reliable for what their publishers say, but no reason to add these opinions to articles about the topics they discuss. TFD (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite... lets follow Godwin’s law and invoke Hitler. I think everyone here would agree that Mien Kamph is NOT a reliable source.  However, there are (very limited) situations where noting what Hitler said in that book would help explain why history took the path that it did.  We could quote it, or paraphrase it as part of that explanation.  When doing so, the book itself is reliable (as a primary source) to support our quote or paraphrase. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per BlueBoar above, that is gibberish at best and does not match the equivalent essay on the subject or the RFC closure comments or the intent of RSOpinion per BlueBoar above. To quote the Deprecation article:
 * "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.[2][3][4][5] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately."
 * Now whether or not all sources being removed are being done so indiscriminately, is a separate issue, or whether as BlueBoar made clear in his summary the RSOpinion is worth having even if it is something we can use, is another question. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD's argument is not "gibberish" as you claim, as it is well-supported by the due weight policy. When no other reliable sources mention a review in the Daily Mail, the review does not have the necessary weight for inclusion because the Daily Mail – as a questionable source – does not provide "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you think the Daily Mail should be considered reliable for entertainment reviews, then we can start a separate discussion/RfC to see if there is consensus to establish that. —  Newslinger  talk   03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To take the logic you present, particularly for a TV episode, no individual review rarely is of specific mention in any RS. So if you are asking editors to try to use which reviews that RSes point to determine WEIGHT, that does not exist in this area. You're actually suggesting a very different interpretation of WEIGHT which only works for topics maybe years out from the event of note, where academic secondary sources are reviewing the sources around the time of the event. When we are close to an event, we need to actually gather all the RS opinions ourselves and make that judgement on WEIGHT, we aren't likely going to find the sources that are going to make that call for us.
 * What we normally have to do for a TV episode (or other media like films and the like) is collect all the reviews that we know exist, picking the ones that from editors' past experience and common sense are the typical go-to for that media type and show with more weight given the strong RSes but not eliminating weak RSes off the bat. Going back and forth, figuring out what are common high and low points (acting? writing? etc?), and then writing some type of impartial summary, deciding which reviews make the best sense to include, and if there's any smart soundbites to also link in there. This is the WEIGHT exercise, but that because we're already starting with a limited number of sources, having to also look at the RSOPINION ones. In the latter case, we're always going to be including in-line attribution, obviously. We also make sure to avoid giving excessive weight to the opinions coming off the RSOPINION sources, and here the principles of UNDUE still apply: if 19 of 20 sources loved the acting but the DM hated it, we're not going to give the DM any serious (if any) weight here. But key is that the net effect is that we as editors are trying to summarize the critical consensus in a neutral fashion as there is no higher-level sources that gives us that analysis (with limited exceptions). And yes, how to do that has been debated on the various film, TV, etc projects multiple times. its a type of art, but one most experienced editors in that field know how to do.
 * So now, why explaining this is important is that in this exercise, we are still including the weaker RS or the RSes that would not meet RS for fact-checking but have generally notable media critics. This would include the Daily Mail for UK television (as well as the other "tabloids" like Mirror and Express because they do have notable critics). They help inform the broader direction (what the high and low points were) and may be useful for specific quotes, though we're not required to use those quotes nor even source them if we can pull from the better RS reviews. This is all justified under the implication of RSOPINION with the additional clarification that Blueboar has provided in this thread. As long as the material is inline-attributed and only used for those opinions, nothing is violations, not WEIGHT, not RSOPINION, not the DM deprecation. --M asem (t) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinions published in reliable sources don't need to be mentioned in other reliable sources, since they already constitute the "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" that are required by the due weight policy. Any source can theoretically be used as a primary source regardless of its reliability if its claims are attributed in-text, and the due weight policy exists to ensure that opinions covered in reliable sources (including opinions originally published by reliable sources, and opinions originally published by questionable sources and then covered in reliable sources afterward) are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The due weight policy does not make any space for opinions published in questionable sources that are not also mentioned in reliable sources. Otherwise, editors would be able to, for example, add opinions from InfoWars on any topic solely on the grounds that Alex Jones is notable and that InfoWars has a large audience. The opinions of unreliable sources are not due even if they happen to align with the majority opinion in reliable sources, unless they are also covered by reliable sources. —  Newslinger   talk   04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what the DM's deprecation statement says. You are interpreting them to be an unreliable source for all subject matter. It is clear from the deprecation statement that was not the intent. It is clear from the essay on deprecation that it is not the intent. At no point was the intent to effectively ban opinion other than in the factual sense of misinformation / disinformation. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The closing statement in the actually says that "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles". The statement also says that "if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". For the purposes of the current discussion, I am only referring to non-"historical" uses of the Daily Mail, as this discussion started as a question about a 2015 Daily Mail article.  —  Newslinger   talk   07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So then it is banned, right? Literally it states right there then that it cannot be used, ever. Which is strange, because you yourself have just given a "historic" wiggle room, and then that does not gel with the actual purpose or use of deprecation per the quote provided: "Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.[2][3][4][5] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." So which is it; is it banned, or is it situational? Are we using the RFC, or the Deprecation statement, or the description of Deprecation and its intent? Why does Breitbart have a different deprecation statement (among others) when it refers specifically to the Daily Mail? If originally it wasn't banned, but now it is banned, then we need to just remove the idea that this is an instance of deprecation at all and just flag the stuff as banned properly. Koncorde (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So then it is banned, right? Certainly not. I've reviewed more Wikipedia usages of the Daily Mail in the past six months than anyone, I'm pretty sure - about 8,000 so far, I think - and I have so far found at least ten or so that are arguably indispensable. But it's definitely the case that if you want to use the DM, you need an overwhelmingly convincing reason. It's not clear what your difficulty with understanding this is - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example where you think it can stay? Springee (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul Dacre is one it would obviously be difficult to completely remove from, for instance.
 * Your turn - you're strongly advocating the DM's hypothetical utility in this thread, what convincing concrete examples do you have to hand? - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you haven't provided a specific example so we can't see why you think a citation should remain. The best I can guess is you are going for ABOUTSELF.  I'm not advocating a near total ban in inclusion nor have I tried to scrub Wikipedia to remove DM citations.  I guess you have me at a disadvantage as I haven't reviewed and removed thousands of examples from Wikipedia.  Still, I would argue that the example that kicked this discussion off looks like a bad removal.  Let's zoom out a bit.  Per WP:IAR, how are we harming Wikipedia by keeping these citations and how are you improving Wikipedia by removing them?  Springee (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you've got one example, excellent! So far it's not convincing people who didn't already agree with you. If you want to convince more people, I suggest convincing examples might help! Or maybe you don't have any.
 * BTW, this is the burden of proof. You want a change to the present rule, to let through stuff that isn't being let through now - so you have to make the case for it. I don't have to make your case for you, as you seem to be requesting - you have to make your own case yourself, if you're actually interested in convincing people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have zero examples. Since you say you don't always remove on site please offer examples where you think such a citation can stay and why. Not an article, actual examples of citations.  Else,  is correct, it's a ban.  Springee (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you see it's not a ban if we can use it on the Daily Mail article itself and Paul Dacres article. Doesn't matter what it is, just so long as it's confined to a few page spaces where we can always point at it and say "see, told you it wasn't banned!". Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to note, this removal that I just noticed is 100% absolutely okay. It's not opinion, it's DM trying to report on the show, and it falls squarely in type of tabloid-ish coverage that contributed the DM deprecation. I have rarely seen any "fact" that the DM says in this aspect about Doctor Who that can't be sourced from elsewhere or that actually necessary to include.These removals on DW or other television articles aren't in question --M asem (t) 23:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree... not opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that removing this was a mistake; I can't see how that edit improves the project. While an unreliable source will often also be an undue one that is not always going to be the case. Can't see any reason why the DM's entertainment critics' opinions would be less notable than those of any other UK newspaper's entertainment critics. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the opinion is only published in the Dailymail then it's undue weight. If it's notable then there should have been secondary sources. I agree with the removal.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also note that Masem didn't notify about this discussion. The above ping is to another editor called "David Gerald".-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Permit for opinion The Daily Mail was ONLY proscribed on the basis of its factual reporting.The Daily Mail should be perfectly accept for a review or a columnist's opinion or an op-ed or for anything else that is consistent with WP:RSOPINION. If the opinion would be citeable for any other mainstream news outlet then it should be permissible to cite The Daily Mail in such a context too. I supported the ban (and still do) on the basis it was proposed. However, I resent the fact that this blanket ban is being extended beyond the purpose of what I supported. Extending the application of the ban beyond the scope of the original RFC is just straightforward censorship, pure and simple. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: Daily Mail
Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? Also, should any other types of coverage in the Daily Mail (e.g. sports reporting) be specifically assessed for reliability? —  Newslinger  talk   04:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Straw poll: Daily Mail)

 * No. An RfC might be okay if there was neutral wording about what needs settling but I fear the wording suggested by this straw poll wouldn't address that sufficiently. Should not be merely about "entertainment reviews" but all reviews editorials and opinion columnists and quotes of opinions attributed to employees of any Mail-related publication or site. Should not be mentioning "reliable" since that narrows the range of arguments. Should be mentioning where the RfC goes since there have been mentions of weight which is not a WP:RSN matter but a WP:NPOV matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No I think it's addressing the wrong question. A first question would be to make sure the intent behind RSOPINION, which would not only cover Daily Mail but several other UK tabloids in the area of TV reviews, but also several other factors. Should an RSOPINION RFC end with "yes, we can draw opinions from sources not normally considered reliable", then maybe a specific question on whether an RFC for the Daily Mail specifically may be needed, though I think that answer should be obvious from the first. But it would be key to present the RSOPINION question without the loaded factor of the DM question. --M asem (t) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly not -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. There is no reason to open a loophole to add Daily Mail opinion pieces. And if we were to do so, it would require another full RFC on the level of WP:DAILYMAIL and its 2019 ratification, at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I've looked through the previous RfCs and while many if not all agree DM is problematic, there is considerable disagreement over total banishment. I don't think the previous RfC close went far enough in representing the opinions of many community members who saw some limited place for DM. Breaking it down by topic area and notify those editors with an interest or experience in those topic areas is a good idea. They will know how reliable or not DM is based on their experiences of dealing with it as a source. (n.b. If you have comments or questions please ping me in the Discussion section not immediately below my comment, thank you.) -- Green  C  20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Straw poll: Daily Mail)

 * The Daily Mail is a "Tomatometer-approved publication" that is counted in scores from Rotten Tomatoes, which is a favorable indicator of the Daily Mails reliability for movie and TV reviews. —  Newslinger ' talk   04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to take the Daily Mail's opinion seriously on anything. One example I removed was Jaci Stephen - look, a writer with an article of her own! - opining that if a soap opera character "started charging for sex – they'd never worry about money again. It would be a busman's holiday for them. They could even make it a family business – slappersRus.com". I submit that I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance in which this is an addition to the sum of human knowledge. I'm really, really not going to spend time looking for some other commenter in an RS who I can cite calling fictional characters "slappersRus" to. Nor should anyone else be expected to.
 * We are then faced with our own WP:OR to decide which are acceptable pop culture opinion claims from the DM and which aren't. This has the same problem as using it for facts, in which some DM fans seem to want editors to do OR to support the use of their favourite deprecated source.
 * Fundamentally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid source so bad that we deprecated it. This entire discussion is an attempt to weasel a gratuitous exception to the deprecation, on a flimsy excuse. There's no reason for us to indulge it - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop being so dramatic. The DM is a trashbag liner and nobody is going to defend its use as a factual tome, but you are summarising the question being asked and the reason why in order to cast aspersions at other editors motives which will not be bore out by looking at their actual edit history. Koncorde (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * DM critics may also "try" to write factual stories for the DM as you are linking to in your example, and per the DM ban that would be and has been taken out, and that's not an issue. Its only when we're looking at the critic's opinion, not all of their work for the DM. --M asem (t) 14:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We should not be removing DM references for things like movie reviews. The wide circulation of the DM, even if editors here say it isn't reliable, adds weight to the opinions. In cases where the material is being used per RSopinion this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Springee as above. I would also agree we should not be removing it from sports reporting.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What aspects of DM were shown to be unreliable. I'm under the impression that the issue is related to political related stories/people.  Is that correct?  Do we have any evidence their sports, TV reviews etc are unreliable?  I also agree that the idea that we need others to note their opinion is problematic.  When dealing with lower profile topics it isn't always practical to find a large number of sources.  If the claims aren't controversial or if the opinions are widely noted (as is the case here) then we shouldn't remove based only on the deprecated status. Springee (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DAILYMAIL, Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. This was the result of a broad RFC, that was ratified again in 2019. This is what we're talking about in this section - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that someone closed the discussion that way but is that really what the discussion supported? I personally think the remove on site mentality has gone too far and is a violation of the spirit of RS. [Note: I meant for this my comments starting with "What aspects of DM..." to be in the general discussion, not the straw poll. I'm leaving them here because David has replied here but I'm OK if an editor feels they should be moved] Springee (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that you know what it actually says, but you're hoping for a loophole. I think if you're trying that hard to find excuses to include the Daily Mail, you don't really get the idea of Wikipedia reliable sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm raising the question. Please don't accuse me of "hoping for a loophole."  I'm not suggesting motives behind your actions, please return the favor.  I think if you check I've never added the DM as a source.  I do understand RS.  Consider if Jeremy Clarkson or Stirling Moss did a car review for the DM.  They are both notable opinions on cars (for different reasons).  You are arguing that we couldn't include their opinions because by virtue of the fact that they were in the DM they are not reliable.  If the exact same reviews were in Autoweek, a publication with far less circulation, would you oppose their inclusion?  I think this is the very legitimate point Mansen is making. Springee (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is not Autoweek's circulation versus the Daily Mail's. Autoweek do not have an extensively documented history of just making stuff up, and the Daily Mail does, which is why it was deprecated. If you think circulation is the problem, then you fail to understand the issue - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting DM would change what a reviewer wrote? In this case if Clarkson said the car was good the DM would change his statements? Is there any history of them doing such a thing, using their editorial chair to change what a reviewer said? Springee (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Echo the above entirely. The use of deprecation here is to completely ban the use of the Daily Mail for anything, even the opinions of notable critics. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are known instances of the Daily Mail publishing fake quotes from sports and entertainment figures, so it isn't confined to unreliability on political issues. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep - and I keep finding that not even their sports coverage is so great actually, particularly anything involving a quote or opinion. They make stuff up. If there's some interesting or quirky fact that's only in the DM or Sun, it'll usually be exaggerated or made-up nonsense. Details that aren't in any other source - because they made them up. That's why it can't even be trusted for pop culture - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are known instances of many newspapers publishing retractions. In most cases publishing such a retraction, or issuing an apology, is considered the right thing to do when it happens with more reputable sources (not that I am suggesting the DM would ever proactively own up, rather than just deleting said article off the internet wherever possible and salting the earth with a clone-a-like and a new headline). Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the area of British television, DM reviews by DM staff writers should be considered for inclusion by editors. Whether they are included or not, that's up to local consensus, but neither the DM RFCs nor RSOPINION prohibit their use. All factors of RSOPINION must be followed, with in-line attribution to the writer and source. --M asem (t) 14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your bizarre personal interpretation of WP:RSOPINION does not do nearly what you think it does. Deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable sources - as in, more unreliable than run-of-the-mill self-published sources. You seem, functionally, to be trying to leverage your bizarre personal interpretation into an end-run around deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't open the door for "opinion" claims. A lot of Dailymail columnists are notable like Alex Brummer, Stephen Glover, Max Hastings, Dominic Lawson, Quentin Letts, Richard Littlejohn, Jan Moir, Bel Mooney, Andrew Pierce, Amanda Platell. Today it's a TV critic, tomorrow is an economist, political analyst, political commentator etc. RSOPINION talks about opinions from reliable sources, doesn't support Masem claim.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:DAILYMAIL. Only use for it I can think of at the moment, in the light of the current UK bogroll shortage, is as a substitute. It's a bit rough on the arsehole, but nevertheless satisfying, and functional. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If a person, in a position of providing a professional opinion in their role as providing such an opinion professionally, and who perhaps has a long-standing career with work outside of the Daily Mail, cannot be used as a source for their direct opinion, then does that person still exist? Koncorde (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by still exist? That's not an opinion piece, it's an article written by a Dailymail columnist. Even if the Dailymail columnist is notable, we don't use it. Most of the Dailymail columnists are notable. We should not use the Dailymail even with attribution. If what the person said in the Dailymail was notable then there should be secondary sources and we can use secondary sources.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks like semantics. So a columnist that is otherwise well known for doing the job that they do, but happen to do it for the Daily Mail doesn't exist and neither does their opinion, unless it is subsequently published in another reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They have to be a pretty notable expert in the field that even their casual blog posts in deprecated sources would be Wikipedia-worthy. Open slather for anyone writing in the DM with a Wikipedia article to their name would be inane - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is great, that is your opinion and I am overjoyed that we both think it's a piece of shit newspaper. However your stance simply reinforces that this is in fact a ban on any content associated with the Daily Mail, regardless of how notable or significant the individual or their opinion or if they have previously done any work for any other RS. Koncorde (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's "a piece of shit newspaper"? At this time of coronavirus shortages, that suggests it's more useful than hitherto thought. Hope it's suitably soft. Caution: may entail cancer risk. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with those saying we can not have a blanket ban here. When assessing DUE WEIGHT for an opinion, the reputation of the person giving the opinion is of significantly greater importance than the reputation of the publication in which he gives it. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?
Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5


 * Reliable, use caution Arab News is reliable source per WP:NEWSORG (even SharʿabSalam▼ himself said it was reliable source back then). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jamal Khashoggi.jpg
 * , Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , see also motivated reasoning. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. Guy (help!) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at the BBC News article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont think Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on this topics, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is Guy (help!) said. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a source for the Syrian Civil War? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with - somewhat reliable - I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it may be this (and related) edit (arms supply by North Korea). Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including The Huffington Post. Whether using the HP source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of Arab News. Here are two non-Saudi sources that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and Arab News in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are CNN and Reuters, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Wikipedia (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even Arab News didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of AN was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite AN for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.
 * If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like SharabSalam had refused to make further comments. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Depends: Per, Saudi Arabia is a participant to this conflict. Using information from their media depicting the Saudi government POV is fine if attributed. For any controversial topics, this media may not be reliable.ZiaLater ( talk ) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment No source is reliable for everything. The best approach is to use the best sources, per Good research, which would not be Arab news. Generally it should be used if at all in information about topics that receive little or no coverage in major news media. For example if an article is about a new restaurant in a suburb of Riyadh or some minor prince's falcons, then it might be the source to use. TFD (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Use per WP:SELFSOURCE only. Obviously not independent for info on the war in Yemen; should not be used to source statements like "In 2019, a secret UN report documents the Houthis receiving weapons from North Korea"; if there are no better sources, such statements should be omitted. Statements for which is Arab News is cited should be attributed in the text of the article to "Arab News, a news outlet controlled by the Saudi government, wrote that..." or some such. Since Saudi news outlets follow government-issued guidelines, and are told what to cover and when and how to cover it, they should be treated as PR agencies; they should not be used to establish notability (which requires independent third-party sources) on anything the Saudi government has a stake in publicizing. They are, however, perfectly acceptable sources for the same uses for which a government press release would be acceptable, and we can rely on them in the same way we rely on press releases, following WP:SELFSOURCE. This issue has history on this board. HLHJ (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The source for that statement have been replaced by source from Reuters which said pretty much the same thing. I believe everyone agree not to use Arab News on such topics. But, it doesn't mean Arab News is unreliable for other uncontroversial topics. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The guideline WP:BIASED seems relevant here. I prefer not to state my opinion on a matter this controversial, but noticed that no one has linked the guideline yet. Glades12 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at . — Newslinger  talk   03:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As it appeareth to me that all respondents are in general agreement and/or accordance with one another, and have thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed the topic, I will close this discussion. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Blanking the discussion is not closing it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

israelunwired.com
Jedwabne Pogrom

(1) Citation to https://israelunwired.com/most-controversial-polish-holocaust-movie-ever/ gets added: for: "According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine.". (2) The narrator of the film does not exactly say that, but I remove per WP:RS alone:

(3) My removal gets reverted

(4) I take it to the Talk page, quoting what https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/ says about itself:

"Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people." 

(5) Source and content remains in article.

Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Israel Unwired (israelunwired.com) is a self-published blog. Its Contact Us page contains dummy data. The site consists mostly of polemic. I'm going to submit a spam report to see if this site is being added to Wikipedia for the purpose of external link spamming. —  Newslinger   talk   22:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The spam report is at . —  Newslinger  talk   22:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Can't be used due to Arbitration Committee decision. Remove immediately and inform the editor of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland which states "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." If the editor(s) restore the material using that reference, I would file a report at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As a side note, the other editor's reinstatement of the content wasn't following proper BRD procedures, so you would have been justified in reverting their revert and reporting to WP:AN3 if they continued to reinstate it without first obtaining a consensus on the talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 22:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, FDW777, Rosguill, thanks for the speedy reply. NB will be referring to this discussion on the Talk page, for informational purposes. I appreciate the point about being now justified in reverting the revert, but have now been told you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim. So given this is getting personal I'd rather pull that punch and have short community input from you guys as a longer-lasting, constructive solution.

To conclude this efficiently and not to bother you here again, would also appreciate your comment on the knock-on effect of your advised removal of the citation. Because it will leave two other citations, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8668248/ and https://vimeo.com/104504131. Another editor on the Talk page has already pointed out WP:IMDBREF, which would inform removal of the first. That leaves the Vimeo citation. So that it's crystal clear for everyone:

1) Would you extend the same rationale to texts at Vimeo as not WP:RS? 2) May videos linked to Vimeo be treated as WP:SECONDARY or WP:PRIMARY in themselves? 3) In either case, how should an hour-long documentary be summarized in one sentence if there are no WP:RS discussing it and an editor (in this case me) raises a WP:REDFLAG/WP:FRINGE about the piece of content that has been filleted out to support a line of article content? 4) As a side note, are there any WP:COPYVIO issues putting video linked to Vimeo in the 'See Also' section? 5) Another editor has questioned the video's noteworthiness as we can't find any WP:RS discussing it. That's a pity because the video seems to be an interesting contribution to the subject. So for the final word, would Wikipedia policy or guidelines require outright removal on notability grounds?

Phew, hopefully that comprehensively covers everything so that this will be resolved immediately.

Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Two Barns - English Version" was uploaded to Vimeo by an account with the name Roy Mandel, the person who co-produced the film. Since the website roymandel.co.il links to "Two Barns - English Version" and other videos on the account, there is a good chance that the Vimeo uploads are authorized by Mandel. A link to the video would not belong in the "See also" section, but it can be included in the "External links" section (subject to editorial discretion) if there is consensus to do so. I would not include a link to the video if it represents a fringe view. The reliability of the documentary depends on the reputation of the producers (Roy Mandel and Ron Berstein). I'm not familiar with them, so you may want to ask some related WikiProjects to offer their opinions on this discussion. The film is probably a secondary source, and it should not be cherry-picked to support a claim that is not representative of the entire film. IMDb  is unreliable because it is user-generated. —  Newslinger   talk   06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to present additional background on this issue. This particular entry is in the "documentaries" portion of this Wiki article. This particular documentary is directly relevant to the topic of the article as it deals precisely with this subject and interviews multiple relevant people. The OP reverted an entire paragraph which detailed the content of the documentary for which these three sources were used, one of which being israelunwired. Those sources were used solely to present the documentary's content and that particular last sentence starts with "According to the film, etc etc...". The paragraph didn't discuss the merits of that conclusion, it just presented the documentary and that is what the sources were used for.

In the Article Talk page the OP repeatedly claims that the documentary actually says something else than what is quoted in those sources without providing any sources for his claim except for his own analysis of the movie, which basically represents original research. Moreover he also appears to conflate between a description of the docu which should be straightforward and his own critique of its conclusion which could be discussed after presenting what the documentary actually says.

In any event, the discussion on israelunwired reliability is moot since I just found out that the documentary was broadcast several times on mainstream TV stations including the 2014 premiere on the largest commercial TV station in Israel (Channel Two / Keshet/Mako) and I found several other sources (news portals/newspapers) which mention it which can be used as references. Please also bear in mind that generally it's difficult to find sources for documentaries as opposed to theatrical releases and book releases. And since there was a question of the filmmaker's reputation, he is a known TV entity (including a Wiki article) and has a long list of programs under his name on that TV station as mentioned in the Article's Talk page N1of2 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "three sources" you added in Special:Diff/947279965 were IMDb, the Vimeo upload of the film itself, and Israel Unwired. As explained above, IMDb and Israel Unwired are unacceptable as sources for factual claims. It does not matter if they are used to "present the documentary's content"; they are still unacceptable. Any sources that describe the film's content must be reliable, as the verifiability policy requires all claims in articles to be backed by reliable sources. Also, according to WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If Chumchum7 challenges content in the article that you want to keep, it is your responsibility to prove that the content is fully supported by reliable sources. Any editor may remove the content if you are unable to show this. —  Newslinger  talk   13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of working in the new sources as references... N1of2 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I stand by my prior view that this site can only be used to prove the existence of the documentary, and maybe reception or such if it hosts reviews. But if it is indeed a blog and not a reliable portal as I assumed at first, then it is not WP:RS for reception either, IMHO. And frankly not good much for anything. Blogs are low quality, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Census records
Are census records reliable in the context they are used on Annie MacDonald Langstaff? See Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1. My initial concern was:
 * are census records reliable? see WP:PRIMARYCARE, which states that "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I'd think the census falls in that category.

The response by (below) convinces me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience in this aspect would chime in
 * Just as it may be difficult to determine if a subject in a newspaper article, journal article or book is the subject? One weighs the evidence, evaluates it based on what else is known — hardly "impossible" (in fact, I would postulate that that statement in the guideline is completely false. It may be impossible would be more accurate). The McGill Law Library says she was "born in 1887 in Alexandria, Glengarry County, Ontario" and Bergeron says "Née en Ontario le 6 juin 1887, elle épouse Samuel Gilbert Langstaff en 1904". There are precisely two births in that place in 1887, except the other one died at birth. The one who did not die, was born on 6 June. The record given shows the parents names. The Law Library article says she graduated from Prescott (Ontario) High School and the The Windsor Star 1914 says she was a native of Prescott and married at 17. Searching Prescott residence for 1887-1904, only one entry is returned and that person is the same age and has the same parents as were listed in the birth record from Alexandria. There is only 1 Annie MacDonald who married in Prescott in 1904. Per the marriage record, she was 17 and had the same parents as listed in the birth record. She also married Gilbert Samuel Langstaff, her later surname and the spouse's name contains all the names given by Bergeron. I think you see that each of the records confirms the information in the previous record. No conclusions are required, no original research. The records say what they say and it all works together to confirm each record refers to the same person. So yes, I think the records are reliable, based on an evaluation of their totality. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , No. This is textbook WP:OR. Guy (help!) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Use with caution, but I think in this case it's reasonable to conclude they refer to the same person. buidhe 02:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * NO, it is never reasonable to infer anything. wp:v is clear unless it say it we cannot use wp:or to infer it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the question no one is inferring anything. The information in the record was used, as it was stated in the record. No OR, no conclusions were drawn. The question was could the record be used as a reliable source? By looking at all the other evidence, the information in the source is supported, and thus in context, is deemed reliable. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say still no. If there is reliable sources that supported the statement use those. But if it is a case of X says Y and Z says A and W says Y and A then Xis that is wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no synthesis either. The census lists the subject's family members. That is not given in any other source. The question refers to whether it is likely that the information is indeed for her family, since the guideline states "it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I said it was not impossible to confirm that the information was referring to the notable person, given all the information that was known. In every single instance of gathering sources for an article, one must look at them and evaluate whether they refer to the same person and whether the information is likely to be true. It doesn't matter if the source is a census, or a news article, or a scientific journal. If one is talking about apples and the other oranges, then they cannot be used to draw conclusions and infer they refer to the same thing. On the other hand, if 5 sources give information that is similar and one can logically see that they are all for the same topic, it is likely the information they contain is accurate (or they are all repeating the same mistake) and can be stated in the article as the information is represented in the source. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If its not given in any other source how do you know its them? You do not, thus it is an assumption, thus it is wp:or. You might have come to that conclusion, someone else might not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In any article, one uses multiple sources. Some information in those sources is the same and some information in the sources is different. If one can logically evaluate the sources and weigh whether they are all about the same person, then the information in those sources can be used. WP does not require that multiple sources confirm every piece of information, merely unique claims of notability or extraordinary claims should have more than one source. It is not original research to state different information that is given in different sources, as it is given in that source. It is neither an assumption nor drawing a conclusion. SusunW (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is my last word as far as I can see this usage violates OR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable. No conclusions or synthesis were required to infer who the family members were. The source listed them. But I agree, our exchange is not likely to lead to either of us changing our positions. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Some folks here are confusing the reliability and verifiability of WP:PRIMARY material with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. These are two totally different issues. Primary source material, particularly for people who were notable in the pre-google era, is perfectly fine for verifying information like someone’s birthdate, just as a modern celebrity’s web site is a useful place to find out their birthday. Both have to be taken with a grain of salt (multiple Mary Smiths in census data or the celebrity knocking a year or two off their age) but where they are the best available evidence, can be cited (stylistically, it’s wise to say “census data states” or “the celebrity states”...) It’s true we often cannot use primary sources to prove notability (most everyone is listed in a census, most everyone is at Find-a-grace), bit for simple facts, it’s not OR. To do a bit of analysis, such as to determine if one Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875 is the correct Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875, is not SYNTH, either. In this context, so long as due diligence is used and caveats are noted, the example above is fine. Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

bestoftheyear.in
Bestoftheyear.in calls itself an Indian news portal. It appears to have been started in 2016 according to their About Us page. It's spread has grown over time at Wikipedia. It appears to be a site run by a small group of people, none of whom have admitted to having any journalism education, despite calling themselves journalists. I suspect that it does content aggregation in some form or another. For instance, here a film's budget is listed as 26 crore rupees, which is identical to what Box Office India says, but Box Office India includes print and advertising figures in their budgets, which nobody in their right mind would do, since a film's budget is, across the globe, typically considered the straight cost of production.

They have the first day gross figure at "8.15 crores", (should be "crore") which I find here also phrased "crores". The rest of the figures are about the same, minus two slight discrepancies, 5.40 vs 5.50 and 6.6 vs 6.5, bestoftheyear.in vs bollywoodcat.com respectively. Indian film articles are prone to exaggerated or deflated financial figures depending on the submitter's agenda. There is no official outlet of film finances in India, all figures are estimates that reliable sources arrive at through their proprietary journalistic methods, which might include having relationships with theatre owners and getting figures that way, etc. So having figures this close to another source is questionable. There are a number of sources that are already considered reliable and unreliable in the context of Indian entertainment. (See WP:ICTF if you are interested.) I don't see how this site materially differs from any of the other small-time Indian news portals and I personally think it's not suitable for inclusion in articles as a reference. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch BLP
CONTEXT for this thread is found in these threads:  -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Source: CounterPunch with source taken down, link to archive. Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Author: Taken from end of the source, about the author section. Looks like contributor content. "Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached at frankmenetrez@yahoo.com."

Article: BLP Alan Dershowitz

Content: Diff with text: "In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that 'neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue'." Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem here? The author sounds notable and the source is not unreliable.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * CounterPunch is reliable for attributed opinion, which is what this is. "Looks like contributed content" is not a policy-based argument, since all material published in a magazine or newspaper with a byline is just as much contributed content. If the intent is to depict this as self-published, it obviously is not. Zerotalk 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Every source is reliable for its own words. Doesn't mean we should include it especially in BLP.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That principle is not the principle under which this source is used. It is not just that it is reliable for what it contains, but that it is reliable for the opinion of who it attributes the opinion to. Zerotalk 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly good content and attributed properly. I suggest that anyone who does not know the history of this thread should read the two links I have provided for "CONTEXT" above. While bringing this here isn't technically forum shopping, we are dealing with this quite well on the talk page, and this just creates another venue for the OP to vent. Attempts to delete this long-standing content have been rebuffed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is not a RS question (it's clearly a valid use of an attributed source). The real question is whether it's WP:UNDUE, in the absence of a secondary source commenting on this opinion piece. I'm fussier than some here, I would not include it, but it's not forbidden. Guy (help!) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that feedback. So this is more of an DUE question it seems clear from most of the responses including yours which is perfectly explained. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, DUE weight is the proper discussion, not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly not usable for factual assertions; as for in-text attribution for opinion statements, I think it would be undue weight in most contexts, including here. Neutralitytalk 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Created Talk:Alan_Dershowitz for this since it appears this RSN is not the correct venue and the content continues to suffer from TE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Allan W. Eckert
I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular: Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source (in the above three books)--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched. I am not aware of any glaring errors in his work. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (1992)
 * The Frontiersmen: A Narrative (1967)
 * That Dark and Bloody River: Chronicles of the Ohio River Valley (1995)
 * You can read the Kirkus review of the Tecumseh book here. It's not kind, describing it as "Spirited but misdirected stab at a definitive biography of the great Shawnee warrior" and "A biography that succeeds better as fiction. Astoundingly detailed but ambitious to a fault, in its interpretative zeal it strays from, or at least embellishes, the historical record to the point of being suspect." Publishers weekly described it as "an entertaining blend of fact and fiction.", so I would avoid using it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Frontiersmen is one of my favorite books. It is embellished, where history ends and fiction starts is hard to gauge. It seems accurate in the spirit of the thing, and big picture it gets events right the conflicts described did happen. The personal history of the main character are not so reliable. One could use it as a starting point to investigate other more reliable sources. If I read an article mostly sourced to Eckert I'd probably think it wasn't well sourced - in fact I recall seeing this very thing years ago but don't remember which article it was. -- Green  C  13:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, any source that mixes fact and fiction cannot be considered to be a reliable source for a factual article. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Carnot-Cournot Netwerk
There is some discussion of the recently-created Mototaka Nakamura article. A source came up published at the Carnot-Cournot Netwerk, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book.

Anyway, the specific article here appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.

The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!

Jlevi (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Carnot-Cournot-Netzwerk für Politikberatung in Technik und Wirtschaft is a nuclear energy lobby group organized as a Swiss association. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! If you know or can find out, is there any evidence for reliability or importance for that group? Jlevi (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, (copying from previous talk and expanding) In this case, the author, Ferruccio Ferroni, is an "Energy Consultant" with at least 3 technical publications and two technical patents. Some people (in blogs) disagree with Ferroni's EROI paper, but  disagreement happens. To me Ferroni's summary looks in line with the 2 or 3 other summaries I've seen, and CC Network helpfully makes the book available for convenient download too. People (co-founders?) associated with the Network include professor emeritus Silvio Borner, and successful consulting company owner Markus Haring or Haering (if I understand correctly). They have a operating board overseeing operations. They also operate a book publishing operation. PS. Shouldn't other interested editors be notified of noticeboard discussions on Talk pages? -- Yae4 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that having papers in other locations does not necessarily imply reliability in the subject domains of this article or at this publishing source.Jlevi (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

IUPAC for Clarice Phelps
Source:

https://iupac.org/100/chemist/clarice-phelps-es/

Text:

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC; which, among other responsibilities, coordinates with laboratories and the public for the naming of new chemical elements), recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.

Other than the fact it is the IUPAC website, and in recognition of all the controversy and indeed fraud that has surrounded previous attempts to get this claim included in Wikipedia, what reason is there for anyone to really believe that this one single web page is meant to be seen as the definitive resolution to the question of what role Phelps has played in the history of element discovery? No other reliable independent sources state this first claim as an unqualified fact, all cast some level of doubt or uncertainty. I am unconvinced that something that wasn't even fact checked was meant to carry such significance, and believe it is more likely that either the text has been lazily accepted simply on the basis of who submitted it without being fact checked, like so many of the press releases around this issue have been, or worse, the fraud has extended to this website somehow. Which is why it would be helpful if it named names, because nobody is named here at all, not the nominator or anyone who might have fact checked their submission. Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a journal or book, but it doesn't even really meet the same standards as say, a news release. All of which shows the IUPAC couldn't possibly have meant it to have the same significance that Wikipedia editors apparently attached to it, first using it to recreate the article, then using this exact claim to promote her on the Wikipedia front page. Crash Dennis (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions at Talk:Clarice_Phelps/Archive_3 and Talk:Clarice_Phelps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks reliable for the purpose to me (and accusations of "fraud" are way out of line). The IUPAC are literally the people who decide what the names of the elements are; they do not move lightly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I can quite easily demonstrate fraud, at least insofar as what people did with Chapman's book, how they tried and failed to use it as a source. It is actually pretty blatant once all the edit logs, Tweets and media statements are compiled and looked at together, in the round. Whether the appearance of this source, which finally achieves their apparent goals, is a more artful and less traceable continuation of the fraud, or an innocent mistake they had no part in, that is what I am hoping to clear up here. Cast iron reasons to believe this specific web page or website section should carry equivalent gravitas to say, a journal article, would do that. Have you any? I certainly did not need reminding what the IUPAC do or that in most cases they probably do apply full academic rigour to their publications, that is all a given in the above, but your comment doesn't address why there is still good reason to believe that in this case, they might not have. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not an RS issue it is a wp:undue issue. Yes they are RS for what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * How do you intend to prove this, other than the circular argument that they are the IUPAC? Do you assume infallibility on their part, for example? I have already accepted that for most things, they could be assumed to be reliable, but there are specific reasons to doubt it in this case. Hence this review exercise, a thorough review of this specific source for use in this specific manner. The issue of prominence and indeed the parallel omission of all the other reliable sources which cast doubt on this one, can be raised as a proposed change of text, as suggested there, if that is not rendered moot here. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said this is a wp:undue issue, not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As to the rest, we do not claim it is a fact, we claim they have said this. They are an RS for what they say, they may not be an RS for it being true, but then we are not claiming it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See below, and previous statements. You are misusing attribution as a get out of jail free card, not as a means of identifying who believes what in cases of source disagreements or sparcity of coverage. The fact this source was published by the IUPAC did not stop Wikipedia editors correcting their obvious spelling mistake, they applied critical thinking to weight the possibility that was an error. This same principle applies here, you are discounting any and all evidence that this might have been an erroneous statement, on the mere basis of who is making it, but instead of fixing that error, you're attributing. Stating who said it does not absolve you of responsibility of what can happen if you end up repeating a false claim based on merely who said it, because like it or not, no reader will ever read that text and assume you're wanting them to apply their own critical thinking as to whether the IUPAC might not be a reliable source for what they have said. The text pretty blatantly tries to persuade people they should be taking them as the authority in such matters, without of course telling them the sort of things I have identified that cast doubt on it for use in this context, including the fact all other independent reliable sources use qualifiers. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , As says, this is a reliable primary source but cannot establish the significance of the content (per WP:UNDUE). That would be a matter for editorial consensus via the Talk page, or an additional secondary reliable source noting the recognition. This is not especially controversial I'd say, so even a story based on a press release from the lab should be enough. Guy (help!) 15:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This cannot be a primary source in that sense, the people who have believed it was a true fact all along seized on it to recreate the biography precisely because it is their hope the magic initials IUPAC, without any other critical examination of what it is and how it is being used, means this makes it an entirely more believable claim than when it was simply coming from Phelps' employer and nobody else presumed reliable for such a claim would touch it with a bargepole without qualifiers. They want people to believe IUPAC have independently verified it as if it were a journal paper on the history of element discovery, rather than as I suspect, they perhaps have simply taken Kit Chapman at his word as a recognized expert, having maybe not realised that the guy who said he "literally wrote the book" didn't ultimately say this about Phelps in his book, or anything close to it. If the claim cannot reasonably be assumed to have been fact checked, then attribution is in effect, merely a case of Wikipedia choosing to duck responsibility and perhaps hope IUPAC carry the can if or when someone realizes their mistake. It is my belief that IUPAC would kick that can right back into Wikipedia's court, on the basis Wikipedia clearly hasn't taken full account of the likelihood of an error, and they would presumably point them to their website disclaimer and remind them that it is really only their peer reviewed journals and books that should be used for claims like this, certainly when the claim stands alone as an historical fact in their wheelhouse. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chapman said, Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. That's using "wrote the book" in the sense of "I've done the research", not "if you look at page 216 of my book you will see a verbatim statement of the following claim". He goes on to elaborate (it's an interesting bit of science history, and a glimpse back to when experimental teams were small; not the worst use of Twitter, actually). And his book does mention Phelps in the context of African-American researchers in the field. No deception, no fraud, no grounds to think the IUPAC were less than conscientious. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer the last part first, nobody has any idea who the IUPAC consulted, or even if they consulted anyone, in cases where no published records were available, and that is rather the point. As for the Tweet, that's one interpretation sure, but not the only one. And it doesn't really make sense, since you end up wondering why he chose to mention Phelps, but not this historical first claim, if he had apparently discovered this while researching the book. Nor does it explain why Wade was apparently among those who had assumed the claim was going to be in the forthcoming book. Most importantly of all, why no subsequent clear and unambiguous clarification from Chapman or Wade? They have had ample opportunity, certainly once they realised their early private communications and decision to publish on Wikipedia first before his book was published, were the source of much of the confusion on Wikipedia and the media at large. Frankly, more clarity all round is needed, stuff that explains all these supposed miscommunications, before I drop my belief there was deception here, because the result of all of it, certainly for a time, was exactly what they were trying to achieve with their activism, namely to get something into Wikipedia they believed to be true, and hope the media would then write about Phelps because she was in Wikipedia. As it turned out, they wrote about her because of the inevitable back and forth, because of their failure to provide verification. Crash Dennis (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The attribution argument is totally irrelevant. I don't even need to look to know I won't find a single word of advice on Wikipedia that tells me to use a source I know is inaccurate for a specific claim, if I simply state their name and rest on their overall record of reliability. I would be expected to do what is required to remove unreliable information from Wikipedia, the same way I am expected to use my judgement to fix the more minor issue of known innacuracies, such as typos. If this argument held any water at all, if attribution was the only reason people here are deciding this claim for this purpose is reliable, they would be able to explain the contradiction in the early history of this very article. Kit Chapman is, as far as I know, still generally considered a reliable source. His specific claim about Phelps however, no longer appears on Wikipedia, because it has been found to be innacurate, or rather, unverifiable, which for Wikipedia, is assumed to be equivalent, much to the annoyance of the activists. But because he said it in a Tweet first, it's still out there, Wikipedia can still include it with attribution. Maybe some people did argue that it could still be included in the article if the text attributed Chapman as the source, but thankfully for the reputation of Wikipedia, they don't seem to have prevailed, and he has been removed as a source for that specific claim, because they know what he said about his book wasn't true. Critical thinking in action. In short, you do not knowingly mislead readers, or fall back on attribution when what you're supposed to be considering is reliability of the specific claim and the source in general. For the purposes of this noticebaord, thinking about whether or not this specific claim has undergone the fact checking you would assume to be applied by IUPAC, is part of that critical thinking process. I await arguments that speak to that issue, rather than trying to avoid it, including the circular argument that says it is reliable because it is the IUPAC. Crash Dennis (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Crash Dennis for harassment and making implicit threats against an editor (on another page but involving this same issue). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

www.venciclopedia.org

 * 1) Source.
 * 2) Article. It is widely used in various articles about Venezuela
 * 3) Content. Its a circular reference, that is to say, the content in venciclopedia is from Wikipedia and wikipedia refers to venciclopedia, which means that it is referring to itself
 * This [] tells me no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven Sorry, I cant underestand --Wilfredor (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to just be a place to post user generated articles.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Classic WP:USERGENERATED -- Green  C  12:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable Same reason as above, UGC  Thepenguin9  (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. $RANDOMWIKI. Guy (help!) 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable and not usable for anything per WP:UGC. Should be immediately removed from all 21 articles in which it is cited. buidhe 07:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of claims of Ai Fen's disappearance?
60 Minutes Australia ran a segment on 29 March, in which it states that the doctor Ai Fen has disappeared. This claim has been disputed by Fan Wenxin, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. He tweeted that he has been in contact with a 60 Minutes Australia producer, and that the producer promised to amend the program. The program aired without the corrections Fan Wenxin asked for. See this thread. Complicating this is the fact that Ai Fen continues to post on her social media, including pictures of herself, and that she participated over video in an online conference this Thursday, after her supposed disappearance. The claim of her disappearance has been picked up by a number of tabloids, including The Daily Mail and the The New York Post (ironically, the New York Post put a picture of her posted to her social media on 1 April, after her supposed disappearance, at the top of the article). It's also been picked up by Radio Free Asia, which is funded by the US government and was founded by US intelligence.

I personally think this claim is quite doubtful, given that it's disputed by a WSJ reporter and given that Ai Fen has appeared publicly (at the online conference) since her supposed disappearance. I have to admit that this is a somewhat awkward situation, given that the claim made by 60 Minutes Australia appears to be false, but that the sorts of information that cast doubt on it come from the Twitter feed of another journalist and a video recorded from an online conference. Then again, 60 Minutes Australia doesn't provide any details on how they know that she's disappeared. My impression, in general, is that 60 Minutes Australia tends to be a bit sensationalized. I'd really like to see a reliable newspaper pick this story up before including it at Ai Fen, but I want to hear what others think about this situation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, tricky. 60 Minutes is the 'serious' show in its network line up (as opposed to ACA), but its been a week and other than RFA the outlets that have picked up on the story are pretty poor. They might have a source they don't want to reveal who knows something Fan Wenxin doesn't. Or they might not. Wait and watch seems like the least bad solution.


 * Tangential, but there's actually been two different Radio Free Asias. The first was CIA run and existed for a couple of years in the '50s before the plug was pulled. The modern RFA was set up forty years later during the Clinton administration's first term. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To what extent has 60 Minutes Australia been accepted as a citable source for other Wikipedia articles? To what extent has its credibility been called into question? Acone (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
Are www.islamicstudies.info, jstor.org, politicalislam.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com reliable sources for the Wikipedia article on Kafir? Can we cite any of them as a reference? Which of them are unacceptable?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * islamicstudies.info appears to be one Sayyid's blog, so unless that particular sayyid is notable (i.e. if we had an article about him and he has other professionally-published works), it's not reliable by our standards.
 * Jstor.org is a place that hosts sources. It is not a source but a resource for finding sources (like Google).  What sources did you find there to cite?
 * alislam.org might be primary sources for those particular groups' views on the matter.
 * I can't find who is behind thesunniway.com so I can't say if that's the case for them.
 * abdullahandalusi.com doesn't work when I try to load it.
 * Daniel Pipes's website hosts Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, so I'm inclined to distrust anything that site has to say and to revert any edit citing it.
 * Politicalislam.com is run by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which makes the ridiculous claim that "Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims)." Even as a Christian, I'm far more interested in other religion's metaphysics and folklore than some worldly politician's hijacking of any religion.
 * I can't find who is in charge of haribhakt.com either. While we are allowed to use partisan sources with attribution, calling that site "partisan" is a gross understatement.  I'm inclined to not trust anything it has to say about Islam, and would be hesitant to cite it for anything except for uncontested claims about itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My views are the same as Ian.thomson's. I also cannot reach abdullahandalusi.com and have to conclude it's not an RS. I looked at thesunniway and see that "hte aim and mission of this website is to propagate the correct Áqaýed (beliefs)" which is unpromising. Worse, one of the two people cited as answering questions for anyone is "Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Qadri" who lives in Preston England and is described as a hate preacher here. Doug Weller  talk 06:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Official documents for tunnel project as a primary source
The article on Melbourne's $6 billion West Gate Tunnel project has a section on its Business Case and another on its Environment Effects Statement (EES), a mandatory inquiry process prior to government approval. The article contains a summary of key points in the 10,000-page EES produced by a government body (the Western Distributor Authority) plus several submissions by local city councils. Its accuracy has not been challenged, but almost all of that material cites the official documents and submissions themselves (see here) as a PS rather than any secondary sources, of which there seem to be few. The tunnel project is the subject of hundreds of news stories, therefore supporting notability for the overall topic, but there is disagreement on the talk page about whether those sections on the EES and Business Case should be retained if they lack secondary sources. External guidance would be appreciated. <b style="color:darkslategray; font-variant:small-caps;">BlackCab</b> ( TALK ) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

carrierecalciatori.it
There are quite a many website which was used as a reference for Italian football stats. However, i wanna ask, the site content itself probably reliable, but the site also flagged by anti-virus for a possible javascript related problem. So, how should treat this site? Matthew hk (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any warning on Google Chrome or Firefox, even with a couple extensions enabled to block dubious stuff. It seems to have just the usual ads-related tracking code. Maybe others can check with other software. --MarioGom (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I use Norton BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland
Is the verified Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland reliable for COVID-19 statistics (confirmed cases and deaths) attributed to the Ministry of Health? (example). We are using their Twitter updates as a source to update case counts on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data or 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland. However, at least one user states that it cannot be used because they are published in a California-based server, using proprietary software, the feasibility of tampering by a third-party, etc. Here's the main discussion for context:. --MarioGom (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a verified twitter account I would say yes, usable with attribution (PS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that there is no report or evidence of this account being compromised or tampered with. The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched. --MarioGom (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your error was in good faith, but please do not misrepresent my words. I'm fairly sure that I did not at any point say that the MOH data "cannot be used". I stated reasons why we cannot literally describe the data as "valid" or "reliable", and why it's absurd for a governmental agency in Europe to publish critically important health data on a server in California instead of in Poland (or at least in the EU). "The best source of data that we have" does not mean we can "assume" that the data is correct. We use the data, fine, that's not disputed. That's not the same as "assuming" that the data is correct. We know of at least one straight-out arithmetic error (see the talk page) where the Ministry (MOH) calculated 19+6+8 (three individual, archived MOH tweets) = 14 (MOH sums per day). The consensus was to add a note and put "14" in the cell. So we know that there is at least one error of internal inconsistency in the data; we also know of at least three COVID-19 deaths that the MOH has ignored, based on reliable sources. These errors don't stop us from using the MOH data. Boud (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If the issue is some error in some of the updates, we can discuss that. But then, I would ask you to stop deflecting the discussion to points like where servers are hosted, the GDPR, privacy concerns of users visiting US-hosted website linked from Wikipedia, Twitter's ability to tamper with tweets, data integrity issues related to software being proprietary, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Errors in the MOH have already been discussed on the talk page, in various places for the various errors. This page (RS/Noticeboard) is not the place to deal with those. In-depth discusion is not "deflection". I would rather ask you to accept that there is no opposition to using the MOH tweets as the main source for the PL COVID-19 data (not from me anyway). In-depth discussion of issues is normal on Wikipedia. Here are some quotes to clarify the misunderstandings. You (MarioGom) wrote:  That is disputed. But that is not a practical problem. It is independent of using the MOH as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology; a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable in the ordinary sense of the word. It has a Wikipedia-specific meaning. You also wrote, while what I wrote was  Since we agree that tampering is unlikely, there's not much point debating whether it's an event with a 10^{-3} or 10^{-6} Bayesian probability. Boud (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, stop the gaslighting. You even questioned that this Twitter account is run by the Ministry of Health at all:
 * we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of KPRM.
 * PL - we have no serious evidence that the Ministry of Health data are "reliable"; what we do know is that they are regular and frequent and well-formatted, but published in California instead of in Poland
 * Plus several instances where you used "the California point" to cast doubt about the reliability of the source.
 * However, if you agree that all of these points are irrelevant to determine the reliability of the source, as it seems you do in your last comment, I guess this thread is kind of solved at this point. --MarioGom (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In referring to gaslighting, let's look at the lead of Gas Light, which says That's a violation of WP:AGF: it seems that you are accusing me of having negative intent by pointing to uncontroversial facts and that I am psychologically abusing other Wikipedians. The uncertainties of obtaining knowledge may be psychologically uncomfortable to some people, but in Wikipedia, as in scientific study of the real world, these uncertainties are inevitable, and we have to live with them. Referring to context is the contrary of making people doubt their memory and perception. Being suspicious of knowledge managed by authoritarian organisations is healthy for encyclopedic and scientific knowledge.  I do not say that the context is irrelevant in judging whether the MOH tweets qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. What I do say is that overall, keeping the context in mind, it is reasonable to let the MOH tweets have the Wikipedia status of a reliable source. You might also wish to withdraw your accusation that by talking about Twitter as a secretive authoritarian organisation that is in California, not in the EU, I have tried to psychologically abuse Wikipedians. Boud (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not rehash this argument here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw your note after I saved my edit. I agree that the issue is closed. I can survive without an apology from MarioGom. :) Boud (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Axios.com as a generally reliable source?
Axios.com has been used many times in Wikipedia. However, it has only been discussed on RSN a little, once. I also brought it up [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_Feedback#Axios_as_a_reliable_source? here], but there was approximately zero discussion. My opinion is Axios.com should be avoided because the Axios_(website) uses Native_advertising, which is a deceptive practice, and Wikipedia should avoid being complicit in sending users to be subjected to that practice. Their About highlights "Smart Brevity®" with mission: "Axios gets you smarter, faster on what matters," and says (long) "Stories are too long or too boring." As promised, their articles (really more like short blog posts) lack depth, and as a result provide little useful insight. (Aside: However, because of the site practices, the site causes my slower devices' CPUs to be overloaded, and my network traffic to stay high the entire time the site is viewed. So they fail on the "faster" promise.) -- Yae4 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, they claim to have some ethics and presumably review . I think they are reliable just like a small newspaper, through they do try to look like 'new media'. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's reputable and generally reliable. As a google search for "Axios reports" shows, the news source is used by many other reputable RS (NPR, NBC News, CBS, CNBC, QZ, U.S. News, Haaretz, the Atlantic, Star Tribune, The Hill, Daily Beast, KFF), substantiating its reliability. Furthermore, the people behind the website are all reputable journalists from other recognized RS. I see no RS about how the website engages in deceptive practices, so I cannot take a position on that, and other users shouldn't unless OP can actually substantiate it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the wiki articles linked above: Axios_(website) ("Axios generates revenue through short-form native advertising") and Native_advertising ("probably deceptive under federal law"), and their sources, and others, like this and this. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , reputable, but with an agenda so attribution may be advisable. Guy (help!) 15:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, they do admit to having an agenda, so attribution for any controversial content is indeed a good idea. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's willing to offer clarifications and retractions, based on the example in this Axios article as discussed in this NYT story.
 * Another detail from the NYT piece: The founder of Politico (VandeHei) supports the short style of Axios, saying, "Journalists have a bad, bad habit of equating length with substance and depth."
 * Here's a [NYT piece] that uses an Axios interview very heavily.
 * Finally, what is the specific form of the native advertising? If it is clearly marked, would it necessarily impact reliability? Jlevi (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, for the examples. The Axios "article" is a perfect example of a very short, twitter-like post, and even that needed correction. Also, it links to NY Times. You seem to be supporting NY Times as a reliable source, but against Axios. Your first NY Times example is a detailed discussion of how these Axios posts go wrong.
 * Another detail from the NYT Piece, in the NYT author's own voice, criticizes Axios: "That Mr. Swan works for Axios, the rapid-fire news site founded by the Politico creators Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, brings its own complications. Its stripped-down version of journalism (motto: “smart brevity”) means its articles are presented as bullet points that can negate nuance, with headlines that can hype."
 * The second NYT piece lowers my view of both NYT and Axios. Do I really need NYT to write articles about an Axios post, and Twitter tweets, with links to youtube?
 * The form of native ads? You tell me. My browsing PC melts down if I try to see them. According to the Adweek source for the Axios_(website) article, excerpt: "Those native items, which have featured messages from brands like AT&T, Anheuser-Busch and Facebook, borrow the formatting of Axios news bulletins—headline, image and a short block of text—and take up the full screen of a mobile device when they appear in newsletters or on the website. Axios says its short-form native ads have engagement rates that are, on average, four times that of a traditional banner ad, and Schwartz is quick to compare Axios’s native ads to social media advertisements." Based on that, the ads look deceptively like "news."
 * Adding another example: Axios longer article with an appalling error "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." How hard is it to check whether they have a website?! That IS what Climate/Health/Science Feedback does - operate a website. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Usable - Reputable; retractions and errata notices are also part of good journalism. May need attribution.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Youtube
YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns. Pikachu6686 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you could find a specific example to which you can relate this discussion, that would probably be helpful. Otherwise, I'm not sure this statement can be meaningfully addressed.
 * Consider looking at WP:YOUTUBE or reading the WP:RSP entry to see the conditions under which Youtube is clearly acceptable. Do you feel that there are examples where something beyond what is discussed in those locations should be accepted? Jlevi (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is always unreliable because (1) the information in clips is not fact-checked by youtube and (2) we don't know it the statements people make on youtube have been edited. It normally goes against good scholarship to use it. If you are editing an article about corona virus for example, there is no reason to reject what the World Health Organizations says or major media reports and instead use a youtube clip. TFD (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * We can't judge reliability of a YouTube clip simply by being on YouTube, though 99% of the material on YouTube will be considered unreliable or unusable as either we have no clear idea of whom the uploader actually is, or that the material will likely be a copyright violation of the actual work. We can use YouTube videos where the channel is clearly identified as the entity it presents itself has (verified), that they are an appropriate expert for the material in the video, that they own the copyright on the video and materials within it, and otherwise thus relevant. (For a quick example this video from AMC that's behind the scenes on Better Call Saul meets all those requirements) But most other videos are not like that and thus cannot be used. We're not judging YouTube itself, since they don't actually publish the works. --M asem  (t) 04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because Youtube is user-generated content, I don't think that it could be an RS.  13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What if the fact was how many likes a video had? Like if you were stating how many likes a video had, it would be reliable, right? Pikachu6686 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically things like view counts, likes, etc are reliable, but because these are gameable numbers, it is always better to let a third-party source report on them. --M asem (t) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the above concern, and because a Youtube video's view count is a primary source, view counts will probably not be due in an article mentioning a Youtube video/channel unless a secondary source has commented on it. signed,Rosguill talk 06:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We also want to avoid the inevitable minute-by-minute view count updates that will spam the watchlists and new edits patrols. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If the fact of how many likes a video had is only found on YT (the WP:PRIMARY source), it's very very likely out of WP:PROPORTION to mention it in a WP-article. If a CNN-article or something like that mentions it, that's different. See also WP:RSPYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a discussion about YouTube, I wonder if it's okay to say that you can add an external link in articles to a documentary video produced by a reliable source. For example, this in Jambiya article.- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Again less of an RS than an undue issue.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC on this not long ago that determined that views and subscribers should be included on youtube related articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, can you link to the RFC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources of biography of living person
While creating the biography of living person I have found that there are few interviews on television with expert advice on the news. But the news become older and miss placed on Google. I found that it is on YouTube not on Google is the source called reliable? and those source are from best tv channel. Kashish pall (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That depends on whose Youtube channel it is. Care to show us what it is?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , guessing it's . Guy (help!) 22:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could not care less about which article its the youtube channel I am concerned about.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Plant Based News
Plant Based News is a promotional vegan website. I believe it fails WP:RS. The website described itself as "The very latest plant based vegan news from around the world".

I removed it from the Vegan school meal article, but it is used on a few other articles as well. Thoughts? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From their about page, they do seem to have an editing staff (though that doesn't mean the staff does anything, necessarily). The about page describes them as " multi-award-winning," and if those are the right kinds of awards, then that could be a positive indicator for reliability. The page notes that they're goal is "creating awareness," and it seems fair to describe them as WP:POV, so if they are used, then their statements should be attributed (not in Wikipedia voice).
 * They say that they use this code of conduct and make corrections. It would be useful to see if they actually have made corrections. They use affiliate links, but they say they use clearly marked notices for WP:SPONSORED content. WP:RS says, "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article." They seem to meet this requirement. In addition, I haven't hit too many sponsored pages, so there may be useful material here.
 * Huh. On the other hand, this article certainly feels like an advertisement, but it's not marked.
 * I looked at a few example articles, and from what I can see this site tends to rely on a single source for each of their articles. An example is this article about UK meat consumption. It uses one specific source for all the content in the article, and they add little analysis or commentary. For this reason, it's unlikely that this site would be useful for establishing notability, since a lot of the articles don't seem to be independent of their subjects, failing to add new information/analysis. Please note that I'm fairly new to making this kind of evaluation, so I may be misunderstanding this feature. In addition, I may be looking at an uncharacteristic collection of articles, so this statement should be evaluated on an article-by-article basis. This does, however, appear to be a trend.
 * I haven't found too many examples of this source cited by reliable sources. For what it's worth, it's cited in this Fox Business story which has been reprinted on Yahoo! News, but in the version on the fox site, the link is replaced with a BBC link. A food network article cites it, too. That's about all I can find. Jlevi (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would opt for more information required, what is their reputation (and no just "winning awards" is not a sign of anything, it could be The BAttly town women guilds award for the best floral reenactment of Pearl Harbour).Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Is demographia a reliable source?
Demographia is a website run by one person, Wendell Cox and is used as the source of urban population of cities in List of largest cities among others.

I'm wondering if it is reliable, as Cox is an anti-public transit lobbyist and generally creates research articles that favour car-based development (like suburbs). In itself, this doesn't disqualify the source, however, in determining what constitutes an "urban area", there is criticism based largely on his unique definition of density. Articles such as "Why demographia is fundamentally wrong" have been published  online with a similar criticism for his unique definition of density. His work is not peer reviewed, and his definitions are his own creation. One specific example of what I would call bizarre: he lumps Providence, Rhode Island as part of Boston, Massachusetts. I would say that those are two difference cities, as would most people, I assume. He would say, I imagine, that because they are drivable in an hour they are the same city, because of his car-centric bias.

What do you think? I'm not an expert in this field, but the lack of peer review and single person determination of standards such as density is fishy to me. Mattximus (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg News: Demographia, a research firm, has just released its fourth annual international housing affordability survey, and it’s worth a look.
 * CNN: A recent report by Demographia, an international urban planning policy consultancy, ranked Hong Kong as the least-affordable housing market for the ninth straight year, ahead of New York, London and Sydney.
 * The Japan Times: More than 27 million people live in and around Delhi, with about 700,000 more joining them each year, according to research firm Demographia.
 * Sydney Morning Herald: Late January every year for the past seven years, the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is released.
 * The New York Times: Vancouver was ranked the third most unaffordable city in the world, after Hong Kong and Sydney, in a study published this year by Demographia, a consulting firm.
 * BBC: The Demographia survey, which focuses on the middle of the market across nine nations, found the price of a home is now more than seven times the average household income.
 * Reuters: A study by U.S.-based firm Demographia of international housing affordability in six nations found that while the United States had the top 5 least affordable cities, along with Canada it had all the affordable housing markets.
 * Wall Street Journal: An average home in Sydney now costs more than 12 times the median income there, according to research firm Demographia...
 * The Daily Telegraph: Demographia’s annual Housing Affordability Survey, which calculates median house prices divided by median incomes by region, suggests a ratio of 8.5 in London, 6.8 in Cambridge, 6.4 in Oxford and 7 in Bournemouth.
 * The Straits Times: The city was named the least affordable real estate market in the world for an eighth year by Demographia, an urban planning policy consultancy.
 * The Guardian: According to the Demographia research group, the world’s most populous country boasts 102 cities bigger than 1 million people.
 * Time: The sales price, per square foot, is three times more than the median square foot price for homes in Hong Kong, which has been ranked by the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey as the world’s most expensive housing market for the ninth straight year.
 * The amount of major news services citing the Demographia data say it all. I'm not in a position to judge a work by an "urban consulting firm", because I have no background education in urban planning whatsoever. But one thing for sure is that there's no accurate and definite "urban area", because simply there's no official boundary of it. Demographia explains their methodology in their publication. There's always flaw in every study, let alone urban study. That's all I can say. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link to his methodology? The methodology section on his website is very vague and not scientific at all. Also because newspapers pick up his publications doesn’t make them true because it’s not a peer review. Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would expect better sources to be available. At best, we should attribute as the news services do, because of obvious partisan lean. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If official census data is available for urban area populations, would that be the preferred source? There are users that argue against this. Mattximus (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would use either the actual censuses or news media reporting the data. Also, you should use intext citation (that is, mention the source in the text), which is what the publications do. TFD (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Spiked
Spiked is currently used in, the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant. Media Bias/Fact Check rates their fact checking record as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. The source has been discussed a couple of times before 1 2. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}}
 * No comment on Spiked (spiked-online.com), but I need to point out that Media Bias/Fact Check is considered generally unreliable because it is self-published. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge Spikeds reliability. —  Newslinger '  talk   06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad on that one, Spiked seems to be covered far less by reliable sources than Quilette, so I retract my comment for the moment, and will reformulate it at an opportune time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why Spiked would be used as a source for anything here. It is purely a platform for (contrarian) opinions, and so if it is used as a source for anything other than the opinions of its contributors that would be worrying. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's being used in the Neoliberalism article to back the statement: "In the 21st century, the term has increasingly been used to denote the free-market economics of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, including their criticisms of government intervention in the economy, which has tied the school to neoliberal thought." So it is being used as a source other than for opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Spiked is reliable for that claim, or much anything else. I would look to see if you can find a stronger source for the claim or else remove it. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My sense is that Spiked is an RS, with full editorial staff and procedures. Is there an example of their reporting that was inaccurate and not corrected? I do not see one given above. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished ridership numbers
Several editors have been adding ridership data to Metro-North Railroad station articles (for example, East Norwalk station). The source is an internal document that was obtained with a FOIA request; it was never officially published, and the only publicly-available copy is hosted on a personal Google Drive account. I believe that this does not meet WP:PUBLISHED, and as an unpublished source with no official public availability it is not a reliable/verifiable source and should not be used in articles. Pinging who have been adding these over my objections. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not adding them, and was going to bring it here, but went ahead and added them.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, User:Lent here: I didn't see this until now. I will stop now. I just finished the New Haven Line and its branches.
 * As I was recently chided about liking to use sources available online, as per Verifiability#Access to sources: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.", I guess I was too eager to get the numbers up. So I assumed the FOIA document, once online, was sufficient. Again my apologies. This is how I learn :)
 * Thinking back, I guess I misinterpreted our conversation on this subject.
 * Please let me know what changes, including reverting back, need to be made.Lent (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW: the old passenger numbers, posted by others, do not always have obvious sources, like this edit to Fordham, and some are calculated yearly figures (though sometimes the assumptions are in the comments) like this in the wikicode for Pennsylvania Station (New York City):
 * Thanks for your patience with me. Lent (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless a reliable third-party source has requested the FOIA, or is republished or discussed FOIA numbers, these are inappropriate. Eg NYTimes does FOIA all the time, that's fine, but a random person is not a RS. --M asem (t) 19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does it make a difference who requested the FOIA, when the information would be the same?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the reliability. If the NYTimes published the net result of the FOIA, I know the information is not doctored, etc. If a random person publishes it, I do not know that, though if a third-party reliable sources reviews that and publishes their own summary, that gives a bit of review to say they don't think the documents were doctored. --M asem (t) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I got sent an email from the MTA. Is there a way I could show that I got the information from the MTA and that it was not doctored?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I got sent an email from the MTA. Is there a way I could show that I got the information from the MTA and that it was not doctored?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I went back to the email I received and just realized that the files are also on an mta sub website here:
 * https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591171/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekday_Station_Boardings.pdf
 * https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591172/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekend_Station_Boardings.pdf
 * https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591170/1572463095/filename/2018_Inbound_Station_Boardings.pdf

These are from an MTA sub-website, and unless you hacked into the website, there is no way to alter the documents. Given that this is hosted on the MTA website, is it okay to use this as a source? Thanks so much.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, those links only work for you logged into your account. They 403 for anyone else. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This become a WP:PAYWALL issue. As long as those aren't "hidden" files, in that a logged in user can find their way there by some link or search, then yes they can be used. Being a paid user is not a limitation against those sources. But they need to be non-hidden links. --M asem (t) 19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just tried them in a private window and saw that they do not work. If I provided evidence that the MTA actually made the document, and that I did not alter it, could it work?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * no if its not been published it cannot be verified as not being edited or doctored. A source is not the document, it is the publisher of the document. Thus the publisher must be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The publisher is the MTA, who made it available on their website to subscribers (i.e. Kew Gardens 613). This is a paywall issue, not an issue of whether these were ever published. epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It being handed over publicly as part of a FOIA request, I believe, should consider being "published". --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Journal of Mason Graduate Research"
Is this a reliable source? Specifically, at Yuz Asaf an article by "Alexa Brand" which doesn't seem to have been cited but can be downloaded, used for the statement "These views are considered to be blasphemous by the majority Sunni Islamic scholars and authorities who assert that Jesus is presently alive in Heaven." Her article is also source 110 at Prophets and messengers in Islam. It might be used elsewhere linked through Semantic scholar. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it claims it is peer reviewed [], so I suspect this is less about RS than it is about undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * it's a publication of George Mason University and therefore reliable. I don't see anything controversial with the statement. Bear in mind that by scholars and authorities they are referring to religious leaders. TFD (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Slatersteven and TFD. It is an RS -- whether it warrants citation in that article is another question. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree if it had been frequently cited. Using an uncited or rarely cited source to state what the majority of scholars in any field seems dubious.  Doug Weller  talk 18:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it were an exceptional claim perhaps. I don't think that one would need multiple reliable sources to establish that the position of the Catholic Church is that Jesus is in heaven. It's even in the Bible. He ascended to heaven on the third day and sits beside the Father. TFD (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. As I mentioned WP:BLUESKY earlier today I concede the point. Doug Weller  talk 18:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Homeland Preparedness News


I noticed that this was used in around 77 articles lately (an example at Orthopoxvirus), and saw this question by when investigating. Since there never was an RSN discussion yet about it, I decided to create an entry. My initial impression is that it seems usable: the publication is not anonymous (Macallan Communications) and also has a team of qualified editors. More input welcome, — Paleo Neonate  – 02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Jadovno.com an RS?
Is http://www.jadovno.com an RS? OyMosby (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use it. It looks like it is published by "Jadovno 1941 Association", which appears to be legit. However, for historical topics it's best to rely on good quality print publications, such as academic articles and books. The Balkans, unfortunately, seem to be plagued by nationalist historical revisionism which makes it extra important to be cautious. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 11:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of an editorial board, it appears to be just a registered public association for those connected to survivors of the camp. No academic qualifications are claimed for the supposed editor-in-chief and contributors are often not identified. It is effectively a self-published source. Most of the stuff on there is heavily biased towards a Serb perspective. Definitely not an RS in my view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc.
I keep coming across the Tennessee Star and its sister papers, Michigan Star, Ohio Star, and Minnesota Sun. We cite more than a few times in our articles, and there's a lot of cause for concern here. For starters, they seem to have connections to, and reprint material from, a couple other sites that are already deprecated: the Daily Caller and Breitbart. This Politico article mentions that "The site doesn’t have the traditional separation of editorial and business interests". This Snopes investigation characterizes them as basically fake local sites that really just push content by ideologically aligned national sites with a lot of problems. Is this worth an RfC? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 04:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If they cannot be honest about themselves I doubt they can be honest about anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A general discussion leading to some sort of evaluation on the perennial sources list at the very least would be very valuable. So yeah, some sort of RFC. Editors need to be able to get information on companies such as Star Media which according to that snopes report appear to be disguising propaganda as local news. Curdle (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Areo magazine for Bo Winegard
Is "The Firing of Bo Winegard: When Academic Freedom and Outrage Collide" from Areo magazine (areomagazine.com) a reliable source for the Bo Winegard article? After I added in-text attribution, the source is currently being used to claim that "Christopher Ferguson of Areo contended that the talk explicitly denounced racism and urged people to treat others as individuals, not tokens of some group or another." —  Newslinger  talk   03:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure it's an RS, and FWIW I'm entirely unconvinced of due weight - it's a polemical opinion piece in a (non-notable) polemical source, not something I'd look to factual content of anything for. The Rod Dreher definitely needs attribution by name and publication, or perhaps it should be removed too. I see there's the Washington Times and Inside Higher Ed also covering the issue, and they're non-polemical general publications - did any other non-polemical general publications cover the talk?
 * (I should probably note that Winegard claimed RationalWiki was somehow involved in his firing, and I've been ragging Winegard over this claim, which I think is basically silly, on the @rationalwiki Twitter, so take my opinions accordingly.) - David Gerard (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times definitely has an editorial slant worth noting; I don't know whether it should be called "polemical" in an absolute sense, but I think it's on a different tier than Inside Higher Ed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Areo is very similar to Quillette, which is considered "generally unreliable" (Areo is a bit more left leaning). It's a new, online only publication which publishes mostly commentary from non notable individuals. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aero is an academic online magazine, run by academics; is there any reason to think it's NOT an RS? --MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Areo describes itself as "an opinion and analysis digital magazine focused on current affairs". The editor-in-chief, Helen Pluckrose, is best known for her involvement in the grievance studies affair, and none of the listed staff members have disclosed any academic credentials. Based on this, Areo does not appear to be "an academic online magazine, run by academics"; that kind of description is reserved for sites like The Conversation, which features articles from actual subject-matter experts. makes an apt comparison between Areo and Quillette . —  Newslinger   talk   11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Crimson White for Bo Winegard
The Bo Winegard article also cites "Evolution Working Group on hosting Bo Winegard: ‘It was our mistake’" from The Crimson White for the claim "The talk, which addressed the possibility that human populations may have evolved different psychological tendencies, stirred a controversy at the University because of the perceived “racist implications” of the research." Is this student newspaper article reliable for the claim? —  Newslinger  talk   04:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'd use anything better if available. It's possible the talk itself wasn't really that worth noting, and this is dredging the available sources a bit - David Gerard (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that university newspapers count as RS, especially when there are better sources on Winegard. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial for Bo Winegard
"Professor fired from his tenure track job for wrongthink" from The Post Millennial (thepostmillennial.com) is used in the Bo Winegard article for the single word "wrongthink" in the context of the claim "Some sources suggested that Winegard may have been fired for his [...] 'wrongthink'". Is this website a reliable source for this claim? —  Newslinger  talk   04:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece in a non-notable publication seems an immediate "no", I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:DUE. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally a dubious-quality publication. See the previous RSN conversation, which describes it as both unreliable and undue (in the context of Dave Chappelle). See two articles that discuss false coronavirus coverage and poor news-opinion separation, respectively. Jlevi (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A third article (by Buzzfeed News) on post millenial highlighting the opaque connections between its advocacy and its news.Jlevi (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NY Daily News on NYC coronavirus outbreak
NY Daily News seems to have broken a story about nurses infected with COVID-19 working at several NYC hospitals due to insufficient paid sick leave policies. 

I believe we can cite the Daily News in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City, although in my experience (and per WP:RSP) I know it has a less-than-stellar reputation. I generally would avoid the source for anything of political significance. On the other hand, I believe in this case the Daily News would not publish this local story without sufficient strong evidence; in fact several sources are identified in the article, some by name.

I believe this would be OK to include with attribution, e.g. "According to the NY Daily News reporting on 04/08/20, several nurses at different New York City hospitals stated that nursing staff were not allowed sufficient paid sick leave and that nurses presenting symptoms of coronavirus continued to work."

Comments? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think we should use it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With attribution, I think it can be used. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Is LiveWire a reliable source for Pinjra Tod?
It's been deleted here. The actual source involved is this. LiveWire is part of The Wire network. I'd attribute it if I reinstated it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure. The Wire is a reliable source, as it has won three Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards and an array of other notable awards. LiveWire is The Wires "space for young writers and creators", and contains both staff-written and contributed content. This particular piece was written by "LiveWire Staff", which might inherit the reliability of The Wire under WP:RSOPINION. Some articles from LiveWire are syndicated to The Wire, although this one is not. I am not certain whether the contributed articles on LiveWire are reliable, because I am unsure of the quality of the editorial process for contributed articles. —  Newslinger ' talk   13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeking Alpha
As a crowd-sourced website, Seeking Alpha may be listed in WP:deprecated sources?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved this discussion from WT:RS to this noticeboard, as it is a discussion on the reliability of a specific source. —  Newslinger  talk   14:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reads more like an SPS, it may not be reliable those who contribute may be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As a Seeking Alpha reader I would protest if someone used it as a RS for fact. Some articles are great others are trash.  The site does have editors so this isn't quite self published.  But it is effectively a collection of editorials.  As such I would treat it only as reliable for the statements of the authors.  Springee (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Integer complexity
An editor has been repeatedly adding WP:REFSPAM to a predatory journal to Integer complexity. More eyes on this would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fox News and COVID-19
Yes I know but this time its serious.

There is one (and they appear to be preparing for more) lawsuits over deliberate misinformation over the corona virus []. Given this I think it is our duty to only use the best and most respected sources over this issue I would like to propose a (at least) temporary and partial ban on Fox as a source for any news relating to the Corona Virus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds sensible. There's general sanctions on COVID-19-related articles for the same obvious reason. What's the correct Wikipedia bureaucratic mechanism to declare a source not usable on a particular topic - can it be done as part of the general sanctions?
 * General news sources are not great WP:MEDRSes already, and I'd think Fox News would be a hard fail in that regard on their COVID-19 coverage.
 * Local Fox affiliates running news stories, they're not quite the same thing as the main organisation (except when they are) - not sure how to deal with those.
 * (I've put a note on the wikiproject page pointing here.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No... Fox’s NEWS coverage is fine. It is no worse (or no better) than that of the other networks.  The problem lies with their opinion and analysis shows, which are sensationalist and biased (but that is also true for the other networks).  I could agree to restrictions targeting specific shows, but not a blanket ban on the entire network. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is just how easy would such a selective restriction be? How easy is it to separate their "news" from their "opinion" pieces?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with on this. Fox News' news reporting is generally fine. I would be very wary of their opinion shows, just as I would be with opinion shows on MSNBC and CNN (or the opinion/editorial section of any newspaper). US cable news opinion shows are highly partisan, ergo not a good source of factual content. However, absent a good reason, I'd be wary of ruling out an entire news network, including their news reporting. Do you have a specific concern with a particular claim made in Fox News' news (not opinion) programs? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am just pointing out others do have specific concerns that Fox "...acted in bad faith to willfully and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel Coronavirus, or COVID-19, which is now recognized as an international pandemic.”, that is a pretty damning condemnation (and yes it is Fox news). However they (and thus we) should also include AT&T and Comcast. (my emphasis)Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Does this concern Fox News' news programs, or its opinion programs? Can you give a specific example in which using news reporting from Fox News would damage an article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not file the complaint to the courts I am just pointing this out. It is enough for me to say we should not use them on this subject. This is too important to take chances with. (wp:soapbox alert) people may well have died because this kind of misinformation was not tackled early enough. It is down to us to make sure the the information (on any aspect of this topic) is of the best kind. We cannot allow even the possibility of misinformation entering any of or articles on this topic. See my rant [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not enough for me to draw that conclusion. If there are specific concerns with news reporting from Fox News, then that's one thing. What Hannity says on his talk show is a different matter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll also add that I agree with that general news sources are not great for medical subjects. For the medical aspects of CoVID-19, as opposed to its economic/political/social aspects, we should lean heavily on the recommendations of WP:MEDRS. This is very different from ruling out Fox News' news reporting for other (i.e., non-medical) aspects of the CoVID-19 pandemic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree that news outlets are poor sources for the medical aspects of CoVid... But that applies to ALL news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And how many are being sued?Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding this specific question, in general news organizations are sued all the time. Here's an overview of some cases in 2019, including the Miami Herald, Washington Post, CNN, NBCUniversal, and the BBC: . The filing of the suit in itself doesn't, absent a judgment, by default invalidate the news coverage under question. isaacl (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And if they were being relied on for information relating to their court case we would also probably have to take a look at any potential conflicts in current or future reporting. Koncorde (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree as with all sources, an examination for potential bias should be done as appropriate. To take a not-so random example, there is a formerly New York-based real estate developer who routinely sues everyone, including media outlets. Their coverage can certainly be examined for problems, but I wouldn't block its use by default. There continue to be CNN citations, for example, in January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. isaacl (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First, this is only just the start of a lawsuit, nothing has been proven. Second, as many legal experts have stated eg its unlikely this suit will end up with any resolution, as the lawsuit specificly focuses on Fox's statement of opinions, nothing out of their news departments. So this is a non-starter for us in any case. As others have said, MEDRS already takes precedence for any medical-based discussions. --M asem  (t) 13:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We really need to work on following WP:MEDRS more. One should not use the popular press for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Money Inc
I question the reliability of the Money Inc website. One of its articles is currently being used by a reference that cites it in the Mariah Carey article: "The level of her success is evident when you consider her estimated personal net worth of $300 million." There is currently a discussion on the talk page about this. This Money Inc website seems to be a collection of articles disguised as advertisements, but also contains a net worth section with figures for numerous public figures. However, there is never any information as to where the (what I assume are) freelance writers get the figures from. The website's "contact us" email address is "uncoached@gmail.com" I found that there is even a network of these websites all run by "Uncoached Corporation", including tvovermind.com. I found this twitter thread about how these websites might be infringing copyright as well. Perhaps these should be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? Heartfox (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My view is that Moneyinc should be considered unreliable. Prompted by this thread, I took a look at the subject website and found no evidence of any sort of editorial staff or board; it seems most articles published by the site are published by seemingly random authors without oversight. Though article authors do have biographies, some of the articles I looked at were clearly written by freelancers, which poses churnalism and native advertising issues. Like Heartfox, I find that the website's contact email address (uncoached@gmail.com) looks dubious and does not reflect well on Moneyinc. It should go on the list of unreliable sources. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. Money Inc is a group blog with no evidence of adequate editorial oversight. I am not convinced that the authors are real people, but even if they are, here's the bio for Benjamin Smith: "Benjamin Smith is one of the managing editors of Moneyinc. He has a strong interest in sports, video games and acting his age (and he's not even in college yet!) but we love him over here because he's attentive, detailed, and knows how to make an article look great." Some of the articles (e.g. "Max Hazan: A Visionary Artist Building Exceptional Motorcycles") look like sponsored content without disclosure. If there is a pattern of sites from Uncoached Corporation being inappropriately cited in Wikipedia articles, this should be investigated on the spam blacklist noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   09:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * According to a Google Search of Money Inc references on English Wikipedia, there appears to be at least 50. tvovermind.com seems to have the exact same format/style of website as Money Inc. Uncoached.com also has the same format, but I couldn't find any references. Uncoached Corp might be the same thing as "BC Media Group", which runs tvovermind.com. On its website it lists 3 other websites, but they don't seem to be cited anywhere. Heartfox (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Futon Critic - is it reliable
ive found this website being used for info on a bunch of pages but until being curious about the source of some of the info on pages and seeing "The Futon Critic" ive never heard of it before. ill put one example below but ive found it in a lot of places.


 * The Futon Critic - Source link


 * The Article - List of Austin & Ally episodes

thank you. ToeFungii (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's being used for ratings, production codes, etc.
 * Yes, it's generally considered reliable by the TV WikiProject. WP:TVRS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. why isnt it listed at link or am i just missing it? ToeFungii (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The perennial sources page isn't an end-all-be-all list. It's just the ones that have been discussed to death, potentially to the point that trying to argue the opposite might be considered a sign of disruptive incompetence.  For example, if someone came to an article arguing InfoWars, Breitbart news, and WorldNetDaily are completely reliable and NYT, Snopes, and WaPo are never reliable... They might get a very blunt warning shot before being thrown out the door.  Hell, I've blocked people for "just asking" why InfoWars is unreliable but CNN is accepted.
 * The Futon Critic is technically in the grey and theoretically open for debate, though in a very light shade that requires a similarly reliable source to counter. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Eupedia
Currently, the following articles appear to cite Eupedia, some including trivia like the number of castles in Belgium, but a number concerning human genetics. Specifically, many citations from Eupedia appear to connect specific Haplogroups with specific ethnic groups. My question, prompted by a discussion here, is whether Eupedia is a reliable source or whether this sourcing should be removed. It's unclear to me whether the website is user-created content or not. --Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems there was a previous discussion that reached no consensus/only a weak consensus here. who were involved last time.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion has not changed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure everyone is aware, there may be a complication in that a lot of the use is likely to be their graphics. They clearly have people who are good at making scientific style graphics (e.g. maps showing frequencies), and for better or worse we have a slightly different ways of approaching illustrations. It is a while since I looked but undoubtedly some of the illustrations will be straightforward presentations based on a specific bit of published research, like our users also might do. Unfortunately they won't all be like that. The one Ermenrich and I came across (on a talk page) is clearly outside our norms, because it was a map showing frequencies of "Germanic DNA" (i.e. something no scholar is going to have defined). I am not sure if that is being used on any WP article though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a personal website run by someone who uses the name Maciamo Hay and you'll find him described as "a researcher in genetics, as well as a futurist, philosopher, historian, linguist, and travel writer." So, "master of none"? You can see my comments in the earlier discussion. His Facebook page still doesn't claim any qualifications. He runs another travel type guide, Japan Reference (JREF} which we use as a source. I found him cited in these two self-published books  and this odd book.
 * This source says "As we've noted before, there are a bunch of charlatans in the world of Ancient DNA. The worst offender, perhaps, is a pseudonymous Belgian named Maciamo Hay, who runs a site called Eupedia.  This uneducated man knows just enough to sound knowledgable, and to delude himself and some of the similarly ignorant.  In the world of Ancient DNA, he is probably the best example of Dunning-Krueger effect out there." But I know nothing about snplogic. I'd like to see both sites deprecated.  Doug Weller  talk 17:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a Nordic race-bent fringe source, definite depreciate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What Doug Weller said. An obvious crank site, and given its obvious inaccuracies in even its most non-contentious content like the tour guides, shouldn't be taken as a reliable source for anything. &#8209; Iridescent 18:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Do not use, and Deprecate Just a perusal of the website and clicking a handful of articles, I was able to identify dozens upon dozens of inaccuracies. I only checked the articles on Classics and Anthropology, but honestly, nearly every other statement was factually inaccurate, or just convoluted. This isn’t just an unreliable source. It shouldn’t be used to cite anything on Wikipedia. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not use and deprecate per Symmachus Auxiliarus. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No question in my mind that this needs blacklisting, I've found some dreadful stuff. See] as a recent edit adding junk to junk, and which is where I started my cleanup.  Doug Weller  talk 15:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug. Especially for human genetics this is a terrible source and should be blacklisted.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no doubt that this source is not RS according to WP norms. I do still wonder what this discussion means in practice though, because I think Ermenrich and I have not seen examples of this site being used, only heard a report from an IP editor that WP uses some of the same maps. Potentially we may even have over-lapping users with this website. So things like maps uploaded to WP might need to be looked at case-by-case? The one map we were shown was clearly OR/SYNTH and inconsistent with our content policies, but I doubt this one is being used on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's being used as a source on numerous articles, on topics as varied as Watney Combe & Reid, Haplogroup U (mtDNA), Cannabis in Estonia and Belgian nobility. This isn't just a hypothetical problem. &#8209; Iridescent 10:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not know how to do a link search. (Never looked I guess.) I see a lot of these are on talk pages, or external links section, but I eventually found at least one in a footnote, so you are right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you look at my search for Eupedia in the first comment in this thread you'll see a bunch of links to EUpedia used as citations.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've tried to remove it from all the genetics articles I could find, but it's still in a number of prehistory and tourist/genealogy pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This site, run by Maciamo Hay, should not be used.--Hippeus (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

foreignaffairs
Tow reports, one from foreignaffairs and another for MEPC were used in the Ali Sayad Shirazi. Are they reliable?Saff V. (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * foreign affairs, A clash and disagreement over strategy to be adopted in the Iran-Iraq war emerged between Shirazi and Mohsen Rezaee, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, in July 1986.When this rivalry became public, Ayatollah Khomeini met them in his residence on 19 July 1986 and urged them to "seek unity", telling them "You must endeavor, not to think in terms of being members of the Armed Forces or those of the Guards Corps or of the Basij forces. ... We must understand that if there were to be any disputes among you ... not only are we doomed here and now, but we also are guilty before God." It remains unclear why, Mohsen Rezaee, who had little military experience was in a technical dispute with a senior general.
 * MEPC,Shirazi used harsh counterinsurgency methods against the rebellious Kurds. Many within the regular army did not like the idea of suppressing Iranians, even if they were minorities from the periphery. Some army personnel deserted from the front in the Sanandaj region during the battles with the Kurdish irregulars. 14 A senior army aviation officer was tried and executed in Isfahan for his refusal to participate in the war against the Kurdish insurgents; several others were tried and imprisoned.
 * Can I ask you to leave a comment?Saff V. (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. I am of the view that we should not generally use think tanks as sources, but the magazine has been around for a long time and seems to be widely respected. I don't really see it as having a dog in this fight, so I would not discount it unless the claim is extraordinary (which in this case I don't think it is). Middle East Policy Council also has a slant on things, but again it's unclear that this would produce any bias in respect of this content. Is there a particular reason you question the reliability here? Guy (help!) 14:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Media blackout#Contemporary
At Media blackout#Contemporary I added sources for the following claim. (The claim was already in the article; I just added citations). Because this involves a BLP, I would like to ask that the citations I added be reviewed here so that I can remove any that don't meet our standards for reliability. Here is the claim and the citations:


 * "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993.        The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout.  "

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Daily Wire ref removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IBTimes ref removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP lists The Daily Wire as generally unreliable for factual reporting. Linking to such a site in a BLP would be unadvisable, and I do not think that particular reference belongs in this spot either, since what we have is basically a slice of BLP under a topic heading. Even if all we are doing is noting that an opinion has been voiced, we are implicitly saying that the site is worth reading, and as it stands the text is not providing any cautions that claims of fact made in the source should be taken advisedly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * XOR&#39;easter removed it. Thanks! Any other problem refs anyone sees? I agree that this claim is under our BLP policy and want to be extra careful that all of the citations are solid. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only other questionable source here is the International Business Times, which reached a turning point in . —  Newslinger  talk   23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed IBTimes as well. Thanks! Controversial claims about current US presidential candidates need to have only the best sources, nothing marginal. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

...aaaand now we have an edit war at Media blackout. :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reliable sources that support the topic of the article. Without that, it's impossible to determine what belongs. TFD (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed at Talk:Media blackout. Might I suggest that we centralize the discussion there? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At RS/Perennial Sources, Salon is listed as "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." There is no attribution, and the piece is not necessary given the abundance of other, better sourcing. might consider removing this one (and from the "assault" article) unless attribution is included.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Removed and now on my list of sources to nuke wherever they are used to support the Biden accusation. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Media blackout - what sources do we need to include something in this article?
There is what looks more like a political argument than anything else at over allegations that Biden sexually abused someone. The text is: "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993.       The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout.   However, this issue was covered in 2019 by The Union, a local Nevada paper, in which Tara Reade made a different claim. "

So there are three sources for the term "media blackout". One, the Guardian, doesn't use the term, just says it's been largely ignored by the news. I can't see the Economist source. The third is the Libertarian Reason (magazine) which also doesn't use the term. WTF? Doug Weller talk 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the other entries in the list and notice how few use the exact term "media blackout"? Are yiou prepared to argue that those should be removed as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that without multiple reliable sources using the term "media blackout" we can't put our own swing on "ignoring' or such words, and the whole section should be removed. Doug Weller  talk 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I mean that all sections that don't have sources calling it a media blackout should be removed. Doug Weller  talk 08:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the motivation of the argument, but I think you're right. Most Sources aren't describing it as a media blackout, so the bar for reliable source coverage isn't met and anecdotally, as a nonreliable observer, I would say it doesn't appear to be a media blackout in fact either, as a whole list of sources has covered the story. Also noting that reinstated the contentious material while protecting the page. As text covered by BLP, surely we should err on the side of removing it until the issue is resolved?  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a partisan gotcha electioneering effort, matched by numerous examples from the other side. We might need a bot to ensure that the number of non-encyclopedic pokes at Trump is balanced by the corresponding number aimed at Biden. One give-away is the fact that eight references for the sexual assault accusation, and three for "media blackout", are considered necessary. The question of whether a particular ref satisfies WP:RS is a bit beside the point which is whether electioneering talking points should be spread around the encyclopedia. However, my frank advice would be to forget about it—let the text stand. In a year from now it can be removed, along with the corresponding muck on the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * your last point makes no sense given the main point of your comment. Why should we ignore the inclusion of an accusation against a BLP, which currently doesn't even have consensus for inclusion in his own article? Only one source is describing it as a media blackout, while numerous others cover the issue itself, so it seems self evident that it doesn't meet the bar for inclusion in the media blackout article. At the very least it should be removed until there's consensus for it to be there. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "until there's consensus for it to be there" the RfC is currently 47 "Yes", 19 "No" or "Not Yet". It will probably stay open a while longer, but it could be WP:SNOW closed at any time. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to count votes. The RfC should run the full 30 days so that more experienced editors can weigh in. It's important to get this right. - MrX 🖋 10:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also not a media blackout if the media is actually doing its journalism part and trying to verify the claims / accusations, particularly in the face of conflicting claims and the lack of corroboration. The few relatively mainstream articles to have covered the issue all seem to have focused on the conflicting statements by Reade and denials by those she has accused of being party to certain events. Convenient for Biden, maybe, but not a blackout, and certainly not a blackout by all media. Koncorde (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not wholly sure the source for "BLACKOUT" is an RS, and now the argument over at the RFC is that RS have now covered it. I think (being very very generous) we could say "according to...", and even that may now no longer be the case (but that is an issue of undue).Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Does inclusion improve the understanding of this topic? Is the article meant to be a list or an article about media blackouts?  If the article is the latter then I don't see a reason to include because the list of examples can be limited and still serve it's illustrative function.  Looking at the article I would hope there would be more content and sources that talk about the concept of media blackouts, why they could be seen as good and bad, what motivated them etc.  The sources, again, should be articles about media blackout as a concept, not articles where the author says "the media is not reporting on this story I'm about to talk about".  Basically I'm saying, even if the Biden story is true and the media is choosing not to cover the story, I still don't think it should go into this article because the sources aren't illustrative of the general concept and don't further then reader's understanding of the general concept.  Think of this as talking about the pathology of a disease without talking about the stories of those who have suffered because of the disease. Springee (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed at Talk:Media blackout. Might I suggest that we centralize the discussion there? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You need, at a minimum, reliable sources that describe it as a media blackout. Guy (help!) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Meaww a reliable source?
See:
 * About us:

Samp4ngeles (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My opinion: No.  I'm unable to find support for claims of any meaningful reputation one way or the other.  Meaww appears to be known only to Meaww.  Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. Their Facebook page has 12 million followers, more than the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc. -- and nearly as much as India's largest newspaperS such as Dainik Jagran:  https://www.facebook.com/meawwcom/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe they're reliable, just not as reliable Justin Bieber, who has 77 million followers on Facebook. Msnicki (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of FB-followers is no indication of reliability. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was merely using FB likes to address your comment about Meaww appearing to be known only to Meaww. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, can you please give an example of what you intend to use this site for? —  Newslinger  talk   09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * it came up in the context of a BLP discussion. This is one site that has an article mentioning a person's birth name and parents' names. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing some limited use of MEAWW (Media, Entertainment, Arts, WorldWide) by other sources, although the sources are borderline and not strong enough to meet WP:UBO. Since the standard of reliability is higher for biographies of living persons, I would avoid MEAWW for claims about someone's personal details. —  Newslinger  talk   01:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "With a social media following in excess of 15 million across the US, Canada, UK and Australia, MEA WorldWide dovetails the virality of social platforms with the rigour and expertise of digital journalism". Translation: Meaww is a clickbait site. Guy (help!) 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Foreword by Norman Davies in Hippocrene Books
An argument at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust:_The_Poles_Under_German_Occupation,_1939-1944 by User:François Robere questions the reliability of Hippocrene Books. The context is whether we can provide a (positive) assessment of the book from a foreword of the book. The author of the foreword is Norman Davies, a reputable historian. Removed content can be seen here. I argue that it should be sufficient to clearly attribute the quote to the author and state it comes from the book foreword. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Norman Davies is a well known historian. His opinion matters, more so, that Davies literally wrote the book's "Forward" (the topic of the article no less) makes it imperative to mention in the article. Francois' requirement that Davies' "Forward" be peer-reviewed is nonsensical. -- Green  C  03:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Piotrus neglected to mention that the entire TA is subject WP:APL which mandate just that: Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. Hippocrene Books - a publisher of general purpose prose, dictionaries and cooking books - so it does not qualify as a "reputable publisher" for that purpose. If it was a university press like UPKY, which published the first edition, or a specialized imprint like Basic Books, it would've been another story. François Robere (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I still consider Norman Davies as the source in this case, he is unquestionably "high quality". We often permit blogs and other unreliable sources so long as the person doing the writing is a known author whose opinion is relevant, and not framed in wikivoice. In this case the book is reliable under normal conditions, and if it's unreliable for WP:APL is a matter of opinion based on the strength of Norman Davies. -- Green  C  14:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A book forward is not unlike a blurb in that it is written to promote the book and therefore is not an independent source on the book. I think it could be cited on a SELFSOURCE basis, but it should not be given as much weight as or grouped with independently published review of the book. In this case I believe it is sufficient to say that Davies wrote the forward, as the article is currently. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The publisher is small. Published topics include: Healthful Indian Flavors with Alamelu and Beginner's Danish with 2 Audio CDs. Their webpage has nothing on being academic or peer reviewed.--Hippeus (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Melanie Clegg

 * Scourge of Henry VIII: The Life of Marie de Guise, Melanie Clegg, 2016.

I found a short biography of Melanie Clegg, but I am not sure this qualifies her as a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I know Melanie, fwiw. She studied history and writes popular histories for proper publishers for a living, which helps. She's good (IMO) and very detailed and painstaking. Lists her bibliographies if you want to dive deeper. Doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet, but that's a "yet". What article is the book being used as a reference in, that you were wondering about? - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * She makes mention of a few details concerning the duke and duchy of Lorraine. Antoine, Duke of Lorraine, mainly his date of death. Bogdan gives his death of death but it is in French, I try to use English sources whenever possible. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with non-English sources, particularly if they machine-translate intelligibly - maybe add both - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , from the goth community? Anyway, Pen & Sword are reputable, I think, so this seems OK to me as well. Guy (help!) 20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure she'd be outraged at the g-word suggestion. (Yes.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am told that at least one woman particularly dislikes being described as a fake goth, so clearly this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing... Guy (help!) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)