Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298

Proposal: Guidance note on "attributed opinion" sources
There are a number of sources that are listed in WP:RSP as usable for attributed opinions but considered biased or opinionated. That leads to whats eem to me to be misunderstandings: citations to opinion pieces by political commentators on articles not related to either the commentator or the source, and where the commentator may have an opinion, but has no obvious expertise.

I would like to see a guidance note along the lines of: Opinions are, famously, like arseholes: everybody has one. For any contentious topic I can find a left-wing blowhard who will excoriate the right wing view, and a right-wing blowhard who will excoriate the left, and including either tells us pretty much nothing about the subject itself, but only acts as a primary source for the fact that it's a political hot button. The root of the iossue appears to be the (mis)understanding that because X source may be usable for opinion, so opinions in X source are acceptable - the usual confusion of may and should, in other words.
 * Biased / opinionated sources should not be used as primary sources but may be cited where (a) the author is a noted expert in a relevant field or (b) the commentary is notable, as established by mentions in reliable independent sources.

There are examples of valid uses of primary opinion sources. See the discussion of above. A piece by Michael Crick, who is known primarily as a journalist and not as a rabble-rouser - this should be fine. It's not so much an opinion piece as a work of investigative journalism. Or maybe this, by Roger Morris (American writer), on the Plame / Rice business. That seems OK, it's not mere opinion and the writer is an expert (though I'd prefer a better source). But random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications seems like a bad idea. Guy (help!) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications" are typical practice for book reviews and TV reviews, etc. If this were implemented strictly it would make a lot of books, TV shows, movies, etc. non-notable and require deleting their articles. I think this sort of restriction could be useful but it should be better targeted. buidhe 12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you mean we'd exclude book reviews written by people who are not professional book reviewers? OK. And why would that be bad? Guy (help!) 12:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you determine if a particular writer is a "professional book reviewer" if, for example, they are the author of a book review in the Spectator? buidhe 12:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , are they known for book reviews, or for something else? Example: a book review of a biography of Boris Johnson in the TLS will carry more weight than one written by Michael Gove in the Spectator. Guy (help!) 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What if the review of a book is by a notable person not notable for book reviews in a notable but "reliable" publication? So, how would Boris Johnson's review of the 4th edition of The Oxford Classical Dictionary in The Telegraph fit? Both Johnson and the Telegraph are notable, but one is allowable as a reliable source but the other is ... opinionated by definition and possibly therefore not. This is especially interesting because while often perceived as competent in the classics, Johnson is not a classicist, and while I presume the review was a review proper and not a reference in his opinion column, The Telegraph printed his words as both politician and hired "journalist". GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know. Guy (help!) 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pseudo-rhetorical question. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , heh, we can all get meta sometimes :-) Guy (help!) 18:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We already have guidance on this... see WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , and that is routinely ignored because "but this is fine for attributed opinion" is asserted to be a complete rebuttal to "nobody other than the original source has discussed it". Guy (help!) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit like a context matters sort of thing but it would be helpful if we had some actual examples from articles to look at. I'm trying to invent a hypothetical for discussion sake so forgive me if I miss something.  I think one example might be a case where the opinion is of someone who is somehow involved.  Perhaps there is a small protest because someone wants to put up some sort of controversial statue on their property.  Perhaps we have interviews in RSs with the neighbors but the property owner only issues a statement refuting claims about them on their personal blog.  They aren't an expert, in general they aren't notable but for direct involvement.  Would that be never OK, sometimes OK (assuming no FRINGE etc type issues), always OK?
 * Another hypothetical, we have some speech event that is disrupted. The disruption is covered by a few RSs but lets assume those sources largely lean North (trying to avoid R/L) and they mention some of the Northern leaning commentators who condemn the other side.  However, some of the Southern leaning commentators point out issues with the Northern view.  Let's assume all of these sources are at least in our RSP yellow to green band.  Do we include them as attributed opinions because the publications are notable (things like HuffPo, Reason, VOX, National Review etc)?  Springee (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , good question. In my view, an editorial in the print edition of the New York Times is pretty much by definition significant, while a contributed opinion on HuffPo generally is not unless there are third party sources that call it significant. Guy (help!) 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let’s explore this further.... WHY is an opinion piece in NYT significant, but one in HuffPo not significant? Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's the bar to publication. An NYT editorial speaks for the Times in a print edition that costs money to produce. A HuffPo opinion piece costs nothing to produce and is not taken as being the voice of HuffPo. The publisher vests very little in the content, whereas a bad NYT editorial can cause serious backlash. You can see that with the blowback WSJ gets about climate change denialism in its editorials. Guy (help!) 20:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So... an opinion in printed paper format is more significant than an opinion in digital format? Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a timeliness factor of UNDUE that needs to come into play here. *insert my usual rant on RECENTISM here* When the topic's content has gotten to a stable point (a controversy has died down, an event is months in the past, etc.), that's when it is reasonable to start to figure out the right commentary to include, and that's when a statement like this may be important , because now we can judge the big picture of opinions (RS or not) and figure out how to frame it, and that may make it obvious when we need to pull an opinion or commentary from the biased sources on this lists that are from experts that make sense in light of the full UNDUE picture. Just that that UNDUE picture is near impossible to see while the topic is still developing and thus best not to try to reach to these sources just yet. --M asem  (t) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned what I am suggesting elsewhere, but I think this slots in nicely if we also extend this to include deprecated sources and which are assumed that the person writing has control on what they are writing in that source (not opinions relayed through a different by-line writer) Namely this gets to things like critics reviews in the Daily Mail and other British tabloids for television and film; many are notable critics and their work in the DM and other UK tabloids is their own, and their voice for British films and television is generally of DUE weight in that field. --M asem (t) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I am sympathetic to this approach when it comes to pseudoscience, I admit that I'm not convinced that it works in general because not all areas of academia use the scientific method. For those that don't, treating academia as if it has no inherent bias may not work in terms of NPOV. In the example below, I don't think that you're distinguishing between opposition based on being pro-conversion therapy and opposition based on anti-censorship (which is not a science question). It would be perfectly possible to believe that conversion therapy is dangeous pseudoscience but also oppose censorship of it. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On this point the question is not one of censorship but the free market. Critics of Amazon in that example are opposing not censorship (done by governments) but free market capitalism, where sellers may choose to sell or not sell whatever they please. Criticism here appears to be directed at a business decision, not an act of censorship! GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Example
From Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality:
 * Gwen Aviles of NBC News reported in July 2019 that Amazon had withdrawn Nicolosi's books, which she described as "some of the most well-known works about conversion therapy", from sale following a campaign by gay rights activists. Amazon's decision received criticism from some commentators. In The American Conservative, the journalist Rod Dreher decried it as a step toward censorship. He noted that Amazon continued to sell other books that were controversial or could be considered dangerous or unscientific. In The Daily Signal, Joseph Nicolosi Jr. defended his father's books, and said that one man credited Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality with saving his marriage. On Townhall, Robert Knight described Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books as a form of censorship. Daniel Newhauser of Vice News reported that a group of Republican members of the United States House of Representatives was campaigning to reverse Amazon's decision, which they considered a form of censorship.
 * However, other commentators supported Amazon's decision. Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner observed that Nicolosi's books, as well as books by authors who considered themselves ex-gay, were controversial. While he considered the criticism that Amazon's decision to stop selling them had received understandable, he nevertheless believed the decision correct, describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". He noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available from its publisher. In a Newsweek article, journalist Kashmira Gander interviewed physician Natasha Bhuyan, who voiced her support for Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, noting that the books involve approaches rejected by every mainstream medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychological Association. Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful. Aviles dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific".
 * Kelly Burke of Australia's Seven News reported that despite the withdrawal from sale of the books by Amazon in the United States, they "remained available on Amazon's Australian site until 7NEWS.com.au approached the company for comment, after which they were hastily removed." Jordan Hirst of QNews reported that, following Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, gay rights organization Equality Australia was "petitioning Australian retailers to follow suit." Burke and Hirst both noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available for sale from booksellers such as Dymocks.


 * References

Of these, Dreher, Hirst, Knight, possibly Newhauser, Nicolosi, Jr., Reno and Reynolds seem to be opinion, with Reynolds reporting Damian Barr as close to primary as makes no real odds.


 * 1) Dreher (The American Conservative, Achtung-orange.svg, biased opinion-by-attribution): No. Dreher's only expertise in this area is being against gay marriage, the headline references the "homintern", a reference to the long debunked "gay agenda", and TAC is about fighting the class war, not analysing the merits of books making bogus medical claims.
 * 2) Hirst (QNews, not on RSP): I'd say no, this is an activist source and I don't immediately see anything there that's not covered in a more reliable one.
 * 3) Knight (Townhall, Achtung-orange.svg, attributed opinion only, may be unreliable for fact): No. "Tyranny can arrive fast in the form of tanks and jackboots. Or it can come gradually, snuffing out liberty and replacing it with fear. The latter is what we’re facing today, as cultural Marxists advance their doctrines and silence any dissension." This is nowhere close to a serious analysis of one retailer removing a book that advocates a practice denounced by the medical profession as dangerous.
 * 4) Newhauser (Vice News, Achtung-orange.svg no consensus): it reads as news not opinion but I'd lean no anyway on the basis that (a) Vice is crappy and (b) it appears redundant to better sources.
 * 5) Nicolosi, Jr (The Daily Signal, not on RSP): No, because he has a dog in the fight - in fact he practically is the dog, it was his father's book and he still performs conversion therapy.
 * 6) Polumbo (Washington Examiner, Achtung-orange.svg, partisan, avoid for exceptional claims, opinion to be attributed): No. Washington Examiner is a terrible source and "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wants to be the arbiter of acceptable thought" again misses the point that more reliable sources bring out, i.e. that conversion therapy is dangerous nonsense.
 * 7) Reno (First Things, not on RSP): No. This was included solely because I challenged Dreher on the basis of UNDUE and this appears to be the only article anyone could find that mentioned it in order to claim "third party coverage". Its relevant content in full: "Amazon has removed from its list of books for sale the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. His crime? Writing about techniques of “conversion therapy,” designed to help those who do not wish to identify as homosexual. As Rod ­Dreher points out, Amazon sells Hitler’s Mein Kampf, apologias for Stalin’s crimes, books by the white supremacist David Duke, a translation of The SS Leadership Guide, and countless other rebarbative titles. But something that casts doubt on today’s sexual ideologies? That’s beyond the pale. Amazon’s action demonstrates the singular power of LGBT activists to “unperson” a person." Again, completely missing the actual point, and appears to be essentially a blog post.
 * 8) Reynolds (The Advocate, not on RSP): No. It's a more sensationalised version of stuff covered better in Aviles and Gander.


 * HRC and SPLC are in a different category.
 * 1) HRC (not on RSP): I would not include statements from campaign groups unless a third party notes them - there are too many campaign groups, you can find one to say pretty much anything you like, though I guess HRC is better than most.
 * 2) SPLC (Yes Check Circle.svg reliable for hate groups and extremism): No. This one really; has a dog in the fight. They represented plaintiffs in Ferguson v. JONAH.


 * Reliable and secondary
 * 1) Aviles (NBC News, Yes Check Circle.svg Reliable)
 * 2) Burke (news.com.au - not on RSP as far as I can tell)
 * 3) Gander  (Newsweek, Yes Check Circle.svg Reliable)

Of course, the noticeable thing here is that the contentious opinion pieces all oppose Amazon's withdrawal of the book, whereas the reliable sources, even when reporting the Republican backlash, take the time to explain the status of conversion therapy and the concerns that underlay the campaign. Balanced coverage. This isn't about conservative v. liberal, it's about including one-sided primary sourced opinion pieces, with the apparent intent to "balance" reliable sources which come down on the side of not selling dangerous pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, in text attribution is often overused. Here's a couple of examples from Political correctness, Krugman and Nowrasteh would maybe meet the requirement for notable opinion, the others not so much. fiveby(zero) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does this egregious article still exist? It's shot through with FreeKnowledgeCreator's inherent bias. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Krugman, for sure - a Nobel laureate with a column in the NYT. Nowrasteh? He appears to be notable solely as part of the walled garden of conservative think-tanks. And the others, I agree. We should use secondary sources, and if none exist then it's probably not significant. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going by your (b) criteria, as both those columns seemed to be mentioned in other RS. In both cases it might be possible to have more than the quote, have actual text in WP voice adding context. Or maybe not, as you say: may should not be taken as should and there mustn't be any guidance that mandates or unduly encourages inclusion. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal website by teacher as source for Society of Merchant Venturers
This source is being used to source statements in the lede for Society of Merchant Venturers. While the site is not online anymore, from the archive it appears that it was created by a Bristol schoolteacher (based on a LinkedIn profile I found). I found what I felt was a suitable replacement, but another user contends that the Flocs source should be included. Additional opinions sought. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Broadcast vs online news apps
Is there a difference in reliability between the televised reporting of various broadcasted media outlets (whether CNN/Fox/ABC/CBS/NBC/BBC etc) and their online (written) app based reporting? From my experience, the online reports seem to be drastically condensed versions of what appears on screen, with the added addition of click-bait headlines, and that makes me think that there might be a valid distinction (to the detriment of the web versions). Note that I am not looking for discussion of differences between the various outlets (BBC vs CBS for example), but for discussion of differences between versions put out by the SAME outlet (ABC broadcast vs ABC online). Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we have the same issue between printed editions of newspapers and their online editions, but I could be wrong, so feel free to comment on that as well). Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is an issue of editorial identity for newspapers, at least in the UK. For instance, The Guardian and The Observer are totally separate newspapers in print with different editoral control, their content is treated the same as part of theguardian.com website. The same can be said for The Times and The Sunday Times and the (dreaded) Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, videos and cable news is much more difficult to WP:VERIFY than a printed article, and more editors can check the online than print versions of a newspaper. Citing a hourlong video without providing timestamp, for instance, is not reasonably verifiable. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that in general anything written serves our purposes better than audio or video, its much harder to check/search audio and video and unless there is a transcript much of whats said is subjective. If a news organization said one thing on the air and another in print I’d defer to the statement in print almost every time. The wide range of news apps makes a universal judgement hard though, for example I’ve found CNN’s app and online written reporting to be better and more in depth than their on-air reporting while the CBS app tends to be worse than their broadcasts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ad Fontes chart draws a distinction between CNN the news channel and website, and CNN cable. I suspect this would be hard to discuss without examples. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Each case would have to be judged on its merits. One thing I notice about broadcasts on channels such as the BBC is that the automated subtitles are ludicrous - routinely mispelling or misunderstanding the speech.  I'd like to know how accurate the sign language is too as I get the impression that a lot may be lost in translation. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew. The Ad Fontes chart (founded by a patent attorney, not a media expert) and all the other media bias charts have big holes in them. We should not be referring editors to any particular chart. See the CJR write-up about measuring media bias. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Martindale-Hubbell (lawyers.com, nolo.com, martindale.com)
Sources discussed:


 * Martindale-Hubbell
 * martindale.com
 * lawyers.com
 * nolo.com
 * https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/
 * https://www.martindale.com/marketyourfirm/profiles/

Note: I had to remove the links to lawyers.com and nolo.com because they are on the blacklist. Should we add martindale.com to that list?

Edit which brought this to my attention:

Are the ratings reliable? It looks like you can buy yourself a spot on the lists. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nolo.com has been discussed several times before, most recently this April, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_223 Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * nolo was spammed, not sure about the others - but it would not surprise me. We whitelisted nolo's legal encyclopaedia, there may also be content on Martindale that would qualify as reliable, but the peer-ratings are promotional. Isn't lawyers.com a storefront? Its /legal-info microsite purports to be a reference but most of it is pitches, and there's a gratingly chirpy "Hi, can we find you a lawyer?" chatbot. Guy (help!) 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lawyers.com is a storefront owned by Martindale-Hubbell. Go to the bottom of the lawyers.com main page and click on the "Legal Professionals; Build Your Business" link.


 * Martindale-Hubbell is owned by Internet Brands, which had a legal dispute with the WMF.


 * I say we blacklist martindale.com (whitelisting anything worth keeping) and put together a comprehensive list of all site owned by internet brands. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that they have been around since the 1800s. It seems lots of attorneys rely on it as a reliable rating system, unlike any other rating system. Maybe we shouldn't write them off so quickly because they were bought up by an Internet Brand company that evidently doesn't like Wikimedia.
 * The rating doesn't cost anything from what I can tell, but requires you to nominate yourself and give a list of at least 18 "attorneys or judges familiar with your legal ability in mind that you would like to nominate."3 Steps to Getting a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating Those peers are contacted and asked for information about you.


 * Just google "martindale-hubbell ratings reliable -martindale.com" to see what the lawyers think about it.
 * https://www.forthepeople.com/attorneys/peter-byron-gee-jr/
 * https://www.nejamelaw.com/nejamelaw-ratings.html
 * https://vanarellilaw.com/highest-attorney-rating/
 * https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/how-to-choose-a-lawyer/
 * https://www.mijs.com/congratulations-partners-earned-av-preeminent-rating-martindale-hubbell/
 * Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lawyers who have a martindale-hubbell rating are not a reliable source for how reliable martindale-hubbell ratings are. The conflict of interest is obvious.
 * How LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel are Running a Lawyer Ratings Scam
 * Martindale-Hubbell ups the ante: Price tag for lawyer to display rating online goes from $50 to $599
 * Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings: Pay-to-Play or a Ransom Demand??
 * Are Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com Dead? Why Every Martindale Client Should Care
 * Martindale Hubbell: Another Legal Icon Bites the Dust. But It Was Once Worth Its Weight in Gold (and Held for Ransom)
 * Does Martindale-Hubbell, as we knew it, still exist?
 * Who Cares About Martindale-Hubbell?
 * "Lawyer awards aren’t a new thing: anyone remember Martindale Hubbell? Sure, they’re about as relevant as Pogs nowadays, but at one point, an AV-Rating was something to brag about. Was it something more than a vanity placard or was it simply an earlier incarnation of these arguably worthless awards? I recently contacted Martindale to find out. And the selection process surprised me: submit a list of eighteen references (from outside your firm) to vouch for your abilities as an attorney. That’s it. Have 18 friends."
 * "I am deeply disgusted to report that the good name of LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel is officially worthless. This institution which has built its reputation on providing accurate information to lawyers and the general public about lawyers is now nothing more than a marketing organization.  Their ratings can not be trusted.  How do I know?  Simple, they recently rated me as an outstanding lawyer as rated by my clients.
 * I haven’t had clients since July 2000. And unless my three partners are secretly spending time rating my services (they aren’t) then this is complete and utter bullshit.  So beware consumers and fellow attorneys:  these ratings are nothing more than a scam to sell expensive plaques and foist the “ratings” on a public who might be looking for competent legal counsel."
 * "Let’s just say that I think it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea [ for Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Ratings program] to start everyone off as an AV 5.0 and (potentially) re-review them DOWN over a 10-year period".
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nerd Reactor
I requested an edit to a semi-protected article, and my request is being moderated and reviewed by user SNUGGUMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SNUGGUMS). SNUGGUMS wanted me to provide a reliable source for my requested edit. I provided the following news article as a source: http://nerdreactor.com/2017/10/26/lindsey-stirling-and-mark-ballas-earn-a-perfect-score-in-dancing-with-the-stars/. SNUGGUMS wanted me to seek your input on the reliability of Nerd Reactor as a news publication. What do you think? Could Nerd Reactor be considered a reliable enough reference to implement an edit on a semi-protected article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepare2getstarbucks (talk • contribs)
 * Seems like a somewhat obscure blog; I don't think it's sufficient for the context you're proposing it for, but then again the rest of that article's sourcing is a bit suspect. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Wrestling II: Sex offender or not? (RfC)
Heyo editors! There's recently been an edit dispute over a highly controversial topic regarding the recently-deceased Mr. Wrestling II where editors have been both claiming and refuting that the wrestler was a registered sex offender, sources and all.
 * Go to RfC

This could get heated very quickly, and I encourage all readers to come to a consensus on this issue at the RfC. <b style="color:#1dd400">dibbydib</b> <i style="color:#117f00">boop</i><i style="color:#117f00"> or </i><i style="color:#117f00">snoop</i> 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rbc.ru and rbc.ua
Are and  reliable sources or not? I cannot read Russian or Ukrainian, but they were used to readd material that had previously been sourced to a conspiracy site. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are used on more than a thousand articles including Vladimir Putin, War in Donbass, and International Space Station. But it is difficult to find info on this source in English so hard to judge. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , rbc.ua is RBC Ukraine News Agency. Russia’s Roskomnadzor blocked RBC Ukraine News Agency for “instigating the Crimean Tatars to war against the Russian Federation”. The cynic in me says it's probably reliable on that basis alone.
 * Rbc.ru appears to be RosBiznesConsulting, a Russian company. It was at one point critical of the Kremlin's kleptocracy but that changed in 2017: . I'm pretty sure this has come up before, the story rings a bell. It might be OK for inside baseball on Russian business but anything pertaining to Russian state interests I would treat it with great suspicion. Free and independent journalism is not really a thing in Russia right now. Guy (help!) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that they were the same site. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 10:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This one has a been a bit challenging for me. I’ve tried to avoid rbc.ru where feasible. But it does have fairly comprehensive coverage on some things and has been from time to time the only source, so I have used it if I feel comfortable with what I have in front of me. And, with that said, given Kremlin control of media, it’s hard to trust TASS or anything else. I think it’s ok but couldn’t give a firm statement. I guess we would have to examine how it’s being used and what it’s being used for. My Russian is adequate so if you have particular articles that I could review and see how it’s being used, maybe I can offer more of an opinion TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did pop in to The RS board on Russian WP and I think they have struggled with rbc.ru as well. Don’t know about the Ukrainian site  TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say evering before 2017 is reasomably reliable; everything after 2017 as reliable as any Russian news agency for example Interfax: reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be biased, but I consider pretty much everything in .ua domain, with a very few exceptions, as a blog platform, so no, not reliable. I just has a look and I do not see them producing own content.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is true that there is a lot of bullshit media in russia but rbc is one f the reliable, so are: meduza, novaya gazeta, kommersant. All of them are oppositional, for example you can check the story with Ivan Golunov and Meduza.--DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * user:buidhe give some examples of rbc articles that you have doubt in
 * And here is the russian article about the rbc info agency: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%91%D0%9A. It is number 532 in the global Alexa rating. DonGuess (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * omg, that’s actually extremely strange that there is so little written about RBK, but other media too. I’ll try to add some stuff about RBK. Do you think we should something else about the media? Cause it may seem like russian federation is almost 1984-like government. --DonGuess (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, they mostly republish articles from unreliable sources and their own work is of questionable quality. Nothing I can find indicates reliability. One note though, they’re different enough to need separate RfCs if it ever came to deprecation (the contexts are different, but both are unreliable for similar reasons). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

 * has been editing the article of List of the busiest airports in Europe for years, and has been adding the same reference citing outdated, old, and geographically wrong images from Encyclopedia Britannica. Claiming that Krasnodar, and the Krasnodar International Airport is located within Asia, when it is entirely within southern European Russia, in the western extremity of the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe.


 * Now, coming to his point that the southern part of European Russia, is apparently within the Asian continent, as he claims, is as absurd as it seems. If you follow the map shown in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is clearly wrong,  and shows that the North Caucasus is outside of Europe, and is a part of Asia, it seems like the North Caucasus is an exclave of Asia not even connected to Asia or Asian Russia by land, and is rather located within Europe. The image also excludes the smaller European portions of the transcontinental countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is also not like that Krasnodar is located close to the divider of Europe and Asia, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus, that he keeps adding the reference that apparently the airport is in the boundary of Europe and Asia, and also a bold claim that it can be considered in Asia, without citing any other references or sources supporting his claims. The Krasnodar International Airport is located within the city of Krasnodar, which is located in Krasnodar Krai, a federal subject of Russia, which is clearly located in Eastern Europe, which borders the Black Sea, and is separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov. In fact, he also believes that Sochi, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Russia, is also in Asia. So, according to this reference, the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, which is located in the North Caucasus, is also located in Asia, so why is it considered European then?


 * Here are the references: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danloud (talk • contribs)


 * They may not be alone []. Do you have an RS that contests this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica has been extensively discussed before, see WP:BRITANNICA Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on the used definition of the Europe-Asia boundary. If my memory serves me right, we were taught similar boundary in high school (with Mont Blanc as the highest mountain in Europe) - that was some 20 years ago. Books I have at hand (an old school atlas and small seven part encyclopedia) put Elbrus outside of Europe exactly like Encyclopedia Britannica. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as i know, European Russia covers the whole part of the Russian Federation west of the Ural Mountains, including North Caucasus, the northern part of the Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe. See these references: However, South Caucasus is an area disputed about whether its in Europe or not. The map used in Encyclopedia Britannica excludes whole Southern Russia, European portions of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are located in the southern part of the Caucasus, and suspiciously includes the European portion of Kazakhstan, which is almost never considered a part of Europe, and never added on the maps of Europe.
 * Southern Russia is the southernmost point of European Russia, where the western part borders the Black Sea and the eastern part borders the Caspian Sea. Krasnodar is a city located within the federal subject of Krasnodar Krai, on the Russian Black Sea coast, which is also narrowly separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov, if Krasnodar Krai was within the limits of the Asian continent then the Sea of Azov is a divider between Europe and Asia, just like the Ural Mountains or the Caucasus Mountains, which is it not, it is a sea in Eastern Europe. Also, recently Russia inaugurated the Crimean Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland (specifically Krasnodar Krai, which we are talking about here) to the Crimean Peninsula. It surpassed the Vasco da Gama Bridge and has been halted as the tallest bridge in Europe since 2019, so if whole Southern Russia was indeed in Asia, the Crimean Bridge is a bridge connecting Europe and Asia, just like the Bosphorus Bridge, which it is not. Mount Elbrus is located in the North Caucasus, and is indeed the highest peak in Europe.
 * So the output is that Southern Russia, including North Caucasus is generally considered within the European continent, the map used in Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, and i must admit i have never seen that map anywhere else, and this is also the first time i have seen a map of Europe without the southern part of Russia. The map also excludes a few European bits of Russia across the Ural Mountains. Krasnodar and Sochi are both within Europe, and not at the boundary of Europe and Asia, and absolutely not within Asia, as the reference claims. Horope (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , see also WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a question for WP:RSN. The best solution is an RfC to determine the consensus definition of Europe to be used in the article, because one could clearly argue this either way in good faith. Guy (help!) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." The article has two points of view on the location of Krasnodar airport (Europe and Asia). and  delete one of the opinions about the location of the airport.--Germash19 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cartographic history comment Krasnodar Airport is definitely in contested territory. Any time in the past three thousand years it would clearly be considered on the Asian side of the Black Sea. But since the 19th century the more expansive definition using the Urals as an eastern boundary for Europe has come into play but is not universal, and further disputes exist on where and how to draw the (entirely arbitrary and non-natural) boundary joining the Urals to the Caucasus. (Which were important in a lot of Soviet committee meetings that decided which SSR should have which territory) Classically though, it would seem very bizarre to put the Caucasus or eastern Black Sea littoral in Europe, when the standard divide was, and in many contexts remains, the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River. The idea of the Urals forming a land boundary came very late to the party. Maps illustrating the vagaries of this are here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth. GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Kerch Bridge also appears here: [] GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that Horope's and Danloud's definition of Europe agrees with that of the wikipedia article, so if there is a dispute about the eastern boundary of Europe then there needs to be a broader discussion on the issue, otherwise I would favor their position for internal consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a geography question not a RS question -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, is back again restoring his edits on the List of the busiest airports in Europe, without giving any explanation on why he did it, and not citing any sources, or discussing the matter here. He is going to keep doing this, because nobody warns him or takes any actions. Just like Danloud said. Horope (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Public contributions to EB brief
A side note, Reliable sources/Perennial sources says that Encyclopedia Britannica has allowed public contributions, 2009 on. In reality, that program lasted for a matter of months, it ended in 2010 at the latest. (I contributed three articles.) The impact of this program is minimal, at best. There's no dispute from me with regards to its yellow status, simply hoping to state the program ended quickly. Is that okay with everyone? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The Encyclopædia Britannica is a top-tier encyclopedia, and its "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" classification is solely due to its status as a tertiary source. —  Newslinger  talk   03:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator
What do people think about the reliability of The Spectator? It only appears to have been discussed once before, regarding issues around BLP. For those not familiar, The Spectator is a right-wing British magazine founded in 1828, having been previously edited by now Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It has been cited over 3000 times according to. As much of what is written in The Spectator is opinion, I think all statements should be attributed per WP:NEWSBLOG. I think The Spectator can be considered reliable for cultural coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is mostly opinion and I would attribute on that basis. It's not quite as bad as Quadrant imo, but it does promote climate change denial and publishes columns with questionable interpretation of the science on the origins of homosexuality. I would avoid for anything science-based and I would be skeptical of their Brexit coverage as well, but it should be OK for culture reviews and attributed opinion. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh hell no. Not reliable for any claim of fact, possibly usable for attributed opinion but not to establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help!) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Spectator isn't exactly my cup of tea either. While I absolutely wouldn't cite it for any scientific claim, I thought its attributed opinion on Who's Who (UK) (considering the suprising dearth of coverage on the publication), cowritten by Michael Crick, was usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Michael Crick has sufficient stature that I would probably agree. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It publishes a very wide range of opinion pieces, with regular and occasional columnists covering a remarkably wide range of views from centre left to raving right wing, with a famously light editorial touch and almost all pieces clearly attributed to their author rather than the magazine. Attribute to the author as opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Spectator is the world's oldest weekly magazine. It therefore has a long history in which it has had many famous editors, writers and political positions.  Currently it has the same proprietor as the Daily Telegraph and so it's rather like The Observer – the world's oldest Sunday newspaper which is now part of the Guardian group.  The position of these periodicals on current affairs is unimportant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.  I often root through old sources to find material for our articles.  For example, yesterday I dug up a 19th century map of Timbuctoo to answer a question about current geography.  Sources like The Spectator, with their long history and rich archive, are vital for work on topics such as people and places in London.  As with all sources, one has to be careful but so it goes.  The Lancet is the world's oldest medical journal but recently had to retract a paper which was based on fabricated data.  Caveat lector. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , but The Lancet doesn't publish political op-ed with minmal prior review, which is the Spectator's main game. An occasional retraction is one of the things that tends to prove the reliability of a scientific journal. The Lancet also published Wakefield's fraud. Guy (help!) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lancet does publish op-eds such as its attack on the Royal Society. It's interesting to note that that editor, Andrew Horton, previously wrote for The Observer.  The usage of all such sources depends on the context and the claim and so the idea that this is a simple binary matter is facile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, and they are marked as such. We don't accept these as MEDRS, but attribute them as commentary where relevant. I recall several such from Fiona Godlee. But peer-reviewed papers in The Lancet are presumptively reliable, as is reporting (rather than editorial) in The Financial Times. But The Spectator mainly does opinion. Guy (help!) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable for the things it is reliable for - Whilst I'm sure the label "right-wing" already has some people ready to ban the Spectator, it does cultural reviews and so-forth as well and is obviously a reliable source on them. Its opinion pieces should be treated the same as any other opinion piece in any other publication. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Eye Wales
A number of issues have recently arisen around the creation of an article on a blog called The Eye Wales, which has since been reverted after it was a WP:ADVERT. It now exists as a page about its author Phil Parry. The Eye says it dedicates itself to investigative journalism, mainly targeted at the Welsh concept of the Crachach and the existence of a Welsh media and high society elite. That is fine, but I am hoping to gather some opinions on whether the content of The Eye Wales is sufficiently reputable to make it suitable for citing, especially where it tends to be used on articles about fringe political topics on articles. Parry has journalistic credibility, he is a former BBC Wales and HTV (now ITV Wales) journalist, but has been freelance since leaving the BBC in 2010, and now seems to engage in writing on articles including the activities of anonymous users in the Nation.Cymru comment section, he relies on Pepe the Frog memes, and seems quite fascinated with Carol Vorderman's bottom. I'm not sure the website as it currently stands should be cited as heavily as users like currently do. Llemiles (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:RSSELF and WP:BLOGS cover this. I can't find any coverage of it online, apart from a passing mention in a Western Mail article . Capewearer (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With contributions like this (and of course, the recent example raised by Llemiles above) it's a bit difficult to take The Eye Wales seriously. I'm surprised at the sensationalist nature of the writing, I was somehow expecting and hoping for better. Unfortunately the website does not suggest it is anything other than a personal project of its editor (who is clearly very obsessed with Ifan Morgan Jones and Nation.Cymru). Sionk (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

clarkprosecutor.org
For whatever reason I have been skimming the sources at a lot of articles on serial killers and other murderers in the last few days. And hopefully it will shock no one if I point out that a great many such articles are sensationalist garbage with no reliable sourcing that should be burned to the ground. But, what brings me here today is the website clarkprosecutor.org, used as a source on many such articles. It appears to genuinely be the webpage of the district attorney of Clark County, Indiana. It hosts some large number of pages on crimes outside of that county; for example, is used as a source on Robert Anthony Buell. Is this a reliable source? --JBL (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The site has apparently existed since 1998 according to the copyright notice, which is confirmed by this archive from October 11 1999, which look almost identical to the current website aside from the different attorney. The current head of the website is Jeremy Mull who took office in 2015. Much of the text on the website appears to have recived little update since its inception, as can be seen in the enormous similarity in the drugs section between the 1999 version and the current version of the drugs notice. This 2002 archive of the Buell article is essentially the same as the article you linked, making it effectively a relic of the late 90's - early 2000's internet like the Space Jam website. The websites updates to the death penalty stopped in 2008, so I would not consider the source to be reliable for up to date information on legal issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As whether it is usable as a source, given the above caveats, most of the uses appear to be articles on specific criminals like the one you linked, and is a collation of information found in legal documents. appears to be another (obviously non-government) site with a similar scope to these pages. Obviously there is not likely to be any further update needed to an article about someone executed in the 1970's for instance, but I would prefer newspaper sources and books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Gazelle - The Palestinian Biological Bulletin
Hosted either here: https://jaffacity.wixsite.com/gazellebulletin/ - or here - http://www.gazelle.8m.net/index.html - unclear which of these is supposed to be the "official" address.

This appears to be the homegrown, self-hosted, non-peer-reviewed journal of a single author (this guy). We got a heads-up from deWP about the possibly fishy status of several taxonomic descriptions (see current AfD here: Articles for deletion/Chilean blue whale) and that publication in particular ; unlike them we seem to have escaped getting an English article about this masterpiece, also published in the "journal". Following that, I have removed the dozen or so citations to this source that the author has inserted on enWP over the last few years.

I wouldn't have thought that there's much room for disagreement here, but since just reverted me here, it appears we need to have this discussion. What bearing being hosted on Researchgate and having an ISSN number has on reliability is a bit of a mystery to me, however. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Also the paper itself "Ornithomimid Dinosaur Tracks from Beit Zeit, West of Jerusalem, Palestine" is not relevant to the Tendaguru Formation article itself, which is in Tanzania. As far as I can tell the article is not cited in the text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tisquesua I'm not sure what your thinking here is. Researchgate is considered an unreliable source per WP:RSP "ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate)."

Tisquesusa has since reverted his re-adding the publication, so there's no longer an issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw; it is appreciated :) However, if a couple more people wanted to add their assessment, that would be useful. I can see this coming up again - the author is currently busy decorating lots of other language WPs, and sooner or later that journal is going to rear its head again here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is being spammed with the intent to promote the "journal" then it should be added to the Spam blacklist, as as a publication with no effective peer review it is no better than something published in OMICS. do you think that this is worth adding to your unreliable script? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Headbomb's ref highlighter, that already is picking it up; sole red standout on several of the pages where I removed it. Works as advertised! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Court sentence being used in an article on archaeology
At Iruña-Veleia an editor has twice made this edit. "Despite this assertion held by the accusation, the two UPV-EHU experts committed an appreciation error, since the lines carved in the pieces are not actually letters, and no "RIP" can be inferred from them, as concluded in the June 2020 sentence.

I'm also unsure about this source (which in any case is being misused): In May 2009, prominent archaeologist Edward Harris published the conclusions of a detailed assessment of the findings in Iruña-Veleia, according to the copies submitted to him by the excavations team in charge, with the scholar examining the excavation method, recording of plan and section data, as well as the compilation and illustration of stratigraphic sequences. He concluded that the findings held true, according to the evidence provided. As you can tell by the title, it's something written "To Whom It May Concern" on a blog. The author is an expert on stratigraphy (which isn't really an issue for the apparent hoax), but on a blog? In any case the blog is since a court case last week directing people to a new website arguing the issue, so it looks as though both sites are not neutral about the artefacts in question. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Guardian source is obviously usable, but I'm not sure for the others, especially if they're both primary and transient... — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Photos
It seems there is not policy (as far as I know) that forbids the use of photos published by news organisations. As plenty of people seem to think they are not RS maybe we need to write this into policy.

Should we forbid the use of photos published without accompanying text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A photograph should never be used as a source for information on Wikipedia... however, a photograph can be used to illustrate information that is otherwise reliably sourced. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But do we say that anywhere?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do know that we have discussed the issue of images from an original research perspective (saying that an analysis of a photo by an editor would constitute OR)... and we do have WP:OI (but that talks about images created by Wikipedians, not images created by news orgs.) we may also have discussed them from a WP:COPYRIGHT perspective.  I would agree that we should say something about them from an WP:V and WP:RS perspective. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note, using photos from media organizations on WP is prevented by WP:NFCC - we do not allow photos which are meant to be purchased from press corps like Gettys to be used as they have commercial value, unless they are the subject of discussion themselves (like the flag raising on Iwo Jima). --M asem (t) 16:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is using them not citing them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider what if we were using graph data from a news article...We're allowed to cite graph information but in such a case I would expect that we know the source of the graph data is reliable - which might be the actual work that published it but more often is a third-party source. But in this case, we can't make any further interpretations beyond WP:CALC of graph data in the articles. (eg trying to interprete climate change data for ourselves, that would need the expert statements of what it means, but dropping a 100-yr graph of average temps going up, we can say this shows the average rising temperature over the past 100 years). Photos become more fuzzy because nearly everything about that is not hard data but interpretation that CALC doesn't apply to, and thus we have never considered them as reliable sources in discussions, but never iterated in policy. --M asem (t) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am asking if we should.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We should, but I think its more an NOR issue than an RS, though the source of the photo/graph/image needs to be taken into account as a first step (sourcing graph data from a questionable source isn't going to work either). --M asem (t) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If a picture show X its not OR to say it shows X. Thus the only issue would be its its depiction of X an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have to be careful because a photo can't show other things like intent or action or the like. I've seen editors try to show a photo of X and Y together (X and Y being BLP) and then assert some type of connection between X and Y that may or may not exist. And unless the origin of the photo is clearly know, other factors, like identifying a location based on landmarks, as well as potentially identifying specific persons if the image is not clear. There's almost no case I can see using an image (outside graphs) solely as a reliable point of information. --M asem  (t) 18:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Over at millhist it crops up every so often for issues such as military decorations (well this picture shows it on his uniform (but that is usually OR anyway)) for example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the OP (which seems to be sort talking about a photo being a source) this policy creates a sourcing requirement for the presence of material, not a requirement that restricts the inclusion of sources. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) I think that Blueboar is addressing a different issue, which is that the caption of an image or sometimes the mere presence of an image in context is itself a statement which may need to be sourced. An example is that putting an image of John Smith into an article on Australians may be an implied statement that John Smith is an Australian. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that is what I am talking about, a lot of users seem to be under then impression that A: Photographs are not RS (like headlines) and that B: you cannot judge the RS by the quality of pictures it uses (because of A, we cannot use the picture). But this does not appear to be the case. So therefore as some users seem to think (and from their tone agree) that they should not be regarded as reliable I am asking the community should that in fact be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just a category error. My sandwich from lunch can't be used as a reliable source, because it lacks the relevant kind of information.  The same is true of photographs.  People who say "in the photo one can easily see ..." are committing original research, just as if I tried to add "anyone who has a bite of my sandwich can easily tell it contains tomatoes, and is delicious".  --JBL (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Online photographs are basically digital art. The art and layout departments in today's clickbait environment may not always consider potential ethical implications when using a manipulated photograph to accompany an article headline, especially when working under time restrictions in the race to beat competitors to the punch. You can also liken it to artistic license - the artists often see nothing wrong with combining elements from different digital images that took place at the same time in basically the same location. The editor-in-chief and copy editors may not even know an image was manipulated until after they go online. I retired quite early from a 30+ year career in media, but have maintained an expert level in photography, digital image enhancement and photoshopping, field & post production for online video and television, and there are times when I can't even tell the difference when the job is done well; therefore, I have no reservations in saying that images are/can be changed without us ever knowing it. I agree with Masem in that images are not a RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is Manual of Style/Images. Images can be taken from any source, provided copyright is respected. But, "Images should look like what the are meant to illustrate." I don't know how specific the guideline needs to be. Editors should not use images to provide misleading information because of a perceived loophole in policy or guidelines, but should adhere to the spirit of the project.
 * I remember a case where an editor created an image of Hitler and Stalin. In fact they had never met and the photo was deleted.
 * TFD (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And what if the are from an RS? How do we know an image is of what it claims to be?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is from a generally accepted RS we accept the image is what it is claimed to be in the RS. Anything else is OR unless its clearly and obviously a mistake (source says dress is white, dress is red in photo etc) We would not use the photo *as* a source for articles in most cases because our rules around inclusion of non-free media start to come into play. The exceptions are specifically where the photo itself is the subject of the article. This seems to be a rather specific query however, is there an example that has prompted this? If you look at the very top of this board in quite clear writing, it says in order to get an answer we need the source, the article, and the content the source is to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is more a meta issue than one with a specific example in mind. The question probably should have been asked at the talk page of WP:RS itself - as a preliminary to (potentially) amending the guideline - rather than here at RS/N. That said, since it HAS been asked here, I don’t see any harm in continuing to discuss it.


 * As I see it, the underlying question is: in terms of reliability, do we consider photos appearing in news sources as being SEPARATE from the news reporting (as we do with headlines), or are they PART of the news reporting? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictures being an instant snapshot of a situation lack context without a written description. You cant use a picture as a source for anything except the basic facts of what the picture is showing. Take Eddie Adams most famous picture. Its a man pointing a gun at another man. There are plenty of factual things about the photo you can state, but anything actually useful (where it is, why, context, who, that one of the subjects was in the midst of being executed) cannot be sourced without accompanying text. Taken in isolation you cant even say its not a still from a war movie. As a primary source a photo is reliable for the basic details of what the photo shows. In much the same way any other visual media is a primary source for its own content. So I would say they cannot be considered except as part of the reporting (except in the cases like the above where the picture is the subject itself). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Catholic News Agency

 * Article: David Haas
 * URL: (general),  (article in question)

Hi folks, I don't see much discussion of Catholic News Agency on this board (it only comes up once in the archives with a tangential mention) so I'm looking for opinions on its reliability. Right now, the second link above is being used to support a claim that a BLP was accused of sexual misconduct, which is obviously an area where we want high-quality sourcing. In this case, I've looked at the primary sources they're referring to, and I believe that the article is accurately reporting that the accusations exist. I've modified the article to attribute the report to Catholic News Agency, but I'm interested in wider input on the reliability of the source, both in this case and in general. My initial read is that it's not the best source (though it does at least claim to have editorial oversight), but in this case I think using it with attribution is reasonable. creffett (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) (please ping in replies)
 * I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to its about page, "Catholic News Agency was founded in 2004, in response to Pope St. John Paul II’s call for a “New Evangelization." It is one of the fastest-growing Catholic news providers in the world." I would say it is probably reliable for facts but obviously expresses a Catholic POV and should be combined with other sources for NPOV. When in doubt, attribute. In the case where a Catholic person is accused of misconduct I would say it's entirely usable as admission against interest. But in that case it doesn't hurt to attribute. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like something that can be used as evidence of notability, though, for instance. It sounds like they haven't been caught lying - which is good, but then I think about the deprecated LifeSiteNews, which is used as an opinion outlet by Catholic hierarchy. To what extent are they hooked into that media sphere? - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may be right about that. I randomly clicked on their front page and CNA describes Czechia as "a largely atheistic country", but Pew says only 25% of Czechs identify as atheists ("largely secular country" would be accurate). However, CNA is probably reliable for reporting what Pell says (just not WP:DUE). <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's widely cited in RS books, but mostly for quoting Catholic Church figures. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else, does not establish notability. Its mission is to evangelise, not to publish fact, so we should not treat it as an authority for fact. Guy (help!) 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Week ( theweek.co.uk / theweek.com )
The Week is cited a couple of hundred times on Wikipedia. Is it reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Falls into the same ballpark of works like The Nation; weekly politically-oriented news magazine. Typically editorial practices for such a work, and have not seen anything to suggest that they engaging in any fabrication or the like (in searching for any incidents on the web). May not be the Old Grey Mare but nothing to blemish editorial practices that I can see and when I've used them, nothing that stands out. Only small bit to note being a more central (but still left-leaning) magazine. So reliable. --M asem (t) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to note, there is a UK version and a US version, same ownership (like Wired US and Wired UK). Same rational applies to both. --M asem (t) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Week isn't so much a publisher as a re-publisher.
 * Pieces which are "original" to The Week are composites of pieces from elsewhere. For example, a piece on Covid Lockdown in the UK is peppered with attributions:
 * Britons feel betrayed, said Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.
 * This escapade has unleashed "public rage," said Rachel Shabi in Independent.co.uk.
 * Johnson has sabotaged public trust, a crucial weapon in the fight against Covid-19, said Janice Turner in The Times.
 * The Left wants Cummings fired because he knows how to win, said Nick Ferrari in the Daily Express.
 * That’s why the prime minister won’t get rid of him, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian.
 * Other pieces are covered by the small print disclaimer at the foot of the final page:
 * which leads to a list of publications and their websites with no way of linking fact to source.
 * In short, it's reliable, but citing The Week denies credit to the original source of the material, and falls shy of being truly verifiable. Cabayi (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, it's reliable, but citing The Week denies credit to the original source of the material, and falls shy of being truly verifiable. Cabayi (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked up some of the uses on obvious hot button topics. What I found was not encouraging. Articles with no bylines, listicles and the like, but also attributed comment to (e.g.) Francis Wilkinson (who he? -- ed.), whose qualification as a valid opinion appears to be that he writes opinion pieces, mainly in The Week, where he was at the time Executive Editor. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I don't see any valid reason for citing opinions form people known only for having opinions, in publications that only really publish opinions. We should strive for a more grounded approach to fact. I don't see any indicators that this is a generally unreliable source, i.e. that it makes stuff up, but I owuld say that any of the current uses I have seen should not, and probably would not, survive any challenge to removal. Guy (help!) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

deaddeath.com
I want to ask about whitelisting a citation for the death of Mr. Wrestling II, but I can't find any mention of it in the archive for the blacklist. I want to know it's reliable, and/or why it was blocked. -- Auric   talk  21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No editorial oversight and simply reprints material from elsewhere on the web, including rumours from social media. It may also copy from reliable sources, but the social media thing is clearly a no-no. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the entry for the wrestler is indeed, just copies of social media posts and a summary of his life stolen from elsewhere on the web. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I decided to go with another ref.-- Auric   talk  13:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I found this by accident yesterday. It aggregates other reports, of distinctly variable reliability, including what appears to be speculation. Basically clickbait, not a usable source. Guy (help!) 10:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

HIV & AIDS In Africa
At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, suggested four books that he thought were relevant and helpful. One was. disputes its reliability because Orbis Books is "unabashedly religious and Marxist," and because several of the chapters are written by Catholic priests. He has removed all content attributed to it, including secondary citations to pre-existing content. In general, is this book reliable for this article? Are chapters written by expert priests reliable? Thank you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see wp:undue issues with this, and it can be argued to not exactly be third party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Could you elaborate on the undue issue, please? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said its not exactly third party, thus one can argue it represents a very narrow and biased viewpoint. One can go as far as to say self serving and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or not. I assume you haven't read it?  One of the sentences blanked from the article is this:  In early days of AIDS, discriminatory views of political leaders were supported by religious leaders, including Catholic clergy, hampering the response and worsening the pandemic in some parts of Africa.  That's cited to the director of the African Jesuit Historical Institute, who has a PhD in African political history from Oxford.  I would not consider that a self-serving statement, and I bet nobody else would, either.
 * Given that this article is "Named organization and subject", it would be WP:UNDUE to omit everything published by anyone related to that organization, but that is a subject for a different noticeboard. The question for RSN is whether this source is reliable enough to support this statement.  What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Self serving and "serving that version of my organisation" are not the same thing. It promotes a specific opinion, one that may not be independent of the publishers agenda, hence why I said this is more a case of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The same claim could be made with greater justice of basically any newspaper. I assume that you don't think that major newspapers regularly publish things that their publishers disagree with?  Hearst would be rolling in his grave.  WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with whether publishers choose to publish authors whose views are congenial to their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but it does if those views are only represented by that one source (it is after all what it means, an undue opinion). Yes (by the way) I would and have said that if an opinion only appears in one newspaper then it might well be undue to mention it).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Before we get to in the weeds on that quote, which is why this should all be on the talk page, it was also going to be a two sentence section where the second one was promotional. The bigger issue was that the page cited doesn't seem to be in the source, page 522 out of 424.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats wp:v, not RS. But its a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't bring it here :) AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I cited "location" 522, not "page" 522, because I cited the Kindle version of the book. I also said I'm not sure how to cite a Kindle, so if you have some advice I would be obliged. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Add a bookmark on the kindle which you can then view the page number. Alternatively you can search for the quote you are using on the google books page, which will return the page number, though you may not be able to view the page itself.  I recommend the search because no one wants to be forced to use the kindle.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , The source was also used as a secondary source to further support existing content. While admittedly I only skimmed the chapters that didn't seem directly relevant, and while I haven't worked my way through the entire book yet, I haven't seen anything that looked like a fringe position. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would still consider it possibly undue,. It doers not have to be fringe. If there are other sources just use those. My concearn would be this on its own.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Exactly the kind of source we should steer clear of in a controversial area like this. Guy (help!) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what RS has to do with this as it is mostly a Due Weight issue. It is a weak source for two reasons. One the publisher follows liberation theology and is an imprint of a Catholic order which has a missionary focus.   The Chapters added so far were not written by experts but by Catholic priests, Jesuits I believe.  I am not sure where the "expert" part came for the priests, though?AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably when they get PhDs from Oxford, is my guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a priest or a Jesuit does not preclude being an expert... I agree that this is more a due weight issue though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for trying to be brief. One priest was a director of a what looks like a Jesuit archival institute, which does produce a journal, who does not seem to produce much if any scholarship.  Unless everyone with a DPhil is an expert then he would not be.  The other priest "taught" at a number of schools but mostly just seems to contribute to various church magazines, though again he does have a Ph.D. Too be fair some of the other priests in the book do publish, seem to have actual academic jobs, and might fit under expert.   But this should be decided on a DUE basis at the actual talk page.  For all I know I just missed where these two priests have shown expertise.  AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:V's only definition of expert is anyone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The PhDs are optional under our rules.  Mkenda certainly qualifies, as Routledge (as in, "the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences") tapped him to write a chapter in ISBN 9781134505777.
 * Your edit summary, when you blanked this, said that you thought the source was WP:QUESTIONABLE, not that you thought it was UNDUE. UNDUE would mean that you thought there was too much in the article from priests writing that their organizations were discriminating against PWA.  If you're no longer concerned that the source is unreliable for the stated claim, and you don't believe that there is too much criticism about discrimination against PWA, then maybe you'd like to go restore that sentence and its citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is dishonest to say that I said it was WP:QUESTIONABLE when I in no way tied myself to that wikilink. Unless you are arguing that "questionable" doesn't have a understood English meaning, I ask you too strike your comment and not misquote me again.  The rest of your comment is a strawman argument and belongs on the talk page anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have made more than 500 edits at this point. If you use jargon, we're going to assume that you're doing it on purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dishonesty is its own punishment. Everyone can look at the diffs if they want and see that you did not accurately portray what I wrote. So I guess you are arguing that questionable does not have English meaning and can only be understood as jargon.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , You said "this source seems questionable", which is why I brought it here. You didn't say anything about due weight. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Oxford University does not award PhDs and never has. Anyone claiming to "get PhDs from Oxford" should be treated with the utmost derision. I also agree that any self-published book by a POV source connected with the book's and the article's subject should not be considered reliable, nor consideration of it due. Having purportedly got a (probably theological) doctorate does not make a priest an impartial expert on the failings of the church to which he belongs. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference between a PhD and a DPhil is purely semantic -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guerillero. The "DPhil" is in history, not theology.  And Wikipedia does not require sources to be impartial; see WP:BIASED.  Excluding everything written by historians who also happen to be Catholic priests is its own kind of WP:DUE (and surely we'd rather use a book written by an African historian–priest than a newsletter written by a journalist for a local diocese?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Though Dr. Phil not so much... Guy (help!) 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The DPhil was for history.  Thesis was on the effects of state policy in Tanzania on the Chaggas(sp?) people.  Of course it was from the Jesuit private hall :), still oxford is oxford so pretty sure we can trust them AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

HowStuffWorks
HowStuffWorks (not to be confused with the excellent The Way Things Work) is a website that describes itself as a "...source of unbiased, reliable, easy-to-understand answers and explanations of how the world actually works." It has been cited on Wikipedia over 3,000 times according to The site has been around since 1997, it has only been briefly discussed on this noticeboard twice before in 2009 and 2011, alongside some other tangential discussions. I can find few secondary sources on the site other than a discussion of its editorial policy from 2008. In my opinion the HowStuffWorks is a mid quality tertiary source, it's not a terrible low quality clickbait site, but that it is a lower quality source than Britannica, similar to the stories on history.com, and its medical content should not be cited at all per WP:RSMED. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I glanced through a dozen or so of their articles. My impression is that their article quality varies widely, and seems to be mostly due to the freelance contributions. When one of their articles identifies sources, it may be better to use the sources instead. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've seen much worse sites but it isn't great either. There isn't really a good reason to cite it in most cases. Wikipedia should generally not cite tertiary sources unless they have a good reputation for accuracy (like Britannica), but even then sparingly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If HowStuffWorks is the only source for a statement I am highly doubtful of it. Therefore, uses should be replaced by more reliable sources. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

thisismoney: just Daily Mail reprints?
I added thisismoney.co.uk as an additional URL under Daily Mail on WP:RSPDM. It self-describes as the "money section of the MailOnline" in its about page.

I just thought I should double-check here: is anything on thisismoney not just DM/MoS reprints?

(Though I'd think the "money section of the MailOnline" was sufficient to be covered by WP:DAILYMAIL.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, being part of something means they are covered by the rules pertaining to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it not self evident that if it reprints stories from the entirely separate Mail and MoS, then it is simply untrue to say, for editorial purposes, it is governed by the same rules as MailOnline. It stands to reason that the entire point of choosing a separate brand name and domain, is to draw a distinction from MailOnline, reflecting what is, as anyone would know if they had ever picked up a copy, the fact that "This Is Money" originates from the name of the financial section of the print editions. Being part of the MailOnline would appear to only refer to the fact the MailOnline is the digital platform, and if all thisismoney.co.uk do is reprints of the print editions, it stands to reason the only involvement of MailOnline is technical support or other related activities not directly pertinent to editorial control, which presumably has to be quite strict in any financial newsroom. The City Editor of the Mail has been in post for twenty years, and for ten years before that was Financial Eitor of The Guardian. This surely contradicts everything we have been told about the reputation, culture and environment of the MailOnline by the more overtly biased sources out there, and as I have noted above, there is a notable absence from Wikipedia itself of anyone except Wikipedia being prepared to declare even the MailOnline generally unreliable. Brian K Horton (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart
Ad Fontes Media is an organisation founded by former patent attorney Vanessa Otero, which publishes a Media Bias chart and gives ratings to to sources similar to Media Bias/Fact Check. It has been invoked in recent discussions on this noticeboard notably Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and the Fox News RfC. Their methodology can be found here, which apparently involved the rating of around 1800 individual articles and TV shows. My question is why is this source being invoked as an authority on source reliability when MB/FC is considered unreliable, as both are self published sources and as pointed out by in the neutrality discussion above and in the Columbia Journalism Review: "Both efforts [Media Bias Fact Check and Ad Fontes] suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production."

I would like to know what other users think of this source and other self published media bias authorities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently Ad Fontes has come up before, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290, but that was for its use as an authority of the political position of a news outlet in article space, not to justify discussions on this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable for the same reason as MBFC. I don't see any major differences between these two publications in terms of their reliability. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable as it's a professionally controlled project with multiple trained people on their team. They have a scientific approach and training. They are the best such site in existence. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. As with MBFC, this is an armchair analysis of media bias by amateurs and non-experts. The people who put these ratings together are random volunteers who get $100, a mug and a t-shirt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Usable with attribution (as no such assessments can be an exact science): I don't personally treat it as an authority but as a good reference/guide. The project also initially started small but funding was a success and it has a team, became notable, etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not cite it on the encyclopaedia, it is a useful guide for us here to be factored in holistic assessment of a source based on multiple perspectives on its reliability. Guy (help!) 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Attribute (encyclopedia) / Minimal Weight (debates). "but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production." resonates. Certainly doesn't imply a scientific approach, accepting the irony that "but a drop" is a very unscientific phraseology. Brian K Horton (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of extended quotation solely from Daily Mail on Death of Keith Blakelock
Please see Talk:Death of Keith Blakelock for discussion of deleting or keeping an extended quotation sourced solely to the DM, including a claim that noting the DM's habit of fabricating quotes is a serious BLP violation, It's a BLP violation because you're alleging of the reporter with the byline that he makes things up. - so, more eyes would be welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion there has become a relitigation of WP:DAILYMAIL, to the point of pinging the RFC closers to this end. As such, I've moved the discussion here from there, pasted in below - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, not the board to discuss BLP violations - that's WP:BLPN. If this claim of a serious BLP violation is in fact a serious claim, and not just a spurious justification thrown into an argument in support of keeping the Daily Mail, I am sure it will be brought to BLPN properly. Else withdrawn - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that the quote is overly long anyway, and I don't think its removal seriously detracts from the article. The question is whether the quote is WP:DUE. Usage of the Daily Mail was "generally prohibited" for good reason. As for the editors who are upset with the Daily Mail's removal, we saw similar drama with portals where a handful of holdout editors were strongly opposed to their removal. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dacre-era Daily Mail plus the context suggests that we shouldn't trust it - they have been known to fabricate quotes. Guy (help!) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that some of these claims seem to be almost intentionally vague and or faintly ridiculous precisely to avoid legal action. Others seem deliberately crafted to have two quite different meanings, for the same purpose. You'll never go wrong with a specific claim, as long as you're not lying, or even if you had reasonable grounds to believe it was true (thereby excluding "I read it on Wikipedia" of course). Specificity. Accuracy. Umabiguity. Should all come naturally to encyclopedia editors, or so you would have thought. Brian K Horton (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ettoday.net
This site was linked in a couple of articles as Epoch Times, but it's not an Epoch Times domain (maybe it was syndicated). Looking at the site through Google Translate, it appears to be the Higashimori New Media Holding Co., Ltd - new media being in my experience largely a synonym for ad-riddled clickbait, which certainly looks to be the case here.

Is it just designed for a completely different audience, or is it as crappy as it looks? Guy (help!) 08:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(I suppose there is a chance that the site could be a minor Epoch Times offshoot, and if proof could be found supporting that, I would be glad to change my assessment) Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ   K'''ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)  12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From a quick look, the site seems not to be affiliated with Epoch Times, even if the names are similar. The articles on ETtoday are still not very reliable though, most are poorly sourced and have clickbait headlines like "Nine Children Born! 29-Year-Old Man Complained That his Wife Was Sick and Could Not Give Birth. A Second Later, She Was Pregnant Again". The political reporting on ETtoday is not nearly as partisan as what I would expect from Epoch Times, which is somewhat good I suppose. For their political stories, ETtoday mostly focuses on politics in Taiwan, with fewer conspiracy theories and self-supporting "exposés" than Epoch Times has.


 * Just wanted to point out that Higashimori is a Japanese word and the news title translation is horribly wrong. Goes on to say how we shouldn't rely on Google Translate too much. ◢ <i style="background-color:#d103ac; color:#fff">   Ganbaruby!  </i>  (Say hi!) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. ETToday is a subsidiary of the Eastern Broadcasting Company (zh:東森電視), one of the largest cable television networks in Taiwan. It is a "well-established news outlet" per WP:NEWSORG. It is in no way affiliated with the Epoch Times. If some articles link it as "Epoch Times", these citations should be edited to fix the mistake. feminist &#124; freedom isn't free 02:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum: "new media" (Chinese: 新媒體) in the Chinese-language context commonly refers simply to online-focused news media rather than newspapers or TV. It suggests nothing about the quality of articles. feminist &#124; freedom isn't free 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, very helpful. Guy (help!) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. The situation is more complicated than it initially looks, although I don't think it affects reliability. ETToday was indeed owned and operated by the Eastern Broadcasting Company, but according to Who Owns the World's Media?: Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (2016) published by Oxford University Press and edited by Eli Noam, the Eastern Broadcasting Company's ETToday had been renamed to NOWnews and was sold to Chunghwa Telecom's parent company in 2008. NOWnews appears to be located at nownews.com. The ETtoday (with a lowercase second "t") that is currently located at ettoday.net was established in 2011 (according to Chinese Wikipedia) by a subsidiary of Eastern Media International, a conglomerate that partially owns the Eastern Broadcasting Company. From this, it looks like Eastern Media International and its related companies sold the original ETToday, but retained the trademark to use for the new ETtoday. Unless someone provides evidence against ETtoday's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline. —  Newslinger  talk   01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

U.S. News
Is this news agency, U.S. News & World Report, a reliable source? A recent article piece this by U.S.News claims "Indian government sources speaking on the condition of anonymity told The Times of India that 20 Indian army personnel had died in the fighting", where as in reality there is anonymous source, Army itself released statement of 20 personnel KIA which all medias have covered. It seems presenting the article as investigative journalism success. Again it claims, "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News" where as for such casualty report there is no need to hide anything, US House of Foreign Affairs/Pentagon/CIA never support such claim, above that which assessment, who are doing this, nothing is mentioned neither Indian Govt./Army support such claim. No other US sources like of NYT, WP, CNN which will be the first to receive such infomration do not claim such. So, again is this particular article a reliable source? Drat8sub (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything in archives which would indicate that this is not a reliable source. There is no need for sources to reveal their actual identity as long as the news has been published by a WP:RS and US news meets definition of WP:RS. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No this was not the case here. The first claim is manupulating the veracity of the second claim. They have written "anonymous source from Indian Govt. that 20 personnel KIA", ofcourse no need of revealing identity. But when someone read more online they will find out that this claim is true because Army has revealed the same, thus this gives a notion for the readers that as the first claim by anonymous source comes out to be true then the second claim by anonymous is also true, does not matters if any Govt./Army source provide such or not. the problem lies there. Drat8sub (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be simply a time factor; it's hard to check exact when who knew what, when things were published, etc. It would not be surprising if USN&WR got their information and published first, then the Army got theirs and other RSes published that. In such a case, where we have information via way of an intermediary source as in these cases, it can be preferable to use the more "reliable" intermediary source (a named official over an anonymous one) and the reliable source that backs that, but that does not impact the reliability of the source using the weaker intermediary source overall. US News remains a high quality source for such things. --M asem (t) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem... there may be sources that are MORE reliable for a given bit of information, but that does not make US News UNreliable. As is always the case when covering recent events, as updated information comes in we need to update our article. And that may mean we need to switch the sources we cite. That does not make the old source “bad”... just the new source “better”. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * One of the better and less partisan US news sources imo. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, this is one of the few news sources that just quietly gets on with doing its job without really getting involved in the punditry business. Guy (help!) 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Clinical practice guidelines or not? (Medicine)
http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2020;volume=62;issue=8;spage=280;epage=289;aulast=Subramanyam Subramanyam 2020] states "clinical practice guideline" at the top. I would like to be sure on the reliability for WP:MEDRS which states clinical practice guidelines as one of the best sources. It is in broadly in keeping with what I found found elsewhere although I am not familiar with the authors or journal. There is only one other practice guideline I am aware of on this topic. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is a MEDRS question, please ask at the medicine wikiproject. Guy (help!) 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan News Online
Is Taiwan News reliable? I hear that it is very biased against the CCP but I want to gather insight from more Wikipedia editors. Website:  ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be striking if it were not opposed to the CCP. The layout seems to be normal for Asian news websites, and Google shows some citations by other sites but none by what I would accept as gold standard sources. So: a definite maybe from me ;-) Guy (help!) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable, Taiwan News is generally reliable with the exception of coverage of companies within the same corporate group as them (primarily an issue with their coverage of I-Mei Foods which tends to be overly fawning), I would always defer to independent sources in that situation if there is a conflict. I would also take care with pulling words/language directly from them without attribution, its often a bit verbose and Taiwanese english is a bit heterodox at times (they also have a habit of going with the most provocative yet accurate translation of mandarin to english, they stay within the bounds of accuracy unlike say MEMRI but its definitely skewed towards the provocative). This is not an issue unique to them though, we see the same thing in Indian WP:RS regulary and we see the opposite in Japanese WP:RS (they choose the least provocative translation). I also think we need context for why this is being discussed here, you hearing that they’re biased against the CCP doesn’t necessitate a RSN discussion and even if true bias (especially against a group as objectively evil as the CCP) is ok in reliable sources on wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

thediplomat.com
Over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 a user has challenged thediplomat.com as "a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit" [] so is this [] an RS for "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession".?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable The Diplomat is a reputable current affairs magazine. The user is banned from the article in question for disruptive editing. The deleted tweet has been covered in other outlets, see. this story in the Straits Times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and why quotation marks are used here by ABC Online if it is an official twitter account of the Donetsk People's Republic?? (:
 * "On Thursday a Twitter account for the 'Donetsk People's Republic' issued several posts claiming to have seized a missile system from the Ukrainian army."
 * The official Twitter account has a special mark. And I don't see one. So everyone could create this account, right? That is why I would like to see a proof of the ownership but not these propagandist publications on the media and a picture of the "seized Buk launcher on 29 June 2014" which was posted in 2011 . --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that The Diplomat has come up before, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just consider this publication of the Diplomat to lack reliability? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable Seems to meet our usual standards, remember bias is not a criteria (assuming they are). Nor am I seeing any evidence they are not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable, they also walk pretty far from the traditional line of "American propaganda bullshit” if thats the concern, I have found them to be one of the most if not the most even handed english language publication covering the indo-pacific. Ownership is Japanese and the majority of staff is non-American. Just a note that anything from the section “The Debate” is either comment or opinion and should be treated thusly although that should be pretty obvious. There are three internal degrees of quality but given that all are over Wikipedia’s bar for reliability I don’t think there is much to be gained from delving into that as it isn’t relevant to the problem at hand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the author of that piece, Ankit Panda, is one of the most respected security analysts of his generation (pretty much everyone has published him) as well as an editor at The Diplomat. I don’t think there is a legitimate objection being made here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable, but the editor has been topic banned anyway. Guy (help!) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably reliable however as I noted on the talk page, I don't think we should be using that particular article if possible. It seems to be a late breaking news piece since it notes it may be updated. I assume that is no longer the case, however such pieces should always be used with care since the level of fact checking can be more limited. And there is a particular issue with this piece which raises concern. It mentions a tweet and links to a screenshot of that tweet on Twitter. There is no doubt that the tweet is real, and the screenshot very likely is as well. However there's strong indications the screenshot is a machine translation of the original tweet in Russian. While machine translations have their uses, they need to be used with care. It's unclear why the article linked to a machine translation of the tweet and yet gave no indication that it was a machine translation (and nor does the tweet they linked to). Does this mean the source relied exclusively machine translation? Did they even know it was a machine translation? Given they didn't mention the machine translation issue at all, we don't know. While it may be acceptable for a source to rely on a machine translation, it seems quite questionable for a source to rely solely on a machine translation and not mention that is what they were going by. IMO this is likely a good example where we need to remember that just because a source is generally reliable, doesn't mean it always is. If there is ample evidence for problems with a particular article, we have to carefully consider whether we should use it or instead rely on other sources for which don't have that problem. It's not clear to me there's anything that the source claims which isn't backed up by other sources, so there is probably no reason to use that particular article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t we “if possible” always be looking to upgrade dated journalistic sources to more current academic ones? Like you said I can’t imagine its too hard to find this piece of information in the ocean of scholarly work published about the incident in the last six years. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable for what it is reliable for - The diplomat carries both opinion and analytical pieces, it has an editorial team, its opinion pieces should be treated as opinion, its analysis (assuming it comes from an expert) should be treated as expert analysis. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable but also includes opinion/analysis that may need to be attributed in some cases. is correct that the site carries a lot of opinion/analytical pieces and those should be treated accordingly. Neutralitytalk 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable The Diplomat is generally considered a reliable source along with Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. In the case of opinions and analysis, the text needs to be modified accordingly. According to... etc. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Muraselon
Is Muraselon.com a reliable source? It is used for articles about the Syrian Civil War, such as Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019),2017 Mayadin offensive, 2018 Syrian-Turkish border clashes, Afrin offensive (January–March 2018). My personal view is that it is a pro-government blog and not a reputable news source. I think its use is because details of day to day advances and retreats in various Syrian battles are not reported in many reliable sources - but to me this suggests the details are not noteworthy and if Muraselon is the only source it's not worth including. I would welcome other views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This reads more like wp:undue than an RS question. Bias is not an issue, accuracy is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We mostly determine weight from coverage in RS though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to be clear my main question is: is this source reliable? I only mentioned noteworthiness as sometimes I see a defence of such self-published sources that reliable sources don't cover the same level of detail. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that as muddies the water. Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said bias is not an RS issue, so any evidence they fake stuff?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have evidence. I literally don't know if it's a reliable source, which is why I am asking. However, it looks like a self-published source to me; there is no information on the website about its funding, editorial team, corporate structure, standards, location or contact address; it is very hazy in stories about sources (e.g. "according to a field source"); a lot of content seems to be sourced from social media or YouTube or from Syrian army press statements; there is no effort to distinguish betweeen any rebel groups, which are all simply referred to as "jihadists" or "al-Qaeda"; I can't find any examples of use by other reliable sources; the only independent reference I can find to it on the web is a very un-complimentary discussion at reddit. In short, everything about it shouts unreliable, but I'd like that to be confirmed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

PhoneArena et al
Can someone check if PhoneArena is a reliable website for a critics’ review (the review I want to cite is in the title)? They seem to be professional (albeit using a bit more technical terms than other reviewers) but given that I usually trust only TechRadar, CNET, Trusted Reviews and Digit (magazine), I want to see if this is an acceptable source. RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  07:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to it, what about androidpit.com and 9to5google.com (again, specifically for reviews like the ones linked to)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911  Talk  11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Steven Tibble
I would like to refer to Steven Tibble's following books in articles about the crusades:

His first work (Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291) is cited, for instance, in the following works:
 * - he thanks Tibble for drawing his attention to certain events, but also emphasizes that he does not share Tibble's all conclusions (p162)
 * - he mentions that Tibble "extensively" analyzed "the lack of continuity among baronial families" during the first decades of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (p69)

His second work (The Crusader Armies: 1099-1187) is cited by Nicholas Morton - a lecturer in History at Nottingham Trent University. Morton writes that Tibble's work contains "many thought-provoking arguments". I must emphasize that Morton's book was published by the Oxford University Press. As made it clear twice, this publishing house also published books like Emil's Clever Pig and Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon - so I may make a new mistake when referring to his work to verify the use of Tibble's book.

I seek your advice on Tibble's books, because he "is not an historian but works in PR and communications" as emphasized when I wanted to refer to Tibble's first book (Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291) in an article. I do not want to begin an edit war on the use of these two books of possibly low scholarship. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the reliability of Tibble's books. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (responding to ping) I have no opinion on this particular author as I know nothing about the author other than what's on his website; my concern (explained at greater length here) is with the apparent misconception that publication by the Oxford University Press confers notability. OUP is a commercial publisher owned by Oxford University as opposed to the publishing arm of Oxford University, and as such publishes everything from sheet music to picture books for toddlers; books published by OUP have to be evaluated on the basis of their individual merits, the same as we would with a book from Penguin, Macmillan etc. &#8209; Iridescent 09:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which Steven Tibble is it? Because if its Dr Steve Tibble, he maybe but with attribution. I am seeing a lot of good reviews.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This one. &#8209; Iridescent 09:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to my experiences, editors who have actually read academic books about the crusades have no doubts about the reliability of Tibble's works. However, my experiences are limited. Two editors who are obviously more experienced than myself, Norfolkbigfish and Iridescent, challenged Tibble's reliability. Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are not RS. I see nothing to say these are not perfectly respectable book on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are not RS. I see nothing to say these are not perfectly respectable book on the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Short of delving into academic debates on which I am certainly not qualified to comment, those books appear to me to meet RS handily. Reputable publishers, cited by others. As to how much to rely on them, that's a due weight question. Guy (help!) 12:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reviews of Tibble's first book on JSTOR, which in summary comment that there is some good work but also some significant weaknesses. Probably to be expected of what was effectively Tibble's PhD thesis. PW Edbury writes ''This book contains rather too many trivial errors : for example, Tibbie ought to have known that RRH no. 276 is a forgery (p. 86) ; that Walter of Caesarea does not appear as constable of Cyprus in 1206-we have to wait until 1210 (p. 127); and that it was Hugh and not "Henry" of Antioch Lusignan who contested the alienation of Sidon (p. 174). The form "Ch?teau P?lerin" is more bizarre. Furthermore in his statistical analysis of land-holding in the lordship of Caesarea and in some of his ex nihilo arguments, Tibbie lays his methodology wide open to criticism. The point, however, is this. Despite all the detailed shortcomings in his argumentation, the conclusions he reaches are, I believe, essentially valid. Many previously accepted opinions must now be jettisoned; our understanding of the history of the kingdom has advanced considerably''. Also ''Tibbie is strongest on the pre-1187 period. He gives little attention to the question of how the loss of territory and the partial reoccupation after 1187 affected the pattern of land-tenure and seigneurial authority. Nor does he consider the two major thirteenth-century creations, the reconstituted county of Jaffa as held by a branch of the Ibelin family from the mid-1240s and the de Montfort lordship in Tyre, and these omissions may mean that the impression he gives of the situation in the closing period of the kingdom's history is seriously distorted.''

Peter Jackson writes ''At times the perspective appears a trifle narrow, as during the discussion of a grant to Balian of Beirut of an estate in the royal domain at Acre by King Henry I of Cyprus, in his capacity as regent (1246/7). To say that 'there is no reason to suppose that Henry's motives ... were anything other than a desire to offer financial support to a hard-pressed vassal' (p. 79) is to ignore Henry's precarious claim to the regency and his own need for support. The suggestion that John of Ibelin was given Beirut by his step-sister Queen Isabella on its recapture in I197 (p. 90), moreover, is actually contradicted by the charters, in none of which is John entitled dominus Beriti prior to 1206, when Isabella was dead. Such minor quibbles apart, however, this is an important work which makes a valuable contribution to the history of the Latin East''.

James Powell writes ''in his reading am concerned that the book's view is so limited that it will require considerable tion as a result of additional research. First of all, the author has been overly his predecessors in his approach to the institutions of the Latin Kingdom. He talizes feudal lordship in a way that excludes numerous other elements, most Italian maritime communes, from consideration as factors in the equation he establish. While he includes the military orders, his discussion of the role of pears to lack coherence. Certainly, relations between church and monarchy shape relations between the kings and the nobles. Even the question of economic is more elusive than the author seems to suggest. The assumption that, if the poor, the crown was wealthier and able to control them, is weakened not merely dence presented so convincingly concerning the growth of the power and military orders, but also by questions regarding the overall economic strength Kingdom. We need to know whether it was a viable economic entity, able to sustain a sub- stantial local military organization. If lordships were weak, was the monarchy in a position to gain significant advantage or did it too have problems? ''

As far as I can tell the second work hasn't been accademically reviewed. Tibble has been working in Public Relations since completing his PhD at Royal Holloway in 1982. '' His approach is indebted to the pioneering work of John LaMonte (Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem) who argued that "a vigorous nobility exercised effective control over an emaciated monarchy." Recognizing that this picture has been substantially modified in the work of Joshua Prawer, Jean Richard, and Jonathan Riley-Smith...''. As he has been outside academia he doesn't seem to have published any peer reviewed articles. His works would seem to be interesting, informative and useful but open to challenge on both fact and analysis by academic historians, particularly those who specialise in the field. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , which is an undue weight question. Guy (help!) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , 100% agree Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Editors who regularly read reviews of scholarly works are not surprised that each scholarly work has their weaknesses.


 * When reviewing Joshua Prawer's Crusader Institutions, Robert B. Patterson notes that "...there are some aspects of the work that deserve challenge. The author's attribution of the Court of the Chain's inauguration to King Amaury I ... as probable rejects without explanation charter evidence... Many medievalists no longer consider a refutation of John L. La Monte's image of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem as an ideal feudal state to be necessary. Not a few of them will also reject the line of argument used.".


 * Factual errors can also be detected in scholarly works. James A. Brundage concludes that there are "some scattered infelicities of expression" in The World of the Crusaders by Prawer, which also contains "occasional errors of facts, most of them relatively trivial"


 * Even the conceptual framework of important studies can be challenged - this is what we call science. When reviewing Prawer's two important books, P. M. Holt writes: "[Prawer] deals at length with the Crusades as a colonial movement... Some reservations may be expressed about the adequacy, and even the necessity, of this conceptual framework. ... "


 * Should we reject Prawer, because his works contain factual errors, he occasionally ignores evidence and his conceptual framework can be challenged? The answer is obviously: no.


 * Returning to Tibble and the reviews cited above,, quite surprisingly, failed to quote their authors' own conclusions.


 * Peter W. Edbury writes "Despite all the detailed shortcommings in his argumentation, the conclusions [Tibble] reaches are, I believe, essentially valid."


 * James M. Powell emphasizes "Such queries, however, should not detract from the outstanding contribution [Tibble] has made in putting the lordships on a firm foundation. His book will serve us well."


 * If the reviewers are convinced that Tibble's work is useful and contains valid conclusions, why should we ignore him? Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WorldAtlas
|Worldatlas.com

I can't see a discussion of this particular source before, but wanted to gain consensus (or lack thereof) as I think we would benefit from having something that achieved this statistical aim on WP:RSPSOURCES. We have it listed as a RS in the new page patrol source guide, and |Yale cites it as a reliable source also, albeit only for latitutde and longitude and from 2011. Do we have a consensus on its reliability in other areas, e.g. population data, land size? Thanks, Darren-M   talk  21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I had obviously missed this previous discussion, but I don't think it particularly reached a conclusion. Darren-M   talk  15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Constant attempts at scrubbing and obfuscation at Falun Gong articles: Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, etc.
Many of you here are no doubt familiar with The Epoch Times at this point, but far fewer editors are familiar with the broader organization behind this media entity. Here's a brief overview from a recent article from Los Angeles Magazine:


 * Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.


 * In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.


 * Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.
 * Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

And according to NBC News:


 * The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.


 * The Epoch Times, digital production company NTD and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.
 * Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online.

This is also happening here in Germany:


 * In the United States, the Times bills itself as the newspaper that President Donald Trump views as “the most credible” and the only one he trusts. The U.S. version of the newspaper is a far tamer version than its German cousin, but it has won over fans in the far-right with its exhaustive coverage of “Spygate,” a theory pushed by the president who claims the FBI “spied” on his campaign and a “criminal deep state” sought to undermine his presidency. Revenues for the newspaper have doubled since Trump took office, according to the group’s tax filings.
 * Source: Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". New Republic. September 17, 2019. Online.

Anyway, currently quite a few Falun Gong articles—Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, Society of Classical Poets, and several more—are either in a state of either reading as essentially promotional pieces for the new religious movement or are the subject of daily attempts at scrubbing, like this attempt from today. This often occurs from single-subject, new accounts, or accounts with very new edit histories.

These articles could really use a lot of work with reliable sources outlining developments in these circles since 2016, particularly the topics mentioned in the quotes above. If nothing else, these articles all really need many more editors keeping an eye on them to ensure that they do not revert back to promotional pieces parroting the talking points of the organizations they outline. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a few comments below:


 * User Bloodofox's edits on the FLG articles were not proper.
 * Bloodofox made a huge change to the lede of the Falun Gong article on May 18. Other users（not me）tried to cancel the edit. Their reasons have nothing to do whether those sources were RS or not, but were as one user explained on the article talk page on 5 June:"'With respect to WP:BURDEN, a reminder that the lede section was very stable for years. It was substantially altered by Bloodofox beginning a few weeks ago. Legitimate concerns were raised regarding Bloodofox's edits with respect to WP:LEAD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, including WP:WEIGHT. These concerns have been repeatedly raised, and never addressed. Instead, users have edit warred to enforce their preferred version, and repeatedly accused other editors of acting in bad faith. This is not a platform for activism, and it is not a battleground.'"


 * User Bloodofox​​​​​​​ has misrepresented his own sources:
 * As I commented on the talk page on 5 June, NYT and NBC were misrepresented. Aside from that, the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided, including these above 3 sources Bloodofox​​​​​​​ posted. But Bloodofox​​​​​​​ reverted any correction of his misrepresentations.


 * Bloodofox​​​​​​​ is not supposed to copy the long paragraphs of his preferred sources on RSN. Plus the views from those sources are different views from other reliable sources. For example, reference a said "In 2000, John Tang and a group of Chinese Americans started The Epoch Times in his Atlanta, Georgia basement. ​​​​​​​", which was contrary to the LA Mag Think Blog source. Bloodofox removed many reliable sources that say to the contrary to his views. Here are some of the deleted sources by Bloodofox.
 * http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301%7Carchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
 * https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690
 * https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/06/17/the-china-tribunal-pronounced-its-verdict-on-organ-harvesting-in-china/
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/
 * Based on NPOV, different views from different RS should be proportionally presented. Bloodofox seems to have a strong viewpoint on FLG related topics. He promoted his favorite sources, misrepresented those sources and deleted other correctly represented reliable sources that express views contrary to his. He should stop advocating his own views in Wikipedia and blocking others’ legitimate edits. Precious Stone 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some issues with the sources listed above:
 * "Be The People News" is the personal website of conservative analyst Carol M. Swain, and the podcast episode is a non-independent interview of Dana Cheng, the co-founder and vice president of The Epoch Times.
 * Forbes.com contributor articles are considered self-published and generally unreliable, unless the contributor's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Can you link to where this is the case for Ewelina U. Ochab?
 * There is disagreement on whether the News Weekly is a reliable source. See and  for details.
 * Freedom House is a think tank, which is not necessarily unreliable, but should be attributed in-text for any controversial claims.
 * Can you clarify how the other sources are "contrary" to Bloodofox's proposed wording? —  Newslinger  talk   22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking the details of these  sources and letting me know some of them may not be reliable. Here is only one "contrary" example (there are a few other examples):
 * 1. as Bloodofox posted in this RSN page above from the LA MAG City Think Blog "'In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences.'".
 * 2. But the NBC report Bloodofox used for other info said "“The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.”"
 * 3. The SF Chronicle report said "'Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong, which Li Hongzhi had founded in China in 1992 and drew on the tradition of qigong, in which breathing, meditation and movement foster good health or spiritual enlightenment.'".
 * (Please note in my post above, the Newsweekly source were typed twice, which was a typo I made on this RSN page - one time should be used for this SF Chronicle source - that was used in the article and was deleted by Bloodofox)
 * Bloodofox's info that Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded or launched by Li is quite different with the NBC source and the SF Chronicle source, which said Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded by John Tang in 2000 and by followers of Falun Gong in 2006 respectively. There are many other sources confirming such info. Precious Stone 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t see the conflict between sources you describe, they seem to be in almost complete agreement on the important details. Are you trying to argue that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times aren’t part of the FG movement? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Above shows the LA Mag City Think Blog info is contradictory with other sources. Aside from that, I have said to you many times that the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad..." and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided. you disagree with me. it is simple, please follow WP:V, and show every one here. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose venerability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material".Precious Stone 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Contention in this topic area has been going on for years. See Talk:The Epoch Times/Archive 3, where Binksternet provides quite a few references that could still be useful. Such as: Author Lao Cheng-Wu says that the Epoch Times newspaper was originally the Epoch Times Weekly, a free-of-charge propaganda sheet which was published by the Falun Dafa Research Society, controlled by Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi in Taiwan, before it was "restructured" to become the international newspaper that we know today. and Professor Kevin J. O'Brien of the University of California at Berkeley writes that spokespersons of the Epoch Times have said the newspaper is not affiliated with the Falun Gong, but all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, that the newspaper's articles show a strong connection to the Falun Gong. Mojoworker (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This intractible dispute needs to go before the Abitration Committee, I don't see how it's going to get resolved otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but meanwhile there is a new RfC at Talk:Falun Gong. Doug Weller  talk 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We have got to remember the Persecution of Falun Gong. As in, if you are a member, they might kill you and sell your organs. So the flip side is that there could be Chinese Gov't efforts to put everything negative one can think of into Falun Gong-related articles. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Murderpedia
This came off BLP/N, where murderpedia.org - what appears to be a site managed by one person - is used about 300 times presently on WP. 

For living persons, this immediately fails WP:BLPSPS. Furthermore, looking at any specific entry page, it is similar reposting key published articles about the killer/suspect from major sources, which also presents a copyvio problem when linking to them. BUT that does provide the benefit that we can replace these with the works that source cites directly. eg pulling up a random entry like includes Wikipedia's entry and then a number of Times of India articles in full, which are the RIGHT sources to use instead.

So I would suggest this be a blacklisted source, and that we have these methodically removed in favor of the sources given on these pages. If this means tagging them as "deprecated" or with a tag to indicate they should be replaced and identifying the ease which they can be, so be it. --M asem (t) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, pretty much looks like an SPS, and a rather iffy one (Wikipedia as a source?). Yep, blacklist it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blacklisting per Masem's rationale. We should avoid linking to this site per WP:ELNEVER. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with blacklisting this source, anything to do with murder and BLP's is extremely sensitive and needs far better sourcing than this. Also the COPYVIO is a serious issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate and blacklist - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto everyone, thanks Masem for starting this here. --JBL (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way: I guess it won't surprise anyone that the use of Murderpedia is often accompanied by the use of FindAGrave. I've been removing both when I see them. --JBL (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For, Stephen Akinmurele has only two references: the multiple-copyright-violating Murderpedia, and the Daily Mail. --JBL (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Charming headline that Mail article ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fortunately as I've hopefully explained, at least we know of 5 BBC articles that that specific article can at least be expanded with at minimum. But they do need to be added and sourced individually. --M asem (t) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Blacklist. The site hosts copyright violations and its use frequently violates WP:BLPSPS. —  Newslinger  talk   03:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , any examples on WP? I am completely up for this. Guy (help!) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've just removed a few:
 * Special:Diff/963540734 in Deaths in August 1998: The cited Murderpedia page is a copy of an old version of the Gary Evans (serial killer) Wikipedia article (circa Special:Permalink/241883008), reproduced without attribution. In this case, the Murderpedia citation was a circular reference.
 * Special:Diff/963543737 in Robert Ben Rhoades: The cited PDF appears to be a university assignment, and fails WP:BLPSPS.
 * Special:Diff/963544242 in East Jersey State Prison: The cited Murderpedia page reproduces an entry of An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers and an article from The New York Times without evidence of permission, which makes the citation a violation of WP:COPYLINK.
 * Special:Diff/963544834 in Glen Edward Rogers: The cited Murderpedia page reproduces an entry from the self-published Mayhem.net and an Associated Press article without evidence of permission.
 * Special:Diff/963545685 in Richard Angelo: The cited Murderpedia page reproduces an entry of An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers and a deleted version of the Richard Angelo Wikipedia article, which is itself a copyright violation of a biographical profile from About.com and contains an incorrect birth date.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   11:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've been systematically removing it as an external link from articles one-by-one (so it's now down to 121 uses, from nearly 300).  To be honest, its inclusion on an article is almost always a sign that the article is a garbage dump: mostly newsy, sensationalist "biographies" that are heavy on terrible sources and lurid details, but it would take an enormous committed effort to clean them up.  After I'm done with external links, I'm going to move on to the ones where it's used as a cited reference, but that's a lot more work to clean up.  I would definitely support blacklisting.  --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Murderpedia is okay for research, but we shouldn't be sourcing articles to it. FindAGrave is okay, but shoud be moved to WikiData when found.-- Auric   talk  21:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Blacklist. Links to offsite copyright violations put WMF in legal jeopardy and are not permitted anywhere, including Talk pages, per WP:C. Guy (help!) 13:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Siberian Times
The Siberian Times is an english language web news site founded in 2012, dedicated to the Siberian region. It has been cited around 120 times on wikipedia according to. Mashable describes their reporting as: "These stories are allegedly real with a bit of hyperbole/Siberian fan fiction thrown in. According to Meduza, despite being edited by a Russian woman, the site is the brainchild of Will Stewart, who, as proprietor of East2West Limited, is responsible for the vast majority of the sensationalist and often false stories about Russia in the British tabloid press, including the Mail, Express etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Shady AF. Not reliable. Guy (help!) 10:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Electrek, one more time
Apologies for reviving discussion of Electrek |yet again, but contrary to 's point that Electrek's staff are divested from Tesla in terms of investing, it was brought to my attention that Fred Lambert yesterday admitted some 30% of his stock portfolio is in Tesla: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EawUtBGXgAAZ0FJ?format=png&name=900x900. If the editor-in-chief of a publication is heavily invested in a company that his website is "reporting" about, that certainly calls into question whether the publication should be allowed to be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I would say that is a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As the one who noted Lambert's comment I would agree that Electrek has a serious COI issue with respect to Tesla reporting. This COI has been noted by other automotive sources.  If we look at the Tesla page there are 37 citations to Lambert alone, 49 to Electrek.  I suspect most are rather innocuous facts or announcements from Tesla (Tesla says they will do X).  However, it is clear that Tesla has used sympathetic newsish sites like Electrek to make sure Tesla's preferred narrative goes out to the public.  In the worst cases there have been accusations that "leaked" emails were deliberately feed to Electrek or others to bypass SEC laws relating to corporate dissemination of information.  With such a COI it's hard to say if some news story is DUE because it was covered by Electrek or not (Tesla "paid" for their preferred story to run).  Electreck hasn't been 100% on Tesla's side.  They recently ran an article a critical article relating to Tesla quality.  Also, Electrek is often quoted by non-critical news stories.  As such I'm not sure how best to handle it.  Clear COI but cited by others.  Personally I would suggest going with a bit of a custom approach.  I would trust it for basic statements of fact/quotes.  I would assume their editorial judgement is effectively purchased thus treat the site more like a notable blog.  As such reporting by Electrek shouldn't establish WEIGHT and the site shouldn't be used as a source of reliable commentary etc.  Springee (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To add some examples. Here is an example I think would be not OK.  In the article Adam_Ruins_Everything, Electrek is cited by name as disputing one of Ruins' claims.  I would say remove it as both UNDUE and not a RS.  Conversely, this example could easily be sourced to a reliable publication [].  Certainly we should minimize citations to this source but I would not condone removal without replacement in most cases.  I haven't tried to review the large number of citations in Tesla specific articles.  Those may be more problematic to handle.  Springee (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my outsider opinion, from someeone who is pretty familiar with Electrek and has been semi-closely following Tesla news for years now. Even if Electrek didn't have any COI with Tesla, they shouldn't be treated as an RS regardless. It's true that Electrek sometimes publishes articles critical of Tesla. However, I'm sure that when they do so, lots of other more reputable sources are reporting on similar things. IMO Electrek should only be used for truly basic information (on XX/YY/ZZZZ Tesla/Musk said ABC). Aside from that it should be attribution-only - no "Wikipedia voice". &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel Springee’s “custom approach” is pretty brilliant and appropriate given the atypical circumstances. I think the publication at its core is a good one and the Tesla bias is their only real stumbling block (reliable sources describe them as a "notably pro-Tesla publication”). Its also an issue that should be less problematic in the future when the electric car market is more diversified, this is such a big deal right now in COI terms because at the moment most electric car coverage can be summed up as “Tesla and the rest." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although my reasons are different, I agree that at this time Electrek is a poor source with regards to Tesla. With Frederic Lambert being the primary and by far the most prolific Electrek writer, our assessment must largely be based on his actions (as implied by 's opening statement). Lambert's relationship with Tesla and their CEO Elon Musk cannot simply be characterized as a pro-bias, instead it is complicated. On social media Musk has criticized Lambert's coverage of Tesla. Here is a recent example of Lambert's negative Tesla attitude (Tesla went as far as Earth moving works in three different US states while still negotiating the location for GF1. They had similar negotiations in China for GF3 - and someone like Lambert would surely know this, yet the tweet that 'Tulsa got played by Tesla' disregards this likely repeat of Tesla's apparently successful tactic). Along these lines I will now argue that the (self-)declaration of stock ownership - or lack thereof - is a poor predictor of a person's bias. Firstly, hypothetically someone like myself (or QRep2020 for argument's sake) could if asked answer truthfully that we do not own shares in e.g. Tesla. This means nothing. I could control a company that owns the shares, my spouse could own the shares or I could own them indirectly through a different investment vehicle. Or maybe I do own the shares, but earlier I took profits and unexpectedly their price went up so now that I bought them back I own much fewer shares - giving me a feeling of resentment towards the company for what I consider to be their premature success. Or maybe I own some shares, but only as a hedge of a much larger anti-investment (made maybe by my spouse or a company I control). We don't know what kind of sentiment if any Lambert's self-declared stock ownership gives him and the point is that we can't know. Further, the burden of proof regarding inappropriate trading of stocks is apparently very difficult to lift. Earlier this year a senator received a confidential briefing on COVID19 and allegedly proceeded to sell stocks expected to be affected by the pandemic. The probe whether this was an abuse of their office (amounting to insider trading) was dismissed. So if government agencies that can subpoena personal records cannot prove what seems as a clear conflict of interest, then I don't see what Wikipedia can hope to achieve with similar allegations. So my argument that at this time Electrek is a poor source regarding Tesla is instead based on what I believe actually matters, namely the accuracy of their reporting. Some years ago their reporting was accurate based on good sources. (I have not checked my 20k+ edits here, but I would not be surprised if years ago I myself have cited Electrek.) But here is a recent example of the opposite (from Lambert), that a Tesla Model 3 variant has a 100 kWh battery. If true, this would indeed be a sensation, since it would imply that Tesla have managed to increase the (at least volumetric) energy density of their battery pack by 33%. But on reflection the report makes no sense. Everyone knows that new technology is introduced not in the base model, but rather in a company's top model - whether or not that's a car - (which needs to differentiate itself to justify its higher price). Thus, Tesla could not be expected to market a base model with much a longer range than their top model. So the expected story should have been one of a Model S/X with a 133 kWh battery. The sensational story was based solely on information from a single, anonymous source on social media - and was quickly denied by Tesla's CEO after other media ran with the story. More damming for Electrek is that they appear to still have an unmodified version of their story, although their original, single, anonymous source have actually retracted their statement. Here is a second example: Years ago Tesla have provided several reasons why their cars do not have a vehicle-to-grid capability (regulatory, safety, component price in the 'game of pennies', battery needed for driving, etc.) So it is again sensational when Lambert (via Electrek) reports that Tesla has (quietly) added v2g capability to their Model 3 - a story again based not on information from Tesla, but rather on speculation based on info from someone outside of Tesla (this time a named source). As it turned out, the analysis is flawed and no actual V2G capability has been observed in Tesla's cars. Electrek did update their article with a link to the contradicting source, but they left their incorrect conclusions and baseless speculation in place. (The specific problem is that the power converter uses a - relatively inexpensive - uni-directional diode bridge, which would at the very least need to be replaced by more expensive - but similar looking - bi-directional Voltage_regulator). So while any given RS may be overall reliable in spite of the occasional inaccurate reporting, I will argue that at this time Lambert's (and by extension Electrek's) reporting on Tesla cannot simply be assumed to be reliable. As I evidently see things from the technical side, I will leave it to others (maybe ) to formulate a proposal for what kind of specific consequences Wikipedia should draw from this. Lklundin (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it a problem that Wikipedia's own article on the Mail doesn't seem to justify depreciation as a source?
Is it a problem for Wikipedia's editors that the Wikipedia article on the Daily Mail doesn't seem to support a claim that they are generally unreliable (without having to synthesise a conclusion from the disparate examples offered)? And worse, the claim that the Mail has been "widely criticized for its unreliability", appears to be misrepresentation at best, fabrication at worst, once you actually examine the sources given to support it (accepting one is an offline source that I cannot check right now. Brian K Horton (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have complaints about the Daily Mail article the best place to take them is Talk:Daily Mail. One of the reasons that the Daily Mail was depreciated was that it its use in Biographies of living persons articles, which require high quality sourcing was unacceptable due to its sensationalism, and history of falsehoods. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a complaint about the article, nor was I seeking a reason for the depreciation, only an opinion on the dissonance between the article and "history of falsehoods", if indeed you even see one in this context. Do you see one? Brian K Horton (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NO as we are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting way to look at it. Doesn't really excuse deliberate acts however, only accidental or excusable failures to ensure Wikipedia is as reliable and neutral as it can be, in both its content and decision making, within the limitations of a volunteer workforce.Brian K Horton (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its also not a question of the DM reliability so much as how an article is written. Remember Wikipedia is user written, so at any given time any given page may not be an accurate reflection of the subject. Nor can we police every article for accuracy, we rely on the competence of our fellow editors. All this shows is the DM article needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also (unless the article has been significantly altered in the last 24 hours) there is plenty about its "unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations".Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As the others have said, it is not our place to go into the evidence behind the scenes (that no RS I've seen discuss directly) of why WP decided to depreciate DM, but that did lead me to find and add Jimbo's support for this move . But back to the key point, if you can find a RS that discusses specific points of the 2017 debate on the DM deprecation discussion, we can include those highlights, but most stories just said "WP deemes DM unusable" and that's how we have to present it to the mainspace. --M asem (t) 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You got the wrong end of the stick entirely. This is not about how the article covers the debate that led to depreciation, it is about the surprising lack of any other support of the claim in the article, and what this might say about the methodology and the people behind it. Brian K Horton (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I understand you want to have discussion of what sources and information that led the internal discussion to deprecate DM, but as I said, there's no external reliable sources that cover those deals, and we don't use WP as its own source here. The process is there if anyone wants to go review the history itself, it's not like it was conducted behind closed doors, we're just not going to incorporate it as an unreliable source into our article. --M asem (t) 03:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't understood me at all. Not even a little bit. And I think I should know, it was me who asked the question after all. Brian K Horton (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you’re not satisfied that the article Daily Mail covers its controversies and RS assessments of its journalistic standards, that’s an issue to raise at Talk:Daily Mail.If you believe that Daily Mail shouldn’t have been deprecated, that’s an entirely different matter.If neither apply and you just want to opine about its deprecation, then this discussion isn’t appropriate for WP. — MarkH21talk 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When assessing a publication's reliability on this noticeboard, editors are not limited to using content that is cited in the Wikipedia article on the publication. —  Newslinger  talk   01:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

DAILYMAIL is probably unsound, and should be revisited
Accepting the apparent reality that even in matters as serious as blacklisting an entire source (with extremely limited exceptions of course), individual Wikipedia editors are allowed to lodge whatever reasoning they like, it seems clear that a consensus of Wikipedia editors is not valid, if "reasonable concerns" in summarising their views, were not addressed. It also seems clear that a reasonable concern registered at the time, and since, regarding DAILYMAIL, is that when such a decision concerns a publication as controversial as the Mail, it could have been influenced by bias.

That bias doesn't have to be the result of deliberate malice, it can simply be an unconscious act. Although it is noteworthy that the proposer, who both set the tone (the Mail is "trash") and was the first to frame the debate as being only about the Mail, did submit a fraudulent case, and probably knowingly (it is easy for a publication to register zero ISPO complaints when they are not registered with IPSO).

Despite the fact five people studied the first debate, and three studied the second, it appears none of them thought it wise to explain how they factored out the influence of bias, both their own and that of the participants. Quite the reverse, what they did do actually rewarded those who may only have been acting not only out of subconscious bias, but out of malice.

If DAILYMAIL is not the product of bias, it would have been able to explain why the Mail was singled out. Reasons were offered, and they were countered. The conclusion is silent on who had the better case, other than to dismiss it as irrelevant. Why?

If DAILYMAIL is not the product of bias, it would have offered a reason for why the vast majority of opinions are just that, opinion, and therefore why simply counting their heads, is relevant. And those few who did provide evidence for their claims, largely relied on unreliable or biased sources (even reliable newspapers will obviously be biased when it comes to even simple factual reporting on their rivals).

If DAILYMAIL is not the product of bias, it would have offered a reason for why it does not contain, and apparently did not even seek, the highest quality sources and the soundest methodology. You do not even need to be a researcher to understand the flaws in using mere "examples" to establish a pattern, if you haven't considered things like confirmation bias, or statistical relevance, especially when comparing two things where examples of a thing will be present for both. This is elementary stuff.

The Columbia Journalism Review is a thing, reliable experts in journalism studies are a thing, they know how to compare and contrast different sources using sound scientific methods, and these sort of high quality sources are used on this very noticeboard when deciding the reliability of other sources. So why not for DAILYMAIL?

The same lack of care in that debate, seems to match the same lack of care shown by Wikipedia editors in how they have written their own article on the Daily Mail. And that does matter, given everything Wikipedia claims to be as a collective work, chiefly, unbiased. That article's claim of there being "widespread criticism for their unreliability" seems to be as unsupported by the evidence provided, as DAILYMAIL's claim that there is "widespread" evidence to support a finding of "generally unreliable".

This lack of care for even the most basic of techniques for ensuring a decision isn't tainted by bias, was raised at the time. Circulation matters. Whether an example was retracted or is still disputed, matters. Whether an example led to official rebuke or even a Court judgement as opposed to just criticism in unreliable or biased sources, matters. Which of these examples concerned only the Mail, and which spoke to the unreliability of other sources, including those of the highest repute, matters. DAILYMAIL being silent on all these issues, absolutely suggests bias.

This is no theoretical concern, the Mail have already succeeded in getting one media fact checker to withdraw a finding of "general unreliability" by simply reminding them they had not considered factors like circulation. If this noticeboard is anything to Wikipedia, it is apparently a fact checker of sorts. It certainly has precedence over individual debates about individual uses of a source.

Worse than even a suspicion of bias, there are grounds to suspect the eight people didn't pay much attention to even basic pertinent details, as bizarre as that sounds. If the root causes of these alleged fabrications etc is not a single editor but matters of a corporate nature, as seems to be the implication of rejecting the idea that it isn't only all about Paul Dacre, and the lumping of the post-2006 print edition in with the online version, then why was it not spotted that DAILYMAIL can be read as passing no comment on The Mail On Sunday, as if this is a different source entirely? Counterfactual, at best. Neither does it seem to recognise that the owners of the Mail own other titles.

If DAILYMAIL cannot be re-run, with both a neutral proposition that frames the terms of reference, and an explicit request that anyone who participates does their absolute level best, for the good of Wikipedia, to make absolutely sure their biases have been checked, then at the very least, some way needs to be found of clarifying or correcting the existing conclusion, to satisfy these concerns.

I have done my best to understand this issue, having taken the many hours needed to read both the two part debate and the links provided. If this post is simply waved away, closed as NOTAFURM like my other concern, especially if it is only waved away on the basis that it is an unpopular opinion among Wikipedia editors, then I guess that is your right, but it won't satisfy anyone's concerns about bias, surely, not even Wikipedia editors who firmly believe DAILYMAIL is completely sound as an expression of consensus. Brian K Horton (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail has been discussed in three separate RfCs, two of which were advertised as centralized discussions, in addition to 42 discussions on this noticeboard (not including the current discussion). The most recent RfC is currently located at the top of this page. Your 1,004-word comment does not advance any policy- or guideline-based arguments that have not already been covered in these past discussions. If you would like clarification on the closures of the past RfCs, please ask the closers directly. —  Newslinger   talk   11:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can even plausibly claim that everything thing I said has already been covered, given the speed of your response. Indeed, at least one thing I said couldn't possibly have been covered in past discussions, because it hadn't happened yet. I thought the policy based argument was obvious - a consensus is not valid, if reasonable concerns are not addressed. And while I don't know for sure, it would be odd for Wikipedia to have a policy that says ignoring a concern is the same as addressing it, but I can't rule it out I guess. Is there even an efficient way to contact seven different people here, without making the same post eight times? The noticeboard where they made their conclusions known seems like a perfectly reasonable place to have that eight-way discussion (even if it only leads to me being told seven times by seven different people that I haven't raised anything they haven't already addressed). Brian K Horton (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment asserts that the decisions reached by the community in 3 RfCs and 42 discussions are wrong, but does not reference a single policy or guideline besides WP:NOTFORUM. —  Newslinger  talk   12:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What part of "I thought the policy based argument was obvious - a consensus is not valid, if reasonable concerns are not addressed." was unclear? What part of "at least one thing I said couldn't possibly have been covered in past discussions, because it hadn't happened yet" was not clear? Brian K Horton (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment accuses the community of "bias" rather than presenting any policy- or guideline-based defense of the Daily Mail. Practically speaking, if this is your best argument, it is highly unlikely that there would be consensus to hold a fourth RfC on the Daily Mail (which is the only way to overturn or modify the previous RfCs), especially considering that the third Daily Mail RfC was closed just two days ago. —  Newslinger  talk   14:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman dynasty royalcruft
Ottoman dynasty has a Current line of succession section that begins The refs for this and the following section include: 26 cites to royalark.net; 14 to Almanach de Gotha (2000); 5 to Burke's Peerage (1980); 22 to the "Official Ottoman Family Website"; and 49 to a "http://tarihvemedeniyet.org/" page designated "WP content", which is just a single, bare-bones image of a family tree.

Should this entire section be cut completely? JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that royalark.net and kindred sites have been deprecated. JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just kill it, this looks very dubious since the Ottoman dynasty has not been in power for a century. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Burke's Peerage is unquestionably a reliable source. The others, probably not. So there are likely sourcing issues. The line of succession for dynasties no longer in power is not an excluded topic for articles. But it needs adequate sourcing. Some royal dynasties have received extensive discussion of their theoretical line of succession, e.g. the Romanovs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the 2019 Almanach de Gotha provides the genealogy of the Imperial House of Osman, the Imperial Princes position in the line of succession is provided. - dwc lr (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles and sections are largely based on the work of a handful of online amateurs and fabulists, reflected as if it were fact. We have a whole series of articles on fictional "grand dukes" of Austria. It needs cleaning up with some firmness. On the plus side, we renamed "list of current pretenders" to reflect the fact that most of them are not pretenders and virtually all inclusions were blatant WP:OR. Guy (help!) 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

HKV.hr
The sources hkv.hr was mentioned in the 2019 Signpost article The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia, and I'm interested to hear thoughts on how the source can best be used on English Wikipedia. The article mentions hkv as a far-right source, and I haven't found any discussion of the source in English-language outlets. I see that it is a fairly small amount on English Wikipedia:. On Croatian Wikipedia, it is used over 400 times, perhaps indicating that it is a reasonable source (though, given the Signpost article, perhaps not).

It is used to support claims ranging from damage to a cathedral in 1880 to historical treaties around Croatian unification to details on BLPs.

Is this source reliable (which, I would like to remind folks, is separate from bias)? To what extent is it biased? Are there any domains for which it is better or worse suited? (political, historical, social, etc)

Thanks for your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Croatian WP doesn't count for anything and should be thrown out. HKV re-reports from the deprecated RT, such as a story currently on its front page: "Berlinski političari svjesno su desetljećima slali djecu da žive s PEDOFILIMA – otkriva novo izvješće Berlinske vlasti organizirale su poremećenu shemu kako bi djecu iz domova predale na skrb zloglasnim pedofilima, kaže se u novom izvješću. Zamislio ju je zloglasni zagovornik pederastije, podržavali su ju političari, i sve je tek nedavno završilo. (rt.com)" Which does not grant confidence in its accuracy. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation. HKV stands for "Hrvatsko kulturno vijeće" (Croatian Cultural Council). Nominally, it's a website covering culture and arts, but is actually used as a right-wing political platform, and the articles are permeated with such content.
 * By chance, yesterday I did some work expanding Petrovo Polje, Croatia, and was looking for sources on the Meštrović mausoleum in Otavice, Croatia. I found this. Ostensibly a field report about the mausoleum and its history, nearly one half of the content are various seemingly random rant-like tangents discussing antifascists, chetniks, lesbians (I'm not joking!), folk singers, NGOs, the European Union, all "usual suspects" according to the Croatian far right. So, while the article in question had some usable stuff, I decided against using it as a source and looked elsewhere.
 * Hkv.hr's content, when strictly discussing culture, is actually fairly good and seems reliable. For example, I found the series of articles on the Zagreb Cathedral (used also in the Josip Mihalović article) very good, and I added these as external links. My conclusion is that hkv.hr may be used as a source, but discretion against grossly biased content would be advised. GregorB (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated site question
Royalty fansites royalark.net and worldstatesmen.org are deprecated, but comments on my Talk page that they "have information about Indonesian history such as the years of rule of the Sumatran sultanates and the flags of the constituent states of the United States of Indonesia that are very hard to find elsewhere". That seems to apply mainly top royalark, which has been used in many articles for this purpose (and as an inline link to flags and medals on which we have no articles, such as "Recipient of the Great Ramadan War Medal". I'm pretty sure these are not a qualified exception (royalark in particular was tagged as sps in some articles for years despite numerous additional references to royalark being added to the same article subsequent to tagging; this board was not the first place to notice the problem). What do people think?

This is a non-trivial cleanup exercise, there are thousands of links to these sites, but I am pretty confident they are a problem because I've found articles supporting claims to royal status and styles for countries that have been republics for half a century and more - in fact that's how I found them in the first place. Guy (help!) 07:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If it isn't on any other website, maybe then it isn't worth including if it can't be properly sourced? Surely there are better sources covering Indonesian sultanates, perhaps in indonesian? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've removed a couple royalark Brunei sources and indeed it is very to find replacement RS...probably because the subjects really aren't notable enough for their own articles. It's also rather challenging to track down the sources royalark attributes for some information, since the site was designed by what looks like a middle school HTML class in 2001. Just discovered the Ottoman dynasty page links to royalark 26 times... JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, what are we supposed to do with external links to royalark, wordpress, etc.? E.g. for Nobility JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Not even kidding: massive overlinking to royalark is so pervasive that it basically amounts to spam. Guy (help!) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Which does suggest that at least some of the information on the site is not entirely accurate. I can now sort-of understand the appeal of Royal Ark, particularly for information on Indonesia related topics because there is such a dearth of other available sources, but much of what Buyers cites is not easily accessible and therefore unverifiable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Each entry on Royal Ark lists sources, and is a perfectly reliable source in its field, Non-European royalty. If it was a published as a book instead there wouldn’t even be a question about it, but because it’s a website people get a bit snobby about it. I’ve not seen any suggestion that any content on there is unreliable or false, can someone give an example? The only reason JzG would seem to view it as unreliable is because it attributes titles to deposed royals which is a practice, I think is fair to say he throughly disapproves of, but is one which all serious academics/historians etc have done for centuries. - dwc lr (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , no they do not, and no it isn't (see WP:DEPS). I don't view it as unreliable because it attributes fictional titles, but because it is a one-man self-published source, and the sources it cites (when it does so) are often themselves equally unreliable. The fact that it also publishes fabulist nonsense is a reason for expediting cleanup, of course, but the underlying problems are much more serious. Guy (help!) 15:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can read the 20 days of discussion about its unreliable content that were mentioned during the RfC for deprecation. If it was published as a book, there would be the assumption of editorial oversight (unless it was self-published, in which case it would be equally unacceptable). JoelleJay (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course by Wikipedia’s standards it’s probably not a ‘Reliable Source’, I’m just saying it is a reliable and respected source in its field and I’ve seen it cited in books. You can also see from the acknowledgments respected persons who have assisted, Geoffrey Lewis (scholar), David Williamson to name two. Certainly in English very few resources are out there (as noted in this websites mission statement) that cover the non European royals (#BlackLivesMatter), certainly very few books. Burke’s published one in 1970s, and, as Royal Ark rightly rinses them for, there entry on Tunisia was contaminated by a bogus pretender. But the irony is on Wikipedia the bogus pretender could be inserted as credible as there may not be a ‘reliable source’ contradicting Burke’s one and only book and and I believe others like newspapers and perhaps other books were duped. But that’s the beauty and uniqueness of Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * can you provide the specific citations? Do you have any background information on Christopher Buyers, the owner of the website? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Allen James Fromherz edited book “The Gulf in World History” has cited Royal Ark for something . Dr Annabel Teh Gallop, Lead Curator of Southeast Asian material at the British Library, writes in Malay Seal Inscriptions “The most important default source is The Royal Ark < RA >, an on - line resource on the genealogies of non - European royal families compiled by Christopher Buyers ”. As part of a book he seemed to review he is described as “Independent scholar Christopher Buyers (Indian maharajas), who maintains a comprehensive Web site, The Royal Ark: Royal and Ruling Houses of Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas” - dwc lr (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In "The First Sultan of Sarawak and His Links to Brunei and the Sambas Dynasty, 1599–1826: A Little-known Pre-Brooke History" by Ib Larsen in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society it states: "Christopher Buyers, in his ‘Royal Ark’, even has a date for the event [the visit of Radin Suleiman to Brunei to obtain the title of Sultan of Sarawak], 20 August 1630, although this date almost certainly is too early"

Is this a "peer-reviewed journal" or a promotional blog?
I removed a link to a website that claimed it was a "Peer reviewed open access journal" but did I do wrong?

My question concerns a Wordpress blog whose editor in chief Claude Spicher runs a pain clinic in Fribourg, Switzerland. The page header, however, claims that this blog is "An open-access e-journal for neuropathic pain]." Spicher and collaborators repeatedly use articles in this blog as sources for statements about a therapy invented by Spicher (somatosensory rehabilitation of pain, whose June 8 version cited papers published by the blog 4 times. Both that article and its recent duplicate Somatosensory rehabilitation of neuropathic pain are at AfD.)

The e-news website produces pdf "issues" that include research-format articles describing successful treatments using the Spicher method, ads for a 980 euro course on the method to be taught by Spicher, and other material. Are there a specific way to distinguish medical RS from a proprietary blog that publishes "issues" and claims to be a journal? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean...a blog is a blog. No academic journal is hosted through a blog service. They have no editorial review (just "guest editors", which seem to include patients? and a continental philosophy expert...). There are no submission guidelines, or even a way to submit an article. They don't even claim to be peer-reviewed... JoelleJay (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Being indexed in selective and legitimate databases for academic journals https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/451577_3 <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There are peer-reviewed journals that use WordPress as a CMS. So you have to get into the quality of the "peer review" and the journal itself. This example looks ... not so great - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there many with "blog" in the url, though? JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's... differently credible. Not on any of the indexes as far as I can tell, no indication of who does this "peer review", not seeing any of the signs of legitimacy (DOI etc). The content is also nothing like a peer reviewed journal. I would go with "blatantly fake" myself, especially the specific article you removed. Guy (help!) 18:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The talk page has so many SPAs leaving (confusingly-formatted) comments promoting the technique to keep it from deletion. They didn't even try to disguise this effort! My favorite is the "Neutral Point of View" section, which includes this (slightly reformatted by me) exchange regarding COI between the founder of this method and an SPA he recruited: AFAICT almost all of the SPAs with real names in their sig are either contributors to this blournal or run clinics as part of the parent org's "Somatosensory Rehabilitation Network" (Reseau de Rééducation Sensitive de la Douleur). JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of sources on religious texts
There is a somewhat unusual situation at Homosexuality in India and Hinduism and LGBT topics concerning the inclusion of the following text (and variants thereof):

"but Rigveda says regarding Samsara that Vikruti Evam Prakriti (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems unnatural is also natural), which some scholars believe recognizes the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life, like all forms of universal diversities."

As well as the following challenging text, which is not currently present in the article:

"Hindus have many sacred texts and different communities give special importance to different texts. Even more so than in other religions, Hindus also foster disparate interpretations of the meaning of various texts. The Vedas, which form the foundation of Hinduism for many, do not refer explicitly to homosexuality, but some authors claim that the Rigveda says regarding Samsara that Vikruti Evam Prakriti (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems unnatural is also natural), although Monier-Williams does not attest either vikriti or prakriti in the text of the Rig Veda. Some writers believe this phrase recognizes the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life, like all forms of universal diversities, although academic Sanskritists like Jamison & Brereton do not accept the existence of the phrase in the text, as with Sastri in the revised Vedic concordance. "

In summary, in the present version of the articles, there is text asserting that the Rig Veda, an ancient compendium of Sanskrit religious poetry, contains the line "vikruti evam prakriti", which is claimed to mean "what seems unnatural is also natural", which is alleged to be a statement about homosexuality. These statements are currently sourced to this article in a popular publication, and this academic source on religion and sexuality. This text is currently being challenged on the grounds that the line "vikruti evam prakriti" does not actually occur in the Rig Veda, in support of which a number of authoritative sources on Sanskrit and the Rig Veda, which do not accept the attestation of the line in the Rig Veda, are cited, as well as searchable databases of the raw text itself. Exclusion of the challenged line and/or inclusion of text suggesting that the challenged line does not exist in the Rig Veda are both currently being rejected on the grounds that the academic sources on Sanskrit and Rig Veda are "irrelevant" because they do not specifically deal with homosexuality.

So the questions are:


 * 1) Are the sources cited in support of the existence of the phrase (a popular publication, and an academic work on religion and sexuality) reliable in the context of making a specific claim about the existence of a phrase in a specific religious text in a specific language, where the authors are not specialists on any of the religion, the language, or the work, and where no further citations are present in those sources attributing the claim to specialist works on Sanskrit or the Rig Veda?


 * 1) Are the sources cited in opposition to the existence of the phrase (all academic works on Sanskrit and the Rig Veda, of which several of the most salient ones are cited, which document the entirety of the Vedic corpus, according to which not only the challenged line, but even the individual words within it, are not attested in the Rig Veda) unreliable and/or irrelevant in the context of the articles in question?

Hölderlin2019 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The text is poorly written and looks very much like a novel synthesis. Guy (help!) 09:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is WP:OR, unless the reliable sources entirely support the text. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You, being involved in the original discussion, should not opine here as a 'neutral' third party. See also the discussion at the arbitration page. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Royalcruft again
Some more problematic royalty sites, and a couple of specific questions. No doubt there will be more... Guy (help!) 10:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  seems to be generally recognised as unreliable but there are nearly 8,000 references, does this need clarifying via RfC or should I just get on with removing them?
 * 2)  is widely used for personal royalty pages, this appears to be generic web hostiong of no objective authority? Over 900 references.
 * 3) Some orders and titles are sourced to images of people wearing ribbons or other elements. That seems lik WP:OR. Sourcing "Order of X" to a Flickr image of someone wearing a sash is just wrong, IMO.
 * 4)  looks like a personal site, does anyone know if it's RS?


 * iinet is just an ISP and that's just personal hosting. So unless the site is owned by a notable expert ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@user:JzG where is the RFC you mention? Are you proposing to remove the text that the rootsweb.ancestry.com supports or just the citation? -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No specific RfC on ancestry.com AFAIK, but it's a "frequent flyer" - sufficient that we have WP:ANCESTRY.COM as a shortcut to its "generally unreliable" listing at RSP. Its "unreliable" status predates WP:DAILYMAIL (goes back to 2015 or earlier). It's been known to be unreliable for so long that it's a puzzle why it's still so widely used and still being added. My intent would be to go to cn and leave the text unless it's obviously controversial. Guy (help!) 12:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.

In most cases I think that you need to give people time to find an alternative. You can do this by tagging the sources with or  and also. They are then dated and if no alternative sources are provided then after six months remove the text and the citation. See for example the template where there is a dispute over whether Rayment can be use as a source because although Wikipedia undeniable it is usually accurate.

I have frequently run AWB to find and tag such sources. For example search on   and tagged them as such. So there are a bunch of unrliable sources that have been used as citation for more than 8 years where it is time for the citation to be removed and the text that they support. If such citations have not been tagged and you mass delete them then you are may run in to reverts under WP:V:

and if you persist in mass deletions be accuse of being disruptive (which whether true or not is an unpleasant tine sink).. Much better to tag them and then bag them. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think you should delete the citation and not the text. If the text is verifiable then find a source to replace the one you are deleting. Otherwise delete the text as well (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#footnote_6 ""). If you do not want to do that then just leave the citation in place with the tags and let someone else sort it out. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , my normal approach (used for multiple sources including several vanity presses):
 * Tag as deprecated inline or similar, dated.
 * After at least 3 months, remove and either remove the content or tag cn.
 * It causes drama however you do it (just ask ). I have been told with equal confidence that (a) I must remove the content and the source; (b) I must WP:PRESERVE the content and tag cn; and (c) it is somehow my job to find a replacement source. In the end, the approach above seems to be mainly OK. Guy (help!) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * [www.]rootsweb.ancestry.com / [www.]rootsweb.com (including subdomains home.rootsweb.com and sites.rootweb.com) should be blanket blocked. It hosts a lot of legitimate material. It is one of the main ways to reference scans of various public records, and also has a searchable database of published obituaries (http://sites.rootsweb.com/~obituary/ ). Plus it provides the web hosting for various organizations such as the Canadian Military Heritage Project, Polish Genealogy Society, etc., some of which do not have their own domain names at which the same content can be reached.  See list here: https://home.rootsweb.com/sites/siteDirectory . It unfortunately also hosts various WP:UGC family genealogy content; sometimes that's just how it goes, and we have to look at what is being cited and whether it is a legitimate source to use and is actually a source for what we say it is (which is diligence we should be doing anyway).  However, some subsites and paths can definitely be blacklisted: wc.rootsweb.com (WorldConnect) is a site for people to post their personal genealogy database files (pure UGC); https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/ and what's under it is the way to get material into that system, and doesn't have anything at it anyone should cite here. Everything under https://www.ancestry.com/boards/ can also be blacklisted; this is their forum.  On the other hand, https://www.ancestry.com/search/ is generally legit; it's databases of public records (with URLs usually in the form https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/... or https://www.ancestry.com/search/places/...; I'm not finding forum or other UGC material here.  There may be some specific https://rootsweb.ancestry.com/... paths that can be blacklisted.  This domain now redirects to rootsweb.com, and it's not clear exactly what in the older domain-and-path scheme corresponds to what in the new one; there may be entire trees under the original rootsweb.ancestry.com addressing that correspond to forums or UGC genealogies, which can be more narrowly blacklisted. www.ancestrycdn.com should be permitted; this is their content server for PDFs of records; it used to be c.ancestry.com, which is now dead, so various URLs that point to it will need updating (I just fixed some at William A. Spinks).  Now that I think of it, the https://home.rootsweb.com/sites/siteDirectory list itself could be used to create a list of hosted websites for family UGC to blacklist; just remove the entries in that list that are to resource collections or to organizations.  https://www.newspapers.com (operated by Ancestry) is fine; it's scans of news sources, and we use it. Their https://www.fold3.com/ site is also fine; it's a database of US military and related records; not UGC. http://freepages.rootsweb.com/ can be blacklisted; this is their domain for individuals to host their own random webpages. https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/ AKA https://lists.rootsweb.com/ can be blacklisted, since the lists it archives are all UGC. https://wiki.rootsweb.com is probably okay; it no longer has a public login function or a means of requesting write access; it appears to be solely edited by their staff, and just consists of bibliographic information like this, and a gazetteer of places and their genealogy associations, like this. FindAGrave is also run by them, and I think we're already blacklisting it. Similar sites (not run by Ancestry): https://www.worldgenweb.org/ appears non-problematic; it is not a combined database of the UGC genealogy material submitted, but simply an index of genealogy resources arranged nationally (I'm not sure it would be useful as a source for anything, but it's not the kind of thing we need to blacklist). http://www.usgenweb.com/ is fine; it's just the site about the organization and doesn't provide any UGC itself. https://www.familysearch.org/wiki looks blacklistable; it's a user-editable wiki. However, some other things at that domain are not, including the records database at https://www.familysearch.org/search/ ; I'm not sure if any records found that way will actually have that "search" in the URL (like they do at the Ancestry.com site), but the only UGC I know of for certain there will be .../wiki/... material (I joined the site, and confirm that anyone can edit, after a trivial application process).  WeRelate.org is an open public wiki, so should be blacklisted, though we might need to make a specific exception for certain pages for WP:ABOUTSELF citation reasons. There's been discussion for several years of making that a WMF project. WikiTree.com is exactly the same kind of open wiki.  https://www.GenUKI.org.uk/ will need some more detailed scrutiny; much of it is UGC stuff, but parts of it are not (public records scans, UK & Ireland placename database, etc., plus staff-written editorial content on genealogy research). The UGC material (forums, publicly editable wiki content, mailing list archives, personal family trees, etc.) can probably be isolated to specific directory paths, but I don't have all day for this. https://forebears.io/ was another site like this, but appears to be defunct. https://www.geni.com/ is another one, and like GenUKI appears to be a mix of UGC and staff editorial content which will need to be split up by path, so we only blacklist the UGC. Same with https://www.geneanet.org/ (AKA en.geneanet.org, de.geneanet.org, etc.). We also need to keep in mind that any page containing a blacklisted link will be impossible to save again, for any edit, until someone tracks down the offending link.  This can be very confusing for non-expert editors, who think something is wrong with the material they inserted themselves in their own edit.
 * , thanks, that's excellent! Does ((freepages|lists|mailinglists|wc)\.rootsweb\.com|ancestry\.com/(family\-tree|boards)|genealogy\.euweb\.cz) look right to you? Guy (help!) 14:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good start (and I wasn't aware of some of that, like .euweb.cz, before this thread). I'm not sure if it's sensible to try to pack [www.]familysearch.org/wiki and [www.]werelate.org and [www.]wikitree.com (or specific trees of the latter two, if we want to permit their home and about pages) into the same rule, or do them separately. I've been away from this process for a long time, and am not certain what typical practice is now. The only stuff from Ancestry that maybe needs blacklisting that wouldn't be got-at by the above rule would be material under sites.rootsweb.com/ when it is neither a editorial resource (database, etc.) provided by them, nor an organizational website hosted by them; so, all the family genealogy subsites listed at https://home.rootsweb.com/sites/siteDirectory could be blocked. I would assume that would be a separate rule, since it's a lot of entries to pipe-separate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @User:SMcCandlish and user:JzG this whole area is a wack a rat. It is so easy for new editors to find unreliable sources on the net not yet realising that they are Wikipeida unreliable. I haven't done much in this area for some years, but at the time I tagged most of them, and deleted many, and I have kept my notes (User:PBS/Notes which consist of bullet points:


 * Wayback Machine (http://alternativeto.net/software/wayback-machine/) see also User:H3llBot


 * Special:LinkSearch/thepeerage.com — External link search
 * OK if Lundy is used as source for WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as Lndy normally cites a reliable source. Where he does (often citing a email exchange), then his site is unacceptable. The problem is following up the links and adding the reliable source takes time.


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10 and Template_talk:Rayment and Rayment
 * See RS Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley website: Medieval Lands introduction v2.0. Updated 30 November 2010 Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley The project "involves extracting and analysing detailed information from primary sources, including contemporary chronicles, cartularies, necrologies and testaments." — The problem is Cawley uses a lot of primary sources and then draws inferences that if they were directly done by a Wikipedia editor would fail WP:PSTS and as an unrliable sources, it introduces this type of error into Wikipedia so WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is often not appropriate on this site.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211
 * Genealogy.EU by Miroslav Marek Last updated: 17th March 2008 Genealogy.EU
 * David Beamish's Peerage Page
 * eg http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/luynes.html
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am very ambivalent about that Rayment stuff. Guy (help!) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people are (see my comment about Rayment earlier in this section -- 12:18, 19 June 2020). However as far as I can remember only in does he cite his sources and see Template talk:Rayment. For them moment I would leave Rayment alone as there are far worse citations listed above over which there is little disagreement among established editors that they are Wikipedia unreliable and unlike Rayment have no saving graces. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am very ambivalent about that Rayment stuff. Guy (help!) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people are (see my comment about Rayment earlier in this section -- 12:18, 19 June 2020). However as far as I can remember only in does he cite his sources and see Template talk:Rayment. For them moment I would leave Rayment alone as there are far worse citations listed above over which there is little disagreement among established editors that they are Wikipedia unreliable and unlike Rayment have no saving graces. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am very ambivalent about that Rayment stuff. Guy (help!) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people are (see my comment about Rayment earlier in this section -- 12:18, 19 June 2020). However as far as I can remember only in does he cite his sources and see Template talk:Rayment. For them moment I would leave Rayment alone as there are far worse citations listed above over which there is little disagreement among established editors that they are Wikipedia unreliable and unlike Rayment have no saving graces. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am very ambivalent about that Rayment stuff. Guy (help!) 22:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people are (see my comment about Rayment earlier in this section -- 12:18, 19 June 2020). However as far as I can remember only in does he cite his sources and see Template talk:Rayment. For them moment I would leave Rayment alone as there are far worse citations listed above over which there is little disagreement among established editors that they are Wikipedia unreliable and unlike Rayment have no saving graces. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another fringe book from Simon and Schuster
Two years ago I posted here this mention of a book they published and here's another one.Secrets of Ancient America Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers. The publisher page on him says he has published in Ancient America, a racist journal of pseudohistory. It's also published by Bear and Company, a fringe publisher. The book expands " upon the work of well-known diffusionists such as Barry Fell and Gunnar Thompson". Very disappointing, just shows that not all publishers get an automatic pass. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents a mainstream publisher from publishing a book on woo-woo topics. The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books, and if they can do so by selling books on woo-woo fringe topics they will. It is a sign that a fringe topic is POPULAR with the mainstream. Note: this popularity does NOT mean the fringe topic is ACCEPTED by the mainstream. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , true, but there are some authors so batshit that virtually all publishers refuse to take them. G. Edward Griffin and Gary Null are both pretty much exclusively self-published, for example. Guy (help!) 14:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think G. Edward Griffin and Gary Null both fall into the too nutty and not lucrative enough category, most mainstream publishers seem to be pretty accepting of even very fringe works if there are strong sales prospects... When sales prospects are minimal or have declined sharply suddenly they find ethics. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought only academic non-commercial publishers which were part of reputable institutions got an automatic pass? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * HEJ is correct, there's no reason to assume that just because something is printed on paper that it is automatically reliable or correct. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Does nobody remember when Simon and Schuster were lined up to publish Milo Yiannopoulos's Dangerous? This is hardly suprising. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this going somewhere? I hope we are not playing the “guilt by association” game, and trying to argue that everything Simon and Schuster publishes is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but being published by Simon and Schuster, or any other member of the big 5 isn't a seal of reliability, nor really should it ever be taken as one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * S&S has had a number of financial issues shall we say. Which has had a direct effect on the lack of qualms about stuff they publish. They will sell anything if it can make them money. So like almost everything, determining reliable sources need to be more than 'published by X'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a given that simply being published by a major publisher does not automatically make a book a WP:RS. It tends to push the presumption towards reliability when all else is equal, but the author, author's reputation, reputation of the individual book and so on all still matter. This is especially true when discussing sources that make WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:FRINGE claims, or in situations where the content is contradicted by higher-quality sources; a pop-culture "coffee table" book shouldn't be cited if it contradicts higher-quality academic sources or books by established subject-matter experts.  --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think that is exactly correct. Guy (help!) 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was S&S ever listed as a strictly academic publisher where all works would be peer reviewed? They certainly are a major publisher but I have to agree with comments like Aquillion's.  Being a S&S publication doesn't mean it's a RS.  Springee (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)