Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311

Clarification: Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?
{{atop|The Mail on Sunday was not explicitly mentioned in the closure of the 2017 RFC. However, it does operate from the dailymail.co.uk domain that was expressly mentioned as a prohibited source in the 2017 RFC.

The above two statements aren't significantly in dispute here. Beyond that, there's significant, reasonable argument that many UK newspapers do operate Sunday editions that are significantly editorially-separate publications, and the Mail on Sunday does have a separate team. However, there are also reasonable arguments that the Mail on Sunday does share many of the reliability issues of its daily sibling, and the shared website only underlines that. The prohibition on citing dailymail.co.uk in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source, and I think specific consensus via a new RfC would be needed to overturn that default.

This was formatted as a clarification, not a new RfC, and generally participants have (to their credit) treated it as that. A closure was requested at AN, and in the interests of providing some clarity to this new chapter in the Daily Mail saga, I've provided one - but this is not the kind of discussion that was really set up to provide new consensus. ~ mazca  {{sup|talk}} 19:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)} }}

(Manually unarchiving thread, setting DoNotArchive to 1 October 2020 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

The Mail on Sunday is owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. They aren't the same newspaper, however, and, to quote our article, "the editorial staffs of the two papers are entirely separate". That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/). Does the RfC on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Daily Mail also apply to The Mail on Sunday? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2017 RFC did not separate MoS out as a separate publication, even as it's at the same explicitly deprecated URL - neither in the finding, nor in the discussion. Two commenters on the 2019 RFC tried to make out that it was explicitly excluded by the 2017 RFC, but that's not the case from the actual discussion or RFC finding, so their claims of this are spurious.
 * There's a curious phenomenon of people claiming that MoS isn't covered by WP:DAILYMAIL (again, even though neither RFC excludes it from consideration) - and therefore links to it are actually good and usable. I think it's important to note that even if the MoS isn't deprecated, that doesn't make MoS an RS (as some advocates of this viewpoint that "but it's not covered!" seem to think) - it's still a garbage-tier tabloid that should not be used in Wikipedia any more than the other garbage-tier tabloids.
 * In short - I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAIL. Either way, it's a bad source and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.
 * Anyone seeking to seriously dispute this should do so with specific reference to the wordings used in the previous RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAIL If that's a reference to me, then I don't particularly care what the answer to the question posed is (in either direction). This is genuinely a request for clarification because I couldn't find it with a quick search of RSN, and they do appear to be different newspapers so I think it's a valid question to ask. For clarity, the consensus on this question should be added to the notes of WP:DAILYMAIL. A little good faith goes a long way y'know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no sorry, I meant specifically the people who explicitly claim in discussion over particular usages that MoS was excluded in the RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too, per DG. I dont understand when people claim it is a different newspaper. It's just the sunday edition people. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You seriously don't understand the role an editorial staff plays at a newspaper? It's not a Sunday edition, it's a sister paper. It's an entirely different thing. In the exact same fashion that just because the Wikipedia editors had a massive hate fest over the Daily Mail, that doesn't mean that the finding of "generally reliable" applies to other titles owned by the same company. CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * CommandTeamSixSixSix is a brand new account, I suspect it's a Brian K Horton sock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked while I was in the middle of filing a SPI. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * THe Daily Myths website is explicitly deprecated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's this sort of stupidity that is properly going to bite Wikipedia in the ass. Do you people not think outsiders realise that this whole "depreciation" nonsense deals with pu fishers, not websites. -- Preceding unsigned comment came from CommandTeamSixSix on 17:27 21 August 2020.  Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been asked and answered before, see "Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday". No, WP:DAILYMAIL1 ended in a conclusion about Daily Mail. Two editors (Andrew D. and I) did say that there was "muddle" about Mail on Sunday, but the closers chose to mention only what was clear. You can of course ask them though -- I found that, when I had a false impression that all Daily Mail opinion columns were disallowed, the closers were willing to clarify. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your "reference" link claiming to be a previous discussion is to literally the present discussion. Please support your claim of a distinction in the RFCs with quotes and a link to what you're quoting. Even as you were one of the commenters in WP:DAILYMAIL1 asserting a distinction, the comments and conclusion of WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:DAILYMAIL2 do not support the claim of distiction - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed my link was a self-reference, I apologize to all. If I'm understanding your comment now, it's a demand that since the closers didn't say Mail on Sunday is banned, somebody must prove that they didn't silently mean that it's banned. Er, there are thousands of publications that they didn't mention, if we followed your logic then those thousands of publications were banned due to argumentum ex silentio. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding the comment, if that's what you think logically follows from it. I'll take it from that that you do not in fact have textual support from the RFCs for the claim that the MoS is not covered - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a 2019 discussion, perhaps the similar title mixed me up. As for David Gerard's main claim, once again closers were willing to clarify, see below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "This is Money"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked about this one previously - it literally self-describes as the "money section of the MailOnline" in its about page, so it's just another URL for the deprecated source. (The opinion at that link saying we should treat it as a separate source is from a banned sockpuppeter.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * NO OPINION - just want to point out that this question has been raised several times since the deprecation of the DM... and each time it gets slightly different results, depending on who gets involved in the discussion. (See archives 278 and 280) We may need to have a full RFC, and put it on the perennial list. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Times and The Times are different, and sometimes take different sides. This may not be the same as the DM and MoS, but it is at least possible for a Sunday paper to be separate from it's quotidian stablemate. I agree with that the simplest expedient would be to have a separate RfC on the matter to get and accurate gauge of just how many angels are on the pinhead. GPinkerton (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sunday newspapers in the UK are separate publications. The Observer, News of the World, The Correspondent and in the beginning the Sunday Sport were strictly Sunday newspapers, although the NoW was linked to The Sun. While I imagine that the editors who banned the Daily Mail would probably ban the Mail on Sunday as well, the fact is that they didn't, probably because they were unaware it was a separate publication. So I think a separate RfC is required. TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with TFD above; the original RFC asked if DM was reliable; if MoS is a separate publication then it is not covered by the scope of the original discussion (similar to how the recent Fox News discussion specifically left out pundits/opinion pieces). I will, however, note that dailymail.co.uk was specifically included in the close, which muddies the water somewhat as MoS uses that base URL; I think a new RFC will be required to deal with MoS specifically. Primefac (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note for other editors that, on Primefac's talk, a second closer of WP:DAILYMAIL1 has also responded with their support for this view. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In the grand traditions of pure nonsense masquerading as sensible outcomes, the closing statement is interpreted by the haters whichever way suits their hatred on any given day. An explicit url was identified as depreciated, but other URLs can be considered to be included too, according to the victors. An explicit title was mentioned, but other titles can also be assumed to be covered too, according to the victors. All this is based on criteria that don't exist and that which they will never explain. Why? Because they genuinely don't have a good reason for any of this nonsense, and you won't find it in the debates, no frames of reference, for example. Just pure hate, a grand pile on, started by a now banned editor, banned for violating the holy BLP of all things, a person who confessed to having used "Daily Mail tactics" in how he achieved victory. Quite. There are holes and flaws like this all over the debate and the assorted closures/summaries purporting to be community consensus, of which there are now four I believe. CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

'''What about other DMGY titles? ''' It is precisely because the Wikipedia editors participating in DAILYMAIL didn't seem to know or care what they thought the primary reasons for the Mail's alleged unreliability actually are (editor, culture, owner, market conditions, regulator, law courts), it seems prudent to take this opportunity to also obtain a clear and explicit statement that DAILYMAIL at least doesn't apply to other titles owned by the Mail's parent company. You would think this was an obvious no, but you look above, and you look at some of the nonsense said in DAILYMAIL about Nazis and other general rubbish that showed that it was nothing but a (dis)organsied hate mob, ironically, and you just genuinely don't know anymore. Even though Paul Dacre's name was all over the debate, we already know apparently that was just a mistake, that the finding is about something other than what can be controlled or commanded by an individual Editor In Chief. Which may, or may not, also apply to the Sunday paper. I mean, seriously, how long are people going to pretend thwt wasn't a farce from beginning to end? You don't even know what paper you were talking about! CommandTeamSixSixSix (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is classic MickMackNee/Brian K Horton. Can somebody open up a sockpuppet investigation? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So the editors that David Gerard maligned are vindicated, and the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. I hope there's no need to continue this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They won't be vindicated until the community explicitly sanctions the use of what is obviously a questionable source with close ties to the deprecated organ. GPinkerton (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An RfC on the question would probably be a waste of editors' time at this stage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This would be an extremely questionable declaration, as much as you'd like it to be the case - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the Daily Mail RfC closers' statements there is still disagreement, and this could affect many edits past and future, so I will ask for a formal close per WP:CLOSE soon unless there are more posts. I now ping all participants in the above-mentioned 2019 discussion (Guest2625 Black Kite Slatersteven 86.143.229.179 Andy Dingley). David Gerard said "Two commenters on the 2019 RFC tried to make out that it was explicitly excluded by the 2017 RFC" so I would ping them too to give them a chance to defend themselves, but I can't, they don't exist. The closer must answer what the OP asked, for me that would be sufficient. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Close request is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't an RFC, it's an unformatted discussion - there wasn't an RFC open to be closed - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I must note: the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. is not in any way an accurate summary of the responses you got from the original closers, and you appear to have grossly misread what they said, which contained many conditionals - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Mail on Sunday is a reasonably well put together newspaper, and its staff are different from the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The fact that the MOS stories appear on the dailymail.co.uk website is misleading. I don't think that the MOS is much worse than the Sunday Telegraph.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Hustler's Digest

 * The Hustler's Digest
 * External Links

I came across The Hustler's Digest while reviewing an AfC submission and decided to investigate the source. The media company produces news articles and other content for its customers. Following are things I noted about it as a source; Taking the above into consideration, articles written by company staff may be considered reliable at first glance. However, it should be noted that the site's editorial policy seems to allow for native advertising that is distinct from sponsored content, so sources written by staff should be used with caution. As for contributor content, said content is user-generated and as such is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In addition, a search for citations of thehustlersdigest.com on en.wiki shows that - in 7/8 instances - the source cited was written by a contributor and not by staff. It should also be noted that while staff articles distinguish paid content from unpaid content, this standard may not apply to contributor content as most contributors seem to be digital marketers. Surmising all of the above, the source in question should probably be considered as generally unreliable with only staff articles being considered as WP:RS, and then only with proper vetting. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The digest has a clear policy and distinguishes news from sponsored content.
 * Articles on the site are written by either staff (team members) or by contributors
 * Content produced by contributors is subject to some editorial oversight and follows guidelines
 * , I think you give the publication too much credit. It has all the hallmarks of a pay-to-print enterprise. A staff of 4 and no designated editors does not indicate to me that it is a reliable source. I would consider it a self-published source. I mean the home page has "EDITORS PICK" instead of "EDITOR'S PICK" or "EDITORS' PICKS". --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 03:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User contributed content is treated the same as self-published, regardless where it is published. Letters to the editor and reader commentaries on news media websites for example are not reliable. Neither are opinion pieces. Seems to me that if a source is rarely used and no problems can be found with its accuracy, it's not a big problem. TFD (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Infodrips as source
As I read the guidelines about the Wikipedia reliable sources, I found that infodrips.com may be useful for reliable source, almost all the informative contents are already verified by editors as they also referenced (sources from reputed medical journals,academic journals, academic books etc.) that all in their contents. Still want to discuss it more that maybe I'm wrong, Editors are requested to have a look on it. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 07:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Per infodrips.com/about/ and infodrips.com/infodrips-for-writers/, I'd say it's not a WP:RS. Also blacklisted on WP. However, a random article I checked linked some references they used, and some of those may be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, Would you please explain it more that what you found at infodrips.com/about/ that you said it's not WP:RS, and the infodrips.com/infodrips-for-writers/ means that it's user generated but not user verified informations, infodrips also mentioned at infodrips.com/infodrips-for-writers/ that after a review they published, and review is a moderation process that verifies the information reliability, you can say that the moderation filter hidden, but the published information are verified or reliable. Hope you getting it. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 11:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Like you said, it's WP:USERG, thus "generally unacceptable." per guideline. Nothing at infodrips.com/about/ indicates that this site should be an exception, neither does "After a short review of infodrips terms, Your article will be published on infodrips.com.". So, if they use good refs, use those.


 * Note also the "Disclaimer of Warranties:" section in their Terms and Conditions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I noted you said that Nothing at infodrips.com/about/ indicates that this site should be an exception. And the references you suggest to use is also sources from another sources, So, it's a chain of reliability that refers to others, on the basis I also found infodrips WP:RS. "Disclaimer of Warranties" is a common thing in almost all publications or journals, For example healthline.com is also have same "Disclaimer of Warranties:" but it's also WP:SP, therefore, "Disclaimer of Warranties" doesn't mean that their information is actually not reliable, it's a different topic of discussion. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 11:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to have any real reputation (not WP:PUBLISHED); we don't even have an article on it. Just use the other sources it provides because those are the most preferable anyway. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , (WP:PUBLISHED) defines the two basic factor that the first one is "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited" which is already we have seen on it, and second one is "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.", it's all archiving at (Digital Library Internet Archive) which is reputed party, You can find the infodrips contents in the library, for a sample you can find any information link from infodrips here at Archived,(I couldn't insert the link here because infodrips links are blacklisted here to put), all contents are timely archiving in that library for future citation exploration. More, Not all WP:RS guideline factors completely meet to all reliable sources ever. Hope you're getting the point. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 11:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * if it's sourced, then use those sources! Who is the editor? What process do they go through? Who is behind the company (it's a blog)? What's their reputation (they have 15 followers on instagram)? We have exactly zero evidence to support changing the policy for this one source. Three editors have given you three different reasons that it's not a WP:RS, and if it's sourced so well, then use those sources. And if you publish on InfoDrips, then you need to declare a COI and make sure not to violate WP:OR. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Examination of the front page articles (this day) suggest it is definitely user generated content, very bland blather, and unreliable as a source. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Colombo Page
Is Colombo Page a reliable source for events that occur in Sri Lanka? We have more than 400 citations to .VR talk 05:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They appear to be primarily a news reprinter, and not a source themselves, per their about us page, which states "We post news from the established wire sources such as Reuters but from time to time we include news or news analyses from other sources as well. Most of the "news analyses" are one person and/or group of people�s opinion and these are NOT necessarily a news item." Which says to me that each individual reference should be checked against whether or not it is a reprint from a genuinely reliable source or not.  If it is a fine source, we can optionally find the original and link that, but that would not be strictly necessary.  If it is not, it should be removed as it probably falls under the sort of "NOT necessarily a news item" reprints that it also claims to have.  -- Jayron 32 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

War is Boring and The Arkenstone
Are thearkenstone.blogspot.com and medium.com/war-is-boring reliable sources for military articles? The article is Shahed 171 Simorgh, but I see that they are used elsewhere too. Pahlevun (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also here, probably. And David_Axe may be useful. Jlevi (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * War is Boring has been cited by The Diplomat and suggested by Politico.Jlevi (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * David Axe seems to have published at least one scholarly book and David_Axe appears to sometimes be cited by reliable, secondary sources. At first glance, he seems to qualify under WP:RSSELF.VR talk 15:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The book Army 101: Inside ROTC in a Time of War does not sound like a scholarly work (from the pages can be read on Google Books). It is most probably published by University of South Carolina Press only because it is a "nonfiction tale" about ROTC program at the university (Gamecock Battalion). Pahlevun (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think War is Boring is an RS -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found two WikiProject discussions from 2013 and 2017 about War is Boring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 123 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 141. Pahlevun (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * War is boring used to be an up and coming military news/analysis site run by David Axe, a few years ago it had a pretty strong reputation. In the past two years or so, however, Axe has been doing other things and the site mostly reprints content from elsewhere or reprints old stories. So it depends when.--Hippeus (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The Arkenstone has been cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency . It seems to me to meet WP:SPS. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The DIA report cites the blog for information already available on Wikipedia (such as duration of conscription in Iran or subordinates of the defense ministry), which in my opinion, indicates the report's author was lazy enough to not to find a source better than a blog rather than it being reputable. The criteria for SPS inclusion is being an established subject-matter expert. Is the person who ran the blog (which is inactive since 2016), Galen Wright, an established subject-matter expert? Pahlevun (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Member of the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry by Andrey Fomich Novatski
Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of []. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [] page 116. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Podcasts
I don't know where to look, but in the Vera Farmiga article it states that Freddie Highmore is the godfather to one of her children. The source used, the article doesn't state that he is, but he mentioned it in the podcast. The question is, can podcasts be used as a source? I've looked and can't find where it says if podcasts are reliable or not. If they are not, it's easy to find other articles to replace it as a source. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would seem to be an unvetted claim about a third party, and therefore likely prohibited by WP:BLPSPS. (Also, it's a fairly insignificant detail that doesn't necessarily add to reader understanding of the subject.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's that Vera and Freddie became friends while on the series Bates Motel which is why she made him godfather. But will change the source on the Verma Farmiga article.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Android Headlines (AndroidHeadlines.com) as a reliable source?
Is Android Headlines (AndroidHeadlines.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?


 * They have an about, and list of authors.


 * Every article/post I've looked at has fine print saying " This post may contain affiliate links. See our privacy policy for more information. "


 * My impression of the site is it is "advert infested" with primary goal of pushing people to ads and product purchases.


 * It is used in 133 articles.


 * It has been discussed at Talk related to CopperheadOS, where there is an opinion claiming they, in essence, re-publish company press releases, and have retracted controversial articles/posts. I have confirmed only that a couple appearing in recent web search are now 404-not found, (but are in archive.org). The actual reason for this is not clear. In light of other things about the site, my guess is this is less due to editorial oversight, and more likely avoiding controversy, and not standing behind what they publish, or properly publishing an update - in balance, negative reliability indicators.

My opinion is they should be considered a self-published group blog (i.e. not reliable). -- Yae4 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.androidheadlines.com/2019/12/copperheados-updates-thriving-shut-down.html was retracted and the author of the article Daniel Golightly has confirmed it. They are more than happy to confirm it for others that contact them by email or perhaps Twitter. Regardless of whether or not the source is acceptable in general, that article in particular was retracted. I don't know what happened to the other articles. It's likely they took them down at the same time. I don't have an opinion on whether it's a problematic source as a whole since I haven't read more than the 2 articles about CopperheadOS which had serious accuracy / sourcing issues. Pitchcurve (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Android Headlines is marginally reliable at best and self-published at worst. The website simply deleted the article about the CopperheadOS situation instead of formally retracting it, which is not a positive indicator of its reliability. From my experience, editors tend to be more accepting of marginally reliable sources for niche or specialized topics, but Android in general is too popular to be considered niche. —  Newslinger  talk   09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

TuttoAndroid.net as a reliable source?
Is TuttoAndroid (tuttoandroid.net, Italian Language) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?

I was on the fence and used it before, but the more I look, the more it seems like a spammy advert-blog. I couldn't find evidence of editorial oversight. It is only used in 5 articles, 2 of which I've been involved in editing, CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS. Tuttoandroid was brought up for Talk page discussion at CopperheadOS Talk, but more opinions would help. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: I'd forgotten previously said at Talk:GrapheneOS " These citations clearly aren't reliable " and included TuttoAndroid in his list of sources to remove, saying about it: " No staff list. Also appears to be a summarized translation of this Liliputing article.  However, somehow it was put back into GrapheneOS later. Considering consensus on Liliputing was non-reliable, TuttoAndroid.net is also looking non-reliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are 3 non-TuttoAndroid / non-Liliputing references for the CopperheadOS Alpha release now. I'm not aware of all the past discussions or entries like this. If I knew you would have a problem with this reference I would have used the other ones from the start. As far as I know, using these as references for the Alpha release is the only time I have used these references. It now uses https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/CopperheadOS-Alternatives-System-will-Android-sicherer-machen-2827911.html (appears to be a good source) and https://www.androidworld.it/2015/09/08/copperheados-firmware-open-source-sicuro-333633/ (which at least has a staff list with editors) along with the reference to the Alpha release in the LWN article about the Beta release which similarly explains that the Alpha / earlier project was based on CyanogenMod and then it became directly based on AOSP with the Beta. I would have happily used other references if I knew that these were going to be considered a problem. I hope the current references are adequate, which I think is the case. Pitchcurve (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of this page, "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct." This discussion is to establish consensus on the one source, if possible, for future reference. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Considering the similarities between the two articles, it certainly looks like TuttoAndroid translated the Liliputing article, changed a few words around, and then claimed it as its own in https://www.tuttoandroid.net/modding/grapheneos-android-sicurezza-privacy-open-source-669777/. Liliputing was already considered a self-published blog in, so TuttoAndroid is at best also generally unreliable. —  Newslinger  talk   10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Global Times
What is the reliability of Global Times ? It is used in more than a thousand Wikipedia articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Survey (Global Times)

 * Option 4 a tabloid newspaper known for disinformation, state propaganda, and conspiracy theories (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4: Almost all of the attention for the Global Times is focused on its outlandish editorials, which should never be used outside of WP:ABOUTSELF regarding its authors. Their factual reporting also has major issues and should be regarded as unreliable; so possibly a 3 for non-editorials, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Global Times' false reporting extended to its factual reporting. — MarkH21talk 19:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4. I wouldn't rely on the Global Times for anything except to get a sense of the most hawkish and nationalistic propaganda coming from Chinese state media. Only usable for WP:ABOUTSELF, I think. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. While Xinhua (RfC above) exhibits some of the highest-quality reporting that mainland China has to offer, the Global Times exhibits some of the lowest-quality reporting. The main factor that distinguishes the Global Times from other Chinese state-owned publications is that the content published by Global Times is not necessarily aligned with the position of the Chinese government. Often, the Global Times exaggerates to generate a reaction, which frequently leads to Western publications incorrectly describing what the Global Times says as China's stance on an issue. This is a mistake: even though the Global Times is owned by the more respectable People's Daily, the Global Times is just a tabloid that publishes polemic for the sake of polemic (or in other words, propaganda). The Global Times serves the same purpose as Breitbart News in the US, but is state-owned and takes a stance favoring the Chinese Communist Party. Here are some quotes from reliable sources that describe the Global Times, taken from my previous comment in :


 * Option 4 per above and for the fact that Global Times has been criticised for its coverage by the Chinese government itself. 1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4, one of the worst in the world among the major state media outlets. Deprecation benchmarks RT and Daily Mail are superior in almost every way to Global Times, I don’t see any wiggle room on this one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Per Newslinger's sources -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4, Newslinger's sources make it pretty clear that its widely recognised as a state owned propoganda outlet at best, which is saying something. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per nom. That newspaper does not even pretend to provide reliable information about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. This really is just a propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 concerning its propaganda service nature, and how much the world agrees on its nature as a propaganda service.--1233 ( T / C） 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Straight propaganda. feminist (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 pure propaganda. Cavalryman (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
 * Option 3 Propaganda.  KONNO  Yumeto  09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Pure tabloid propaganda. Sometimes Global Times (or Hu Xijin, should I say?) takes on a straw-man role with extreme opinions that go beyond Chinese state propaganda as a means for the CCP to test the waters regarding particularly controversial positions. As a result we can't even say GT reliably represents Chinese government opinion. I thought for a while about GT opinion being so notable that they might be cited and inline-attributed, but on second thoughts figured out that more reliable news outlets will have covered those opinions if they were sufficiently notable (in the news media sense, not the Wikipedia sense). Deryck C. 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 There's long been a consensus in the reliable sources I've seen that the Global Times is essentially a propaganda outfit, and is not a reliable source for facts. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 - They have been officially chastised by Chinese authorities for their publications before, so their editorial line cannot even be said to be in line with that of the Chinese government. Neither does it even match that of their parent company, whose standard of publishing is far, far higher. Couple that with the criticism over conspiracy theories and you have a good argument for being very careful with them. Perhaps they might be kept around when referring to perticularly jingoistic strains of Chinese society, though. Would be open to having that discussion, though it should be handled with care. Goodposts (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 The Global Times effectively combines the "reliability" of the Daily Mail and state intervention of RT with Chinese propaganda to produce a tabloid milkshake that is likely to be reliable for... uhh... "facts". JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Propaganda.-- BlackShadowG ★（talk） 12:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per nom. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per. If you have the slightest doubt, follow the link and read as much as you can stand, and compare with a sane article about Lai here.Adoring nanny (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 CPC mouthpiece, plus high unreliability and spurious claims. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 The quotes provided by Newslinger are compelling. The negative quotes are provided by the highest caliber of sources that we have. Such a propaganda source is not necessary on Wikipedia. As the quotes mention there are other possible sources that Wikipedia is able to use concerning the workings of China. And sure aboutself if necessary as option 4 allows. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Pure propaganda. 唔重要嘅人 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Per above Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 It's not just propaganda, but trollish propaganda: "Strikingly, rather than claiming that Western journalists misreport Xinjiang, the Global Times prefers to troll them, accusing foreign correspondents of hoping to “profit” from negative China coverage, while asserting that the Western press is “nowhere near as influential as it once was” and gleefully noting Mr Trump’s attacks on “fake news”." (from the Economist article above, just before the quoted section). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 The same could be said about the People's Daily. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Global Times)
The votes above are amazing. Every single source listed by anyone notes that the Global Times is an important voice of hawkish elements within the Chinese establishment. If you take the sources seriously, its perspective is necessary to understand Chinese politics, but is obviously biased. Here on Wikipedia, editors cite these sources but then counter that we should deprecate the Global Times. What is the point of the categories Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, or Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when we so often think in the binary terms reliable vs deprecation? -Darouet (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Options 2 or 3 are for sources like Xinhua not bottom of the barrel tabloids like the Global Times. I see no evidence that anyone is thinking in binary terms, can you say more about why you feel that way? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Right this isn't a binary thing, it's just that there's a consensus that the source is too unreliable to use for anything except possibly statements about itself. Oh, and it's a great source for alternative facts, but Wikipedia doesn't traffic in such things. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Horse Eye Jack & User:Anachronist: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably because the closer has to be familiar with the process of deprecating a source? I could close it, but is there more to do than simply tagging this conversation as closed and updating the list at WP:DEPRECATED and possibly also WP:RSP? Does an edit filter need to be set up? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your questions because I just don't know. All I know is that threads can be closed (I just looke at the examples on this page) but I don't know all the technical requirements that have to be met for it to go through. That is why I pinged you two in the hopes that you may know. Flaughtin (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * was kind enough to explain the process to me here. It's more complicated than I expected, but it's done. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Kingsley Publishers
I've found many instances of plagiarism in the book A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counselling (published in 2019 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers). For example, the "Trigender" glossary entry is almost identical to an old version of the lead in our "Trigender" article, including the nonsensical final sentence. The next glossary entry, "Tucking", is copied in part from a 2016 Buzzfeed article. The "Demigender" definition is copied from nonbinary.wiki, where it is sourced to a Tumblr post. I emailed Jessica Kingsley Publishers about this months ago; they never responded and they're still selling the book. (Courtesy ping to, whose work on an unrelated JKP issue reminded me of this.) Cheers, gnu 57 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a talkpage parameter that specifically documents stuff like this so it makes clear that it is not copyvio, see Talk:Alex Thomson (sailor) for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping, but, can I also get a link, please? I hunted around, but could not find what you were referring to. Your comment did remind me, however, to question the notability of Jessica Kingsley Publishers, so I've tagged the article and raised a discussion on the TP. I may also prod it, or recommend it for deletion after a time, if no one else does. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's bad that the plagiarism is there, even if it's only in a glossary. They are still an academic publisher though. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The book also contains plagiarism outside the glossary: compare, e.g., the discussion of terms for people attracted to transgender people on pages 218-219 with an old revision of the corresponding Wikipedia article. gnu 57 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well is this a discussion about whether this book is reliable for the subject it deals with, gender identity counselling? Or is it about Jessica Kingsley in general? Because they have published some good academic stuff too. IMHO notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Alex Stitt book ACT For Gender Identity: The Comprehensive Guide was also published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. In April 2020, added material based on the ACT book to a number of articles. I noticed earlier today that you had flagged part of gender variance as directly copied from the ACT book, which reminded me of this other JKP copyright-related issue. (While I haven't noticed any copyright problems with the ACT text--it's clear that we're copying from Stitt at gender variance, rather than vice versa--I do wonder whether the Stitt material is due to include, given the apparent lack of responsible editorial oversight by the publisher.) Cheers, gnu 57  22:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Given how controversial gender-related issues are, I think we should make an extra effort to use sources that are highly reliable. I don't think this publisher qualifies (at least in recent years, maybe they were better in the past?) based on its history of publishing plagiarism. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this book would be used as a source in any case. It's a handbook for counselling. For an article about counselling, we would want a source saying what counselors do, not a book that tells them what to do. TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Global Times problem
I have an issue in relation to the following quote

Global Times was recently deprecated and I accordingly removed the entire paragraph, but was reverted on the grounds that the initial article received coverage in reliable sources. (Reuters and Washington Post) So I am here asking for clarification: can the the entire paragraph still be removed even though the deprecated source received coverage in reliable sources? If the answer is that the paragraph should stay, then wouldn't it be giving the initial article UNDUE importance to keep it in as it received coverage in only two reliable sources? Flaughtin (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm guessing you mean by  at Xinjiang re-education camps? Removing the parts of the paragraph not in the WaPo/Reuters references is fine under WP:DEPRECATED. However, the part directly cited to WaPo/Reuters is not an issue of WP:DEPRECATED since the material is itself cited to reliable sources. Receiving coverage in WaPo and Reuters suggests that it's probably notable (in the journalistic sense) and WP:DUE; they’re two separate and major reliable sources. — MarkH21talk 01:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * has removed the Global Times citation while preserving the RS citations, which seems sensible to me. — MarkH21talk 01:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong press freedom
" The security law has also sent a chill through Hong Kong’s once freewheeling news media. RTHK, the public broadcaster, removed a political podcast from its website after the authorities warned that an interview with Nathan Law, a democracy activist now living abroad, could be in breach of the new law." “The extension in Hong Kong of the Chinese regime’s practice of visa weaponisation, intended to intimidate foreign journalists, is extremely concerning and in total contradiction with the principle of press freedom enshrined in the Basic Law”, insists Cédric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) East Asia bureau head, who sees in this phenomenon “another sign of the recent acceleration of press freedom's decline after the passing, two months ago, of a National Security Law imposed by Beijing”. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid source for Megxit
I am seeking opinions about what I believe to be use of a tabloid to source an edit in Megxit about Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. See the discussion at Talk:Megxit. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * has been indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fringe?
The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:


 * "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shah during the early 1970s"

Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

forces-war-records.co.uk


This website contains many pages which, on first glance, appear to contain plausible information such as the page on the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Their about page would seem to suggest reliability. However, there are also pages like Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945. Scrolling all the way down to the bottom there is a statement Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from, followed by a long list of Wikipedia articles. Obviously that would disqualify that page as a reliable reference due to WP:CIRCULAR, but does that impact the reliability of the rest of the site? FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on the source: It's like an encyclopedia, its manual of style is like a mixture of Britannica and Wikipedia. Citing Wikipedia is also not a good sign, although it doesn't mean it is immediately unreliable. It also references other sources too. IMO, it could be unreliable as it is an encyclopedia.  Gerald WL  14:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can be reliable sources if the content is sourced from reliable secondary sources but if the content is sourced from a mix of reliable and unreliable sources such as Wikipedia it would be best to just use the reliable secondary sources themselves, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WebMD
We currently have 1,375 citations to, Is WebMD MEDRS compliant? I've heard mostly negative things about the website over the years, mostly about their close relationship to pharmaceutical companies.Vox NYTimes Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is considered a "MEDRS of last resort", such that its usage is strongly discouraged but not completely forbidden. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Interesting observation about the close relationship with pharmaceutical companies. Just by way of simple surfing the web over some years, I have noticed somewhat apparent relationship exists. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the problem is not their relationship to pharmaceuticalcompanies, but rathr their tendency to oversimplification and merely repeating official positions.  DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Israel Guide: A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country
A question has come to the fore on the Talk-Page of Qarawat Bani Hassan, shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qarawat_Bani_Hassan#WP:RS? here], about the reliability of a 11-volume Hebrew published work entitled, "Israel Guide, A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country," published by the Keter Publishing House in Israel, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence, between the years 1978–1980. For more details, see volume 8 of this edition:. The chief-editor of the encyclopedia is a man by the name of Arieh Yitzhaki. Each volume speaks about a different section of the country and has its invidual editor. The title of this work has caused some confusion, as one editor thought that it may strictly be a tourist guide when, in fact, it is much more than that. The back-cover of each volume carries a short description of the entire work, which reads as follows (translated from the Hebrew):
 * The Israel Guide is the first useful encyclopedia of its kind in Israel. In its composition, the best researchers with a knowledge of the land in all fields have come together. The Guide reviews all the important historical, archaeological, geographical sites, nature reserves and landscapes. It also includes detailed information on traveler services and accompanies up-to-date illustrations, photographs and maps. Some of the sites included in the Guide have been adapted from the series, "From Dan to Eilat," which was published by the Chief Education Officer, IDF. (END QUOTE)

Since this work is written in Hebrew and, most likely, not found in English-speaking libraries, perhaps Wikipedians in Israel (e.g. User:Deror avi, User:Yoninah, User:Debresser, User:Netanel h, User:Gilabrand, User:Tzahy, User:IsraeliteoftheShephelah, User:Tomerarazy, User:Bolter21, User:Ynhockey, User:Shrike, User:Amoruso) can voice their opinion about the worthiness, or un-worthiness, of this 11-volume publication. See also Madrikh Yisrael - (Israel Guide); Israel Guide (on Google Books). By the way: The editor of the 2nd volume is a scholar by the name of Raphael (Rafael / Rafi) Frankel who has written extensively about sites in the Galilee. Among his other publications, one may notice this, "The Map of Achziv", as well as the following publications: 1) ; 2) ; 3) ; 4) Rafael, Frankel, "Kabri, Nahal Ga‘aton Aqueduct: Final Report", among others.
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Israel Guide)
Is there a reason other than it being Israeli for some to discredit it? It's written by scholars, right? So shouldn't it be a RS, regardless of the clunky title and funding? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct. The entire encyclopedia (11 volumes) has been compiled by a consortiom of scholars, all of whom bring down the latest archaeological, historical and geographical information on places in Israel proper, up to the time of its publication. They include the precise measurements of tombs, references to these sites by the writers of classic literature, their Arabic and Hebrew names (where applicable), descriptions of synagogues once built in these places, etc., etc.02:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a procedural objection. I feel like leaping straight to a four-option depreciation RFC is a bit premature, both per WP:RFCBEFORE and because it sort of obscures the real question that brought you here. The dispute is very specifically over whether it can be used for this claim, which at first glance seems at least slightly WP:EXCEPTIONAL or highly technical (requiring a suitably technical source) in the sense that it touches on a controversial archeological claim; the question of whether this source is valid for that specific claim is worth considering, and I don't think a general RFC about the source as a whole can meaningfully answer it. These sorts of RFCs are for sources that are constant recurring issues or ones with glaring problems; they're not what you're supposed to do when you have one extremely specific question over "can source X be used to cite statement Y." Also, RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this 100% is not - you overtly dismiss the arguments you're trying to get an RFC outcome against in your summary. I'm particularly bothered that you devoted a ton of text to how notable the source is, but didn't even vaguely reference the specific claim people are debating. In any case, I'm also not convinced by your "tots not a travel guide" summary. The translated bit you quote strikes me as somewhat blithe; ultimately it emphasizes its value to travelers above all else. Obviously a guide to Israel is going to state that it is historically-accurate, since that history is a big part of why people travel to Israel, and it could be perhaps used for uncontroversial claims (the way we might use any other general encyclopedia), but for something as potentially-controversial as this we ought to be citing more academic or professional sources, not just guides that boast vaguely about using the best available research. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is good and correct, for which reason that specific edit (about the site's alleged identification) has been deleted from the article. It would require a more critical review of the subject, say, by historical geographers who have weighed the matter very well, before inserting that one detail into an article.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 to 2, geographical encyclopedia written by academic experts. The one issue here is that it is dated, being published back in 1978-80, but it is reliable for knowledge up until that time.--Hippeus (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 because it's an Israeli book written by Israelis and there's going to be some bias there with respect to contentious issues regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Archaeology and history can be very contentious in Israel. That being said there's only two responses so far and this full-on four option RfC seems kind of premature, so if there's not that much more input this shouldn't be closed and put at WP:RSP because that's typically what a four-option RfC is for. RSP is for sources that have been significantly discussed and this isn't that. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: first; the source is in Hebrew; unless you read it, it is difficult to say if it is RS or not. And even if you read Hebrew, I'll add: Secondly (according to Davidbena): there are no footnotes. Third: this is called: "Israel Guide"...and then it covers the occupied Palestinian West Bank. This, in itself, makes me ...wary of using it as a source. (Generally speaking: those who refer to the the occupied Palestinian West Bank as "Israel", are to the extreme right in Israel). Generally speaking; if there are some claims about  archaeological, historical and geographical issues in any encyclopaedia; then, (if the encyclopaedia it worth anything): there will be lots of scientific reports to back it up.  I suggest that we use those scientific reports (if any) instead. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While there are no footnotes, as most encyclopedias do not contain footnotes, there are still inline citations, while at the end of each volume there is a Bibliography list used by the contributing academic scholars. By the way, the information presented in the book is vital to archaeological, historical and geographical enthusiasts, but I, personally, would not use these volumes for discussing issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as there may be a conflict of interest. However, as far as pure archaeological finds are concerned, or, for that matter, historical references to these sites are concerned, the encyclopedia is a godsend. Wikipedia policy allows us to cite foreign sources when they are deemed reliable and verifiable, but also makes it clear that, in any cases of doubt, it is incumbent upon the contributing editor to provide a literal translation of the book's excerpt whenever called-upon to do so.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Statista.com
This is more a question as to this source. I personally in the past have avoided not only in WP but in my normal work, as because while the "data" is visible, the sourcing for it is behind paywall, and when I have been lucky to find corroborating data I generally find discrepancies, or generally the clear original source of the data, so the site is just skimming others' work and tossing a paywall on top. Technically doesn't violation any immediate policies and I'm not asking for a full blown deprecation or the like, just what others' opinion is on this site. (If we want to poll for RS/P, we can). --M asem (t) 13:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe a bit like Worldometer. Except less transparent. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Legal Culture - The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture
Hello, This journal sounds and looks ok to me but there are suggestions otherwise; p73 on summary of legislation, in Offending religious feelings: "Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, 'Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years'.[6] During this evolution of the legal wording, the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs.[6]" The Legal Culture. The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture; other views sought - thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ordo Iuris is an advocacy group known for right wing culture warring, not for legal expertise.
 * Declaring the Polish law offending religious feelings to be "protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs", is at best an opinionated assertion, not a fact. (In the US, and any country without a blasphemy law, there is no such "right"). In order to conclude that the blasphemy law has become less severe over time, we would need a much stronger source that also considered case law, number of people prosecuted, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "During this evolution of the legal wording"... i.e., the words of the legislation: "whosoever blasphemies God"→"Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RS requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is up to the person citing the material, if challenged, to show that the source indeed has such a reputation. It is not enough to state, "sounds and looks ok to me"—that's a WP:ILIKEIT argument. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RS requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is up to the person citing the material, if challenged, to show that the source indeed has such a reputation. It is not enough to state, "sounds and looks ok to me"—that's a WP:ILIKEIT argument. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not This is the organ of a militant Roman Catholic political campaign group, leaning towards extremism. It should not be cited for anything other than its own beliefs, and for those a better source can be found. GPinkerton (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Ordo Iuris has links to the Traditionalist Catholic organization Tradition, Family and Property. (Traditionalist Catholicism is in itself a fringe position). Also, Ordo Iuris is known for supporting complete abortion bans of the sort which led to the death of Savita Halappanavar. This is a fringe position which most Catholics don't agree with; only 6 percent of Polish women and 7 percent of men support additional abortion restrictions. That all affects the due weight or lack thereof. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whereas "Freedom House" which is critical of this law and provides a spin translation of it even you say is misleading and all the other sources you use are totally legit in all respects; ah the tolerant left, tolerant of everything apart from views with which they disagree, which they will wikilawyer to the utmost to exclude, while defending as you have on the dyk nomination template the use of WP:Biased sources that push their case; how about a teensy, weensy, bit of balance? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the particular article in question is written by one Janusz Roszkiewicz, etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Clearly fringe in context. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have added the word "Catholic" at the beginning, then there would have been no need for anyone to read any further... Can I just tease out a little the consequences of this stance. That, due to the fact that this organization apparently doesn't publicly rejoice in the slaughter, without their consent, of innocent beings likely deemed by the same advocates of their slaughter protected legal persons for inheritance purposes, an article published by the same in a "Polish catholic journal of law" on the, Polish law, invoked to protect, Polish Catholics, from diurnal "insult" to their beliefs, purposeful or otherwise (please explain otherwise the frisson of the Rainbow Madonna and the choice of this canvas), an article assessed on its own merits, by a seemingly prominent doctor of law, is not only "fringe" but to be no platformed and deemed entirely unsuitable for inclusion alongside the twenty-one hand-picked sources that criticize this law, for fear of admitting for one instant the remotest semblance of an alternative point of view? How about simply "Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, 'Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years'.[6]" ie, without the summary, but sourced to the same, perhaps even just until some much more leftwing source for the same is found? Or is this source and this high-up government legal scholar so "fringe" that even this is absolutely beyond the pale? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you want to be taken seriously then I would suggest that the comment has doomed your efforts. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not about me, it is about the source, can the source appear alongside the others for the limited blockquote above? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , no. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, this is an extremist organization not reliable for the time of day.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Twitter tweets
Are twitter tweets a reliable source for the following statements at Alex Morse?
 * On August 12, Business Insider journalist Grace Panetta wrote in a series of tweets that she had been one of the first reporters the College Democrats had tried to shop their allegations to in April 2020 and that the names in the chat logs The Intercept had acquired were the same as those who had written her and Politico with "vague, unspecified allegations."
 * On August 14, Wisconsin College Democrats filed an ethics complaint through the national College Democrats of America against the College Democrats of Massachusetts and triggered a formal investigation into those involved.

Fortliberty (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS says that self published sources are NEVER acceptable for claims about third party living people. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. This is a reasonably exceptional claim about third parties that would require proper sourcing. WP:BLPSPS is for stuff like uncontroversial biographical details, not dramatic claims like these.  And more generally it's silly to suggest that this is about herself - the intent of putting this in the article would be to make a statement about Morse and about the story in question, not about Panetta (who isn't even mentioned otherwise.)  "I saw X happen" is not a WP:BLPSPS claim. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published source making negative claims about BLPs. Unless the College Democrats are all dead this is pretty clear-cut. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, tweets only should be used for mundane non-attack content and even then very sparingly. Wait for someone to publish.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Daily Star
What is the reliability of the Daily Star (United Kingdom)?

Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Responses (Daily Star)

 * Option 4 Has been shown to publish false and fabricated information, see Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom), where an interview with Dwayne Johnson was fabricated and which they were called out for, and Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom) where they falsely claimed that the GTA creators was going to make a game based on Raoul Moat, which is defamatory. Many uses of the Daily Star are on BLP articles, which is unacceptable given its unreliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Makes the Daily Mail look like a broadsheet. Red tops are just not acceptable for an encyclopaedia. Usual common sense exemptions. GPinkerton (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Deliberately falsifying information has always been my benchmark for deprecation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - I wouldn't have worried (it's obvious trash), but fabrication crosses the line - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 one of the worst type of tabloids, full of titillation and sensationalism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Another crappy red top that publishes outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - Is not a fit source for an encyclopedia. Neutralitytalk 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 A tabloid that deliberately fabricates information should not be allowed to be cited on Wikipedia at all. Goose ( Talk! ) 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 This is less reliable than the Daily Mail. Deprecation is the best option.Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Unreliable. I'm not !voting for deprecation since in the best documented case we have of the paper pushing a false story, they seem to have been a victim of a fraudulent freelancer, rather than the architects of the fabrication. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Crap, but I don't know that it makes shit up the way the Mail does. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4. Tabloid reporting. Undecided between 3 and 4.--Hippeus (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 No question on this. Eons worse than the Mail; I doubt if it's even intended to be a serious news source. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Another Tabloid (at the low end of that heap) that is unworthy of the title 'newspaper' and is either not a reliable source for an encyclopedia or if something is truely notable, better quality sources will most likely be available. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Its basic news items are fine, its the celebrity content that is generally just anonymously sourced gossip. If the Star has covered anything in any depth news wise, there will be better coverage by any number of alternatives. Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - Consistency to deprecate tabloids appears to be key here. Fortliberty (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Daily Star)
We currently have around 1,500 citations to the Daily Star per, most of which appear to be on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * urgh. And that'll be tabloid gossip being used as a source on celebrity BLPs, then. Pretty sure I wouldn't even trust the Daily Star for sports scores. They're now owned by Trinity Mirror, and may be a little less rabidly awful lately - but it's still a trash-tier source - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"It survives on a diet of sex, still featuring a topless model on Page 3 each day, and on celebrity trivia. The Star is a newspaper without either news or views. If it can be said to have any political outlook at all, then it is rightwing. There is no passion, no commitment, no soul." Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * David Gerard is right to characterise the paper as trash tier. However they are not a Daily Mail style clickbait factory and one documented case of apparent fabrication in over 9 years is not exactly terrible for a high circulation UK tabloid. Did any particular problems lead to this RfC? This looks more like 'option 3 with special BLP concerns' to me as it stands. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fabricating an interview with a major celebrity and putting it as your front page story is pretty brazen, Roy Greenslade's retrospective in The Guardian is an interesting read: "It has become a pathetic article, a travesty of a newspaper, having lost any sense of purpose. Yet it obviously fills some need, because it sells 355,000 copies a day, and its print decline is no worse than that of its rivals."
 * Greenslade's history is amusing, thanks. Digging into the fabricated interview, "Staff at the newspaper suggested the supposed interview was provided to the Daily Star by a freelance journalist and then written up by the staff reporter whose byline appeared on the piece.//The unnamed freelance reporter is thought to be abroad and not responding to messages.", which shows a serious failure and casual attitude to fact-checking, but not a Daily Mailesque culture of fabrication. As a source it neither is reliable nor does it seem to cover stories other sources miss, so I'd lose no sleep over deprecation, but the positive case for it doesn't look clear-cut to me. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena - was an American DEA agent tortured with CIA complicity?
Are these four historians reliable for the allegation that US DEA agent Kiki Camarena was likely tortured and killed with complicity of the CIA in 1985? Their work is disputed at Kiki Camarena. The historians argue that Camarena may have discovered that the Contra affair, funding anticommunist guerrillas in Nicaragua, was financed by Mexican drug money with CIA support. Some investigative journalists have concluded the same thing, and in February the US Justice Department reopened a case on the matter.

Note that I earlier brought this issue to this noticeboard here, garnering these responses. There are additional newspaper articles on the topic:.

I've launched an RfC, where I hope you'll comment on whether these historians can be used as reliable sources for the attributed claim that the CIA participated in Camarena's torture. -Darouet (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Edited per request of. -Darouet (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , while you're welcome to leave a pointer to a discussion elsewhere, such notices should be neutral to avoid WP:CANVASSING: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." I suggest you revise your message to be a brief and neutral pointer. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've edited my post . Does this look better now? I knew my RfC was required to be neutral, but I didn't realize my post here needed to take no position on the issue either. -Darouet (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Culturalanalysis.net
A user recently added a paragraph cited to at Existential risk of artificial general intelligence (diff). The statement attempts to describe research implying that AGIs are inherently amoral. Is it a reliable source? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After a brief look at the headlines, a few articles and the site's rather empty about page, this doesn't look like much more than an opinion site to me. I wouldn't recommend citing it, especially not if more reputable sources exist. Worthy of note is that all articles I've seen are by the same author named "MK", and that one article cites RT. Glades12 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

QuackWatch
A while ago, QuackWatch was declared to be self-published, thus effectively excluding one of the most prominent critics of quackery from biographies of quacks and charlatans. I noticed today that QuackWatch is now listed as a project of the Center for Inquiry. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I never quite bought the self-published label, given [ https://quackwatch.org/advisors/advbd/ ] and [ https://quackwatch.org/about/faq2/#peer ], but that was the consensus. I think that we should now consider quackwatch to be published by CFI. and should assume that CFI has editorial control over anything that they control and publish. Also see:  --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That does not change the reliability of all his publications pre-February 26, 2020. Honestly I would think going forward it would be less reliable since it is controlled by an advocacy organization. Though to be fair I see nothing in the statement released by CfI indicating they would have any editorial control or oversight added to quackwatch. Interesting though. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They were always reliable (to the point of being cited by NGOs and government health departments). The only issue was that some people considered thems elf-published. They are now both reliable and published untder the banner of a larger group. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * QuackWatch itself still seems to be operated by Stephen Barrett according to the statement on the top of the page. I see nothing about being published under CfI. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also when I said reliability pre-February I was referring to the consensus that they are a self published source and how we treat them in that context. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is edited by the same person who writes it is an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SPS - agree with Slatersteven - Quackwatch, which is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D.,.... first sentence on the homepage - lots about Dr. Barrett - yucky web design. BTW, CFI has no influence - their url is https://centerforinquiry.org/ whereas quackwatch is still hosted on https://quackwatch.org/. Atsme Talk 📧 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this is why our definition of "SPS" based on "writer = owner of site" is not really a good reason why SPSs are bad things. The definition currently at RFC that gets to the point is that a self-published source is generally one that is published without an editorial review, which this new ownership by the Center of Inquiry doesn't appear to change anything for QW; Barrett is still the one that seems to be able to post without necessarily having to have fact checks (though he does voluntarily have some pieces do so). In terms of why QW was considered a SPS from the past RFC, I don't see this changing anything based on *that* RFC. --M asem (t) 19:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the close was more nuanced than that (see here). The key points were:
 * 1. Articles written by Stephen Barrett are self-published, but that he is generally a subject matter expert on pseudoscience and can therefore be cited under that subject to the usual WP:SPS restrictions;
 * 2. Articles by people other than Barrett are not self-published and can be used like any other WP:RS, and,
 * 3. Quackwatch is generally considered an WP:RS, notwithstanding the issue with Barrett's articles (so, anything published there that was not written by Barrett can be used as an RS for statements of fact, including controversial statements about third parties.)
 * It's important to be clear about what was decided back then or we'll have people half-remembering this discussion and saying "oh I guess it can't be used anywhere." Also some of the people above seem to be arguing against using it at all, which is not what the RFC said at all (it specifically found the site to be generally-reliable, with a narrow asterisk applying only to things written by Barrett specifically; and even in that case he was found to be a subject-matter expert, meaning that he can be cited provided it isn't specifically about someone who falls under WP:BLP.  "Barrett says this treatment doesn't work" is fine; "Barrett says this person is a quack" is not.  (But we can cite anyone else published back Quackwatch saying that that person is a quack, just not Barrett.)  I gather that some people above might object to this, but it's definitely how the WP:RFC was closed.  --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, articles written by Barrett should not be used for statements about a BLP and articles on quackwatch written by others might be acceptable. Though I would note that what 95%+ of the articles on quackwatch are written by Barrett? PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still user-generated content and therefore fails reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, what evidence do you have for that claim? Don't conflate peer review for user-generated. Those are very different processes. -- Valjean (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD, I see a comment from you below, but it doesn't address my question. -- Valjean (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Quackwatch, which is sourced to their website in 2007 says they have no salaried employees and the current website does not list any. The website says that stories are checked by at least one expert, but news stories are not checked. And I assume these experts are scientists who evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims. But that's only part of the story. Also important are the identities and backgrounds of the quacks, the size of their operation, how much money they took in, what legal issues they faced, who aided them, whether the publications they advertised with were at fault.

I also am wary of using investigative journalism as a source unless it gets picked up by other publications because of weight. If Dr. X is a notable respected physician with an article sourced to mainstream media, I don't want to see an accusation from Quackwatch that mainstream media has ignored. If mainstream media pick up on the accusation, they will allow Dr. X to reply and determine whether the accusation is true and how serious it is.

Also, I don't see anything in the recent newsletter that could be used as a source for articles. It's all links to primary sources: FDA warning letters, ads by quacks, peer-reviewed articles, letters by experts. While these primary sources may be reliable sources, there is no need to cite the newsletter itself.

Incidentally, declaring a publication self-published does not exclude its use. It means that each article must be assessed for reliability. Generally it can be used if written by an expert in his or her field.

Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source?

TFD (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "there is no need to cite the newsletter itself." Has someone proposed using the "newsletter itself" as a source? Not a good idea. It's good for RS which can be used. -- Valjean (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source? TFD (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"CGTN" and "CGTN America", both Chinese media outlets
Another question has come to the fore on Talk:China–United States trade war and which discussion can be accessed here. The question put forward by a contributing editor is whether or not we are permitted to cite a reference taken from the media outlets CGTN America or CGTN, both Chinese media outlets, without infringing upon Potentially unreliable sources whenever they show an American scholar, such as the likes of Stephen S. Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, who speaks out and gives his professional opinion about the economic situation facing America and who clearly does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China, but takes a different approach to the subject of the US-China trade war and US trade deficit with China. By the way, he opines that the US trade deficit with China is the direct result of America's lack of domestic savings, rather than a by-product of unfair trading practices. Of course, IP theft is a different matter altogether. Can we still use Stephen Roach's assessment even though it comes to us under the auspices of this Chinese state-run media outlet? There is currently a majority of editors who wish to make use of Stephen Roach's quotes and citations.Davidbena (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is currently an RfC about the reliability of CGTN above under the section "RFC: China Global Television Network". If CGTN is considered unreliable or deprecated, its articles/content would generally only be usable either under WP:ABOUTSELF or where there is consensus on a specific case.In this case: Roach, a subject-matter expert saying something while appearing on CGTN would be quotable to Roach himself and its reliability would derive from Roach himself. Attributing something to him while he was on CGTN wouldn’t be so different from the use of a self-published source. It’s him giving a statement, not CGTN itself. — MarkH21talk 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from the above, Roach's work published in scholarly publications would be superior to a statement to media. If he really hasn't published any relevant scholarly research, I would question how DUE his opinion is. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:MarkH21 - that doesn't make any sense to me. It's an interview that Roach is doing with CGTN, so it's the reliability would not derive from Roach (at the very least, it would not derive solely from Roach.) I can't see how your argument would make Roach's interview with CGTN any different than if he gave an interview with say, the Daily Stormer, PressTV, Pravda or KCNA. If the only thing that mattered was the notability (or reliability as you put it) of the people that the news sources interviewed, then we might as well just do away entirely with WP:RS and WP:V . Flaughtin (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, Flaughtin, the words cited are those of a well-known and respected American economist. That is what is important here. His words speak for themselves. There is no manipulation. Moreover, the use of a citation taken from this highly respected American economist has absolutely nothing to do with infringing upon WP:RS, but rather would still support the criteria for Reliable sources, based purely upon the person's notability and good academic standing.Davidbena (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about the notability of the person, it's about the reliability of the source. The source is CGTN, not Roach. If the source was Roach then it would be self-published. (at the very least, the source could not be CGTN) User:buidhe can you help with this? Unless there is confusion on my part, I really cannot see how the other user cannot understand something as simple as this. Flaughtin (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure you're interpreting this situation correctly. Put it a different way, if Trump says something and the NYT quotes him, to whom should it be attributed—Trump or the NYT? Is the factual accuracy/RSness of the statement the same as the NYT's reporting, or does it have the same credibility as Trump? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Buidhe Well you see there's your problem. Firstly you're comparing NYT to CGTN which is like comparing consensual sex to rape - the comparison doesn't work because they are totally different types despite being the same kind of thing. And secondly you don't specify the conditions under which NYT is quoting him (is the NYT quoting Trump as part an interview he is giving them?) So I go back to one of the main points I've been making: what's stopping us from using Roach if he gets quoted in (an interview with) the Daily Stormer, Stormfront, PressTV, Pravda or KCNA? Flaughtin (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it does not matter the credibility of the outlet as long as it meets the minimum standard for accurately reporting direct quotes and/or there is video footage. In an interview, the person who takes responsibility for the accuracy of statements is the one being interviewed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What our friend Flaughtin is failing to grasp here is that the guidelines listed under WP:PUS (Potentially unreliable sources) do not say that we cannot use at all the above source, while even those that are listed there as potentially unreliable sources, we are advised "to treat carefully," not necessarily avoid them altogether. How much more here where the source is not listed as PUS. Our friend flagged this as being a breach of the Wikipedia policy, when, in actuality, it is not.Davidbena (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

TIOBE index

 * The page:


 * The claim:
 * ", C is the most popular programming language."


 * The source:


 * Wikipedia page for the source:


 * Relevant Wikipedia how-to guide:
 * Search engine test

Why I think that the source is not reliable for the claim:

Outside of the obvious problem of equating search engine results with popularity, there is a common misconception that the only "computers" the average person owns are desktop PCs, laptops, and smart phones, and that the only "computer languages" are the ones that run on those platforms.

Actually, those are a tiny percentage of the total number of computers. Most people have computers inside their microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, digital watch, toaster, thermostat, air conditioner, radio, many toys, TV, TV remote, etc. A new car typically has at least 20 or 30 computers in it. Mine has one in each wheel that controls the antilock brakes, another inside each valve stem that wireless reports tire pressure, one in each taillight housing that controls the brake lights and turn signals, and so on.

Even your desktop PC has built into it other, smaller computers. There is one inside your keyboard, another inside your mouse, one inside your disk drive, another inside your power supply, one in your router, several in your monitor, and so on.

Most of these small computers are programmed in assembly language, with a smaller number (but still bigger than any desktop PC language) programmed in embedded C or ARM Thumb. Assembly language is still by far the most popular language by number of computers that run it.

Consider this analogy: the internet is full of webpages that talk about making your own clothes by sewing, knitting, crocheting, etc. There are far fewer webpages that talk about large, industrial machines that make most clothes. Does that mean that handmade clothes are more popular than store-bought clothes? Likewise with webpages about home woodworking vs. webpages about large furniture factories and webpages about printing one page on a laser printer vs. webpages about printing a million pages on an offset press. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "popularity" here refers to popularity among programmers / the programming community, and not necessarily to industry popularity. The statement should probably be amended to match its reference. The TIOBE index itself states on its website that "It is important to note that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language or the language in which most lines of code have been written." TucanHolmes (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "popularity" is ambiguous. Language #1 has a bunch of people who have used it, but only for personal use. Language B is used as a core part of Windows, Linux, Android and Mac, but only has a handful of programmers using it. Language #3 is used in embedded systems, but the programmers learn it in college and not on a bunch of hobbist websites. Language #4 is used by almost nobody, but is talked about on a lot of webpages because it sucks so bad. Language #5 is used a lot, but is so easy to use that there aren't a lot of discussions about how to use it. Language #6 has single well-read high-quality wiki and discussion group, so gets talked about on other webpages a lot less. Language #7 is discussed on many web pages that nobody reads. So which is "most popular"? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk lately about which programming language is best. The following should clear up any confusion. [ Citation Needed ]

The best programming language is, of course, the BEST programming language. BEST is a programming language that I developed to answer the frequently asked question "Which programming language is best?" once and for all.

BEST is an RFC2795[6.66...]-and-RFC2324[Q]-compliant Befunge-93[2] pseudocompiler written in x87 Malborge[3][7] with library calls to routines written in Microsoft[4] Visual BogusFORTH++[5] (!Xóõ edition)[9] that invoke various functions written in[6] Silbo Gomero{π} Reverse Polish Whitespace[1] (for clarity). It requires the GLaDOS operating system or RUM emulator.

I hope this helps...

References: --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150623025348/http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/
 * [2] https://catseye.tc/article/Languages.md#befunge-93
 * [3] http://www.lscheffer.com/malbolge_spec.html
 * [5] http://www.tlc-systems.com/babbage.htm
 * [4] http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
 * [6] http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/
 * [6.66...] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324
 * [7] http://www.lscheffer.com/malbolge.shtml
 * [7] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1597729+0+archive/2001/freebsd-ports/20010617.freebsd-ports
 * [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/!Xóõ
 * ]~[ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
 * [Q] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt
 * {π} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

RfC: wikitia
Which of the following best describes the reliability of wikitia.com?
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Responses (wikitia)

 * Option 4 While the main page of wikitia says the encyclopedia where only verified editors who have proven records can edit an article on a particular topic or field, this appears to be a load of rubbish. For example see the history of Draft:Mohammed Abu El-Naga. The corresponding article at wikitia says it was copied from that draft, on 15 June according to the history. But then if you go back to the history of the draft you see this edit on 7 July adding the wikitia article as a reference, which is as circular as it gets. This is a pattern that's repeated at Draft:Diana Simán (offending edit), Draft:Gowri Nadella (offending edit). So while wikitia may claim to be Citizendium type model, all they do is copy and paste drafts from here. Listing so it can be formally deprecated for edit filter warnings. FDW777 (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 although I doubt an RfC is necessary, as the site basically functions as a WP mirror and even looks like WP. obviously not reliable for anything (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Not sure its lies, but its a wiki. Do we even need an RFC to say no, never and not in a million years?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User-generated content, so why would we cite it at all? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close according to we have precisely 0 articles citing this source and therefore holding a RfC on it is pointless, please check how often the source is used before starting a RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no uses in article space because I removed them. There are however uses in draft space, and they will continue to be added there and in article space unless something is done. Which won't be by me any more. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This should have been requested to be submitted to the edit filter or Xlinkbot directly, rather than with a rfc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Website Wartime in Baseball
Wartime in Baseball, which can be found here, is often used as a source for what happened to baseball players who had to serve during World War II. An example is Morrie Martin where it is the source for Martin being badly wounded at the Battle of the Bulge.

Wartime appears to be a personal website with just one writer involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:SPS includes an exception for sites maintained by a "recognized expert". Bedingfield has published at least two books on the subject (ISBN 978-0786444540 and ISBN 978-0738503219). Baseball in WWII Europe has been reviewed by scholarly journals and has been cited by other scholars in journal articles and other writing.  I believe that meets the SPS "expert" standard. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sarup & Sons
This is regarding the publisher which is cited at around 800 WP articles. The particular book in question is:



I have compared this book's first 70 pages with Jadunath Sarkar's following book: A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938 (1984). And every page of Sarkar's book (which is available to me in Google Books preview) is copy-pasted by this book. Here are the details:

I) Page nos. 1–37 copy-pasted from page nos. 75–111 of the Sarkar's book

ii) Page nos. 42–70 copy-pasted from page nos. 118–144 of Sarkar's book

The only difference is that the chapter titles are different. And there is no attribution to Sarkar anywhere. I haven't checked the remaining pages yet, but they also seem copy-pasted. The Sarkar's book is copyrighted till 2047 – see User talk:Diannaa:Query about the copyright status of a book. So this is a case of clear copyright violation, and we should not even provide its link in an external-links section or in a citation, per WP:COPYVIOEL. Anyway, is such blatant copyright violator (Sarup & Sons) considered reliable for anything on this project? - NitinMlk (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would say that if the publisher cannot be trusted to filter out such obvious copyvio than it is the equivalent of predatory journal and should not be cited. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you. BTW, I will also crosscheck few other books of this publisher, although copy-pasting hundreds of copyrighted pages in a single book is as bad as it gets. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 2
 * Now I have crosschecked the first 200 pages of the publisher's next volume and it is also directly copy-pasted from two copyrighted books. The book in question this time is the following:


 * Here are the details of copyvios:


 * i) Everything from the first line of the chapter no. 1 till the end of chapter no. 2 of the above book (i.e., page nos. 1–41) is copy-pasted from the page nos. 46–90 of the following book:




 * ii) Similarly, chapter no. 3 (page nos. 42–63) is copy-pasted from page nos. 128–149 of the above book of Upendra Nath Day.


 * iii) The chapter nos. 4–6 (page nos. 64–172) are copy-pasted from the page nos. 1–123 of the following book:




 * iv) And page nos. 173-200 are copy-pasted from the page nos. 91–124 of the aforementioned Upendra Nath Day's book.


 * So this publisher seems like a prolific copyright violator. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pretty weak evidence. It's by the same authors so they are the ones who are prolific copyright violators, not the publishers. Publishers don't normally check the books. I would contact Saurp and Sons directly via email with the evidence you have gathered and see what their response is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , such blatant copy-paste examples cannot be termed as 'weak evidence' in any sense. And if this publisher is publishing without checking then it's a big problem. But thanks for taking the initiative. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that Sarup and Sons is a prolific copyright infringer, only that the authors of the book series are. The books plagiarised are old and obscure enough that they are likely not on the Turnitin or equivalent database the publisher might be using. The onus is on the book authors to make sure that there is no plagiarism or factual errors, not the publishers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , let's wait for more inputs from other editors. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 3
 * Hemiauchenia, I think you're forgetting that there is no assumption that any source is reliable for given information; the onus is on those citing it to justify why it's reliable. Just being a publisher that publishes books, does not make it reliable, and in this case we have some evidence that it's not reliable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous two examples shown by me were from the same series and at least two of the books plagiarised by them are apparently obscure. So I have crosschecked a different book now and that one plagiarises the work of a notable scholar. The book in question is the following:
 * I have checked its page nos. 1–92 and all of them are copy-pasted from the page nos. 1–74 of Anthony Birch's following book:
 * - NitinMlk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - NitinMlk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - NitinMlk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 4
 * Previous books were of history and polity, so this time I checked tourism-related books. And the very first book I found at Google Books is fully copy-pasted from two different books. The book in question is:




 * i) Its page nos. 1–32 are copy-pasted from page nos. 244–294 of the following book:


 * ii) The rest of the book (i.e. page nos. 33–287) is copy-pasted from the following book (pp. 33–135 copy-pasted from 160–248; pp. 136–287 copy-pasted from pp. 30–159):

Pinging &  so that they can have a look at the book no. 3 & 4. BTW, I was a bit busy in real life for the last few days, but I am sure I will find more such examples in the coming days. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's enough to convince me we should not be using this as a source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , your initial assessment was quite accurate. Today I glanced over five books and three of them seem like clear copyvios, although I could properly crosscheck just one of them (see book no. 5 below). - NitinMlk (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 5
 * This time I checked a psychology book and it is also copy-pasted from a copyrighted book. The book in question is:




 * I have cross-checked its first 204 pages and all of them are directly copy-pasted from the page nos. 5–168 of the following book:


 * The reprint version of the Stones's book is available for limited preview: . So it can also be used for crosschecking purpose. Note that the rest of the book also seems copy-pasted, but 200-odd pages are enough to show copyvio. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What should be done? Would you suggest a RfC to deprecate it, or some other action? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , an RfC to deprecate seems appropriate. They copy/paste whole book or at least its hundreds of pages at a time and provide full preview at Google Books in many cases, which in turn is in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. The latest example below (book no. 6) is just one of many such examples.


 * It would be great if you could open such RfC, as I am unfamiliar with RfCs. But before doing that we should have enough number of such examples. So, how many examples of blatant copyvios seem enough to convince the community? Till now I have provided examples which involve copyvio of well over 1,000 pages and I can provide more such examples, if required. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 6
 * Here is another book which is totally copy-pasted from two copyrighted books:


 * i) Its page nos. 1–111 and page nos. 324–448 are copied from page nos. 1–100 and page nos. 101–217 respectively of the following book:


 * ii) Rest of the book, i.e. page nos. 112–323, is copied from page nos. 1–137 of the following book:



The only difference is that few of the chapter titles are shortened a bit. Note that, leaving behind notes and index, the Kliebard's book has just 137 pages. So basically Sarup & Sons is providing his whole book for preview at Google Books. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Enigma Archives
I am working on the Wikipedia article for the music project, Enigma. Should The Enigma Archives be used as a reliable source?

Pick an option below and explain your reasoning. - Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Yes, this is a reliable source.
 * Option 2 - Maybe, this is a questionable source.
 * Option 3 - No, this is an unreliable source.


 * Option 3: it's a thorough, extensive fansite that contains a lot of unverifiable original research. I might use it as a starting point, as some of the information does state where it was obtained, but would look for those sources or independent corroboration to cite in an article. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First created in 1993, the document is updated regularly (last updated April 2002) and has been checked by Michael Cretu and seen to be correct. . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the Letter from Michael Cretu actual FAQ, it says Michael didn't read the FAQ but looked over it and said he thinks most of it is OK. I don't think one member of the band "looking it over" makes it a reliable source. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please change the link from the disambiguation page Enigma to Enigma (German band). Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC is necessary for this, but if you don't think the source is reliable, you can just remove it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't an actual RfC nor does it need to be. Just treat it as a normal question about a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I have been topic banned from articles related to India and Pakistan (see my talk page) and want to avoid any further sanctions. I want to edit the article on Kafir, so please let me know if this is a reliable source? What about this, this, this or this?&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of those, the Oxford English Dictionary is the best source. This looks like a journal publication so it is also reliable, just keep in mind that it was published 61 years ago. The Dictionary of Spiritual Terms says its published by World Wisdom and edited by Dr. Joseph Lombard, Assistant Professor of Classical Islam at Brandeis University, so it might be reliable.
 * The op-ed in The Friday Times would be WP:RSEDITORIAL so it would have to be used with attribution. I don't think this source is reliable at all.VR talk 14:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you a question? Do you think a convicted terrorist supporter (serving life) is a reliable source? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is that about? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Abu Hamza al-Masri. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's could be a little harsh, as your Q prompted me to look more carefully at this and I got triggered by the quote at the top. still unsuitable though, imho. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and .&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you get topic-banned, it's a bad idea to move on to closely related topics. You were banned from articles about India and Pakistan because you were unable to edit objectively about Muslims. So you move on to articles about Muslim theology and Muslim immigration to Europe. Unless you change your approach, it could lead to a wider ban. TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)