Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322

Self-contradicting or falsified source.
At Atintanians, this source is used to source the following text: "Appian was the only ancient author that refers to them as Atintani (not Atintanes) with the ethnonym 'Illyrian'.[17] Šašel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples, barbarians, located to the north of Chaonia."

In this edit, Sasel Kos clearly states that Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people.". In this edit , it is stated that Sasel Kos considered that Appian specifically referred to the Atintani as an Illyrian tribe. She argued that it may be in agreement with the informations provided by Pseudo-Scylax, who included the Atintanes among the Illyrian peoples. Sasel Kos thus contradicts herself. If Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintanians as Illyrian, it can't be that Pseudo-Scylax (another ancient author) included them among the Illyrians. Even worse, '''the translation of Pseudo-Scylax does not include the Atintanes among the Illyrians. It only mentions them once, and says nothing about Illyrians in that passage.''' This can clearly be seen on p. 62 of the translation here. There are only two possibilities: Sasel Kos contradicts herself and contains glaring factual errors regarding Pseudo-Scylax, and is thus not reliable. Or else Sasel Kos falsified/mistranslated. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look hard enough you can find errors and contradictions, even in peer-reviewed academic books. Overall, Marjeta Šašel Kos is highly cited for her field and I would say the publisher (Narodni muzej Slovenije) is reliable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is then what to do. It clearly contradicts itself and contains a factual error. Assuming it's not outright falsified, which could be the case. Khirurg (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to do because there's no factual error. One of the two editors used a bad, half cropped, one-sentence quote. Both actual quotes:




 * Now, if that is compared to how it was transferred to wikipedia: Appian is the only ancient author to refer to the Atintani as Illyrian people., it's obvious that the problem was related to the quote, not what Šašel Kos put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What's "wrong" is that the Periplus doesn't include the Atintani among the Illyrians. The only mention of the Atintani is on p. 62 . All it says is Sharing a border with the Amantes in the interior are the Atintani above Orikos. That's it. No mention of "Illyrians". Clear-cut factual error. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Periplous is WP:PRIMARY and its interpretation is the work of historians and archaeologists. A discussion about what the Periplous means to say is something out of the scope of wikipedia. Now, can't even be read as "According to Šašel Kos the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians" in a straightforward way. What she says is that the fact that Appian calls them Illyrians is "in accordance with the data in the Periplous" which includes the Atintani with the "barbarians" north of the Chaones. To recap, sources should be read and quoted carefully, otherwise it's easy to make mistakes. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As Buidhe said, even reliable sources may contain contradictions and factual inaccuracies, which clearly is the case here. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction - Šašel Kos puts forward something very nuanced and certainly not "that the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax says that the Atintani were Illyrians". The problem is that it was half quoted and WP:PRIMARY should be discussed by WP:RS. Every study of WP:PRIMARY is basically a master's degree in itself. We should be more careful in such discussions. I'm off to finish some work.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Šašel Kos is not contradicting herself, she firstly reports Appian's information, then she compares this information with the data from Pseudo-Scylax, because she considers that they may be in accordance with each other, since Pseudo-Scylax lists the specific tribe among other Illyrian peoples, distinguishing them from the Epirotes or Hellenes. Many WP:SECONDARY sources interpret Pseudo-Scylax (a WP:PRIMARY) as considering Illyrian the peoples listed to the north of Chaones (Pseudo-Scylax: "Epeiros. And after the Illyrioi are the Chaones"). Best regards. – Βατο (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are some obvious discrepancies such as the following translation: "Idonia" (Scylax)-> "Dodona" in order to present an Illyrian domination scenario in the area.Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, "I personally think this source is wrong because [reason]" is not a strong argument for WP:RS purposes - after all, by that argument you could discredit any source that says things you disagree with. If you think they made a genuine and serious error, you should look for other sources that have pointed that out, ideally ones that specifically name the source you want to discredit and unambiguously state it was wrong.  Otherwise we run the risk of delving into our own original research in an effort to second-guess sources. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If a generally RS makes claims that can be shown to be wrong via consulting the primary sources then we should review the treatment of that specific article as reliable. We do not need a second RS to do that for us.  Per WP:OR, original research is specifically allowed when evaluating specific sources to be used in a wiki article.  It is prohibited if we are going to discuss the source's error in the article space.  As an example, if a source says a company spent 24 months building a building but primary sources show the project took 36 months we can question the reliability of the secondary source.  If that claim is incidental to the content of the secondary source we might decide the source can still be used absent that claim.  If the 24 vs 36 months is critical to the RS then we should avoid the article. No where in policy is it said we can't question a source's reliability via primary sources.  Springee (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: CNN
The recently leaked CNN tapes (released by Project Veritas) proved CNN's extreme anti-Trump agenda and deliberately ignoring the Hunter Biden scandal during the election. CNN is strongly biased on those topics. In the light of this, I suggest deprecating CNN as a reliable source when it comes to topics related to 2020 United States presidential election.. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you might want to read what RS say about Project Veritas as a source before continuing this. It’s not good.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Assertion requires we believe Project Veritas, an unreliable source most notable for selective editing. Assertion requires belief being anti-Trump isn't a valid political stance for a network (or 80m people) when having a political perspective is not what makes a source unreliable. Assertion requires belief that the "Hunter Biden scandal" is anything other than what was reported - unverified. Koncorde (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen no media questioning the authenticity of the tapes. When a medium deliberately avoids normalizing Trump in its reports, I would not say it is a decent medium. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone even give the tapes the time of day? Why would the media deliberately normalise the actions of the a President spreading misinformation prior to an election, which he then tries use to overturn an election? Some would argue anyone media trying to normalise Trump isn't decent media. Koncorde (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, more basically: News sources are allowed to decide what to report on and what not. Deciding not to report on something, no matter how factually accurate it might be, does not mean that the source is no longer reliable when it comes to things it does decide to report on. Even if all the assertions were true and factual, it still would not require deprecating CNN as a reliable source because CNN has no obligation to publish everything. For RS purposes, it just has the obligation to be reliable if and when it decides to publish something. Regards So  Why  13:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PV is not reliable for anything, using them to deprecate a source is dodgy at best, and that is only one criticism of this RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Setting Veritas aside for a moment, the problem with this position is we could make an argument to exclude virtually all US news media as it relates to the 2020 Presidential Election. After all, every national network/newspaper buries stories that don't fit the narrative they are seeking to shape
 * The real change would be getting Wikipedia out of the Breaking News game, so that there is no expectation to cover the story of the day/week/month until the actual ramifications are known.
 * Since that position will be a non-starter for most, CNN should remain a reliable source unless evidence can be provided that they willfully and intentionally printed lies in a story and have made no effort to correct the record. (not a TV pundit lied, they should never be an RS imho)
 * tl;dr Omission of facts does not make a source unreliable Slywriter (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This absurdity of an RFC should not be acknowledged in the slightest. Veritas has a known, demonstrably-proven track record of selectively editing their videos, they are not a reliable since for anything on Earth. Even if we were to take the "leaks" at face value, all we know now is that...CNN feels Tucker Carlson stokes racism in his viewer base, and that they will no longer air every Trump antic that he gets up to going forward. Neither is a shocker to anyone. ValarianB (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source wwe.com and WP:PW/RS acceptability? And a user blanking every source leaving non WP:V pure Wp:OR contents without ANY citations
The issue brought as per ANI discussion User:ItsKesha has removed every single source from the article WWE Music Group discography, claiming that the primary source is not allowed. This is the discussion:
 * So you think iTunes is a credible source? (the mass removal of content was correct per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PROMO, by the way. But here you are, making yet more accusations against me). Do you think WWE's own website isn't a primary source for articles about WWE? ItsKesha (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsKesha I explained multiple times, you ignorantly erase comments on your talk page, what can I do? I had it with having to repeat myself with your "attention seeking nature":

User talk:ItsKesha, um what is a wrong dude, why are you removing WP:RS from The New Era (WWE), and please do not give over linking excuse, over linking is when you use multiple (more than three sources) to reference a line, sometimes a single source is not valid enough "like when people say an event is well received, just reference to one review is not sufficient. (Also sources like post-2013 bleacher report are usable per WP:PW/RS and primary sources like wwe.com are usable as long as they are not being used for "promotional purpose", and not all usable sources needs to be part of WP:PW/RS, other WP:RS can be used as long as they are not listed unreliable in WP:PW/RS. So please stop removing WP:RS as it is sort of disruptive editing, but I will assume WP:AGF and hope you are not Gaming the system which is kinda what it seems on WWE Music Group discography. Wish you well. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As explained Post 2013 bleacher report is allowed to be used as a source as per WP:PW/RS, and other sources not listed as unreliable on PW/RS can also be used, I had a discussion on the matter with the senior user Nikkimaria who told me and you can view the talk page (As I've already told you, WP:PW/RS is not a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and you've cited this particular source several times. It doesn't contradict the other sources you cite either, you're just not correctly interpreting it - it refers specifically to "fair wrestlers" not all wrestlers. Given that context I see no reason to question its reliability, although you're of course welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)) and as for using primary source WWE.com, on certain circumstances to prove verifiability they can be used and they are not allowed mainly when they are used for promotional purpose, but the usage of primary source is allowed when used in a positive way, check: Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. So please don't go blindly removing WP:RS. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." (The bold writing isn't my statement, its what the guidelines are and I pasted here). Primary Sources can be used when there are no secondary sources at all. Again WP:RfC is kindly requested. The current status of the article is a sourceless article based on WP:OR which is pure violation of Wikipedia guideline, and WP:OR is a bigger issue than Wp:Primary, and if you have problem with WP:Primary it is your job to bring the secondary Wp:RS to the article instead of leaving it as contents with no source, citations, WP:V whatsoever. But you do not care as long as it fits your personal agenda do you? Regardless I am not that concerned with WWE Music Group discography, I will leave it to senior editors on WP:RSN as per ANI suggestion to see if you are Gaming the system or not. But I will go on protecting The Streak (wrestling) and don't go accusing me of not explaining when you say things like "I won't bother to read" as you did on the talk page there. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Doing the same on The New Era (WWE) removing wwe.com sources and sources from bleacher report which as per WP:PW/RS is usable (since 2013), non of the sources he removed are listed unreliable on WP:RS and Wp:PW/RS and he has removed sources from many other articles you can see on his contribution history blanking WP:RS and leaving contents without any WP:V at all! Whats more when someone explains to him, he says "he won't bother to read [] and also deletes warning messages from talk page . I have repeatedly sked him to do an WP:RfC before destroying WP:V of these articles leaving WP:OR contents, but he won't do that, so I leave it here for more experienced editors to judge. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this wasn't actually what I had in mind when I said you could take disputes over sourcing to RSN. I can't even figure out what you're asking with this long passage that you seem to have copied from somewhere. Can you state the sourcing dispute in a single sentence? Something along the lines of "I believe X is a reliable source to use for Y, is that correct?" Are you trying to ask "Is iTunes a RS to use for a discography?" —valereee (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is previous discussion about using iTunes/Amazon etc: []. The most experienced commenters there are saying it's better to omit information and leave it unsourced than to link to sales sites, so I'd say, no, don't use iTunes, Amazon, Target, etc. to source a discography, and that removing such links is the correct thing to do. —valereee (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus
This needs watching, new editor who doesn't understand our policies and guidelines adding material to the lead pushing the fringe position and adding detailed credentials, ie argument by authority. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Australian Financial Review and paywalled content
Hi folks, I was chatting in the tea room live chat yesterday with some helpful mods and they suggested I follow up here.

In short: in my first ever page submission for [|an Australian-based company called Envato] cites several pieces of technology and startup reporting that appears in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) - see citation numbers 5, 7, 23, 28, 30, 31 and 36. Now, the AFR has a similar rep in our country to the Wall Street Journal - and they're both owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp so that makes sense - so it's a legitimate publication with a strong editorial direction and good journalists.

However it is a publication that has a paywall and I have been advised that one of the critiques of my page is that reviewers couldn't assess the paywalled references, that my attempt to demonstrate notability for the page has been compromised. Is there a way I can share the articles that exist behind the paywall with relevant reviewers to help the assessment process? Yes, I have a subscription, that's how I found them!

FWIW, I've found one passing mention to the AFR in the Reliable sources Archive (see [] where it appears alongside a noted reliable source in The Australian.

Thank you
 * We have absolutely no rule that references need either to be free or to be online. (Some scientific papers cost literally hundreds of dollars apiece just to read online; some books only exist in a couple of obscure libraries; they're all just as valid as something you can find for free on Google.) If someone is telling you that a reference being behind a paywall somehow invalidates it, they're flat-out incorrect. (If someone genuinely challenges something cited to a source they can't access, photograph or screenshot the relevant page and email it to them.) &#8209; Iridescent 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Darn right. If only access to all online sources was free – but the fact is it's not. In my experience at least, more and more publications are going behind a paywall. JG66 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The two previous editors have it spot-on. While we may not like paywalls (although we have some research tools to give us short-term access to content behind some paywalls) and we mark sources that have paywalls, we do not exclude sources just because they are behind paywalls. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that "means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" (emphasis mine). It does not say all people must be able to check it, or even be able to check it for free. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to pile-on here, but this is essentially correct; if we have two accesspoints for a source, one free and one behind a paywall, provide a link to the free one instead. If we have a print version AND an online free version of the same source, it is a courtesy to provide the online free version.  However, if an otherwise reliable source is not available in a free, online version, it doesn't alter its status as reliable.  -- Jayron 32 15:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * AFR's a respected WP:NEWSORG so is fine as a source. Being paywalled makes no difference. If you have a login and can show a copy to the reviewer, that might help if they really doubt a given claim - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * AFR's a respected WP:NEWSORG so is fine as a source. Being paywalled makes no difference. If you have a login and can show a copy to the reviewer, that might help if they really doubt a given claim - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk: 2020 Pacific typhoon season-RS concerns if death toll is 148
Here is the source. I can't see it being unreliable, but I can't confirm it is reliable. Looking for other people's thoughts(outside of WPTC). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Vietnam has one of the lowest ratings for press freedom in the world according to RSF. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's reliable for what Vietnamese meteorologists argued. But you will have to decide how much weight to give to that, if you don't have any views from other countries' metereologists. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. From government-controlled media. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yuva TV
Is Yuva TV reliable for making claims in BLPs in Wikipedia's voice? Reliable for opinion if attributed and the opinion passes WP:WEIGHT? Or generally unreliable?

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit where a YouTube video from "Bharatiya Janata Party" purporting to be from Yuva TV was used as a source in a BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akbaruddin_Owaisi&diff=prev&oldid=992384359
 * "The Bharatiya Janata Party has launched an internet television channel by the name of Yuva TV... BJP’s official website prominently links to Yuva TV."
 * Related BLPNB thread: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to this link . Yuva TV seems to be an internet/youtube channel by BJP's media wing. Is Yuva TV reliable for making claims in BLPs in Wikipedia's voice In my opinion this is not a neutral third party source. I would definitely not use it for making claims in Wikipedia voice. Reliable for opinion if attributed and the opinion passes WP:WEIGHT? Perhaps, but in this case it should be mentioned that "Yuva TV which is affiliated to BJP, mentioned that....". One possible case in which it might be used is when another party alleges something by BJP and we need to cite BJP's response. However, if a better source is available please use it. Or generally unreliable? I am not sure what is the quality of their reporting. This seems to be an internet only "channel" and most likely they post their videos on the BJP's official youtube channel. Personally I will not use this for any factual claims.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For this particular case (2013 alleged hate speech by Akbaruddin Owaisi), there are better news articles available such as, . The speech was indeed termed "anti-Hindu" and "anti-National" by some political parties , but this is the opinion of the parties themselves and should be cited as such.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable sounds about right. This is not a WP:NEWSORG and the only thing that it would be reliable for is its own opinions. If one can not find a reliable secondary source which quotes it then its opinions probably don't have due weightage. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! very helpful responses. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

AloPeyk
Are these sources (1, 2, 3) reliable to use in the draft? I hope this going to be helpful for the draft.Hispring (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Rediff.com
Hello. I would like to use the following Rediff.com source (1) while writing the "A Toast to Men" article to support that Willa Ford's canceled second studio album was initially called Porn Poetry and later changed to Sexysexobsessive. Do you think that it is reliable/appropriate for use on Wikipedia? I believe that past RSN discussions said that Rediff.com was reliable, but this particular "article" looks questionable to me. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User-generated and no author. I would say no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hitler family
An editor does not seem to understand the requirements of WP:OR and WP:RS. I have filed at report on ORN here, which could be of interest to the regulars here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Anti British Bias
The list of deprecated seems to disproportionately feature British news outlets. Why are the likes of the NY Post, Fox News or MSNBC not listed? which are widely inaccurate by even the worst British standards. Even the Daily Star can have moments of quality journalism, it broke the story about the outbreak of necrotising fascitis in the 90s.
 * Daily Star has improved under Reach, and has become more humor focused, see this I story for details. I still think that Daily Star content when it was the ownership of Richard Desmond should remain deprecated, but I am ambivalent about the publication under Reach. That "The Rock" story, apparently fabricated by a freelance writer that was put on the front page was a total failure of editorial standards was done under Reach ownership, and its humor focused direction makes it a marginal source for facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well maybe it is because American sources tend to have more partizans on here than British ones? It could also be that there is a difference between inaccuracy and outright falsification. So maybe it says more about how shabby our tabloid press is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It also depends on how likely things are to be used as a source. Some of Britain's more questionable "news" outlets are adept at having an online presence which looks like that of a respectable newspaper, which leads people in other countries, who aren't necessarily aware of their reputation for errors and misrepresentation, to assume they're legitimate and cite them in good faith. (The Daily Mail is the canonical example, but there are examples at the other end of the political spectrum as well like the Daily Mirror and The National.) People considering citing Fox News or MSNBC are much more likely already to be aware that they're dealing with a potentially problematic source, so the issue isn't necessarily going to arise as often. &#8209; Iridescent 16:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This suggests that there is an incongruence between the official Wikipedia reliability status of Fox News and MSNBC and their actual reliability. Which would be a point in favor of Slatersteven's American-sources-have-more-partisans explanation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of Fox as a "News" channel they can (and do) make some effort to keep opinion seriously separate from the actual "news" broadcasts (If a newspaper did it well over 3/4 the pages would be op-ed pieces, which in effect they are but not marked as such).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The National being the pro-independence Scottish broadsheet-style paper with broadly speaking positive reviews? Seems fine to me but that's a different discussion. ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that the American tabloid press haven't tried to cloak themselves in a veneer of respectability like their British counterparts (they also don't need to given the massively different legal systems, especially when it comes to defamation). They’re much more openly scummy and out there. Sure the National Enquirer etc have technically broken some important stories but nobody pretends they’re respectable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This for the most part, no American tabloid has appreciable circulation compared to the reliable sources to challenge their reporting, whereas in the UK, their tabloids are on par in terms of circulation and thus may seem to be biasing their major sources. But they still are tabloid reporting, which basically doesn't work at all for WP. --M asem (t) 17:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The main thing in the UK is that the tabloids are popular consumption beyond an individual city, and some are not your run of the mill crazy town. The New York Post is, until the online version, very much a New York thing. The Globe and National Enquirer are crazy town - nobody would ever confuse them for factual publications. While the UK has its crazy town tabloids, a few of the others (Daily Mirror, The Sun, Daily Mail) have skirted with being factual journalism for the longest times and in some cases actually been successful. There is occasional merit to the Mirror, Sun and DM among others. They do make exposes. They do uncover stuff with their investigative journalism. It's just let down by the rest of the paper being trash, and the fact any other number of sources cover the same content more reliably. Koncorde (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The main thing in the UK is that the tabloids are popular consumption beyond an individual city, and some are not your run of the mill crazy town. The New York Post is, until the online version, very much a New York thing. The Globe and National Enquirer are crazy town - nobody would ever confuse them for factual publications. While the UK has its crazy town tabloids, a few of the others (Daily Mirror, The Sun, Daily Mail) have skirted with being factual journalism for the longest times and in some cases actually been successful. There is occasional merit to the Mirror, Sun and DM among others. They do make exposes. They do uncover stuff with their investigative journalism. It's just let down by the rest of the paper being trash, and the fact any other number of sources cover the same content more reliably. Koncorde (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Collider.com and Spider-Man news
Regarding Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel, there is a RfC-style discussion about using Collider.com and how to use it, or not using it, in regard to a casting report. Please see the discussion here: Talk:Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Doubting an Academic Source
I would like to get a fair opinion regarding an academic source in the form of PDF by Flugel Peter, being referred to on the Wikipedia page named Niruben Amin, a revered Indian spiritual visionary who established Dada Bhagwan Foundation. The PDF seems to give a few details about her that do not exist on the official website of this foundation. These details also do not exist on any other academic or non-academic sources.

For example, in the Early life section of the Wiki page, it has been written that she was married and that her husband died under suspicion of suicide. One more statement says, “She later claimed that Dada Bhagwan had foretold her about the news of the death.” Well, I checked for these details online but they are shared no where else, except for the academic book from Flugel Peter. This creates an obvious suspicion.

After all, writing about the life of a famous personality should involve genuine, verifiable facts. So, should we accept the source just because it is an academic reference? Or, should we accept a reference that has facts or verifiable details? Thanks.Dipalig (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No source is infallible. However, the chapter appears to come from this 2005 book which I would say is generally reliable. It also lists the sources of information in a "notes" section at the end of the chapter, so you can double check it. Unless you see information that is contradicted by a more reliable source, I would trust it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Perfect guidance! Yes, I checked the lists of sources at the end of the chapter. However, for the specific statements for which I got a doubt, there is no reference in the book or in its 'notes' section. In fact, these statements in the 2005 book or Flugel Peter PDF book have no reference. They exist between the reference numbers, 73 and 74. So, my suspicion is still there. Dipalig (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Source seems fine. If attributed by saying "Indologist Peter Flügel writes that ..." there can be no question of a problem (in fact having the link to the guy would be good I think). Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My query is yet not solved. I am doubting these shared statements, which do not exist on the website of the foundation to which the Indian spiritual master belongs. So, I feel that it would not be fair to say that the statements about the lady shared in Flugel Peter PDF are genuine. When the base website itself has no such remarks, how can we rely on an academic source from outside the native country of that master? If you look at the references of Flugel Peter book, there is no source mentioned as to from where these statements are taken. These statements are also found no where else on the Internet. So, I became suspicious and am now looking for a satisfactory, justifiable rely as to why we should rely on this PDF for those statements or not. Dipalig (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, which is what this board exists to decide about. This is a reliable source, certainly for Flügel's view. Your personal doubts don't matter. This is exactly the sort of source Wikpedia *wants* to cite. If you can find another good source giving an alternative take on this matter, that could be cited too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it is not about my personal opinion or doubt. Anyone with fair view will doubt such content source. Yes, not only Wikipedia but we all trust reliable sources. However, reliable sources will never contradict with the base or primary source. This is general knowledge, not my knowledge. In case of someone's personal life, it should give proper references found on other trustworthy but distinct online or offline sources. But this is missing in Flugel Peter's book. In fact, there are no references given at all for these statements that I have highlighted. After all, an academic source can also have incorrect data if it is not properly referenced. So, humbly, again I seek your explanation. Dipalig (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a word of advice, anytime you’re writing stuff like "Anyone with fair view will ______ “ you’re deep in no true scotsman territory and should probably desist unless you want to give the impression that you are WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for your advice, as I did not mean to say anything like that. I just tried to write what I have experienced. Anyways, will take care of it while writing next time. What you feel regarding the source for the highlighted statements?Dipalig (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally if someone is well-known then information should only be added if it meets weight for inclusion, that is, it has received a lot of coverage. Another issue is that since the source is not about her but mentions her in passing, it is less reliable. Finally, the claims could be considered exceptional, requiring more sourcing. (All of these principles policy.) It could be the source's author was mistaken - it happens - or if true, it's not something the foundation would want to mention. In editing articles we should keep in mind that we are supposed to mention the key facts as identified by the body of literature about the subject, not dig for facts that those sources tend to ignore. TFD (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition and sources on "List of active separatist movements in X" articles
The articles here that I am referreing to are below:
 * List of active separatist movements in Africa
 * List of active separatist movements in North America
 * List of active separatist movements in South America
 * List of active separatist movements in Asia
 * List of active separatist movements in Europe
 * List of active separatist movements in Oceania

Obviously defining which movements are notable, "active", and "separatist" is quite contentious, inevitably more so by those who seek to retain/remove certain groups from these lists. Because of this, there is a need for quality sources to define which movements are suitable enough to fill these lists. However, all of the articles listed except those on Africa and South America have the "more citations needed" template (South America may need the template as well though). My coming here is to ask, what are suitable sources to have movements listed on these articles? The current logic seems to be that movements on the lists must follow the three criteria mentioned on each article, however, many insignificant, historical, and original research groups have slipped through over time. (For example, a supposed "Yunnan Independence Movement" whose only "source" was a link to the Chinese Wikipedia existed for 5 months after having been deleted as Original Research)

I may simply be getting a little too "worked up" about these articles, but it is my hope that these articles can be made a bit more reputable with some work. Is the solution to simply keep the existing criteria and pay better attention to the articles, or is a more standard definition of proper sourcing here needed? Requiring listed movements to have an WP:RS specifically stating that they are "active" and "separatist" would certainly make the listed movements much more reputable, but simultaneously the requirement would likely remove many smaller movements and/or those in areas with poor press coverage.

I may have posted this in the wrong venue, so if there's a better place to post this, please let me know. --PubSyr (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I previously raised largely the same issue at Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 73. The referencing is virtually non-existent for most of the time, any area with a minority population of some form seems to be fair game as having an active separatist movement because there's a political party seeing a greater degree of autonomy. At List of active separatist movements in Europe there is a book cited for the phrase though separatist movements may seek nothing more than greater autonomy or to be recognised as a national minority. What the book actually says is The goals of separatist movements vary from calls for increased autonomy to demands for full independence, but this doesn't appear to have stopped people across the whole range of articles classing every organisation seeking greater autonomy of varying degrees as separatist, which isn't the case. Some separatist movements might be seeking autonomy, but that doesn't mean all autonomist movements are separatist. As for what apparently gets classed as a "movement, I refer you to this and Talk:List of active separatist movements in North America. FDW777 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as you mentioned then this is a pretty big sourcing and notability issue. I do have some Wiki-experience, but I'm by no means an expert. (If you know,) is there anywhere an RFC or proposal could be made to set the groundwork for what these movements need before they can be added? The current system really doesn't seem to separate the Tibets from the Michigans without experienced users' intervention. -- Pub Syr  🌲C. 🐦T. 14:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest starting a centralised discussion on one of the article's talk pages, and advertising it on the talk pages of the others. Those articles are a giant mess in need of fixing, it's difficult to know where to start though. Some kind of proposal would be a good starting point though. FDW777 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid 19 URL from Facebook
I entered a URL for a facebook post, which linked to testimony being given to congress. That link was given to provide authenticity of the actual source, and greater detail for those who wished to hear it. Though FB is regarded as generally unreliable as an original source, it is not the original source. The original source is seen by clicking on the link as virologists testifying to a U.S. Senate committee.
 * Why not link to the original material then. In any case, "testimony" would not be WP:MEDRS if it pertained to any WP:Biomedical information; our standards for sourcing health content are waaay higher. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Relating to this testimony, I thought of adding information regarding ivermectin trials. There is a paper published to the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.191. Would this be WP:MEDRS? Is it considered a secondary source, as it is a published meta-analysis of 24 studies? I wasn't sure, so thought I should ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.1.167 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PMID 33278625 is a primary source (a RCT) so not WP:MEDRS. In fact an editor has just got blocked for trying to force that source in to the Ivermectin article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Law Officer Magazine ( lawofficer.com )
lawofficer.com is used as a source on four pages, six unrelated talk pages, and eight files.

No previous RSN discussions.

http://www.lawofficer.com

This appear to be a completely unreliable anti-black-lives-matter website.

Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, I am going to remove those citations and look for reliable sources to replace them with.

Not absolutely sure whether "Law Officer Magazine" is related to the website.

The website claims to publish Law Officer Magazine but I have never seen any real magazine with a website that doesn't tell you how to subscribe.

https://library.plymouth.edu/c.php?g=319067&p=4606495 says:


 * "Law Officer Magazine (Search the policeone.com online magazine: Law Officer Magazine) Law Officer is a publication for the professional law enforcement officer. Law Officer's mission is "to provide the best in tactics, technology and training." Law Officer has partnered with PoliceOne.com to deliver editorial content to help officers and departments be more effective and efficient."

https://www.police1.com

police1.com appears to by a run-of-the-mill aggregator, cited on one page (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold).

Amazon will sell you a subscription to it (but which one?):

Some website I have never heard of talks about a "Law Officer Magazine" associated with lawofficer.com as opposed to policeone.com:

Two magazines with the same name? One magazine and one website pretending to be a print magazine? Hard to tell. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks sketchy and some of it looks like fake news. I wouldn't cite it myself. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Advocacy group. Of course it is not RS. O3000 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Publishing articles claiming that Black Lives Matter is some sort of secret Marxist plot to overthrow American society is not an indicator of the sort of editorial controls we expect from a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, conspiracy theories cranks. Purge, deprecated, blacklist, whatever. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At best treat as a WP:BLOGS post and reliable if only if there is consesnsus that a given author of a post is a subject matter expert.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's entirely self published. They talk about have "editors", but the content appears entirely user generated with no evident editorial oversight or fact checking because everything boils down to opinion pieces. Much of it is spicy hot takes on some reliable sources content entirely from the POV that police, if not infallible, are real American heroes. A lot or content is published under the moniker "Law Officer" than a named individual (presumably because nobody wants hot takes to be associated with an individual, especially if they are still an active officer in charge of a department...). I have no issue with police advocacy groups being used as sources for the opinion of police advocacy groups, but there are Unions, spokesmen, department spokesmen etc all able to that and be attributed directly. In contrast here we're looking at self appointed opinions. Unclear as to the weight, or reliability, or popularity of such opinions. However, a few of the editors are published (in some fashion) or have been speakers, or leaders in national discourse which may mean their opinion carries some weight somewhere if attributed. Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an RS except for what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wholly Unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHed Copaganda, site is full of conspiracy theories and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I suggest nominating it for deprecation or blacklist.IHateAccounts (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Using an NPR report in the article Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
The article Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic is a collection of rumors and other misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic (kind of an obvious title). One of the items in the list is the notion that the virus that causes COVID-19 may have been in the US earlier than originally thought [] and that this might have resulted in some level of heard immunity. Recently added information [] about a recently published study that, to quote the study conclusion, "These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States prior to January 19, 2020." Added material was sourced to NPR [] which links to the study [] which was published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. objected to the edit arguing that the source is not a WP:MEDRS. I would agree that NPR is not a MEDRS however, my understanding is editors are allowed to cite non-medical journals for some information. Additionally, we have the CID article and it appears that CID is a respected journal in this area. I can see some concern that the CID article does not support (or attempt to answer) the herd immunity question and also does not conclusively prove COVID-19 cases were in the US prior the previously assumed date. Am I correct in assuming a report from a reliable news source is normally sufficient for the use in question (hypothetical if we didn't also have access to the journal paper). Am I correct in assuming that since we have the journal article a WP:MEDRS objection has been adequately addressed? Talk page discussion here []. Springee (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PMID 33252659 is a primary source and so generally not WP:MEDRS for biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source reported by NPR (secondary source). I'm having trouble understanding how a journal of infectious diseases can't be a WP:MEDRS.  This is not being used to dispute some type of established treatment but to address the level of misinformation associated with a claim about when the virus that causes COVID may have come into the US.  I think it's twisting MEDRS to allow non MEDRS to discuss the original claim (none of the sources in the section would be MEDRS) but refuse to allow this one in.  WP:MEDRS notes that the concern is people will use WP for health information.  When the virus first came into the US is more about historic information at this point.  It certainly isn't suggesting a false treatment for the illness.  Springee (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:WHYMEDRS essay is quite good for getting an understanding of why we avoid primary sources for health content. The NPR source is lay press (and not really a secondary source since it adds no meaningful analysis/synthesis to the underlying material). If we are going to make surprising claims about COVID-19 epidemiology we need solid WP:MEDRS sources. (On a side note, it's ironic this is being pushed at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic.) Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are ignoring that this isn't something like adding a single study that say disputes the safety of a vaccine or even tries to explain how this virus acts in the body. Since none of the other sources in the section are RS'ed should we just remove the subtopic?  I think you need to justify why this particular bit of content needs to be subjected to MEDRS.  It makes sense that the article in general needs MEDRS but when an infectious disease first came to the US is as much epidemiological history as anything.  Rather than just claiming MEDRS says no, can you explain why it would apply it should be applied in this case? To add this this, MEDRS exists because we are trying to protect readers who may get bad information here then make bad medical choices in their real life.  That is a very good reason to have stricter standards in those cases.  How does that apply in this case?  What difference does it make to medical treatments/choices etc if the virus made it to the US in December 2019 or January 2020?  At the same time we are saying a specific person was responsible for spreading misinformation yet it may be they weren't wrong.  Isn't that a BLP issue? Springee (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You posted here to ask if specific sources were reliable for WP:Biomedical information. They're not. According to WP:MEDRS, " all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge" (my emphasis). Other questions about other sources are beside the point. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking this this information is RS for the claims being made. You are the one saying that it must be treated as MEDRS.  A better question is does MEDRS need to apply in this case?  It wasn't used for the original claims so why for the counter claims?  If the CID article was saying this antibody indicates X then we would want multiple RS that agree.  Are you suggesting the antibody in question is in dispute?  What they are saying is the antibody was found in blood samples collected in Dec 2019 which is an indication that the virus may have been in the US in Dec 2019.  Since that is being used to counter a claim not made in a MEDRS and it doesn't impact the core reasons we have MEDRS I don't think your objection is valid.  Either way it would certainly be better to have other editors offer their views or figure out if this is the appropriate place to ask this question.  Springee (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, this is all bound up in some crazy way with US politics, with some wanting to push the idea that there was already "herd immunity" in California back in April (per a cited source: "Conservative talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh jumped on the theory). The idea was then debunked by scientists. What we're not going to be doing is using unreliable medical sources to try and lend credence to what is a borderline fringe idea as part of an exercise in political point making. Alexbrn (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I deliberately cited word by word from the source "widespread community transmission in the U.S. was unlikely until late February." There was zero intent by me to validate the conspiracy theory, in case that is unclear. An article about conspiracies or misinformation should also include context and possible reasons why a conspiracy came into existence. I suggest you read for example Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and note the use of "however" followed by a statement which provides context. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I agree there is no MEDRS evidence for the herd immunity part. The other part of the claim was that the virus was in the US earlier than may have been originally thought. That is the only part this material would support. At the time an expert in the field offered one an opinion on why the claim would be wrong (note this claim was not from a MEDRS).  Now we have a study that says the virus may have been here in 2019.  Which at least means the we can't say definitively it's misinformation to say the virus was not in the US until Jan 2020.  Just in case, I'm not interested in making a political point.  I saw your original reason for reverting and I was not convinced it was valid in this case and I'm still not convinced.   Springee (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

is aware of the general sanctions for this topic. Note in particular WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. Alexbrn (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, this is a totally unnecessary provocation. You reverted another editor's edit to an article with what I see as an invalid reason.  You haven't been able to make a clear case why this particular content must be governed by MEDRS.  Adding that mention here does nothing to make your case stronger.  Since you want us to look at the Application Notes, I would suggest you do the same.  How is the time the virus was first thought to be in the US a "medical aspect" of the virus?  Springee (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Biomedical information. Population data and epidemiology fall under MEDRS. Trying to cite primary research in a medical journal with the justification that it's not medical is an interesting approach. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should review your link. Note that history is specifically listed as not biomedical information. We should let other people weigh in since we aren't convincing one another. Springee (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you actually suggesting tentative epidemiological timelines proposed in primary biomedical studies fall under "history" and therefore don't need MEDRS?!? JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is being used in this article yes. Where would this fit into the "what is biomedical information" section?  We don't have a MEDRS that says the virus was not in the US prior to Jan 2020.  Part of the claim in question is that it's misinformation to say the virus was in the US prior to Jan 2020.  If a claim that there is evidence suggesting it may have been here prior to Jan 2020 requires MEDRS then a claim that says it wasn't here prior to Jan 2020 would also require MEDRS.  Currently the article has neither.  Normally I wouldn't say one way or the other.  However, if we are going to label the claim "misinformation" then we either need to use MEDRS to support the claim (currently we don't have that) or we simply present what evidence there is and say it is currently inconclusive.  Removing the statement with only the claim "not MEDRS" while including the rest of the section which is also not MEDRS looks like a double standard to me.  Springee (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't need a very solid source for saying that COVID is caused by a virus, since (almost) everybody knows that, but we would need a very solid source for saying it is not. Similarly, we need more solid sources for something that contradicts the existing consensus about first appearance of the virus in the US than for the consensus itself. If the virus was in the US at the end of 2019 without anybody noticing it, that would suggest it is far more harmless than the scientific consensus has it. That is an extraordinary claim, and it has implications on the handling of the pandemic. It is just a tiny data point compared to all the other data we have on it, but the anti-science movement out there feeds on those. Why would anyone want to include doubtful information with the justification that one specific rule, MEDRS, does not apply to it if you read the rule strictly? Wikipedia rules are not a purpose in themselves, their reason for existence is to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidence suggests that the virus was in Europe earlier than previously thought too . I agree with Springee's argument; if Antibodies reactive to COVID-2019 were present in American Red Cross blood samples from California, ... requires an MEDRS source, then Early genetic and antibody analyses refute the idea that the virus was in the United States prior to January 2020 must also need a MEDRS source. More generally, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. Whether the virus landed in the U.S. before or after January 2020 says something about R and thus requires MEDRS sources. Im The IP  (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The report that NRP mentioned was covered by a number of news outlets including the NYT. I also found an earlier study conducted by UCLA and the CDC which used clinical admissions data to support the theory that the virus was in the population earlier than thought. [] The article links to the study. Springee (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The study in question was added to at least two Covid timeline articles [][]. Why the concern with using it in this article? Springee (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a non-WP:MEDRS source being used for statements about epidemiology, so rather proves the point that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Removed, per policy and the specific requirements of the sanctions for COVID-19 articles. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you using the same standard for all other sources in those articles? Springee (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't gone through them in any depth. If there are other problems they should obviously be rectified also. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should as I suspect most will fail and the article would be gutted if we follow your interpretation. Springee (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * as the editors who added the now removed studies to the articles in question. Springee (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read the quoted paper and I agree the source I linked has stronger wording that the paper, so it should not be used. Arosa (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a number of RSs which cite the CID journal paper. I agree no wikipedia claim should be stronger than stating that evidence of the virus was found.  They clearly didn't find the virus itself but science, rightly, use logical expressions that indicate confidence.  Do you feel the study itself can not be used?  Other media articles reporting on it [][][][] and the CDC adds it to their Dec 8th Covid science update [].  I will note that a number of sources, like the NPR article, made the results sound more definitive than the paper's own conclusion.  Springee (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the study is reliable. The news story source I used less so.Arosa (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither is reliable per WP:MEDRS. See the discussion at WT:MED. Note also the special sanctions in effect for this topic (see your Talk page). Alexbrn (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to ask a hypothetical here. At what point does an article like one published by out of the CDC pass from MEDRS to standard RS?  By that I mean, if we were ten years in the future and this pandemic was behind us, would you still consider questions of when the virus may have first been in the US a MEDRS question or would it now be considered simply history where we could cover it using the RS standards we might use for the 1918 pandemic or the early discoveries around insulin for treating diabetes.  When and why would this transition out of MEDRS and into standard RS.  Perhaps, "when the topic or specific study would have only historic interest vs current clinical or epidemiological relevance is a reasonable standard?  Incidentally, I was pleased to see some discussion of the need to clean up a number of the COVID related articles.  It would probably help if all the sourcing were of the MEDRS standard.  Springee (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article PMID 33252659 (which is not, BTW, "published by the CDC" but is in an OUP journal) is a weak primary source, and I cannot conceive any circumstances by which it would transition into being usable for citing on Wikipedia. In 10 years time trying to use it may even be worse than trying to use it now, since it would be original research - trying to be a historian based on old primary documents. The topic however will transition into being historical and in 10 years time there will no doubt be good secondary sources (which must be the basis of our articles) giving a historical overview of this pandemic's early stages. And yes, that overview might be in a reputable historical (general RS) publication as much as a medical one - perhaps an academic book published by a university press, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I meant out of the CDC (or more completely, authored by researchers at the CDC and [other institutions] and published in CID). It's late and I was more concerned about crafting the rest of the question.  I also agree the study is a primary source but the results have been widely covered by the media (NYT, CNN etc).  So if it isn't covered by MEDRS it would pass our RS standards so long as we cite the secondary media sources.  What do you think indicates that  transition? Springee (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * News sources picking up primary studies (which are not really secondary sources since they can add no meaningful synthesis or analysis) are never reliable for nontrivial health claims, and MEDRS prefers sources &lt; 5 years old in any case - so in ten years time those news sources will be doubly unusable, and trying to use them as documentary "evidence" in a historical overview would be an act of original research. As to when a subject "becomes historical"? I don't think it's possible to have a rule, but a good indication would be the topic appearing in good sources written by medical historians and/or in later iterations of books like this. I have no doubt we'll not want for good sources when the time comes. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reframing Russia about East StratCom Task Force
Assessment on if the source should be considered reliable in this context (and if it should be attributed) welcome. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More context is at the East StratCom Task Force talk page.
 * More context is at the East StratCom Task Force talk page.
 * More context is at the East StratCom Task Force talk page.
 * I think it will be useful for others to leave a link to a secondary source here - UK Academics Get Hefty Grant to 'Reframe Russia'.--Renat (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings on this article. It doesn't seem like any of the factual claims are outright false, and I feel that Byline is reliable, but it is worth noting that they are part of the group of remainers who view Brexit as entirely Putin's fault and attempt to portray the Alexander Lebedev (owner of the staunchly anti-government Novaya Gazeta and (former?) member of the A Just Russia political party) as a Russian government agent. In other words, analysis done by The Byline Times might be biased.
 * The article clearly makes an effort at proper journalism. It has reached out to the source for a quote and so on. But it does have moments where it seems to confuse fact and opinion. For instance it states that "he ignored the good work that has already been done analysing RT" for example an article which "pointed out that RT’s claims of billions of views of its YouTube channel mainly came from videos with no political content". The quote above this claim gives no indication that Hutchins has suggested anything to the contrary. Additionally the article Byline points to is an translation and update by a website run by "citizen journalists" which hardly counts as ignoring existing scholarship.
 * (I do not mean to say that Bellingcat is unreliable just that it might not be paid much attention by academics. Interestingly Byline says that this article was "translated and updated" from a source by a media scholar though if this was in the original is unclear, as is why they pointed to the Bellingcat version. I recall seeing this remark made in a RS and it seems quite reasonable though why RT's critics go to such great lengths to point out that most of their output is non-political - and therefore cannot be propaganda - is something I don't understand. But to reiterate, Byline doesn't provide any evidence that Hutchins has talked about, let alone heard, this claim.)
 * Byline's analysis does have some supportive words specifically on this article saying that it made some valid points about the dangers of amplifying obscure conspiracy theories in a quest to debunk them, and the flaws in carelessly sticking a “disinformation” label on reports that aren’t always deserving of the description. It further does not suggest any unreliability on the part of Reframing Russia only that it has a pro-Russian bias, which as I have noted is an opinion partially born out of Byline's own biases.
 * Over all, I generally feel that an academic source being headed by professor at the University of Manchester is more reliable than a upstart independent hybrid news site. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's the point of discussing Brexit group, Bellingcat, Lebedev, Novaya Gazeta and so on. This only complicates the discussion. I have what to answer to you about this wide range of topics, but this is not the right place, because we are discussing ReframingRussia.com. Maybe you have some better secondary source about ReframingRussia (RR)? The mere fact that someone from RR is a professor is not a reason to consider everything that he does as a reliable source, especially when there is no editorial control whatsoever; RR members post their blogs on their own site. We need secondary sources. Because without secondary sources everything is just up to original research, which is not good. What about my original research: another important example that concerns me - there is a consensus between reliable sources that Kremlin is conducting disinformation campaign and RT (TV network) is part of it. What professor Stephen Hutchings from RR says? "we have to discard the idea that the Kremlin is in charge of a coordinated media machine". Hutching is a regular guest on RT (Russia Today) and he regularly defends RT. Hearing such words about Kremlin not being in charge from professor Hutchings is just disqualifying him in my eyes. Speaking about supportive words from Byline article - I am okay with using only this piece of information about RR's article. At least it would be from secondary source, not primary.--Renat (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my point got lost in there but in essence, Byline Times is, in this instance, isn't saying that Reframing Russia lies or misrepresents only that they feel aren't "providing the AHRC with value for money" (ie, Byline disagrees with them). Given that Byline is, in this case, a very WP:BIASED source to the point of making conclusions that fly in the face of reality, I think it would be best to ignore the article.
 * Upon the subject of your "original research" (which isn't original research but using a source in an about self fashion), the phrasing was created by the London School of Economics's (part of the University of London) blog editor, not Hutchins. What Hutchins actually said was we have to discard long-discredited ‘transmission belt’ or ‘hypodermic needle’ accounts of media effects in which the press ‘injects’ the toxin of propaganda, or the antidote of truth, into the collective bloodstream. Clearly, he is referring not to some idea that RT isn't ultimately there to push Putin's agenda (in the same blog he states that This [the Russian media] landscape is stalked by Putin’s overbearing presence) but that this particular metaphor for Russian media is not accurate.
 * Overall, I feel that this blog post helps prove that Hutchins has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. But not so much as some examples I will cite bellow. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable Academic Source - ReframingRussia is major research project by the Open University and the University of Manchester. The Observer It is headed by Stephen Hutchins, Professor of Russian Studies at the University of Manchester and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences who is quoted by The Guardian as an expert on RT. Twice.  He is also the author of more papers than I want to count  though Manchest seems to put the number at 45.
 * As for RR itself, the research team is solely comprised of professors, senior lecturers, and research associates all at major universities, as you would expect from such a collaboration. The collaboration has been the source of numerous academic publications.  And if that wasn't enough its advisory board contains the heads of research of both french and german state television as well as a representative from the BBC world service.
 * Even if it doesn't have meaningful editorial oversight, all of its members are Subject Matter Experts and very good ones at that. I am not about to declare this unreliable on the grounds that Hutchins appeared on RT once. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hutchins also wrote a piece at Huffington Post. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oryx blog
Is Oryx Blog (hosted at blogspot, but with a domain name) a reliable reference at Al-Barakah (ISIL administrative district)? The blog authors appear to have published a single book about North Korea's military, I'm not sure whether that makes them established subject matter experts on even North Korea, never mind the broader subject of all defence topics. FDW777 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, the other day I was struggling to persuade someone that an academic who had a PhD in the field and a peer reviewed paper on the subject was a SME. But to the point, while their content is interesting, I can not see any evidence of the website having editorial oversight, the book publishers are niche, and it is a single book. But what do I know, the last time I commented on this sort of thing it turned out the blog belonged to "one of the world’s leading experts on underwater warfare and submarine technology" according to The Diplomat. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that publishing one book makes you an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies. My belief is that defence is such a wide area that publishing a book on the North Korean military does not make the authors established subject matter experts on say the Argentinian Navy, even if we were prepared to accept that publishing one book makes them established subject matter experts on North Korea. Which Slatersteven doesn't accept to begin with, which is a reasonable position. FDW777 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the book and the blog post are both on tanks, but the point (ie that the area is very broad and a single book does not convey being an SME over all of it) remains. Actually, I have just had a look at the article history, can we wait to hear Applodion's case. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey care to explain cited by other academics? ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans have been cited by Charles R. Lister in The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency and by Douglas C. Lovelace in Terrorism: Commentary on Security Documents Volume 145: The North Korean Threat, both published by Oxford University Publishing. Lister is one of the most prominent experts for the Syrian Civil War. Mitzer and Oliemans were also used as sources in the Perspectives on Terrorism journal and The Journal of East Asian Affairs. What can I say, they collect niche information on topics which garner not much interest, and seem to be regarded as reliable by experts. If everyone else wants to remove the reference, I will of course comply (despite disagreeing). Applodion (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm not leaning towards the authors being SMEs. Also worth noting is that Olimans writes for NK News, a probable RS, and is cited as an expert by the FT.  I am going to read the post and look into Mitzer. Thank-you, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Miltzer also does work for NK News and has been quoted by The Washington Post . I have read the post, and it provides photos to support that there were at least two tanks operated in the relevant area. As such in this case, I feel that the authors probably count as Subject Matter Experts. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry
I stumbled onto this article while monitoring usage of which recently showed up at User:JustinBerry which led to Justin Berry. This person was involved in child porn involving himself and others, and he turned evidence against his partners in exchange for prosecutor immunity. Then he was supposedly murdered in Mexico under "mysterious" circumstances. There are no reliable source that says he is dead, everything comes back to a few social media posts. Now veering into speculation: Given porn videos of him are still presumably floating around, it could benefit him to kill off his former identity. And, if his life was threatened by people seeking revenge for turning evidence, he may be under a witness protection program as part of the immunity. These things would fit a means and motive profile. Thus reliable sources for his death are particularly important. I'm posting here in case anyone has any further ideas, or thoughts how to handle this article given what looks like sketchy sourcing. --- Green  C  16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Green, social media posts of unconfirmed provenance are obviously not reliable sources. However, I see that Berry's estate has been probated.  I went online myself (I'm a lawyer IRL) and found the court's order allowing probate.  (I can forward it to you if you want, but the court's docket is already linked, and the order allowing probate doesn't say much.)  An order allowing probate of an estate would seem to me to be as reliable a source as you could reasonably ask for.  So I think that the encyclopedic point of view has to be that Berry is dead, and any speculation to the contrary, in the absence of reliable sources to that effect, should not be included.  John M Baker (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was not advocating for the inclusion of speculation, that would be nuts. Rather there are reasonable reasons to be suspicious of the unreliable sources claiming death, I'm not just blindly citing a "Rule". However if you think the probate is sufficient so be it. That is a WP:PRIMARY. It is surprising that given the widespread and sustained national exposure of this individual not a single one has anything to say about his mysterious murder, which normally would be cat nip for the media outlets he was covered in. -- Green  C  18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to post at WP:BLP/N asking for feedback here and/or the article. As a semiregular at BLPN, I don't entirely agree. I agree that there should be no speculation that they aren't dead. But I don't think the article should mention they are dead either. This isn't because I have some doubts over their death but simply because the current sourcing for their death is too poor. This isn't unheard of at BLPN, although more commonly it's just a temporary thing as we wait days or weeks for some source to emerge. Still I'm fairly sure there are other cases where someone is dead but we don't mention it because there is no good sourcing. While the murder angle here makes this a little different, ultimately it'd not unheard of that someone receives a reasonable amount of media coverage for a time but they've been "forgotten" about by the time of their death so there are no reports. (Well there are also those cases with very little media coverage point blank, e.g. minor olympians or other sportspeople. But I'm not thinking of them.) While I understand it can be a bit distressing for friends and family that the article doesn't mention their death, IMO ultimately we should strictly comply with BLP in cases like this. We get similar problems when someone is divorced or whatever but no media has reported it. Note that although BLP applies to all pages, I think it's fine for the user page to mention their death. It's reasonable for us to have different standards for something that is more administrative/internal. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW in case it's unclear, I'm treating this as a BLP case since IMO BLP clearly applies until we have BLP compliant reasons why it doesn't. Also after further consideration, I feel the BLP issue is clear enough that I removed mention of their death from the article. 18:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Nil Einne, I'm no BLP expert, but here there is an order for probate, which must have been based on the filing of a death certificate (or, theoretically, other judicially acceptable evidence of death, but that is much less likely). Do you think that should not even be mentioned in the article?  John M Baker (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is the only source is a primary sources. There is a global industry to fake death so the existence of a death certificate is not inherently reliable. What made this stand out was the means and motive, and lack of secondary sourcing despite the prior media circus. I contacted the reporter at the NYT who initially broke the story and received no response, which doesn't mean anything but another data point. Wikipedia might say something to the effect but not sure how it would be worded without veering into Original Research. --  Green  C
 * Thinking about this further: Under WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should not use court records to support assertions about a living person.  As GreenC says, this court order, which allows probate, is certainly a primary source.  However, it is a primary source that is reliable and can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, so it's acceptable under WP:PRIMARY, if BLP does not apply.  So does BLP apply?  WP:BLP states that persons are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise.  An order allowing probate would seem to be reason to believe otherwise, but Nil Einne argues that BLP applies unless we have BLP-compliant reasons why it doesn't.
 * Currently there is a note at WP:BLP/N to let editors know of the discussion here. But I think this is really a BLP issue and not an RS issue, because the resolution is entirely dependent on whether BLP applies.  So I think we should wrap up the discussion here and move the main discussion to BLP/N.  John M Baker (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's down to what is best using WP:COMMONSENSE (policy). This is a strange situation where existing policy isn't fitting well. I'm on the fence and can see the POV of inclusion or exclusion. I don't want to try and solve it like a legal puzzle because that's not how Wikipedia is meant to work (eg. if BLP applies to a person whose death is contested seems like how many angles on the head of a pin). The question is, what is best for the article. My sense is removing this information (the Facebook post and probate) is not serving readers, but at the same time asserting unconditional death is inappropriate. Thus leaning towards keeping him "alive" but adding a POV from the courts he is dead. This creates some new problems, but is the least of other bad choices.-- Green  C  03:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a very reasonable position, but there is also something to be said for getting more input on the BLP aspects of this. John M Baker (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk in Nicholas Davies (journalist)
1. Source. https://www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk/obituary/nick-davies/

2. Article. Nicholas Davies (journalist)

3. Content. Date of death = January 2016

Is https://www.mirrorpensioners.co.uk/obituary/nick-davies/ sufficient to state that the journalist Nicholas Davies has died? Mr gobrien pointed out this source on the article's talk page. It states: "FORMER Mirror reporter and foreign editor NICK DAVIES died last week (end January, 2016) after a short illness." The parentheses are included in the text. The rest of the article copies the Wikipedia article. - Location (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [ edited 16:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC) ]
 * What is odd is I am finding very little to corroborate this claim, So I'm erring on no.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just found this Politico article that refers to "the late Nicholas Davies, a Mirror editor who wrote Maxwell’s biography." If that is sufficient to say that he is no longer living, would the source above be enough to narrow his date of death to January 2016? - Location (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would still say not, but at least I think we have enough to say he is dead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can not see how the date of death would be controversial and I can see why the Association of Mirror Pensioners would report on it. As such, I feel that it is perfectly fine to use them as a citation for the date of death unless there is evidence to the contrary. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally found some (not exactly RS) [], also might not be the same person. As I said its odd this has not been covered, in death, he was not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a totally different Nicholas Davies, since it says the obituary appeared in the Shropshire Star on December 5, 2008, whereas this alleged death was in 2016. FDW777 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Lucasta Miller in The Guardian
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Links to past discussion: see Reliable sources/Perennial sources
 * Source:
 * Article: Frédéric Chopin
 * Content: "... Sand published her novel Lucrezia Floriani, whose main characters – a rich actress and a prince in weak health – could be interpreted as Sand and Chopin. The story was uncomplimentary to Chopin, who missed the allusions when Sand read the manuscript aloud to Delacroix in Chopin's presence."
 * It is all substantiated in the article except for the content between the dashes. Is there any particular complaint about it? ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The actual question being whether the source is reliable – sorry, forgot to mention. The phrase between the dashes could be replaced by something like "a heroine oppressed by her lover's increasingly irrational demands" (or is that too much of a close paraphrasing?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable: the original book is preferable to snippets from The Guardian review of the book.

The book has been reviewed several times in the press within months of its release in the UK and the US. Chapter 14: "Lucrezia Floriani" concerns the roman à clef by George Sand. Prior to its publication, Sand read out chapters aloud to Eugène Delacroix and Frédéric Chopin, when they met at her residence in Nohant. Two sentences describe that in the featured article Frédéric Chopin. There has been WP:CONSENSUS for using Eisler's long and detailed book as a source. Chapter 14 only concerns Delacroix, Chopin and Sand. There is a thumbnail summary of Eisler's material in the brief Guardian book review, with some details elided:


 * "In the painful final stages of their affair, Sand fictionalised [Chopin] unkindly in her novel Lucrezia Floriani, in which the heroine dies suffocated by the emotional demands of her increasingly irrational lover. When Sand read the manuscript aloud to Delacroix in Chopin's presence, the painter was shocked at the brazen way in which she was prepared to carry out such a character assassination in front of the victim. What astounded him more was Chopin's polite, even enthusiastic, response. Was this a bravura display of the unruffled aristocratic good manners on which Chopin prided himself? Determined to find out, Delacroix questioned him in private and came away perplexed. Extraordinary as it seems, the composer had not recognised the obvious portrait of himself."

The painter Delacroix is mentioned several times in the FA, including a lengthy quotation about the garden at Nohant ("the songs of nightingales and the fragrance of roses"). The snippet above also mentions Delacroix in a significant way, so its omission cannot be justified. At the moment there has been consensus on the article talk page. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see why being a review of a book makes it any less reliable, and it defiantly does not render it unreliable. I also do not understand what you see as an omission? ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that using the book over the news source is preferable, but I see nothing that would suggest The Guardian is not reliable... And you don’t appear to be arguing that either, at most your argument is that the book is better but you havent actually argued that The Guardian is unreliable outside of the heading. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) In the current article there are two relevant sentences, both sourced to Eisler's book: "In 1847 Sand published her novel Lucrezia Floriani, whose main characters—a rich actress and a prince in weak health—could be interpreted as Sand and Chopin. In Chopin's presence, Sand read the manuscript out aloud to Delacroix, who was both shocked and mystified by its implications, writing that 'Madame Sand was perfectly at ease and Chopin could hardly stop making admiring comments'." Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The book is lengthy and has been used elsewhere. Sometimes direct quotations are used, translated into English. It is easy to find the users who have helped make it a FA. That process also involves evaluating sources, such as journal articles and books. Occasionally newspaper articles are used (e.g. for medical matters). In this particular article, I am not aware of a book review being used instead of the book itself. Things like this are usually decided by consensus on the article talk page, not here. Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason against both the book and the review being reliable. As I understand it, your dispute is over wording, and while I prefer Schonken's wording (on account of being more focused on Chopin and shorter without losing relevant information), this board is not the place for that dispute. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Comics Village
https://web.archive.org/web/20110207140124/http://comicsvillage.com/

The Comics Village wiki-article is currently nominated for deletion. One of the keep votes from (a Senior III Editor with familiarity in this topic area) claims that Comics Village is notable as a reliable news publication. This was contested by nominator, whose objection is that it's not listed at WP:ANIME/RS.

Opening this discussion to get to the bottom of it.  Dark knight  2149  00:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliability does not confer notability. - Ryk72 talk 07:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NMEDIA clauses 3 and 4 may apply here. Clause 3 sets the bar higher than reliability stating that it is notable if it is "authoritative". Clause 4 is a similar option for notability through reliability saying that it is notable if it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, a criteria RS/N often uses to determine reliability. But neither of these say that it is automatically notable if it is reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, Manga Village (a co-equal part of Comics Village) is listed in WP:ANIME/RS. -- stoshmaster (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Andrew Rossos Reliable?
Hello, is historian Andrew Rossos reliable? He is currently a professor at Toronto University and has a book published by Hoover Institution Press Publication.

On the other hand, he has been criticized by a number of other historians that can be viewed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rossos#Career.

His historical theses also diverge from the mainstream consensus of historians such as that Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria was not Bulgarian but Macedonian and that Alexander the Great was not Hellenic/Greek but a separate Macedonian ethnicity. Thanks for your input. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely reliable but possibly biased on the subject of Macedonia and Macedonians. Some additional information. This has been raised with respect to his work regarding the activities and political alignment of Slavic-speaking Greeks/Greek Macedonians in Bulgarian-occupied eastern Macedonia during World War II, specifically the background to the September 1941 Drama uprising. Rossos is a Greek-born Macedonian-Canadian Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Toronto, not just a professor (a position he first commenced in 1982). He has published many books with scholarly publishers as well as scholarly chapters and articles over several decades, and was asked to write the afterword for Sabrina P. Ramet's Civic and uncivic values in Macedonia : value transformation, education and media (2013) published by Palgrave MacMillan, and a Macedonian-focussed chapter in Brad K. Blitz's War and change in the Balkans : nationalism, conflict and cooperation (2006) published by Cambridge University Press. His Wikipedia article is a bit of a hatchet job, to be frank, and includes a link to an Australian high school student's essay that mentions him. IMHO this is a classic case of editors with various POVs wanting to exclude from an article an apparently eminent academic that happens to have a different perspective on the Macedonian question from theirs (apparently Greek and/or Bulgarian). I think, given there has been some non-Greek/non-Bulgarian academic criticism of some of Rossos' historical work on Macedonian issues, he should probably be attributed inline for anything controversial, but he certainly should not be excluded because he may be biased. Few if any historians are complete unbiased. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

shorturl.at/yCHN2- Download link for his book (expires in 1 week) .--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how Rossos can be reliable when he makes claims in his book 'Macedonia and the Macedonians' such as that Tsar Samuel Of Bulgaria actually felt like an ethnic Macedonian when there is actually no primary sources of this. Instead Rosso's sources two Yugoslavian historians called Stjepan Antoljak and George Ostrogorsky who are both Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable due to the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour which made it illegal to proclaim that you are Bulgarian and that you spoke the standard Bulgarian language. Furthermore, it set out to differentiate the Bulgarians and the Macedonians by pushing the thesis that the Macedonians have continuity since Ancient Macedonia despite it being a Hellenic kingdom and the Slavs arriving 900 years after the fall of the kingdom/empire. These theories have since been rejected by authoritative Serbian historians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_of_Bulgaria#Nomenclature). Furthermore, in this book Rossos conveniently misses stating that Samuel's nephew Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria in the Bitola Inscription describes himself as "Bulgarian by birth". As well as that Samuel's dad Nicholas was a Bulgarian noble of Armenian origin. I don't believe that just because Andrew Rossos is a professor at a well-known uni and has work published that he is automatically reliable. I can also share the download link to the Andrew Rossos book in a bit
 * The book is cited by 186 sources. That's a strong indication of its reliability. It also received a rather positive review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , two Yugoslavian historians called Stjepan Antoljak and George Ostrogorsky who are both Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable is not at all correct. George Ostrogorsky is a highly respected mediaevalist and Byzantinist, one of the foremost scholars of his generation. Some of his highly influential ideas about the "Byzantine Commonwealth" concept are contested, but are frequently discussed and cited despite their age. He was a Russian émigré, not a Yugoslavian, born and raised in Petrograd and educated at Heidelberg. The characterization Yugoslavian historians therefore they are not reliable is wrong in both fact and sentiment. GPinkerton (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For example on the Tsar Samuel page 20th-century Serbian and afterwards the Yugoslav historiography used the location of Samuel's state mainly on the territory of then Yugoslavia, to reject Bulgarian claims on the region.[169] Thus, the Russian-born Yugoslavian historian George Ostrogorsky distinguished Samuel's Empire from the Bulgarian Empire, referring to it as a "Macedonian Empire", although he recognised that Samuel's state was politically and ecclesiastically a direct descendant of the empire of Simeon I of Bulgaria and Peter I of Bulgaria, and it was regarded by Samuel and the Byzantines as being the Bulgarian Empire itself.[149]

I accept your decision about the reliability of this source, however Yugoslavian sources about Bulgarian and other histories in the region are not always reliable. Due to laws such as the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour that made it illegal to proclaim Bulgarian identity and it saw Bulgarian national figures such as Marko Tsepenkov becoming ethnic Macedonians despite no evidence of Tsepenkov ever identifying as an ethnic Macedonian. What difference would it make if Ostrogorsky is born in Russia, if he breaks the law in Yugoslavia he will be sent to the labor camp. It's just interesting how they both 'know' that Tsar Samuel felt as an ethnic Macedonian despite there being no primary sources of this from him or his relatives. But thanks for your input nonetheless, I consider this discussion closed. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Soap Hub as a reliable source
I would like to make a case for Soap Hub to be deemed "reliable." It publishes daily recaps, as well as interviews with many soap stars, and reviews of specific storylines. Majority of the staff includes seasoned soap opera journalists, who are not only fans of the genre, but have worked in the industry either writing for soaps themselves, or covering them. Diane Brounstein interned as a writer at three different soaps, and went on to work as the Senior editor for Soap Opera Magazine and was the managing editor for Sony's soap oriented website, Soapcity.com. Hope Campbell also worked for three different magazines, including Soap Opera Weekly. Contributing writers include famed soap journalists Janet Di Lauro, the former west coast editor of Soap Opera Weekly, and Michael Maloney who wrote Bill Bell's authorized biography and was the West Coast editor of Soap Opera Digest. The staff also includes a many others.--Nk3play2 my buzz 03:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Limited reliability for sourcing content about soap opera-related topics other than BLPs. It has a gatekeeping process evidenced by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy, it has a physical presence by which it can be held liable for libel, a quick Google News search for the phrase "SoapHub reported" finds that it's been sourced by RS like the Miami Herald etc., and it doesn't appear to primarily be an advocacy outlet. Its newsgathering and reporting capability appears limited to soap operas so it would not be RS for topics on architecture, planetology, etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Gay City News
On the article Abigail Shrier, tagged a reference using Gay City News with better source needed. Sadly, I was not able to find any previous community consensus as to the general reliability of Gay City News. Could commenters here please indicate their opinion on this matter? Question: Is Gay City News reliable for information relating to gender and sexuality? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt its a niche publication, but gender and sexuality appears to be within their niche. I would say in context they are reliable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally Reliable, it's owned by the same company that owns The Villager (Manhattan), which also speaks well of it. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To address the concerns listed below about three specific articles:
 * Ric Grenell, Ex-DNI, Vichy Gay, and Idiot, Salutes War Criminal - This article covered an instance in which Grenell was tricked into posting a "thank you for your service" tweet to William Calley, who in Wikipedia's own words is "is an American war criminal and a former United States Army officer convicted by court-martial for the premeditated killings of 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the Mỹ Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War".
 * Pink-Washing Power Grab Charged in Brooklyn Dems’ Non-Binary Inclusiveness Move - This article accurately covers a political disagreement among various factions of the democratic party, including the quote "“It’s pink-washing. You’re saying you’re being inclusive but in the same breath you’re adding all of these other things that negate that,” said Sunset Park District Leader Julio Peña..."
 * Ousted Bigot Claudia Tenney Vies to Regain Upstate House Seat covers the not-yet-concluded race for the New York 22nd congressional district, with Claudia Tenney running against Anthony Brindisi, and specifically addresses Tenney's history of voting and public commentary disparaging LGBT individuals and communities.
 * To claim that these articles are non-reliable on the idea of their headlines alone is problematic, especially for the second one, which directly references terms used by quoted individuals in the coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable it has editors and a reasonable number of journalists, looks like a regular News Org. Unless someone can come forward with evidence against its reliability it seems like an RS. It is interesting that Dr. Swag Lord also tagged two other claims including a group that included a masters thesis and a WSJ opinion piece. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, mind giving me a moment to consider the BLP implications. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it being used? It seems like a small volume source that would have a strong POV.  Is it being used for basic undisputed facts, commentary/analysis, a representative opinion?  Looking at the article it appears to have a number of iffy sources (Mediamatters).  When dealing with free, weekly papers I would always err on the side of using their claims with great caution.  Springee (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question. The claim is that such [she] often misgenders subjects of discussion in her book and the article is . ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The source for the claim is located in this paragraph: "Shrier’s perspective on trans issues is deeply problematic in more ways than one. Shrier admits in her book that she misgenders transgender youth, saying, “I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her’” — a choice by the author that disrespects transgender teens’ gender identity and falsely assumes that all trans boys or non-binary individuals assigned female at birth have the same biological makeup." (Reminder: this is not an opinion article, editorial, or an op-ed). Such a hyper-partisan source makes no effort to separate objective news and facts from opinion and commentary, and it should only be used for the most basic, mundane of all claims. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of use I would be concerned about. In this case the source is making claims about the actions of a BLP subject.  Those claims imply bias/phobia/negative things about the BLP subject.  Given the clear and strong POV this would have to be treated as opinionated commentary and then we need to ask if it's reliable enough for inclusion (are they leaving important facts out?) and if the source would have weight for inclusion in the Wiki article.  Springee (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The BLP subject's own words demonstrate bias/phobia/negative things, the subject does unquestionably misgendering the subjects of their book. Misgendering is objectively offensive (unless of course one is transphobic, then the offensive nature is reversed as any acknowledgement of transgender individuals identify is held to be offensive by the transphobic). I don’t see the source as describing anything that isn't plainly apparent. Nor do I see a clear and strong POV in that piece, given the background of the source they appear to be remarkable neutral. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you say with certainty the the GC article doesn't leave out critical reasoning/justification? As an example, if someone was against the Affordable Care Act was it because they are against healthcare reform?  What if their opposition was based on feeling the ACA was a lost opportunity to create a public option?  The act of quoting and summarizing requires some level of editorial judgement on the part of the person doing the quoting.  Can we be certain they are fairly presenting the argument of the author?  Would their strong bias which may not align with the author's make that harder? Springee (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We consider Haaretz etc to be reliable sources when it comes to anti-semitism despite their inherent bias. I fail to see how its different for other publications seen as representing oppressed groups describing WP:FRINGE critics like Shrier. I like your hypotheticals, but I am unable to make it fit the situation at hand because there doesn't appear to be any appropriate context to willfully misgender a transgender individual. Perhaps you can provide a few examples as you have done for the Affordable Care Act? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The major problem with your argument is that it is unfalsifiable. If I were to state that misgendering someone is not "objectively offensive" (which is correct) then I would automatically be labeled as "transphobic" (for which I am not). This is a pretty common logical fallacy. It is the opinion of the author of the article that Shrier's perspective is "deeply problematic" and that she inherently "disrespects transgender teens’ gender identity." The author's profound use of loaded language further demonstrates his POV and inability to separate straight facts from opinion. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just own it, theres no need to beat around the bush. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Could you please clarify? On a related note, you mentioned that GCN is a "niche publication." I agree, however, I find it a little too niche. Meaning, that there will almost always be major UNDUE concerns. For instance, are you able to find a RS that corroborates GCN's reporting that Shrier willfully misgenders individuals? (In the Shrier article, we cite a WSJ opinion piece written by her where she argues against compelled speech, but she states that she has no problem addressing people in the manner they choose). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The GCN article directly quotes the author's notes at the start of her book: "I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as 'she' and 'her'" and draws the analysis that this is misgendering. This conclusion is so banal that I am struggling to understand your specific issue with it. Regardless of your opinion on the validity of someone's gender identity, using different pronouns than the one they request meets most definitions of misgendering. Bravetheif (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong opinions on gender identity one way or the other. I was simply pointing out there is no possible way something can be "objectively offensive." On a further note, Springee makes a valid point. This is a single sentence taken from an entire book. Given the author's and the publication's strong POV concerns, there is high reason to believe that the sentence could have been taken out of context or distorted in some form or another. For the sake of argument, even if this sentence was fully in context, and the author was correct by labeling this sentence as misgendering, then there are strong UNDUE concerns. Why are we choosing to highlight this sole sentence? Have legitimate sources highlighted this sentence as well? We should be trying to summarize the author's main points and thesis--we should not be analyzing individuals sentences. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing is "objectively offensive", but you can objectively say that most trans people (and allies) will find intentional misgendering offensive. That's my interpretation of Horse Eye&#39;s Back's statement. Either way, Springee's concerns are largely unfounded. The quote is taken from the author's note, and even with the remaining context it's meaning does not change. It hasn't been distorted or misrepresented. Shrier makes clear that she will refer to trans teens by their birth pronouns and proceeds to do so the entire book - to the point that it takes up a substantial portion of the text. Whether or not Shrier has concerns about the legitimacy of trans teens gender identity does not change the fact that that meets the definition of misgendering. It's not just a solo sentence, its a sentence that represents the book as a whole and something for which the book has been criticised (for example, by GCN). Bravetheif (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You say--"Shrier makes clear that she will refer to trans teens by their birth pronouns and proceeds to do so the entire book - to the point that it takes up a substantial portion of the text...It's not just a solo sentence, its a sentence that represents the book as a whole and something for which the book has been criticised"--besides original research, do you have a RS that makes that assertion? This whole discussion is on the reliability of GCN, so you can't use GCN to prove the reliability of GCN. Again, if a RS has determined that Shrier does, indeed, repeatedly misgender individuals in her book, and that misgendering is a key aspect of her book, then it would be completely fine to include such a statement. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a Wikipedia article, this is a discussion page. I don't need a secondary source to make such analysis; see WP:NOR This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. The authors note is explicitly stating the manner with which it will be referring trans teenagers in the book, and I am making the extremely basic logical inference that any decision about how one refers to the subject of the book would take up a substantial part of the text. Furthermore, having read the book myself, I can say that it definitely does take up a large portion of the book. This is all for the defence that it is not WP:UNDUE. As for the reliability of GCN, it must be examined in context. GCN directly and accurately quotes the book, and the conclusion that it draws (the conclusion that is being used in the article) is that that meets the definition of misgendering. That conclusion is not outrageous; it's logical, correct, and honestly banal. Bravetheif (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your decision to include the statement seems to be based off your own original research/interpretation of the book. You are not an expert on the book. If I read the book, my understanding of the book could be wildly different from yours. My interpretation and opinions of the book means absolutely nothing, either. If misgendering was such a key aspect of the book, then reliable, independent sources would state so. In the few reliable sources we have in the article  none of them mention Shrier misgendering. Even in the PinkNews source, which holds a similar POV to GCN, fails to mention Shrier misgendering. There are strong WP:BLP concerns in this matter. If we are going to include such a contentious statement, then we better have some high-quality sourcing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion of my personal character or my personal reasons for including the statement or source. I would appreciate it if you would not treat it like one. This is a discussion of whether a secondary source supports the statement, whether that statement is relevant, and whether that source is reliable. This is also not a BLP article and the statement in the article does not relate to Shrier directly, so BLP concerns are not relevant. If you are unable to cite a specific Wikipedia policy this source violates, than whether or not it is a reliable source should be determined by examining the specific claim of the source used in the article. You have yet to do so besides some vague, unsubstantiated, notion of contentiousness. Bravetheif (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You previously said: "...and I am making the extremely basic logical inference that any decision about how one refers to the subject of the book would take up a substantial part of the text. Furthermore, having read the book myself, I can say that it definitely does take up a large portion of the book." I was specifically responding to this statement, which is based off original research to support your conclusions of the book and the material in question. The point I am making is that your personal knowledge of the book, or your personal logical inferences, are completely irrelevant. My personal knowledge of the book is irrelevant. Nobody is attacking your character. Additionally, this article still falls under BLP policy: . Just like Dreams from My Father falls under BLP policy. The statement, and the source, in question especially falls under BLP policy because we are directly commenting on a living person. Furthermore, we are arguing about including a highly contentious statement into a BLP, which would require high-quality sourcing per BLP policy. If the content in question said: "Shrier has two kids," and GCN was our source, then there wouldn't be a problem. But, obviously, our statement is significantly more contentious than that. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a Wikipedia article, it is a discussion page! WP:NOR does not apply. Making original logical inferences or stating subjective opinions is entirely permissible, and you are free to do so if you like. Discussions of a living person within the book must be treated with BLP, but the book is not generally about specific living person(s) (unlike Dreams of My Father) and as such does not fall under BLP. The statement in question does not directly comment on a living person either, it is a comment on how the book refers to persons. Bravetheif (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further. If you have additional concerns, feel free to leave a comment on my TP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree that the relied upon article is commentary, and needs attribution at the very least. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable - Well-established, professionally run alternative-press newspaper in New York City. No more opinionated than any other alternative-press weekly. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable--unlike publications such as the Washington Blade, Gay City News has no reputation for fact-checking and it does not appear to have strong editorial oversight. With headlines such as Ric Grenell, Ex-DNI, Vichy Gay, and Idiot, Salutes War Criminal, Pink-Washing Power Grab Charged in Brooklyn Dems’ Non-Binary Inclusiveness Move, and Ousted Bigot Claudia Tenney Vies to Regain Upstate House Seat (all written in the objective "News" section), this publication cleary qualifies under tabloid journalism, and it should not be used to make contentious claims about living people. --Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you ignore the headlines (which aren't reliable in many publications), these articles are accurate: Grenell was trolled, "Brooklyn Democratic Party bigwigs used a new gender non-binary inclusion rule to consolidate power among their executive ranks" is attributed as a claim made by activists and progressives, Tenney article doesn't use the word "bigot" in its text and accurately quotes her statements. I agree that I wouldn't use this publication without backup for contentious BLP claims, however. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Headlines do, indeed, try to grasp the reader's attention. However, GCN's headlines, and their content in general, are beyond the pale. Under what circumstances does a "respected" publication refer to the former Director of National Intelligence as an "idiot"? Here's the opening first two lines as well: From the perspective of the Peter Principle concept in management studies, Ric Grenell rose to his level of incompetence when he served for three months earlier this year as acting director of National Intelligence (DNI).If there was any doubt that Grenell was poorly equipped for the field of Intelligence — or intelligence — it came on Veteran’s Day.... Is this how one writes objective news? Even if one is writing from an LGBT perspective, this type of reporting is a bit unacceptable. Not only that, this matter is simply trival. If you do a quick search, this event was hardly touched by the media, so there are major DUE/UNDUE concerns as well. The most prominent newsorg that I could find that covered this event was Business Insider. Shockingly, Business Insider does not refer to Grenell as an "idiot" nor do they mock his intelligence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - it appears that this could be substantiated from the book itself. gcn's claim is explicitly based on the author's note which says "I refer to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her’". This seems like a better idea for a controversial claim about a BLP. Thoughts? ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we simply quote the material from the book, and use GCN as the citation? For instance, we say in the article that "In Irreversible Damage, Shrier states that she "refer[s] to biologically female teens caught up in this transgender craze as ‘she’ and ‘her.’"? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as well as referencing the book as well/instead. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes reliable: It's generally known to be a reliable periodical, so the tag is entirely unnecessary. This is a leading, established LGBT newspaper, and I see it cited a lot on Wikipedia without requiring a "better source needed" tag. Tikisim (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. I see no evidence of a strong editorial team reigning in opinionated writers, and I see no reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors.


 * Let's look at one example: City Council Passes Walking While Trans Repeal Resolutions


 * Here is the actual law: New York Penal Law Sec. 240.37: Loitering for the Purpose of Engaging in a Prostitution Offense


 * Here is the resolution: New York City Council Resolution No. 1444-A


 * Here, GCN makes some important assumptions, equally important omissions, and fails to provide hard evidence for their main claim.


 * First, the main claim: I find it extremely plausible that NYPD cops harass transgender individuals using the above law as a pretext. It shames me to say that society in general has a prejudice against transgender individuals and it is likely that this is reflected in the NYPD. But does GCN offer any actual evidence, or just anecdotes? They really dropped the ball on that one. The actual resolution (which you won't find a link to in the GCN article) gives some convincing statistics:
 * "Eighty percent of people who were arrested under the law in 2018 were women, and of that, forty-nine percent were Black and forty-two percent were Latina, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services... In fact, the enforcement of this law disproportionately targets Black and Latina women and transgender women of color."


 * Could it be that the actual resolution was omitted because it primarily talks about minorities, only mentioning transgendered who are also minorities?


 * Next, the law. Zero mention of the word "prostitution". To read the GNC article, one would think that there is a law against "Walking While Trans". No mention of the fact that (what a shock!) there are prostitutes in NYC, some of them do indeed loiter for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, and some of those are transgender.


 * This is not to say that the NYPD targeting transgendered individuals isn't a real problem. It clearly is, but there are higher-quality sources that cover it and do a much better job of it, Examples:
 * https://queenseagle.com/all/council-formally-calls-on-state-to-repeal-walking-while-trans-ban -- Queens Daily Eagle
 * The NYPD Arrests Women for Who They Are and Where They Go — Now They’re Fighting Back --The Village Voice
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I read your comment correctly you are claiming that the GCN article does not address the law's role in the targeting of minorities? This is confusing because:
 * The coverage isn't "of the law" but rather of a city council meeting.
 * The coverage's first line is "The New York City Council on December 10 passed two resolutions encouraging the State Legislature to repeal a loitering law used by police to target transgender women of color and seal the records of folks convicted under that law"
 * The specific resolutions (923 and 144) are referenced later in the article.
 * The article itself includes multiple quotes from individuals attending the City Council meeting, which is what I would expect from a local paper. The proceedings and arguments discussed at the meeting are what's covered, including quotes such as "“I’m grateful to Councilmember Carlina Rivera, Council Speaker Corey Johnson and the rest of the New York City Council for passing a resolution urging Albany to repeal the ‘Walking While Trans’ ban,” Hoylman said in a written statement. “Repealing this statute, which permits transgender women of color to be profiled and harassed by local law enforcement, is one of my top priorities for 2021. Thanks to the hard work of many advocates across the state, we’ve got enough co-sponsors in each house of the Legislature to pass this legislation.”".
 * I'm having a very hard time seeing how you manage to portray an article reporting on the events and discussion of a city council meeting as "unreliable." IHateAccounts (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because GCN didn't accurately report what was in the resolution or what was in the law that the resolution was opposing, while the Queens Daily Eagle and The Village Voice did? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like GCN accurately reported the events of the City Council meeting, and the written statements by associated speakers. You say "But does GCN offer any actual evidence, or just anecdotes? They really dropped the ball on that one" in order to attack the publication, but the article is a report on a city council meeting, and it seems to me their reliability is not impacted by your WP:OR demands that they write a different article. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that Guy has badly misread this article - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was highly misleading, and omitted key facts of the law. It made it seem as though there was a legitimate law on the books that prevented transgender individuals from walking. Another red flag: this article (nor do any of their articles) ever link their sources. They never link to the actually law or resolution, nor do they ever link to reputable sources like the New York Times. GCN articles seem to only link to themselves. This is indicative of circular reporting. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally reliable. They appear to have a decent editorial team. Bravetheif (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The comments by a percentage of editors speaking against Gay City News read to me as if they're they're reflecting a personal issue with the publication, rather than a more broad-based journalistic concern.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Limited reliability for reporting on LGBTQI issues and news within the city of New York. They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy, a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel, and a cursory search on Google News indicates their reporting has been sourced by RS like Crain's New York Business and Slate. However: (a) they clearly do not have a newsgathering capability that would permit them to enterprise stories outside the subject areas of LGBTQI issues or NYC so it should not be used to source articles on History of Japan, Asteroids, etc., and, (b) some of their articles have an advocacy slant - editorial statements incorporated into straight news pieces could not be sourced to it as proof of their fact (e.g. this story is headlined "Hungary Bans LGBTQ Adoption Rights in Broad Power Grab" - we could source basic Who/What facts from the article but we couldn't say, in WP's voice, the Hungarian government is involved in a "power grab" if the only source to support that is GCN). Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FITSNews - reliable?
Is FITSNews a reliable source? Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable for news about South Carolina  As the question-asker, I think it's reliable since it has a demonstrated gatekeeping process, a physical presence and registered agent by which it could be held legally liable for libel, and objectively WP:RS outlets have sourced its reporting. (For full disclosure, I wrote the article on this outlet and intend to source the outlet in future articles if there's a consensus it's RS.) Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC); edited 11:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My specific comments about FITSNews not withstanding, I generally think that it is a positive thing for the encyclopedia when editors get the statements they want to make in articles published by an RS. What subject was your article on? ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your question. Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it say local news or another limited topic area, in which case we may be able to find FITSNews reliable for that. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what "it" is in your question. To the second half of your statement, however, I'd agree with you that FITSNews should only be used as a source for coverage about South Carolina. We should definitely not source it for information about the Syrian Civil War, etc. I've edited my !vote accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to political news or non-political news? I could defiantly support it for non-political local news. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Use with caution - rated mostly reliable by MB/FC though that's on the grounds of a failed fact check  so that is more of a concern than a website that is mostly factual because of lack of hyperlinks or extreme bias or minority viewpoints. The failed fact check is on a living person and the only other organisation that ran the story was InfoWars... so that's a concern. But generally looking at the coverage it has received I am leaning towards it being reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! The only thing I'd note is that we've determined MB/FC is, itself, an unreliable source. This is probably with good reason as the site it referenced to determine the story in question "failed a fact-check" is not a member of the International Fact-Checking Network and doesn't adhere to its code of principles; in this case, the Fact-Check was written by an evangelical preacher, Rick Buehler, who doesn't appear to have any background in journalism. On looking at the original story, it appeared to be a routine roundup story reporting on the existence of rumors being disseminated by tabloids, rather than declaring the rumors were true. The InfoWars report cited FITSNews rather than visa versa (InfoWars's MO is to cite RS like the AP or Reuters, and then put a conspiratorial spin on it). Chetsford (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A "roundup story reporting on the existence of rumors" seems a somewhat irresponsible thing for an RS to be doing and further the story reports it not as a rumour but what multiple sources familiar with the allegation tell FITS. It calls it straight up the forthcoming scandal without any notes saying that it may be inaccurate. The apparent failure of this story to materialise anywhere did not prompt FITS to place an update or correction on the page.
 * On the subject of the fact-checkers themselves, while MB/FC is not accepted in article space, it is, as far as I can tell, well regarded on RSN. I know nothing about Truth or Fiction though, for what its worth, it is used as a source by USAtoday (a high-quality RS) in several of their fact checks . I did not mean to imply that FITSnews had picked the source up of InfoWars, only that it was the only other source listed by Truth or Fiction as running the story. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "while MB/FC is not accepted in article space, it is, as far as I can tell, well regarded on RSN"" Wow. That's concerning. Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to engage with MB/FC's reputation here, so let's, for the sake of argument, say that it is not a good source to cite on RSN. Then FITSNews goes from 'mostly reliable with a failed fact check' to 'has a failed fact check' which I do not see as an upgrade. As for Truth or Fiction, it's current managing editor is ex-Snopes and it also employs a journalist who is a former Snopes editor. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The site has been described by Columbia Journalism Review as a "rabble-rousing mashup of blog commentary, breaking news, and pictures of 'hotties'"" (in Wikipedia, cited) - this does not make me feel good about the source? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Total garbage. Seriously? Why does this even need to be asked. Any editor wanting to use this is probably up to no good. Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Seriously?" Seriously! "Why does this even need to be asked." Because its reporting is considered reliable enough to have been been sourced by RS like The Island Packet, WPDE-TV, Politico, Sports Illustrated, etc., it was named by the Washington Post to its list of "best political blogs" in the United States, it has a gatekeeping process, and the South Carolina Press Association filed an amicus brief in a case in which it was a defendant in which it affirmed its adherence to journalistic norms. One can agree or disagree it's RS, but to say it's not even a reasonable point of discussion and anyone who dares ask the question is trying to subvert WP is probably just a bit dramatic. "Any editor wanting to use this is probably up to no good." Noted - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No. From all appearances, most of the reliable news it posts is reposting from other sources, and its only original work is opinion and commentary.  Opinion and commentary are not appropriate for anything except directly quote the person expressing the opinion itself, and not for verifying statements of fact.  -- Jayron 32 16:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "its only original work is opinion and commentary" Hmmm ... I ran a five article convenience sample of current front page listed stories and got different results (3 original reporting, 1 précis, 1 opinion). A five article sample is not scientifically valid; typically we'd need two weeks of stratified sampling. However, in combination with the fact its straight news reporting is sourced by RS, I personally feel safe in giving it the benefit of the doubt in the absence of demonstrated evidence to the contrary.
 * -Original reporting: "SC Firefighter Wanted For Child Sex Crimes Arrested In Georgia, Hires Influential Attorney" Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -Original reporting: "South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson Criticized Over Facebook Contributions"
 * -Original reporting: "USC Students Petition To Fire Professor Accused Of Harassment"
 * -Précis: "Santee Cooper Bureaucracy Racked Up Millions In Bonuses As Covid-19 Pandemic Raged"
 * -Opinion: "Amy Feinstein’s Southern Charm Recap: Lowcountry Broil"
 * Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

CGTN as a medium of English translations of Xinhua
I have seen that CGTN (or CCTV Int'l) has some content translated from the Chinese newsies published by Xinhua News Agency. They do this with a programme called Microsoft Azure. Should we allow CGTN translations of Xinhua while deprecating CGTN's own content? --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 04:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have found an example of the CGTN translation of Xinhua, while going through my view history. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 05:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With more caution than Xinhua - while syndicated content seems to go through all the normal procedures, it getting published by the news organizations intended by the Chinese government for public consumption suggests that the piece is at least not negative for China and as such editors should be thinking about 'why has this piece been syndicated'. Try to cite directly to Xinhua. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable. Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. --The Master (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that Donald Trump is a good judge of a reliable and an unreliable source and that he won't do it just because he disagrees with them? ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The real reason some want to discriminate against Chinese official sources because they don't agree with them, though they declare a noble excuse instead. The same with Trump. --The Master (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it may be the case that news organisations accusing CGTN of producing propaganda are doing so because they disagree with them but do you have any evidence for that, remember this is not a place for the verifiability, not truth. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Verify the bias of western media here: Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist.--The Master (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. While Wolfgang Kubin seems to be a very experienced academic, I am not sure that his personal opinions constitute conclusive evidence of western bias. I am sure you could find just as many academics who are willing to say that Xinhua is reliable (indeed see the two sources above that are published in academic journals). ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The user you are talking with is of Chinese origin. Chinese people will naturally follow their government. This is why this user wants to ban sources that criticise their government publications. The real reason we don't rate Chinese government publications "generally reliable" is because those publications have a lot of propagandas and fabricated materials, and Wikipedia is not a place for such materials. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And I don't want to move this discussion to the reliability of CGTN in general, that's already discussed before. I opened this discussion to measure the reliability of CGTN's translation of Xinhua newsies. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not "wants to ban sources that criticise their government publications". What I see here is some user want to ban Chinese official source so we can only cite the biased western sources in Wikipedia. They want to do the contrary. That's ridiculous. --The Master (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be operating under the mistaken impression that there are only two kinds of sources in the world... The idea that we have Chinese official sources on one side and every other source in the world on the other is a false dichotomy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Treat as deprecated. Use another instance of wire copy if available - if a deprecated source is the only available instance of wire copy, that's reason for suspicion. If it's a translation, that's a work of CGTN and is their wording, which we have already decided we can't trust - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Treat as deprecated if theres another source then use that, if there isn't another source then it should never have been used in the first place and discussion is moot. Either way don’t use it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

PopSugar
Should PopSugar be considered as an reliable source or not? I asking this because I don't know there was a discussion on this website. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Limited reliability for sourcing non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects. It has a gatekeeping process, a physical presence by which it can held liable for libel, a quick Google News search for the phrase "according to PopSugar" finds that it's been sourced by known RS like the Desert News, Houston Chronicle, and Kansas City Star, and it doesn't appear to demonstrate any of the telltale signs of advocacy media. That said, it obviously doesn't have any newsgathering capability outside of the realm of entertainment and lifestyle topics. It would not be an acceptable source for articles like electromagnetic radiation or 2019 Canadian federal election. Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I use this source from PopSugar in album-related articles. It's okay? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

X-Plane First Party Sources
I’ve being looking at flight simulator pages as I want to make sure each one is accurate and as detailed as it can be.

I have added a little to the X-Plane page, however I have noticed that the bulk of the sources come from first party information, including their own development pages and also a Twitter post.

Are these reliable sources? Almost all are first party, so I haven’t linked examples as they are on the page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)

Restaurant notability?
What type(s) of sources should be used to determine notability for inclusion in a list of restaurants, such as List of barbecue restaurants or List of oyster bars? I think there might be some good additions to be made to some of these lists, but I'm at a loss as to what would make a restaurant notable.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:SIGCOV is different from reliability, so this noticeboard may not be good for that, but I would say that "significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources" would usually involve meaningful coverage in high-quality newspapers, books/academic sources from reputable publishers, or both. I don't think mere restaurant reviews would suffice. I do think coverage in a Zagat guide or Michelin Guide could be one source for coverage, but that alone would probably not get over the notablity threshold. (And, conversely, some places may be encyclopedically notable even if they are in neither guide.)
 * I think, for purposes of the list articles, that a very simple and straightforward criteria would be whether the restaurant listed has an article of its own (i.e., is it bluelinked?). Neutralitytalk 03:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, that is absolutely good practice. The burden of proof for establishing notability is on the person adding/creating content, and because list articles are notable targets for spamming of non-notable items, we require the editor to jump through the hoops of proving notability without burdening other editors. By creating a bluelinked article that actually survives the typical AFD threats and other beginner problems, the editor has established that the content is worthy of inclusion in a list article, quite literally "no questions asked." I don't know if this is official policy yet, but it's been an unofficial practice for over a decade, and it should be a formalized policy requirement. -- Valjean (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's a guideline, see WP:CSC. Neutralitytalk 04:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have tweaked it/tightened it. Feel free to improve that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Standalone restaurant notability will follow WP:NCORP, which is rather strict on what qualifies as to avoid COI and self-promotion that can easily happen with for-profit businesses. --M asem (t) 04:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion a while back about a potential SNG for restaurants - can't remember where though. In my book, if a restaurant has (or has previously had) a Michelin star, it should be presumed notable, but that's just my opinion. As things stand, is correct, these are businesses so they should pass NCORP for a standalone article. Good sources include independent reviews in reliable sources (newspapers like The Times and The Guardian review restaurants), guide books like the Michelin Guide, that sort of thing. A bit of judgment would be required to determine whether a restaurant should be added to a list, or indeed whether a list ought to be created.  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with lists of this type is a variant of the sorites paradox: If we put all of the restaurants in the world that have every existed into one (hypothetical) massive list, at which point on that list do we draw the big bold line and say "everything above this line gets into Wikipedia and everything below this line doesn't". Some restaurants are clearly places with an extensive history and which we have enough reliable source text to draw from to write articles, places like Delmonico's and Café du Monde and Café Procope, but the list is so long that as we get further and further down said list, it becomes harder to justify restaurants near each other in terms of notability where one gets over the line, and one doesn't.  It's better to have a general set of conditions (must have a Wikipedia article first to make the list, for example) and then handle it at that level.  If a restaurant can pass WP:AFD discussions and it is determined it is clearly notable enough for an article, it can make such lists.  If not, then it probably doesn't. -- Jayron 32 14:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one situation where our categories serve a purpose as they have no size limits, but do get divided into logical subdivisions of limited size. Lists should be so specific that they focus on a niche topic that quickly becomes self-limiting. If the scope of a list is too broad, a category serves the purpose better and eliminates the need for a list. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Tripadvisor
Some people use Tripadvisor as a source. I understand that this source should be included in Reliable sources/Perennial sources as an unreliable source, as the site reviews are based on user reviews. There have even been cases of fake reviews. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously per WP:UGC. No need to include it elsewhere since nobody with a WP:CLUE would ever try to use it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone used in Dinosaur Museum (Dorchester). But then, I thought better of it, the font could only be used to indicate the location of a certain place, but never as proof of notoriety, and neither should reviews be used as a source. What is your opinion? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is better to educate editors on some very basic principles, rather than try to move to a situation where things are decided by a pre-baked checklist. Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Deprecate. Total junk, even if some of the reviews are highly entertaining. I wouldn't rely on it to make a booking, let alone use it as a source. WP:UGC, full both of self-promotion and of revenge attacks from people who want their money back, justifiably or otherwise. I wouldn't trust it even for WP:V purposes ("this hotel exists because tripadvisor says it does"). Narky Blert (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate we have over 1,100 citations to, the vast majority are not appropriate as self published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support spam filter, oppose deprecation. TripAdvisor is more akin to Facebook (mostly user-generated content) than stuff like the Daily Mail (mostly staff-written but low-quality content). It should be added to an edit filter akin to the one proposed in the Facebook RfC. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deprecate Unlike Facebook, where you might be able to use someone's posting as a primary source (Michael A. posted on his Facebook that "blah blah blah"), Tripadvisor is entirely based around user-submissions of dubious repute and information-lacking travel recommendations. The only use I could possibly see for Tripadvisor ever being used as a source would be if one of their articles (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Articles) was written by someone notable enough to have an article, and then using their statement as a primary source. Because of simply how unreliable everything else on the site is though, and how frequently it is used, deprecation seems like the only real option. If there happens to be some specific circumstance where it is a proper primary source, then is fine, but that is not the case with most of its usage. - Pub Syr  🌲C. 🐦T. 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Alexbrn, it violates WP:UGC and therefore does not also need to be deprecated or listed in perennial sources. Deprecation should be reserved for cases in which clear-cut general principles do not apply or where their application is disputed. --JBL (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support an edit filter (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An edit filter would make sense (and maybe a red line at WP:RSP, though I doubt this is a "perennial" concern). I doubt deprecation is necessary; the general user-generated content advice covers it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

One Mile at a Time
Should onemileatatime.com be used as a source for new routes. IPs keep adding this source for new route. I know that it is a personal blog but just want to be sure before removing. 47.13.131.227 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please can you link to a specific example? ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * https://onemileatatime.com/air-india-bangalore-san-francisco-route/ 47.13.131.227 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And please could you given an example of a page someone was trying to add it to. ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * O’Hare International Airport. Here’s the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O%27Hare_International_Airport&diff=995176191&oldid=995073837. Article protected for 2 weeks. 47.13.131.227 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. I would be willing to say that given Ben Schlappig's extensive media appearances he could be considered a Subject Matter Expert on non-controversial claims about civil aviation (including routes). ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination
1. Source.

2. Article. June Cobb

3. Content. (Requesting general statement of reliability or suitability for use in the article.)

June Cobb is of interest to conspiracy theorists who speculate she may have had information (purportedly buried within unreleased CIA documents) linking Lee Harvey Oswald to Cuba/Fidel Castro in a plot to assassinate JFK. The Wikipedia article on Cobb heavily cites one such book by H.P. Albarelli, Jr. that was published by Trine Day. Alabrelli wrote that the chapter on Cobb was based on his own manuscript and that "because of privacy and confidential reasons, some of the FOIA and CIA documents, as well as private letters, diary entries and interviews used in this chapter are not specifically cited below." Trine Day's mission statement says: "TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate 'culture.' TrineDay believes in our Constitution and our common right of Free Speech."

If the overall purpose of a source is to present a WP:REDFLAG claim, I am wondering to what extent that source can be used for building a Wikipedia article. Thanks! - Location (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really much, who is he?.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Albarelli is an author known for advocating conspiracy theories that science professionals find ludicrous: . - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I had forgotten about the various discussions regarding his claims relevant to 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. It looks like PaleoNeonate noted in one of those threads that Albarelli had also been used as a source in a number of other Wikipedia articles that may need to be double-checked for accuracy. - Location (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The publisher, TrineDay, is a BIG red flag. In light of that the author would have to be an unquestionable expert in their field for us to use them and I don’t see any evidence of that here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now my take as well, I need to see some evidence he is an expert in a relevant field.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One concern that I have is that most of the citations are for statements that are likely true and possibly backed-up by primary sources, and that removing Albarelli would leave little left of the article. On top of that, there is at least one other conspiracist source in the article (i.e. Newman). Not sure how to proceed here. - Location (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we look for better sources if it is likely a fact others would have reported it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Albarelli also had a book about the JFK assassination published by Simon & Schuster, which is owned by ViacomCBS. I don't have access to a copy, but it may mention Cobb in which case it would be more reliable. Personally I would avoid books that promote conspiracy theories. If it's the only source for something, it can't be that important anyway. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That book has been in the works since before Albarelli died, and it looks like it is currently scheduled to be released by Skyhorse Publishing in February 2021. (Simon & Schuster distributes books published by Skyhorse). As noted in our Wikipedia article, conspiracy authors frequently go to Skyhorse to have their works published. - Location (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Should scholarly publications be given equal weight to opinions of non-notable individuals?
This is what is being argued at Talk:Telewizja Polska, along with insistence on quoting the president of the organization on how great it has become. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the talk page, but I couldn't readily determine which sources were being pitted against each other. Could you summarize here? - Location (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

www.ideasforindia.in
Is the above source a reliable one for this statement: "The mission was implemented with a target driven approach; villages, districts, towns and cities and even states declared themselves open defecation free (ODF) based on achievement of construction targets. The implausible target created incentives to distort the information, indeed the number of toilets constructed were inflated as local officials faced intense pressure to meet the  targets. Households from the marginalized sections like the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes reported facing harassment and humiliation at the hands of swacchgrahis, who were often local elites. The mission therefore lacked legitimacy due to extreme methods like coercion and threats like discontinuation of subsidized food grains and education of their children. It is part of the https://www.theigc.org/country/india/ program  Hardyplants (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see why that wouldn't be reliable, it's an article from a publication affiliated to a research centre of Oxford University which certainly meets the bar for WP:RS. Although it could be supported by additional sources which from what I know of Swachh Bharat shouldn't be difficult to find. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From their 'About us' page: "Ideas for India (I4I) is an economics and policy portal that publishes evidence-based analysis and commentary on issues pertaining to growth and development in India. I4I serves as an ideologically neutral space for economists, other social scientists, and practitioners to use their research and experience to weigh in on key policy questions." and also "The views expressed in the posts are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the I4I Editorial Board." We should treat it as an WP:SPS. The two authors of that piece looks like respectable academics in a relevant field, so can be considered subject-matter experts, but if the material (especially the analysis) is contentious it might be worth attributing it to those authors, or supporting with other sources. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

One Peter Five (1Peter5)
Is this website reliable? Its description is a manifesto and does not precise what type of website they are (blog? reflexion journal?). It accepts drafts from anywhere. It would be really helpful if users could give some feedback, as this website is the main soource used at Document on Human Fraternity. Veverve (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like a magazine, generally I'd say yes given the number and quality of contributors but I am reluctant to accept sources on controversial subjects like theology. I don't think that taking contributions from anywhere is a problem provided they are subject to proper editorial oversight. The article is most confusing (are these footnotes? further reading?), I'll have a look at reworking it into a more understandable format and then come back to you on this. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, update. The authors are: Roberto de Mattei (notable historian), Bishop Schneider (a Bishop), and Steve Skojec (the website's founder and, if his page is to be believed, frequently quoted catholic figure). The website appears reliable and the figures important enough to have their views considered but I am concerned that these are opinions and not framed in the article as such. ~ El D. (talk to me) 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Unclear reliability, definite bias the source has a lot of contributors who seem to at least have the appropriate qualifications but I see nothing to make me confident enough to say that a source that mainly speaks about theology has meaningful editorial oversight. Additionally, it clearly isn't about to say something negative about catholicism and it is written in a magazine-style where every piece is fundamentally pushing some sort of an opinion. I am not saying either that it has never published any relevant news or that it is clearly unreliable - I simply do not know.
 * However, with regard to this case, it is being used to cite opinions. Given the nature of this source (Catholic which has a manifesto as its about us page) it is hard to give appropriate weight based on it and I suggest treating as self-published for the purposes of this discussion. That isn't to say that these opinions need to be removed from the article but that they need to be considered based upon who is making them, not who is publishing them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your feedback. Could other users give some more feedback? Veverve (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this bus fleet list source reliable?
ukbuses.co.uk - Currently used on First South West and First Northampton. SK2242 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a fan site I doubt its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripture as sources. Again
There's a discussion about scripture here: Talk:Hasmonean dynasty? In my opinion, this fallsunder WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. The problem with citing Bible books in history articles (as opposed to citing Bible books to describe its own storylines, per WP:PLOTSOURCE) is that it passes off what the Bible says as being equally relevant as to what historians says: "According to professor Bob Bobson of Cambridge University blah, but according to the Some Bible book not blah." It's even worse when it comes to numbers; the Bible is infamous for exaggeragating all kinds of statistics. We remove references to the Daily Mail and to Chinese dailies deemed unreliable. So references to Bible books should also be removed. Im The IP (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither the Bible, nor any other text over the age of ~500 years should be seen as generally reliable (I am open to a later cut off point). These sources were prone to all sorts of pressures at the time that we do not know about. Almost none of them had meaningful editorial oversight in the sense that we would understand it (why God didn't get a university tenure is relevant here, the Bible may well be the ultimate truth but it isn't peer-reviewed scholarship). If what they have said is historically interesting, it will have been discussed in a recent reliable source with details about how likely it is. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bible is a primary source. Fine for statements about what it says (though the circumstances in which such a use is justified are very limited). As a secondary source and/or a source used for statements about facts ... obviously not. Might as well use Harry Potter books. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Biblical archaeology is an attempt to salvage a dubious source "verifying" it via pots and bones. That might occasionally pass muster, I guess.Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I second The Bible is a primary source. Fine for statements about what it says (though the circumstances in which such a use is justified are very limited). It is not RS for any statement of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we need a WP:ANCIENTTEXT. The Books of Maccabees were not written as scripture, and some and not others have been adopted by some but not other Christian (and other) sects. They should be treated like other ancient texts, scriptural or no. Similar issues have arisen recently in comments about the Historia Augusta in relation to Elagabalus. Some editors have impugned that text's unreliability and sought to remove references to the ancient texts on the grounds they don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, this leads to poor results. In any field, the ancient texts will necessarily be biased, incomplete, corrupt, and comprehensible only in translation. However, to varying degrees, the entire secondary field will be based substantially on those ancient fragments of ill-remembered propaganda, and the whole academic consensus rests on establishing meaningful interpretations of the long-vanished reality reflected by those fragmentary and venerated texts. I would propose a new category of source be listed and dealt with in a particular way: namely, that ancient texts can never be cited in support of statements of fact, but they may be quoted and the wording of the ancients compared with the conclusions of scholars about those texts and the characters and events therein. As a corollary, I would suggest that, where possible and desirable, the ancient text or scripture should be cited, or at least could be. In my eyes there is nothing more frustrating to read something like "Ammianus Marcellinus was present at the Siege of Amida and described the struggle at length" only to find the reference in support of this cited as something like "Smith, 1998, pp. 206-208" – what I really want is the reference to Ammianus Marcellinus's Latin history, which like all scripture and the majority of ancient texts has a long-established conventional system of chapters and headings which are vaguely consistent across languages, editions, and translations. If Wikipedia wants me to read something like "the Gospel of Luke says ...", I should be able to expect a citation to "Luke XX:20–30" as well as whatever reputable scholarship is backing up the exegesis. Removing citations to primary sources is misguided if it's being done purely because the words are old or because their formulations have been co-opted by religions as scripture. Wikipedia should be a tool to further research, and a blanket insistence on removing footnotes to primary sources because ancient texts are inherently unreliable is to misunderstand the use and usefulness of footnotes. Citations are there to support and develop the main text; they are not intended to signal that everything to which they are attached is correct and free of blemish. As part of this, I would recommend that be used as the model for quotations from classical and Hellenistic texts like the Maccabees books. To some degree, what the texts say is relevant when it conflicts were scholarly judgement, and that should be noted. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is splitting hairs whether the Maccabees are Scripture or not. They are canon in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy but apocrypha in Protestantism. Take 2 Maccabees description of how a presumptive temple robber were stopped by divine intervention:
 * A source that describes how temple robbery was stopped by flogging angels cannot, in my opinion, be considered a reliable source. Another example I alluded to in my comment is numerical exaggerations. In ancient texts or in Scripture you might read: "Half a million soldiers perished in the battle." In reality, the carrying capacity of the region perhaps didn't exceed 25,000, making 500,000 casualties highly improbable, to say the least. Should we then write "According to Scripture/AncientHistorian 500,000 soliders perished in the battle.[ref-here]"? I'd say no, because it's misleading. Im The IP  (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , why? With something like the Battle of Kerbala, for instance, no-one is ever going to know what really happened, so the rather later Shia'a reminiscences of what must have been a very insignificant fight at the time are basically all we have. Citing secondary sources alone obscures the significance of the primary sources and hides the fact that all the secondary debate is generated by the primary texts themselves. It has been pointed out that the further away in time one gets from the 7th century, the longer and more detailed the biographies of Muhammad became. There must by now be thousands of books about the late Roman Empire in the middle fourth century (say), but the ever-swelling mass of secondary sources should not be allowed to get in the way of analysis of Ammianus Marcellinus, who for all his superstitions, political hero-worship, and religious bigotry is the most reliable source we have for the period (and even then most of the chapters are missing and because of damage to the one MS, the are a few missing words in every single line).
 * If the texts say half a million died, that is only unreliable information insofar as actual numbers of actual soldiers are concerned. It is unimpeachable evidence that, at the time and place of the text's composition or recession, there were at least some who thought the battle was of such significance or narrative importance that a half million ought to have died. Similarly, when our sources speak of the seventy-odd warriors martyred at Kerbala by an overwhelmingly enormous army, we don't have to repeat this as fact; rather, we should quote both the traditional reckoning and the modern-day analysis. The analysis on its own is pointless otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You said it best yourself in May 2020, Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! and exts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago).
 * You say that no one will ever know what really happened at the Battle of Kerbala. So that is what the Wikipedia article should say! The religious view, clearly delineated, can also be added to say that only 72 persons died and that it was seen as a glorious victory for the Lord, etc. But in many Wikipedia articles, you have the religious perspective mixed in with the historical perspective which I think is completely objectionable. For example, here is Jonathan Apphus's article, an important historical figure. Good luck separating the fact from the fiction! Im The IP  (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You said it best yourself in May 2020, Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! and exts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago).
 * You say that no one will ever know what really happened at the Battle of Kerbala. So that is what the Wikipedia article should say! The religious view, clearly delineated, can also be added to say that only 72 persons died and that it was seen as a glorious victory for the Lord, etc. But in many Wikipedia articles, you have the religious perspective mixed in with the historical perspective which I think is completely objectionable. For example, here is Jonathan Apphus's article, an important historical figure. Good luck separating the fact from the fiction! Im The IP  (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What El D. said, pretty much. The Bible and Flavius Josephus are at best primary sources, and if modern historians use them to some extent, that's up to their judgement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , historians have to go on Josephus and the various sacred literature because there is nothing else of similar scope and detail in the texts. The other major source for events of the period are the Dead Sea scrolls, which are, well, unreleased pirate copies of an early unauthorized rough draft of the Bible. The major textual work for early Roman Gaul is Julius Caesar's in-third-person account of his own conquest, as written for his political friends and rivals. GPinkerton (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Talking about scripture from Abrahamic faiths specifically, sects originating over ~500 years ago to use the same cut-off, not only are those all primary sources but they have so much secondary and tertiary sourcing, it seems like there's no justification for presenting them by themselves, even just going on existing policy. None of them will have been, to quote WP:PRIMARY, and besides that you're never going to run into a situation where the scripture is the sole source for any fact, not even a religious tenet. Sure, link to a carefully-bibliographically-specified edition of the scripture, but never without the secondary and tertiary sources. (I mean seriously, when it comes to these sorts of scriptures, it's pretty much source-Inception and we could talk about quaternary, quinary, senary, hell let's just go all the way to hemi-sexagenary sourcing.) -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I agree that scripture and premodern texts should only be presented in company with reliable sources commenting on relevant passages, and that there's no justification for presenting them by themselves, I would still argue that the idea you're never going to run into a situation where the scripture is the sole source for any fact, not even a religious tenet is wrong. Any discussion of Pontius Pilate's wife is inherently based on conjecture using ancient texts; no other source exists. The Droste effect could be short-circuited by simply citing the same passages as are cited by the scholarly authorities we should already be using. GPinkerton (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton: The thing is, what you're calling “the Droste effect” here is actually desirable under Wikipedia sourcing policy: it's an aspect of verifiability for a secondary or 𝑛-ary reputably published source to affirm that a (WP:NONENG, in fact pre-English) scriptural source says what another citation claims it says. At this point in history none of the scriptures we're talking about pass WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 07:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the Bible should never be used as a historical source, be it the Old or the New Testament; and this refusal includes apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and gnostic texts (e.g. Nag Hammadi texts). Veverve (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Scholars have the qualifications and expertise necessary to examine ancient primary sources and make conjectures about what facts they might indicate. That's what it means to be a historian. WP:OR forbids editors from using primary sources to come to our own conclusions. Ancient primary sources should not be used as sources for factual claims in articles. If these documents are quoted in an article due to their use by secondary sources, then it might be useful to include references to a translation of the original document, but that's more a matter of convenience than sourcing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Scriptures should never be used as sources on Wikipedia. and  both say there may be "very limited" situations in which the Bible can be used a source, but I don't think there are any. Any interpretation of what is in the Bible (or the Qur'an) should be from secondary sources.VR talk 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly straightforward that it is a primary source. Generally you do not want to use a primary source on its own. But there is nothing I can see where it would be forbidden to be used. Just need to be mindful of WP:PRIMARY. I will note that the subject has had so much RS secondary and tertiary coverage that it should never NEED to be used on its own. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Flickr as a reliable source
This image is being used as a source for a aircraft being dismantled in Alitalia Flight 1553. Is Flickr a RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 👎 No. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats what I thought, its just a place people upload pictures.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is mostly user generated so, no. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the question is somewhat complicated. We use images published on Flickr all the time, and that carries with it an implication that we trust the authors to have made an accurate claim about what the image depicts, assuming we cannot verify it. The image here is also used in the article, in addition to being cited for facts, though there's no obvious way to verify the two central claims: that this is the aircraft that was involved in Alitalia Flight 1553, and that it is being dismantled in Rantoul, Kansas. That goes to the reliability of the individual photographer, and I suppose Aeroprints. Recognized experts might be allowable; otherwise reliable documents published on Flickr would also be fine. The broader question is whether facts can be cited to an image, independent of a reliable source making the same claim. I don't know if there is already a guideline that speaks to that, but I would think that the answer tends to be no. There's no way to verify this source. There's the entirely separate question of whether a fact that can only be sourced to an individual photograph is sufficiently important to be included in an article. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The general question is like asking whether YouTube is a reliable source. YouTube isn't the source, the person or organization posting is. If in this case the poster was a famed aviation expert, we could verify that that was his Flickr account, and the picture label made clear what it depicted, then yes, it would be reliable. But merely knowing he's "Dave from London" doesn't pass. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This here. There are official agencies that use Flickr for photo distribution, with verified accounts (for example, The US Army). If the organization is considered an expert source, and their captions on their pictures provide useful information, I see no reason why that would not be reliable, following the same reasons to use YouTube videos from similarly confirmed sources. Interpretation of such pictures though cannot be done; an editor cannot look at a Flickr photo from the Army and make the claim that a soldier is carrying a certain type of gun if that's not explicitly stated in the caption. --M asem (t) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that trying to include images in articles means that we do have to give a bit of credence to what the photographer claims the picture is depicting. As Gertler points out, the label is made by an RS (say a US Government account) then we can reasonably expect it to accurately describe what the picture is of. I see two other ways the label could be seen as accurate: (1) it is obvious from the picture (e.g. this picture shows an aircraft being broken up) or (2) an RS has talked about the event and the picture cannot be distinguished from one showing the event (e.g. this picture shows the XYZ being broken up as described by this Reuters article). Now if the picture makes any claims that are not in the RS (e.g. the plane, which was reported by Reuters as being broken up for scrap, has turned into this pink elephant) then you need an RS to confirm that new claim. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Reliable with additional considerations – Although we use the phrase "pics or it didn't happen" to express the reliability of pics, they aren't always reliable thanks to photoshop. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Reliable In addition to Flickr being user generated content, the specific manner in which it's being proposed for use requires editors to engage in photo analysis which is WP:OR. For all we know the photo is of the plane being assembled, instead of disassembled (I mean, it's obviously not, but the assertion is still OR). Chetsford (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An image by itself can never be a reliable source, for the reasons Masem and Chetsford lay out. (Some discussions of this from earlier this year:   .)  --JBL (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is OR to interpret the image to draw conclusions.VR talk 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable It's user-generated and even with verified accounts to institutions or organizations the standards for fact-checking are not going to be on par with published works. Spudlace (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Josif Pančić
Information from the Josif Pančić article: "Some sources claim that he was born as a Croat", and information from the source "Rođen Hrvat iz izrazito hrvatskog kraja", on je sav svoj naučni rad razvio u Srbiji...Born Croat from a distinctly Croatian region he developed all his scientific work in Serbia", page 100, source is from 2014 from professor Ivan Barbarić: (Uz 200. obljetnicu rođenja dr. Josipa Pančića (1814.–1888.) On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Josip Pančić (1814–1888))


 * This information is from public speech of Croatian academic dr. Antun Barac, while from Serbian side was academic Stevan Jakovljević. This speech is from 1954 when a monument to Josif Pančić was built in Bribir. Is this source reliable ie information from this source. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Which source are you talking about? Is it the speech by Antun Barac?Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Relevant talk here [].Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes he talks about the speech by Antun Barac, we started discussion on Josif Pancic talk page. Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it the speech by Antun Barac? Yes, public speech from 1954 which is according to this source subsequently published in Rijeka magazine (page 100: "U svom govoru, koji je naknadno objavljen u Riječkoj reviji, Barac je između ostaloga rekao..In his speech, which was subsequently published in the Rijeka magazine, Barac among other things said") Mikola22 (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So then we should be discussing that, not the speech.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Occupational Burnout and using 'In-Press' unpublished articles as sources?
Hello everyone. I am hoping that someone could tell me please if we can use unpublished, 'In-Press' articles in our Wikipedia articles as reliable sources. If it is already in an article should it be removed if we are not meant to be using in-press articles?Coastalalerts (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say not, if they are unpublished that means they have not been published by an RS. But what article are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, the article in question is Occupational burnout. Articles related to occupational psychology have been affected by sockpuppet problems for years; see Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171/Archive for links to some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what sockpuppet complaints have to do with any of this and most of the comments from the clerkes are complaints over lack of evidence or usage on the accused accounts. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please could you provide the source that is being used and the article it is being used on. WP:SOURCE states Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". (footnote: This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.) Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. I'm afraid there's not much more I can say without more context, ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * El komodos drago, you are correct that this source is WP:Published as far as Wikipedia is concerned, but it's not officially published as far as the journal is concerned. I assume that this discrepancy will resolve itself naturally in the coming weeks or months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am merely reciting the text of the relevant policy. Until someone tells me what the source is, I can't do anything else. It is worth noting that published and reliable are different things (a tweet is published but not reliable of itself). ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * El komodos drago The article is Bianchi, R., Verkuilen, J., Schonfeld, I. S., Hakanen, J. J., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Manzano-García, G., Laurent, E., & Meier, L. L. (in press). Is burnout a depressive condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study. Clinical Psychological Science. I would be grateful for advice on whether it can be used in the occupational burnout article if it is unpublished and in-press.Coastalalerts (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

So to get this straight, the source is ''Is burnout a depressive condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study.'' and the claim is Other recent meta-analytic research indicates that burnout may be best viewed as a depressive syndrome. The source has been published in a pre-print journal and is awaiting peer review from the journal of Clinical Psychological Science. Is this correct? ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have "in press", that usually means the article has been accepted, and that the content is legit, with minor typesetting stuff and layout to be done. Alternatively, it could be that it's available online in final form, but the print edition of the journal hasn't yet been made. If Clinical Psychological Science says something is 'in press', it passed peer-review, and is like any other paper from Clinical Psychological Science. If something is unpublished, then it hasn't been accepted at all, and is in either a preprint form, or a rejected/abandonned paper. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clinical Psychological Science doesn't seem to say that the article is in press; it doesn't seem to say anything about the article at all. The assertion appears to be made by one of the authors, Renzo Bianchi, on ResearchGate. Bianchi is likely correct, but isn't, for Wikipedia purposes, by himself, reliable. - Ryk72 talk 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that an article that is "'in press'...is like any other paper." In many cases, an article that is 'in press' has been accepted for publication but - and this is critically important - has not yet been published. Unless something unexpected occurs, it will be published but that hasn't happened yet. Which means that it's not verifiable by our standards.
 * I recommend patience; the article will be published as we can cite it then.
 * (A few confounding factors exist. First, some journals publish accepted articles online before they're slotted into an issue of the journal. I think it would be fair to say that those journals no longer have "in press" articles, just some that have only been published online and some that have been published in an issue of the journal (with the intent that all of the online-only articles are published in an issue). Second, some journals can have lag times of years between accepting an article and publishing it (a few years ago, a journal in my discipline temporarily stopped accepting submissions for a few months and published several jumbo-sized issues so they could reduce the very long time between acceptance and publication). So in some unusual cases an article can remain "in-press" for quite some time. Third, it might be tempting to substitute a pre-print with an in-press article. I strong recommend against that as they're simply not the same thing. They should be close but in some cases the differences are very important as they're explicit changes that peer reviewers and editors requested or required before accepting the article.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the authors is already listing the paper with the date as "2020" on his website, and labeling it as "Advance online publication", so I suspect that we will not be waiting years for this to officially appear. The November issue appears to have come out on the 16th of November, so perhaps the December issue will appear tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I understand from what you said, in-press articles have been peer reviewed and have been published in a form that will not be materially different from the final version. If this is so, arguing that they aren't reliable because they haven't been put to paper is quibbling over a technicality. Sure something might appear that means that they have factual errors but that is just as likely before and after they have been published. Is this correct? ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we can put it in to the Wikipedia article without anyone having access to the article to check for reference? How does WhatamIdoing WhatamIdoing know that the article that their buddy Iss246 put into the article says what Iss246 says it does? Has whatamIdoing got access to the actual content of the primary source?Coastalalerts (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I really don't understand what is going on here. Is it that the abstract is published but the paper as a whole is not? ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well... that depends upon what you mean by "what is going on here". The problems we've had with sockpuppets opposing almost anything that Iss246 has written about psychology since a dispute over the Elton Mayo article in 2014 (see, e.g., User:Truthbringer1)?  Or just the status of this source?
 * The situation with this source is that it appears to be what Wikipedia calls published ("available to the general public") but hasn't been put on paper in a specific issue (what the journal would call published).
 * The citation was originally added to the article by Ohpres (NB: not by me, and not by Iss246), so I assume that Coastalalerts' question about whether I have read the article is meant for Ohpres rather than me.  I also assume that the fact that Ohpres cited the article is proof that the general public has access to it in some way.  The only realistic alternative is that Ohpres has some sort of special advance access, which would tend to imply that Ohpres is some sort of subject-matter expert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

“In press” references tend to appear early on ResearchGate, a website that I would describe as Facebook for scientists. Iss246 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use it as a source, provide a link to where it can be read/purchased - then we can discuss whether or not the state it is available in is reliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your point user:El komodos drago. I would prefer that the editor who first cited the article, Ohpres, supply the link. But I am willing to make the edit. However, if I were to supply the link, I would have to (a) edit the reference in a paragraph that has been a bone of contention and then (b) edit the reference again after the paper goes to press. I see this as housekeeping; however, I want to be clear about something. I want to avoid getting into an edit war as a result of adding the link to the reference and, then later, when the article goes to press adding the journal reference. I would like to complete that twofold task without getting into an edit war. user:El komodos drago, can you help with that? 21:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * El komodos drago if an article that Iss246 and whatamIdoing want to use is not actually available for editors to read/critique and is in-press then can it be used in one of our articles now? In this case in the occupational burnout article. Where is it actually available to read/critique Iss246 ore WhatamIdoing?Coastalalerts (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing you say that the article you and your friend Iss246 want to put into the article is already "available to the general public" however I cannot see where it is available anywhere? Could you please provide a link to where the public can read the article, like El D also asked, so we can resolve this issue.Coastalalerts (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have quoted the relevant piece of WP:SOURCE above which prohibits the use of anything that is not available to the public. To be clear, this is if it is not published in the sense that it is not available to the public for any amount of money or effort. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like you to simply post the link to a place the paper can be read/purchased here. ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction for User:Coastalalerts. WhatamIdoing and I are not "friends." Friends have gone out to dinner over the years when there wasn't a pandemic. Friends call each other on the telephone to find out how the other person is doing. "How are the kids?" "How's your wife?" "How's your husband?" "Did you read The Splendid and the Vile? "Yes. What did you think of it?" "You liked it. I liked it too, especially because my wife's parents lived in London during the Blitz." Those are the kinds of things friends do? We don't do that. We are not friends.

I add this. I don't want to get into another edit war. All I want to do, if Ohpres does not do it, is to engage in the housekeeping needed to add a link to the 14-sample article. And later to perform additional housekeeping, namely, to change the link when when the paper goes to press. If there is a grammatical error, I would fix it. That is all that I would like to do. Iss246 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are being asked to provide the link that the public can access and read? And you may not have introduced the article Iss246, but you sure are fighting hard to keep this in-press primary source in the occupational burnout article. Have you got the link  as to where your in- press article can be read it and critiqued, just like any other source? If you have not got the link it should not be in the Wikipedia article is my understanding and reading the policy that El D. linked to. Is this correct El D.?Coastalalerts (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The housekeeping needed to add a link to the 14-sample article includes waiting for it to be published in a reliable source. Both published and reliable are necessary; neither, on its own, is sufficient. - Ryk72 talk 10:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather wait for the discussion of reliable until we have demonstrated published. I can see that the abstract is published, is this what people are referring to. Can anyone access the text here ? If so is this a pre-pub version or a post-peer review version? ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither pre-pub version nor post-peer review version are published in a reliable source, until they're actually published in a reliable source. The two links appear to be to two different, albeit related, sources. - Ryk72 talk 11:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you say that is not reliable. That's utter nonsense. It's a published paper, in its post-peer review state. It hasn't been appeared in printed form yet, but it definitely is published. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't say that is not reliable. I do agree that published does not mean printed, and that  is published. I do say, however, that  is not a "post-peer review version" of the in press article which is being discussed here; the putative abstract for which is here. These two articles have different titles, different set of authors (though with some authors in common), and will have different publication dates & appear in different journals. - Ryk72 talk 05:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More generally, for our purposes, there is no distinction between a pre-pub version & a post-peer review version, if neither have been published in a reliable source. is published, in Assessment. This paper is not yet published in any journal; though it likely will be in Clinical Psychological Science in January or March 2021. - Ryk72 talk 09:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ryk72 and user:El komodos drago, any member of the public can obtain the entire paper from the RG site by one of two ways, downloading it directly from the site or requesting the paper from the site owner (there is button to press to reach the owner). A pre-pub paper and post-pub paper are virtually the same (except if, for example, in a final edit, a writer or a copyeditor finds something like a missing comma or the word "the" repeated twice in front of a noun).


 * Joining the RG site is similar to joining Facebook or Wikipedia. As with joining FB or WP, joining RG is free and there are no dues. I, however, understand that a visitor may not want to join one more organization. However, on the positive side, RG is the Facebook for scientists. It offers a lot. Iss246 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Any member of the public can obtain the entire paper from the RG site doesn't appear to be correct in this instance. What's available on ResearchGate is a splash screen saying "COMING SOON". The paper is not, by any means, published on that website. Nor is ResearchGate itself a reliable source. It's the Facebook for scientists. - Ryk72 talk 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ryk72 Does that mean we should not be including this primary source study in the article. It cannot be reached by members of the public and despite what Iss246 says it is not available. Does this mean it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles?Coastalalerts (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing says Wikipedia calls something published ("available to the general public") but this study is just not available to the public WhatamIdoing, and you have not provided a link as to where it is available to the general public? You obviously made an error or misinterpreted Wikipedia policy? Can you provide a link where it is is published (available to the public)? I can pay for it if it is.Coastalalerts (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not use pre-published versions of papers accepted for publication, as they may change during the editorial process, and there's no way to tell how much until the published version is available. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is a paper that is "coming soon," then the paper is either in manuscript form or galley form, and can be obtained by messaging the site owner. There is a message button. The abstract seen on RG is the official abstract of a paper to be published and will not change except for minor concerns such as a missing comma. Iss246 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be noted Iss246 you were blocked for 2 weeks for trying to edit war this unpublished and inaccessible article of yours into the occupational burnout article. The independent editors here are all saying that this unpublished and inaccessible to the public article you are involved in cannot be used based on Wikipedia policy. Please allow their opinions to be heard. Thank you.Coastalalerts (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no messages button that I can find on this page. But even if there were, the "site owner", whoever that may be, cannot give me a copy of the paper as published in Clinical Psychological Science; because of the simple fact that the paper has not yet been published in Clinical Psychological Science. If & when the paper is so published, we can use it. While it is not, we cannot. - Ryk72 talk 05:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the message button is not next to the pre-print article. The message button is on the site owner's main page. There is a menu on each site-owner's main page. The menu reads like Overview, Experience, Research. Under the Experience menu is the message button. A site owner can give anyone who requests it a specific paper. Iss246 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They cannot give a copy of the paper as published in Clinical Psychological Science; because of the simple fact that the paper has not yet been published in Clinical Psychological Science. Prior to the paper being so published, what they can give is essentially a self published source. What is the name of the site owner for this paper? Is the site owner one of the authors? If so, SPS. - Ryk72 talk 16:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * With all due respect User:Ryk72, you are wrong. A researcher with a site on RG can give you a paper if you request it. A paper is not a self-published paper if it were accepted by a journal. It is a paper waiting on a journal's queue of papers that have been vetted by editors and reviewers. A self-published paper has not been vetted by editors and reviewers. Iss246 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Contradiction is not a particularly good form of argument. The only persons asserting that the paper has been accepted by a journal are the authors; who are not, by themselves, a reliable source. - Ryk72 talk 04:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the paper been published by the journal? ElKevbo (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No Iss246' paper has definitely not been published ElKevbo. Given Iss246 is the only editor fighting to have his article included now, not when it is actually published and available to the public in its final published form, it is clear that all other independent editors here have stated that until it is published it needs to be removed from the Wikipedia article as it does not meet the criteria for a reliable source as yet. Until it does meet Wikipedia's criteria it needs to be removed and Iss246 is still after being blocked for 2 weeks for editwarring against everyone else and Wikipedia's own policy to have his research article in the article right now before it is published and avail to the public.Coastalalerts (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If the article is announced as in press on RG but not yet in print, then it is on the journal's queue to be published. Researchers don't make claims that an article is in press at an important journal because the claim can be readily contradicted by journal editors, reviewers, etc.
 * I add this observation. Coastalalerts was also blocked along with me. That block is related to the fact that his edits on WP are almost entirely devoted to undoing my edits. Iss246 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the persons announcing that is "in press" are the authors, then they are not a reliable source for that. - Ryk72 talk 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I dispute Ryk72's suggestion that the researcher's announcement is not reliable. There is no reason for a researcher to make a false in-press announcement on RG. A false announcement leads to professional embarrassment, a high price to pay. If you look at the researcher's past announcements of research-related publications, you observe that the announcements are accurate. The researcher is reliable based on past announcements. It is not as if a researcher will over time accurately roll out announcements of 50 publications then make up some BS about a paper being in press when it is not in press. Iss246 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact is Iss246 the article cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia until it is actually available to the public and is published which it is currently not. The article can change between now and when it is published regardless of how much it does or doesn't change. Someone will need to remove the article from the occupational burnout article as it is currently included and it is not a reliable source based on policy as independent editors here have clearly stated. Also given Iss246 seems to be one of the researchers peddling their own unpublished in press research here on Wikipedia, is this allowed? Seems like a conflict of interest to me.Coastalalerts (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If an article is in press but accessible in unformatted manuscript form, that's fine, but if the paper isn't accessible at all then it shouldn't be cited, simple as. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd almost compromise at that. But still have questions about how we determine that an article is in press, and how we obtain the unformatted manuscript. I'd want something from the publisher on both of these aspects; not something self-published by the authors. And, given that we would expect in press to be a fairly short-lived, transitory phase, I'm not yet convinced that it's not better just to wait for the article to actually appear in the publication. - Ryk72 talk 23:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The manuscript must be directly obtainable from the publisher, rather than a pre-print website in order for it to count as being accessible, as it is possible that the publisher has asked for changes/corrections not present in the original manuscript. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm perfectly ok with saying that the reference should be pulled for three weeks until the next journal issue comes out, in which it presumably will be included, and put back then. It doesn't seem a big deal to wait three weeks to include it. That said, I have no reason at all to doubt that it was accepted for publication - these are well regarded and well published academics, and it would be almost unheard of for them to claim to have been accepted for publication when they haven't been, and while very minor changes are possible in the last stages before publication, we're not relying on a specific quotes or wording given that the only thing that is being sourced is the claim that some research has argued that ooccupational burnout should be seen as a depressive syndrome - that is the sort of general claim that isn't going to be edited out in the last stages before publication. - Bilby (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * However while it remains in the article and no editor has removed it as an unreliable source it is clearly a breach of Wikipedia policy on sources. Is it not? Can some experienced editor that has commented here please remove this unpublished primary source from the occupational burnout article that clearly does not meet the criteria for a reliable source on Wikipedia. When it is a reliable source it can be added then. Are policies here made to be ignored. Is there another noticeboard I could bring this matter up where another editor can apply policy?Coastalalerts (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

worldofbuzz.com

 * COVID-19 pandemic in Asia (removed)
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Johor (removed)
 * COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia (removed)
 * Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia (removed)
 * Chinese wedding door games (removed)
 * Escalator (removed)
 * Taco Bell (removed)


 * 2 Hours Doing Nothing
 * 2018 AFF U-19 Youth Championship
 * 2019 Kim Kim River toxic pollution
 * 2020 Malaysian political crisis
 * Acrolein
 * Agoda
 * Andrew Barnes (businessman)
 * Cendol
 * Charmaine Chew
 * Concerns and controversies at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games
 * Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre
 * Democratic Action Party
 * Dzulkefly Ahmad
 * Fatou Samba
 * Finger heart
 * Four-day week
 * Huawei Member Center
 * Kim Jong-hyun (singer)
 * List of reportedly haunted locations
 * Michelle Yeoh (socialite)
 * Mimaland
 * Miss International Malaysia
 * Musa Aman
 * Noor Hisham Abdullah
 * Pasukan Gerakan Khas
 * Qiu Jun (bodybuilder)
 * Rachel Yeoh
 * Soo Wincci
 * Syarqiyyah palace
 * Tabung Harapan Malaysia
 * The Exchange 106
 * Tous Les Jours
 * You Zhangjing
 * Draft:Amber Court
 * Draft:Influasia
 * Draft:MR. D.I.Y.
 * User:Influasiamy/sandbox
 * User:Shanechew/sandbox

worldofbuzz is a dubious source: it appears to solicit unreviewed contributions: https://worldofbuzz.com/contribute/ Maybe this is overkill but I wanted to put something here before removing it from multiple articles. Also see probable attempt at self-promotion and User:Influasiamy/sandbox ☆ Bri (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a news aggregator. If you look at its stories, they're all copied from other news sources.  So for example  in Agoda is copied from  The original sources are all credited and linked, so they're easy to find, and no doubt some will be reliable - but we should be using the originals. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)