Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345

Can we say, in Wikipedia's voice, that Iraq was involved in Iran-Iraq war operations that it denies having a role in?
Can we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Iraq had some level of involvement in Operation Forty Stars, Operation Sunshine and Operation Eternal Light (all part of the Iran-Iraq war)? I believe yes because scholarly sources state that Iraq and the MEK were involved in all these operations. In response has pointed to some sources that mention denials by the Iraqi government and the MEK of any Iraqi involvement in Operation Forty Stars (Iraq especially denies using chemical weapons in Operation Forty Stars but scholarly sources say Iraq used them in that operation). But IMO neither Baathist Iraq nor MEK (widely regarded as a cult) should not be considered as reliable as scholarly sources. While I'm ok with stating Iraqi denials, that should not prevent us from saying - in wikipedia's voice - that Iraq had a role in those battles. Dispute is here: Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran.


 * Operation Forty Stars:
 * "On June 18, it [Iraq] launched a new offensive it called "Forty Stars"...A combination of Iraqi forces and Mujahideen e-Kalq forces, which had been trained and supported in Iraq, attacked the Iranian positions in the area. Supported by the use of nerve gas and some 530 sorties of fighters and helicopter gunships, the attacking forces captured the city and took several positions in the heights near Mehran.", you can see it on page 38 of this pdf
 * "On June 18 the Iraqi army launched an offensive against the Mehran salient on the central front, working in close coordination with Massoud Rajavi’s People’s Mujahidin."
 * "On 19 June the Iraqis used their previously successful tactic of firing artillery shells of cyanide gas and nerve gases at the Iranian front lines and dropping mustard gas bombs at the rear in the Mehran region. They captured the town and the surrounding area, and then handed them over to the Mujahedin-e Khalq's National Liberation Army, stating that the fighting was strictly between anti-Khomeini Iranian forces and Tehran."
 * "They [the Iraqis] now struck further north at Mehran on June 19. By now the Iraqis had perfected their chemical “one-two punch.” The Iranian front-line was saturated by rapidly dispersing cyanide gas and nerve agents delivered by artillery shells. This allowed Iraqi troops to rapidly secure the area. Longer-lasting mustard gas agents were delivered to the Iranian rear by rockets, artillery, and the IrAF. This prevented the Iranians from counterattacking into Mehran to relieve their comrades. The Iraqis then “officially” handed over Mehran to the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLAI), composed primarily of the Mujaheddin Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as the MEK, Mujaheddin e Khalq). The main Iraqi army then withdrew to Iraq. It is unclear how many Iraqi troops remained to support the MKO, which was easily crushed and thrown back into Iraq after three days. The Mehran strike however, had achieved its purpose brilliantly. The Iranian military had been diverted from the new disaster brewing further south where Baghdad proceeded to recapture the last major pockets of Iranian-held territory in the south." book has 76 citations on google scholar


 * Operation Sunshine (aka Operation Shining Sun)
 * "The Mujahideen carried out two military operations with the help of Iraqi military forces from their base in Iraq, in an attempt to capture a town in Western Iran and establish their own government. The first attack, in the spring of 1988, was called Aftaab-i-Darakshaan, "Shining Sun" and claimed to have captured 600 square miles and hundreds of the IRI's military personnel..."
 * "With the Iranian armed forces spread out from Fao to Kurdestan, Iraq at last went on the offensive to recapture its territory. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi artillery...Ten days later, the Mojahedin “National Liberation Army,” which had been established with Saddam’s help at a camp north of Baghdad and provided with miscellaneous munitions, overran the Fakkeh sector in a twelve-hour attack called “Operation Sunshine,” taking four hundred prisoners."
 * "Iraq responded by activating the National Liberation Army set up in June 1987 by the Baghdad-based Mujahedin-e Khalq. On the night of 27 March the NLA, composed entirely of anti-Khomeini Iranians, launched an offensive in the Fakeh region along the highway to Dezful. They claimed to have overrun 370 square miles of Iranian soil. Though Iran expelled the NLA forces quickly from its territory, Iraq had established that it now had the NLA card to play against the Iraqi Kurdish card held by Tehran."


 * Operation Eternal Light:
 * "To increase the pressure on Tehran, Saddam played his final card: Operation Eternal Light. On July 26 he [Saddam] launched Massoud Rajavi’s People’s Mujahidin along the recently reopened road to Kermanshah."
 * "The Iraqis broke through and supported their NLAI [MEK] allies’ assault into Iran. The border towns of Karand and Eslamabad-e-Gharb were captured on July 26, 1988."
 * "On 26 July the NLA [MEK], advancing under heavy Iraqi air cover, seized Karand and Islamabad-e Gharb on the Baghdad-Tehran highway." book has 76 citations on google scholar

VR talk 16:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources appear sufficiently reliable for this to be said in wiki voice. Alaexis¿question? 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent seems to be framing the debate in a distorted way. The reliability of these sources was never put into question, what was put into question is which version is more WP:DUE. Some sources mention that the NLA (MEK’s army) "allegedly received funding and military assistance from the Iraqi regime", other sources mention MEK and Iraqi Culture and Information Minister, Latif Nusayyif Jasim denied that Iraq were never involved in these attacks, other sources mention that Iraq was involved with the NLA in these attacks, and other sources just mention the NLA in these attacks:

Most of the sources in this discussion look reliable, so it has never been a question of source reliability but a question of which version (or combination of versions) is more WP:DUE like I wrote in that talk page section (but VR didn't respond). Idealigic (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I understand the issue better. The only sources which explicitly deny the Iraqi involvement is the Iraqi government itself and MEK. The other sources you have provided describe the campaigns conducted by the NLA but do not say that they were not supported by Iraq. So from a policy point of view, there are several reliable sources saying that there was involvement against the denials by the Iraqi government and MEK (which are primary sources). In view of this, I think that we should say in wiki voice that there was involvement, but mention that both Iraq and MEK denied it.


 * Also, just from the common sense point of view, the said operations were conducted in the middle of the Iraq-Iran War, so the claim that MEK somehow were able to mount a conventional offensive with armour and artillery without any Iraqi support strains credibility and would require high-quality sources explicitly saying it per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Alaexis¿question? 07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and I agree with what you said. Can we also agree that the view that Iraq participated in these operations should be given more weight than the view that it didn't? WP:WEIGHT says in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Do you think its clear that one view has more reliable secondary sources supporting it while the other view is only supported by primary sources (as you correctly pointed out)?VR talk 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so. Please note that I haven't checked the article and so I'm not endorsing any particular version. Alaexis¿question? 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

sources for a pornographic-video actress
At the discussion Articles for deletion/Dakota Skye (actress), found three sources for possible inclusion in the article at Dakota Skye (actress). Can I get some vetting for https://interviews.adultdvdtalk.com, https://www.xcritic.com, and https://fleshbot.com for use in a biographical article (for a recent decedant)? If they're on the up-and-up, I'll use them to try and meet the Heymann standard for the AFD discussion. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fourthords. To protect the innocent, just to note that all of the above links are NSFW. Unless, of course, you work in the adult film industry...  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None are reliable. Firstly because they are reviewing and interviewing the content they sell. They have a financial COI related to those artists/films which put them low on the trustworthiness scale. As well as not being a real indicator for notability. Are they notable, or do they just need to shift 5000 DVD's? Secondly even if we hypothetically looked past that, you could only use them for the most uncontentious information per BLP (She is still recently deceased enough for it to apply) as an interview is largely a primary source. How actually useful would they be? And going back to the first point, they wouldnt be quizzed on anything they might say that turns out not to be true because.... they are looking to make money off her. So no, not reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 10-4; I'll mark them so, thanks! —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind however that 'reliability' is not the same as 'notability'. An AFD is about notability. You can have reliable sources that dont indicate notability, and unreliable sources that do. (In this case they dont for the above reasons however.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Liberty Herald
I'd like input on the reliability of The Liberty Herald. This article has been used in Nick Sarwark to source his losing to none of the above in a Libertarian Party of New Hampshire treasurer race: "On March 20, 2021, Sarwark was defeated by none of the above when running for treasurer of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. After walking out of the convention, Sarwark claimed on Twitter that he had 'arrived at [the] convention with no intention of seeking a position in [the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire].'" Sarwark has been widely mocked on social media for this. However, he appears to dispute this characterization, which the article does not mention. The article also contains some heavily biased claims, such as: "Sarwark left his post months ago tattered by the criticism of many in the party for his handling of numerous situations..." "The Libertarian Party Mises Caucus is taking credit for this defeat as they made waves in the NHLP Convention by raising a ton of money for the state party and cementing their place as a force to be reckon with inside the LP." However, the article is not presented as an opinion piece. I have not found any other sources to substantiate this information. I've also seen these kinds of extraordinary claims made in other Liberty Herald articles, such as this one, which declares that there was recently a "hostile takeover" of the NHLP by the national Libertarian Party, which is a position I'm sure the party would dispute. Again, the other side of the issue is not presented.

Can this publication be considered a reliable source for coverage of American politics? Do they have solid editorial and fact-checking standards? Apologies if BLPN is the more appropriate venue for the specific Sarwark claim, but I've seen this source used before and would like to get a more general assessment of its usability. ― Tartan357  Talk 08:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say not reliable. According to their about page, their "team members" include two individuals--and one of them is the founder of the site (Bentley). I would be hesitant to call this an editorial team. Given that Bentely is the founder and the writer of the article, this is no different from a self-published source. There's no evidence that the articles go under any kind of editorial review. Their WP:USEBYOTHERS is scarce. This article from the Palladium-Item, refers to the Liberty Herald newspaper based in Indiana . The Baltimore Post Examiner (which I guess is the successor to the The Baltimore Examiner) uses the Liberty Herald as a source for a quote. And Liberty Hearld is also referenced by Heavy.com. However, per WP:RSP, Heavy.com is basically an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , glad to run into you again, and thanks for your opinion :) ― Tartan357  Talk 00:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sperm Biology
I found this book called Sperm biology. I have cited it for sex, isogamy, anisogamy, and I’m planning on using it as a source to oogamy.

I came here to see if the source is reliable in your opinion and if the book still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you think this book written by an academic expert and published by an academic publisher isn't reliable? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * well it’s a decade old and let’s just say biology does change.


 * Also just to make things I merely went here to double check. Also I was asking if the source would be appropriate for oogamy.CycoMa (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say it's a reliable source to use, so long as a more recent reliable source doesn't come up that contradicts it. That should account for your recency concern. So long as more recent works don't say anything to the contrary, it should be fine to use. Silver  seren C 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Online event Misinformation or censorship: science reporting and social media Joint online event with the group Challenging Pseudoscience, at the Royal Institution
6:30 on the 22nd, free. Registration is now open and will close at 17:00 on Tuesday 22 June 2021.. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about references used in a BLP draft
Hello all, I'm attempting to help a new editor clean up a draft they have created for an Australian scientist. Most of the references are way too close to the subject, press releases from their university, etc. But there were two links I wasn't sure about, would love a second opinion as I'm not familiar with Australian sites at all.

Sources:

Article: Draft:Vincent Candrawinata (note I have a revision in progress that removes basically all of the other references as not being RS)

Unsure what I should say about content, I'm trying to establish if these links are good enough to even start establishing notability. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The last 2 mIght be OK for background information and establishing notability, but not for any medical claims. Less sure about the first one, who are they, and do they have any link with him?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure if they have any relation to them or not. I'm mostly coming in cold from a help request from IRC. The editor says they don't have a COI here, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. First link seems to be a supplement trade publication or a supplement peddling org, unsure to be honest. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my take as well, hence why I am unsure that they are an RS for anything they may well sell or market. I think it would be best not to use them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing this query, I did a reasonable search and boldly added inline citations for ABC, Daily Telegraph, and Better Homes & Gardens. The drafter might be able to use these sources better than I did. At least two of those should be enough for a good start on GNG. BusterD (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: The Independent
What do you think of the reliability of The Independent?

Failed fact checks:

--Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems rather under-developed, and some of those fact checking sites don't even mention this newspaper. This example of the fact checks alsos makes me doubt the usefulness of 'fullfact.org'. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on this report it would be a giant leap to consider the newspaper as unreliable. If they get incorrect info, they will report incorrect. What is described in the links in not their own original work. The Banner  talk 12:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What a good point you have. Firestar464 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Whilst it can be a bit lefty at times, it usually seems to be fairly consistent and reliable with its reporting. I don't see any reason to depreciate it or find it unreliable.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on the failed fact checks? (Do take Nick's point into account). Firestar464 (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The first one is not a "failed fact check", it's criticism of an article. The second one doesn't even mention The Independent, the third mentions them among several others and attributes the error to a third party, the fourth is -again- someone else's error, the fifth includes the BBC in the critique and acknowledges that it's not necessarily wrong, just based on "weak evidence" (it's speculation, presented as such) and the last one doesn't even mention The Independent, and can be argued is splitting hairs, in any case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment/Bad RfC. One by one: per WP:SCIRS we are generally discouraged to cite popular press for scientific facts, which is so because journalists often lack necessary skills to judge scientific matters or properly read the scientific papers, and per WP:BESTSOURCES if there is a newspaper describing a study, it would be better to link to a study. For a tl;dr description, this sketch says it all. Therefore we should not mistake the general reliability of The Independent for the reliability of scientific claims as read in The Independent. (Nick-D: Fullfact is a good fact-checker, it can be very well used).
 * Now, here, they issue a correction. Link 67 does not mention The Independent at all (ITV is not affiliated with the Independent, or vice versa), neither does link 71. Link 68 does mention the Independent, but the focus of the factcheck are the words of the chief scientific officer and not the Independent (coverage has been reported faithfully). In link 69, the Independent has issued a correction for their misunderstanding. In link 70, the Independent explicitly says that: "However, the actual figure of the number of people who have died may never been known, as the underlying data acknowledges that it is unclear how many people drank adulterated alcohol for recreational purposes or as gastrointestinal “disinfectant” to prevent — or treat — COVID-19 infection", so basically the only good point the fact check makes is that they chose a lousy resource to establish # of deaths during pandemic due to misinformation (or probably they analyse points made by other resources), but again, choice and interpretation of scientific resources is not a strong point of MSM (or basically any non-scientific media). Only in link 66 did they not react to the report and it stayed.
 * In any case, from the links provided, I can't say that the Independent significantly deviates in quality of scientific coverage from its competitors. Hell, WSJ has a consistently received negative marks for its climate coverage (which anyway is only a selection of their coverage), but it doesn't stop us considering it generally RS. Besides, the author clearly implies their answer by posting the fact checks the Independent has (supposedly) failed, which is by definition a bad RfC, as it must be neutral and not suggest any answers. The failed fact checks could be mentioned in the vote.
 * As for the general reliability, which is the question here, I see no need to relitigate the WP:RSP description, as it faithfully represents the situation (I believe the Independent is still a good enough source to be cleared for usage, contrary to some concerns it might be inadequate since the Russian/Saudi takeover in 2010s). If the OP has nothing to add, I suggest closing the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable. None of the six failed fact checks appear, on inspection, to actually undermine the reliability of the source as a reputable news organization, just as and  note. And, importantly, there's an enormous amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS for its general reporting over its ~45 year history. The news organization's reporting is also in over 62,000 articles on Wikipedia, which points towards an enormous implied community consensus that it's a well-accepted source for use in articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally Reliable per Szmenderowiecki, especially noting the preference for scientific papers as sources for scientific articles over the reporting of scientific papers in any newspaper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable, per MPants at work and Szmenderowiecki. Shouldn't it be snowball-closed? Alaexis¿question? 05:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable more so than the times for example.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As always… It Depends… context matters. Generally, it is reliable, but that does not mean it is universally reliable. Like all news outlets, they may occasionally get something wrong.  This is especially true with breaking news. Always look for follow up reports and corrections. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking through the initial post, most of these links have nothing to do with the independent. A little concerned about this, tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable, as per Szmenederowiecki, The Banner, and Mikehawk10. Cambial foliage❧ 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable, obviously, like any source, it will on occasion get things wrong, but it is clearly still a respected news organization that other reliable sources consider to be reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable as per all previous comments which point out that none of the examples provided are really examples of "failed factchecks". One important caveat however, which should be obvious but isn't always. Its opinion material is published under the heading "Independent Voices" which should be treated with care and with attribution, as it is not fact-checked as carefully as news content, as per our policy on opinions. There is some material published here that is taken by some editors to be news reporting, e.g. some of Patrick Cockburn's columns, or some of Robert Fisk's. Where these are headed as e.g. "Middle East", they have been edited by the Middle East desk editors and therefore can be seen as reliable for factual claims, but where they are headed "Voices" they have been edited by opinion editors and so not reliable for factual claims. I know that's simply re-stating our basic policy, but I've seen lots of WP editors using these for factual claims without attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable As other editors pointed out, this is an unreliable list of factual inaccuracy in the paper. In any case, since news media report events as they happen and journalists rarely have unique qualifications in the areas they report, we expect some degree of inaccuracy, particularly when compared for with academic articles that take months to research, write and review. TFD (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Are Buzz Plus News and The Asahi Shimbun reliable source for a BLP
The article is Kozo Iizuka. Both sources are used to discuss the Japanese Wikipedia. and the Asahi Shimbun is used at least 4 times. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know about Buzz Plus but Asahi Shimbun is one of Japan's oldest and largest newspapers. It's an equivalent of, say, Chicago Tribune or similar. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Eggishorn that Asahi Shimbun is a Japanese newspaper of record and a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Asahi Shimbun is the #2 of the big Japanese newspapers, and is well respected in most areas. It sometimes adheres a little too close to government lines, and can be a little anti-American (especially anti-American forces in Japan) but it doesn't have a particular reputation for falsehoods or sensationalisation (outside of the US Forces in Japan issue.) But should be perfectly fine for a BLP. Canterbury Tail talk 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking again I agree. But I can't see Buzz Plus as reliable.  Doug Weller  talk 08:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the Beacon a reliable source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs?
The Beacon is an Irish opinion website that focuses on "Reporting on the Far-Right." (https://the-beacon.ie/). It is a pseudo-anonymous platform, started in 2019.

The Beacon: Presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan. A large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld. Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site. Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site. Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.

It's currently used on at least one article as a source to identify an organisation as being far-right, which is why I am seeking to find out if it should be considered a reliable source. I am unclear if the site actually has any staff at all or if it is effectively a personal blog. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So, it's not being used a source for Irish/international news and/or current affairs, but is instead being used as one of several sources as a citation for describing an Irish website as 'far-right' - which is its specialist area. Fine as a source for that; it doesn't claim or purport to be an Irish/international news and/or current affairs site, so not reliable for those separate purposes. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A glance at the stories posted on the Beacon shows that it covers Irish and international news and/or current affairs. They may have the common thread of alleged links to the far-right, although a number of their stories, such as their piece on Israel's "white supremacy" and another piece on mental health supports for asylum seekers don't seem to fit neatly into that, but they still cover Irish/international news and/or current affairs. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My point stands. Now let's hear from others, which is the point of the noticeboard. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability depends on usage. In this case, I'd already looked into the matter and the sourcing is solid. should read WP:1AM and WP:FIXBIAS. WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:STICK are also essays which may be of some benefit.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have significant concerns regarding its editorial practices, and the source looks rather questionable. The website does not assign names of authors to articles (at least in the vast majority of cases), lacks an apparent editorial policy, and self-describes as an entity founded in August 2019 by a small group of writers, researchers, and activists. Based off of its self-description, this appears to be a group blog; I don't think that the website could be described as a newspaper or magazine blog. As noted by WP:SPS, [a]nyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs...), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Given that the site admits to being an activist-founded source and there isn't strong evidence of editorial oversight, the source is one that does not appear to be reliable for facts and it should certainly be avoided as a source for a contentious label. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the site is fine for how it's being used at John McGuirk, which is why we're here. The Beacon clearly separates its articles into News, Analysis, Opinion, and Investigations sections, so it's not an "opinion website". In fact, the article in question is from their News section. It's absolutely a NEWSBLOG. Most articles do have named authors—by my count, ~62% of articles in the News, Analysis, and Investigations sections. Sure, some articles are credited to "The Beacon" but this isn't all that unusual. News agencies like the Associated Press and Reuters do that, too. The Beacon has pledged to adhere to a Journalists' Code of Conduct which suggests that their editorial process is fine. Now I wouldn't advocate using the site by itself for a controversial claim—especially about living persons—but this is a claim about the political leanings of a website that's also backed up by 2 other sources. It's also a claim that's within their extremely niche purview, "the far right in Ireland". Woodroar (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On the John McGuirk point that was the initial cause of my query, but I think it's probably worth looking at it as a source more broadly now, as it may arise in the future.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When we look at news pieces and investigations (the factual content), that number drops a lot lower. With regards to news pieces (category) it doesn't look like there's a real effort to name the journalists who publish the news. With regards to the investigations page, there is one author that is named, "Bryan Wall". Again, there's really not that much evidence here that the content that the source labels as factual is thoroughly vetted or that there is a robust editorial process. It's also a biased source, owing to its activist nature, and when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. A pledge to obey a code of conduct is good, but without evidence a structured editorial process I can't conclude that it has strong editorial control. If there's substantial use of the source by reliable sources for facts without comment, that might help to show reliability, but I earnestly can't find much at all along those lines. The source is also not a WP:NEWSBLOG, which would imply that the source is hosted as a blog by a newspaper, magazine, or some otherwise reputable news organization; WP:NEWSBLOG isn't a classification for standalone organizations as a whole.
 * In general, if there are reliable sources that are making a particular claim, then it would be appropriate to cite them provided that the inclusion of that content is due. However, we generally shouldn't lump on a questionable source as a citation if there exist reliable sources making the same claim; it would be a best practice to just cite reliable sources for the claim. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Since the website is new, it is difficult to find information on it. However, I found the following: it is mentioned by Michael Lanigan in Vice and in TheJournal.ie I would say therefore that it is probably reliable but so far we lack sufficient evidence. It will depend on the extent to which reliable sources such as news media and academic papers use it in future.
 * Otherwise, I found the question prejudicial. We don't call major media "highly partisan" because it writes disparagingly of fascism and the far right. Similarly we don't ask if other niche media are reliable sources for topics outside their area of concentration. Who would ask for example if the Irish Chicken Farmers Monthly is a reliable source for a plane crash in China or an earthquake in Peru? Even if they reported on those events, they wouldn't be my go to source.
 * TFD (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the point there regarding their partisan nature is that a) they themselves say their team is partially comprised of activists, and b) if a major media source's entire output consisted of writing disparagingly of any political viewpoint I think it would be fair to class them as highly partisan. If being highly partisan, in relation to any particular political philosophy is good, bad, deserved, or undeserved, is a value judgement which I think is outside the scope of this discussion.
 * On areas other than the far-right the Beacon have reported on immigration and foreign affairs, including on the Israeli Palestine conflict. Therefore I think it is of relevance if we also consider their reliability when discussing those news items. It seems the unanimous consensus is that they are not a reliable source on these areas, but that would, I think, give rise to further questions regarding their reliability in relation to their core, niche interests - a highly reliable site, which specialises in one area, is likely to be reliable when discussing items outside its core interests due to the standard of their journalism more generally. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That doesn't follow at all. I mean, it's an opinion, but that's all it is. It's not one I think most people would agree with. Just because they're not experts in - say - nuclear physics, the breeding cycle of the thylacine or the military campaigns of Alexander the Great - in no way prevents them from being considered reliable and/or experts on the far-right in Ireland. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the Beacon were to publish articles multiple articles on the military campaigns of Alexander the Great, that were factually incorrect or unreliable in some sense, then I think it would be perfectly fair to say the lack of factual rigour in those articles should be seen as a sign of the general level of journalistic standards within the blog as a whole. It is their choice what they write on. I don't think it follows 'at all' that a media source can be considered reliable on a particular topic, and unreliable on others, when they regular writes about others, without their general standards being considered. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are saying that because they concentrate on fascism and the far right they are highly partisan, even though they are saying exactly what major news media would say. I disagree. They would only be highly partisan if what they wrote differed from major media. Furthermore, writing exactly what major media would say does not make them unreliable. Do you not like how mainstream sources cover fascism and the far right? TFD (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying they're highly partisan because they themselves say they are partially comprised of activists on this topic. I don't really get what you're trying to say with the rest of your comment I'm afraid - their writing does differ from what is published in reputable media outlets. In the instance I gave above they're saying that a media source generally described in the Irish mainstream as right-wing or conservative, and which has never been called by a mainstream Irish media outlet as far-right, is far-right. If, for instance, the Irish Times or the Irish Independent had called Gript far-right we could argue their position represented the position of the mainstream media in Ireland, but that's not the case. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , no outlet could possibly be nonpartisan and simultaneously not oppose political extremism like fascism and anarchism, because failing to oppose one of those extremes is, itself partisanship.
 * The fact that this outlet is based on opposition to the politically extreme ideology which is in vogue right now cannot be used to argue that they're partisan with any credibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Any outlet which takes a strongly antagonistic approach to a political ideology, to the extent that they arguably should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology, is highly partisan towards that ideology, be it fascism, communism, socialism or anything else. That partisanship may be justified, it may reflect dominant cultural norms, and it may be seen as the moral stance to take, but it doesn't change that the underlying approach is partisan.
 * Regardless, this is moving us away from the core of this issue, which is a question of the reliability of a source which which is making a claim that has not be repeated anywhere in the Irish mainstream press, and which; presents a particular world-view that is unashamedly partisan; a large number of their pieces do not have named authors. Is not a member of the Press Council of Ireland. It says it abides by the NUJs Code of Conduct, but they are not a member of any press organisation that could ensure that is accurate and the Code is upheld; Has no listing of staff or those in editorial position on the site; Does not list an office, email address, phone number, or any other contact method bar a contact box on the site; Has an 'About' page which states it is partially comprised of activists.
 * Even were we to disregard the point regarding partisanship it would still leave us with the rest of the issues regarding the site, not least of which is that it could easily simply be a small group blog of uncertain authorship. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , to the extent that they should not be trusted to fairly report on topics related to that political ideology So you're arguing that they're unreliable because you insist they're unreliable. I think we're done here; this sort of argumentation doesn't merit serious engagement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That point was made in response to your argument above, that an outlet cannot be considered to be partisan if it opposes what it considers to be extreme ideologies, it is not a general comment on the Beacon. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , so instead of using circular logic, you're now claiming you were tilting at a straw man? That's really not any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I responded to the point your comment made. If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would again point out that you have not commented on the other concerns of substance I brought up, but are instead focusing entirely on a point that seems to be related entirely to you own unorthodox definition of partisan. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you feel that meant I was tilting at a straw man perhaps that indicates something about the strength of the argument you used in your comment. I would note that the claim that my argument is poor because I pointed out that your argument didn't actually address it is a non-sequitur. We've gone from informal to formal fallacies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments are, either willfully or accidentally, derailing this conversation, which is meant to be about the reliability of the Beacon. I'd appreciate if you could refocus on that. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , okay, how's this? Bastun, Woodroar, TFD and I all agree that it's being used properly for the disputed citation. You disagree. Mikehawk "has concerns" about their reliability, but TFD pointed out some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would directly address those concerns, and Mikehawk never opined that it's not usable here, just that it might be generally unreliable.
 * So there you have it. We already have a consensus here, you just don't like what that consensus says.
 * On top of that consensus, we also have two other sources whose reliability even you seem to accept, saying the same thing. Which then establishes that the consensus here is beyond reproach: it is not just the consensus of editors engaged with the subject, but a verifiable fact that this source is reliable for this use. Therefore, this thread can be closed.
 * Alternatively.... You could continue to litigate this until someone decides you've been allows to continue long enough and points out to an admin how disruptive it is for you to continue to shop forums until you finally get the answer you want. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Better I will say. Not terribly relevant considering I originally started this question asking was it a reliable source for "Irish/international news and/or current affairs", as you can see in the section title, but better. I mentioned the reference in question to show it was now being used as a cited source, and we got derailed into talking about it as if that was the only issue here, but it's not the main concern - as you can see above on the list of potential issues.
 * On your point regarding disruption, and relating to your earlier, I would say incorrect, accussation that I was edit-warring, I would point to the following statement on the Disruptive Editing page - "If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."Perpetualgrasp (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See The header at the very top of this page which makes it clear that we must consider not just the source, but the way it's being used to come to a determination here before the next time you complain that an RSN discussion got "derailed" discussing the use a source was put to.
 * Your complaints about my links to some of our behavioral guidelines makes it quite clear that you haven't read and internalized those guidelines, which would be much to your advantage to do. For example: I never accused you of vandalism. In fact, I was implying that your continued refusal to accept the answer you've gotten everywhere you've brought this up is tendentious editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are having a discussion, that entails a back and forth and people are free to engage as long as they see fit. I get that you disagree with my position in this case, as I disagree with yours, but to suggest that continuing to engage in an ongoing conversation should be considered tendentious editing is nonsense. I am responding to your comments as they are directed at me, if you wish me to stop commenting then all you have to do is stop yourself. This discussion is clearly coming to an end anyway, and it seems to have come down on the view that the Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So unless you want to reply to this for a WP:LASTWORD, you've now agreed we're still at the point we were five days ago, which is the same as the first point made in response to your opening remarks here, seven days ago; there is a consensus that The Beacon is considered to be reliable on this topic and not on anything else. Grand, so! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the conclusion here; has anybody provided evidence of a robust fact-checking or editorial process, or substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS? As far as I can tell, the former is lacking, and the responses to the latter don't appear to reflect substantial use for facts without comment. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that we don't even agree why we're here in the first place and so we're talking about different things.
 * Are we discussing whether or not The Beacon should be considered generally unreliable or even deprecated as a source? Because as far as I know, it's only ever been used the one time on Wikipedia, in the article on John McGuirk. Nobody has pointed out any specific negative issues with their coverage, like claims they've made that turned out to be false—only a general lack of positive factors like information about their editorial process, use by others, named authors, etc. And that's fair criticism. I still maintain that plenty of reliable sources have the same or similar issues: sources are rarely entirely transparent about their editorial process, both the Associated Press and Reuters regularly publish articles without bylines, and so on. But that's your criteria, I get that.
 * However, I don't think anyone is arguing for The Beacon in general, like to be used across Wikipedia. My argument is that The Beacon is fine in this context. They have editors, they have journalists, they adhere to a Code of Conduct, the claim being made falls within their scope of expertise, the claim isn't about a living person, and the claim isn't even particularly exceptional. (This is 1 of 3 sources making the same claim, after all.) It's not like this is some random person's LiveJournal being the sole source about some juicy piece of gossip. Our use of sources always depends on context. Even bottom-tier, deprecated sources might be appropriate for about-self claims, and top-tier, reliable sources might be inappropriate for, say, claims where they have a conflict of interest. I think The Beacon falls somewhere in the middle, but that should be sufficient for how we're using them in this specific case. Woodroar (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What information do we have that this would be within their scope of expertise? I understand that they say that they're experts on the issue, but this is exactly the problem with WP:SPS, any motivated group can create a web page, self-publish a book, or claim expertise. They self-admit to being activists, which may well make them a WP:BIASED source, but I really don't think that the source adds anything in light of the problems we've discussed. Its reliability in turn affects other conversations on wiki, particularly how to label the political leans of the website that McGuirk runs. The question isn't whether or not the source says what other sources say (even unreliable sources like The Sun can say the same thing as The Times when reporting on everyday events), but it's a separate question altogether whether The Beacon is a reliable source that should be cited in its own right. Source reliability also impacts weight considerations within the article, and since we're discussing the source in the context of a BLP, we should apply additional scrutiny to the sources.
 * It's obvious to me that the reason that this conversation was started was the specific use of the source in John McGuirk, and I understand to discuss with a limited scope to that article, but I think there's some fruit in discussing the source's reliability more generally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We know that's what they cover because of how sources describe The Beacon, positioning them as experts on the subject: a website which monitors Irish far-right activity according to Vice, a website which tracks and reports on the far-right in Ireland according to TheJournal.ie, a website which reports on Ireland's far right according to Independent.ie. Woodroar (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see little to no evidence on its website that it's RS. I went back almost a year in the 'news' section and all articles were attributed to 'The Beacon'. Almost all in 'analysis' were by Bryan Wall, who (assuming it's him) describes himself on twitter as "Anarcho-Journalist. Founder of @thebeaconirl". No staff are mentioned. The website's statement that "It is dedicated to anti-racist and anti-fascist principles" shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that they are experts in those topics, any more than if I stated the same thing. I see a website that's probably run by one person who gets a few others to contribute an occasional opinion piece. Maybe I'm wrong in that, but we should have better evidence that this website is RS for anything before we use it for anything. EddieHugh (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update... I didn't read Woodroar's recent comment immediately above. The first two sources quote Bryan Wall and mention the Beacon; maybe I need to subscribe to get the third one to work, because I don't see Wall or the website mentioned. This is still minimal evidence of it being RS (the sources quote him and mention the website, which he founded). EddieHugh (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Independent.ie source is indeed behind a paywall. I registered and found this code on their site for free trial access. Woodroar (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you paste the relevant paragraph here, if it's not too long? Does it also mention Wall, or just the website? EddieHugh (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's the full paragraph: "It's not really about masks. That's just a convenient cover for recruitment and fundraising purposes. [They] attract people who aren't necessarily racists or members of the far right. So you end up with a crowd consisting of people who are probably vulnerable, scared, and simply want answers, alongside men who are members of the National Party and Generation Identity. And these people can then be radicalised and used as a source of funding, as foot soldiers, or both," according to Bryan Wall, who writes for The Beacon, a website which reports on Ireland's far right. Woodroar (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So all three mention The Beacon in association with its founder. EddieHugh (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that the FuJo piece, one of the three sources used on that John McGuirk article, which again was not meant to be the main topic of discussion here, has been amended to state that it is not saying Gript are far-right. It has been added to the bottom of the piece. https://fujomedia.eu/far-right-disinformation-tactics-in-ireland/ Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The subject of this discussion is the lead section of the John McGuirk article, the OP's account having been created for the specific purpose of removing this classification. The Beacon is one of three sources cited for the "far-right" claim. As a DCU graduate and member of the (first-generation) Irish expatriate community, I have my own personal issues with both the other two sources, on which issues I will not go into detail, but given these facts I'm already quite sceptical about whether a discussion of whether The Beacon "is reliable" should be given any attention at all, let alone the amount of attention it has been given so far in this thread. Even a conclusion that the source is unreliable and should be deprecated would not resolve the issue at hand, i.e., whether our article on McGuirk should call his website "far-right", since there are currently two other sources that, whatever our personal issues with them might be, do support the content in question and are probably considered "reliable" for this kind of information by the majority of Wikipedians. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally, the relation to John McGuirk was only brought up as it was evidence the publication is being used as a source and therefore a discussion of its reliability as a source, more broadly, is justified . In relation to the SPA designation I believe it's unfair as, whilst I did create the account to change what as I saw as that particular inaccuracy, I have contributed, and hoped to continue contributing, to other topics at this point.
 * I would also note that one of the other sources used here, the DCU one, has now been amended to say that the piece does not class Gript as being far-right.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And you noticed that the very same day, too! And you have indeed contributed two edits to articles other than the John McGuirk one! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyway - given that you say above My intention here was to discuss the Beacon's reliability more generally, it should be noted that - as stated at the top of the page - This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. Given that The Beacon is not being used as a general source, this whole question is moot, and has been nothing but a huge waste of time. I suggest this discussion is closed without further ado. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the changing of the DCU source does add another layer to this discussion. You were adamant that your read of the DCU source was right, and that it backed up the Beacon. As you were wrong about the DCU source, absolutely and resolutely, even as I explained to you why you were wrong, so perhaps that indicates that you are wrong about the Beacon as well.
 * Beyond that Bastun, I seem to recall seeing a query that you yourself had opened asking if Gript should generally be classed as a reliable source - with you saying it should not be - based on basically the same situation that's happening here. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, , - you may be interested in the ongoing discussion here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Scientific journals versus news reports on the origin of COVID-19
The current sourcing situation on the origin of COVID-19 is curious. As ably described at WP:NOLABLEAK, scientific journals agree that it is a Zoonosis. Older news reports also tend to be dismissive of the Lab Leak Hypothesis, though some of these older reports have since been corrected. However, recent news reports generally describe a "battle" over the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Various versions of this hypothesis exist. All involve release of a virus from a laboratory.

This discussion is difficult. One reason is that it touches multiple areas of policy. People differ on whether or not it is a purely scientific question, whether or not various actors have conflicts of interest, whether or not WP:MEDRS applies, and more. No single Wikipedia forum is a perfect fit. In light of the situation,


 * 1) How should Wikipedia describe the origin of COVID-19?
 * 2) *Option 1 It should follow the academic journals.
 * 3) *Option 2 It should follow first-rate news reports.
 * 4) *Option 3 It should describe both, i.e. "Academic journals generally support the Zoonosis Hypothesis, while recent news reports say scientists are divided."

Responders should feel free to improve the formatting of this RFC question and to add other options to the above list. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Origin of COVID-19)

 * Bad RFC. This isn't the noticeboard to have a discussion on the content of a specific article, or to propose general content solutions for articles. Option 3 seems to be doing that by proxy; the discussion should be on the relevant article pages rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. On top of that, the 3 options are unnecessarily reductive; there are arguments (including an OPEN RFC on WP:BMI, for example) that have a lot of discussion regarding the different reliability of the two for different components of the various origin hypotheses. It's best to wait until the RfC at WP:BMI is resolved before we open a discussion on sourcing here; there's a lot of good discussion at that page about the application of WP:MEDRS to pandemic origins (more broadly), but to make an RfC while there is another one ongoing that would heavily influence the scope of our analyses here seems to be procedurally imprudent. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Other users are invited to take a better shot at asking the right questions. As I said, the discussion is difficult. I think the discussion needs to be had. I am open to better ways of starting it. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This RFC fundamentally assumes (and is a loaded question which the user cannot answer without assuming) that academic journals and news sources are both equally reliable - which they aren't. Our policies already cover this - if academic sources (such as textbooks, articles, etc) say one thing, and the "news" says another, we follow the more reliable sources. This is disruptive and laughable to say that news is as reliable and noteworthy as academic sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd look at it a bit differently. Wikipedia assumes that the journals are better. I'm asking if we still feel that way. Or at least that was my intent. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC: Close and Collapse.
 * First, it isn't formatted correctly. That can be fixed; if anyone has trouble creating a properly formatted RfC, just ask me for help on my talk page. I help anyone with Wikipedia formatting issues whether I agree with them or not.
 * Second, it is in the wrong place. This noticeboard is only for discussing the reliability of specific sources. We don't make decisions about article content. The correct place to post such an RfC is Talk:COVID-19 misinformation -- the talk page of the page where the content will go.
 * Third, we have determined the answer to this several times. The question of where Covid-19 originated is a purely biomedical question. We are only allowed to use sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, ignoring all other sources. The question of how various politicians and governments have dealt with the pandemic (including reporting their claims about the origin of Covid-19 in the form of "The Trump administration claimed" or "The position of the Chinese government is") may be sourced to the popular press, but never with any hint that such claims are true or that any claims that are based upon MEDRS-compliant sources are false or even questionable.
 * I call for an uninvolved editor to apply Template:Hidden archive top to this Pseudo-RfC. This should not be done by anyone who has expressed an opinion on the article content in question. This includes me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Origin of COVID-19)
The following is shamelessly stolen from WP:NOLABLEAK. If one limits oneself to peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, it remains valid:

Anyone who knows how to get the sources inside of the collapse should feel free to do so.

Immunity, May 19, 2020

Le infezioni in medicina (Italian), September 1, 2020

Postgraduate Medical Journal, February 1, 2021

World Health Organization, February 9, 2021

Reviews in Medical Virology, February 14, 2021

Infection, Genetics and Evolution, March 18, 2021

And portions of the following are shamelessly stolen from.


 * Financial Times: US renews calls for investigation into origins of Covid-19
 * CNN: Why scientists are suddenly more interested in the lab-leak theory of Covid's origin
 * FoxNews: Ted Cruz mocks Washington Post as 'clowns' after fact-check declares Wuhan lab leak theory 'suddenly' credible
 * NYMagazine: Latest Developments in the COVID Lab-Leak-Hypothesis Debate
 * WaPo: Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible
 * The New Yorker: The Battle Over the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory
 * WSJ: Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin
 * Reuters: Wuhan lab staff sought hospital care before COVID-19 outbreak disclosed
 * CNBC: Gottlieb says there's growing circumstantial evidence that Covid may have originated in a lab
 * WSJ: The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage
 * Reuters: U.S. agencies examine reports of early COVID-19 infections in Wuhan lab
 * RCP: Will Media Get Away With U-Turning on Lab Leak Theory?
 * Seattle Times: Fact check: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory for pandemic origin suddenly became credible
 * Fortune: Why the ‘Wuhan lab leak theory’ is getting a second look
 * EconomicTimes.in: Theory that COVID emerged from a lab leak in Wuhan gains traction in United States
 * ABC.au: WHO member nations, including Australia, call for fresh probe into origin of COVID-19
 * National Review: ‘The Suddenly Popular Lab-Leak Theory’
 * The Hill: The Memo: Media face hard questions on Trump, Wuhan lab
 * France24: Covid lab origin theory gains traction in United States
 * Toronto Sun: We need an open investigation into the Wuhan lab leak theory
 * NPR: Did COVID-19 Leak From A Lab? A Reporter Investigates — And Finds Roadblocks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)

The Ape that Understood the Universe
I found this book. I was thinking about using it as a source sex. But I’m not entirely sure it’s a good idea because it doesn’t list itself as a biology book but the writer is a evolutionary psychologist.

What do you guys think?CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find no problems with it, also, as mentioned before, don't be afraid to be bold. Regards,  Heart  (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here’s the thing tho, some sources don’t belong on some articles. Sure the writer is technically a biologist himself. But, the book doesn’t label itself as a biology book.
 * And the article on sex is exclusively a biology article.CycoMa (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how the book labels itself, it still seems to possess relevant content under a heavily accomplished and likely peer-reviewed background from a reputable professor. I don't see any reason not to go for it. Nekomancer Jaidyn  ( talk ) 07:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the "likely" in "likely peer-reviewed" that worries me. A review article for specialists, for example, would probably get closer scrutiny than a book that appears to be pitched to the Scientific American readership. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, it's a popular science book that isn't peer reviewed. I wouldn't use it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Cambridge University Press, so I'd say that's as good as it gets. Aren't those all peer-reviewed or of equivalent reliability? Still, given that sex is not really about humans and the author of this book mainly studies humans, it may be less than ideal. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a book published by a University of Nottingham psychology professor (with a research emphasis on evolutionary biology and sex differences) through a reputable university publisher. I don't have a copy of the book, but signs point toward this being a scholarly monograph, which is one of the better source categories that we have. It also appears to have received reviews which may be worth considering in terms of what it gets used for. I'm also seeing it in some peer-reviewed papers as a cited source, for what that is worth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The second review describes it as aimed at laypersons (albeit educated ones). I'd be wary of relying on a source that is at least semi-popularized when more formal academic literature is surely available. My university library is only able to access the latter two sources linked above at the moment; Panov et al. (2020) is kind of kooky. (I don't know if it's like this for all subjects, but for physics and mathematics, the peer-review standards for volumes in Springer book series are in practice lower than they are for journal articles. Reviewers have to approve a book proposal before the book can happen, but the content of the book doesn't always get careful attention.) Beaver and Wright (2019) is only a passing mention. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle alternative language quality.
Although dw.com is generally regarded as reliable source, I think the alternative language version of the site should be used with care. https://m.dw.com/bn/ For example here it's mostly interactive sentences slides.,, The articles do not fully conform to standard spelling convention used by most Bengali nespaper and sites and is more of transliteration based on 'that's about right'. This one doesn't even use spaces. Here they say ঝটিতি instead of ঝটিকা ,

The reporting isn't wrong but mostly meta, and not up to general standard. --Greatder (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It probably depends on the language and topic. Spanish edition is certainly not the most reliable source for every topic, but I wouldn't consider it generally unreliable. MarioGom (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is BlackCatholicMessenger.com a Reliable Source?
As far as I can tell, this website, though claiming it is a "news" site, is a SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCE. The author of the posts I have seen used as sources in Wikipedia articles is: "Nate Tinner-Williams is co-founder and editor of Black Catholic Messenger", and is also the Wikipedia editor who has been using this website as a source: User:Natemup. He OPENLY states on his userpage (through his links) and in one edit summary [here]: that he is the author of those posts. Also note the author list of the website shows Nate with 208 posts, and the next highest author with 7 posts; so I would call this HIS site.)

I have tried to explain that Wikipedia's policies regarding sources do not allow self-published sources, unless certain criteria are met, in my edits and reverts on Henriette DeLille - see article history.

From: WP:SPS "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

I was hoping other editors could offer their input. (pinging user )


 * No - I have seen no evidence that this author has a proven reputation, or that the "news" site has any evidence of editorial oversight or been recognized for the quality of its work, and is anything more then a self-published blog that uses a newspaper-like theme: "World Times is a newspaper / magazine style highly content focus theme for ghost blogging platform. You can remove this text and add text you want. May be you can show small text about your site." (bottom left of website) --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - Not sure if I'm actually allowed to vote, but there it is. Also, I have been interviewed in America (magazine), and BCM has been mentioned there and in the Philadelphia Inquirer. natemup (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:NOTVOTE; we don't vote here on Wikipedia, we follow policy, and I'm not sure what "being interviewed" and "blog was mentioned" have to do with independence, or a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." natemup (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be more helpful if you provided a link to the interview you had and the place your site was mentioned, rather than wanting us to take your word for it; then we can see for ourselves what those people say about you and your site. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So you've had a biographical profile and two articles with a pull-quote. How is that your "published work"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a biographical profile, but the America article is located here, and the Philadelphia Inquirer article here. natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is that it is an WP:SPS (in particular, a group blog). To be fair to, I think that they're attempting to make a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. I don't think one is there for the general case, but that they've been noted by The Congregation of Holy Cross and one of their articles has been republished by a diocesan Catholic paper. There's a minor mention in a news report from a Columbia University-affiliate, some mention of the site in Our Sunday Visitor, Review for Religious seems to point to Black Catholic Messenger as being reliable with regards to the biography of Harry Dorsey, S.S.J., and Tinner-Williams himself appears to have been published on the topic of African-American Catholicism by other University-affiliated projects. I personally would like to see more widespread use before I'd be willing to accept WP:USEBYOTHERS as a reason to classify it as reliable more broadly. In a very limited sense, it might be usable with attribution. I'm wondering if there might be something here along the lines of certain articles being considered "expert sources" on the topic, especially where other sources explicitly point to them as being such. This is a tightly limited case, granted, but I might think that WP:USEBYOTHERS could indicate that its coverage of, say, Harry Dorsey, S.S.J. would be reliable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that contribution. I wasn't even aware of all those appearances. I've added additional ones above. Also, what would be the technical difference between a group blog and a small nonprofit new site (which we claim to be, are registered as with the government, receive donations as, and are recognized by national and local publications as)? natemup (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A non-profit is certainly capable of running a blog; the two aren't mutually exclusive. There isn't a lot in policies and guidelines that defines what a "blog" is, but my general understanding is that a blog is a web source published by an individual or a group via a process that lacks meaningful editorial oversight. By "group blog" I mean to say that there is a group (the nonprofit) that runs the blog; it isn't a merely personal blog. If there was a robust editorial process and/or significant WP:USEBYOTHERS (such as in the case of SCOTUSblog), then the source would likely be considered reliable. Meaningful editorial oversight could typically be demonstrated by the existence of verification/fact-checking policies and a retraction policy (see this Washington Post link for their fact-checking and retraction policies). Demonstrating meaningful oversight would typically also require the existence of a structure for reviewing writings prior to their publication (which is part of why Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable, as they can publish their stories live with little-to-no oversight; Forbes staff writers, on the other hand, are subject to robust editorial oversight and are considered to be generally reliable for news reporting). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean merely that we're registered as a nonprofit, but as a nonprofit *news organization*. This is how we are recognized by other sources that mention us (some of which have been cited above). Also, while I would probably agree with you about what defines a legitimate news source, to what degree is that codified in Wikipedia policies such that BCM could be definitively deemed here as *not* a news source? We have an editor (myself, as noted in at least some of the sources mentioning us), but obviously it's hard to establish a policy (within BCM) about who edits the editor. In any case, it has also been shown above that we are used by other reliable sources to at least some extent. natemup (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. It's partly that according to the site (as of now-ish), the site's editor has made 217 of the <300 posts themselves, and it's not clear that there's editorial oversight on that content. In that case, it would fall under the self-published sources policy, which would render it only reliable inasmuch as the writer of that content is an expert source. And, to be considered an expert source, work in the relevant field has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Typically, this is taken to mean that the author has written something along the lines of peer-reviewed academic papers that have been published, but I'm unaware of that in this case. Even if the particular writer is an expert, an SPS can't be used in a biography of a living person and some care has to be used to ensure that it's due content.
 * Candidly, the WP:USEBYOTHERS provides some evidence of a reputation for accuracy, but accuracy is only a part of reliability as understood by the community. I'm not sure use by others of this sort of scope is enough to get around the editorial process requirements that we have to consider a source generally reliable within its topic area, though if the site continues to see increasing use by others then this conversation should probably happen again so we can re-evaluate.
 * Some material might be truthful but not produced through a reliable process that involves independent fact-checking (that is, independent of fact-checking conducted by the writer crafting the piece themselves), which is (I think) what we're mostly running into here. We also don't typically view official filings as a way to determine this stuff; a nonprofit registered as a news organization could be considered to be a blog or other self-published source under our standards absent an independent editorial process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No - No evidence of an editorial structure, fact-checking processes, or a known reputation for accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest closing this discussion: this issue is currently being handled at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "this issue is currently being handled at ANI and COIN"; I have read both of those threads in their entirety and participated, and neither of those is dealing with this SPECIFIC issue; those are dealing with Natemup's issues/disruption with multiple users. This issue still needs to be decided; other editors may try to source articles with the BCM blog entries, even if Nate does not. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Should GB News be "depreciated"?
Although this brand new UK TV News channel is a properly regulated entity, the same can be said about the Daily Mail and other shitty British sources, so I think we can safely ignore that. All indications are, and this seems confirmed by their initial output (in just twenty minutes I personally witnessed them getting the roles of two guests wrong, causing their first contribution to be a correction/complaint), this is going to be a TV version of the Daily Mail. They will basically be selecting and ramping up certain hot button right wing triggering stories, not for their news value, but their commercial value. In other words, pushing a strident right wing world view is baked right into the business model, which doesn't make it very usable by the neutral Wikipedia. As with the Daily Mail, it cannot even be said that their high profile contributors (basically Andrew Neil) can be trusted when it comes to, say, the contents of interviews, not when they are divorced from their usual editorial oversight (i.e. the BBC). It should probably be killed before it can even take a foothold here. James Tiverton (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Given that it has only been on the air for a few days, I think this is premature. Per we have a whopping 0 citations to GB News outside the GB News article. That said, give it six months to a year, then we can have a real discussion on its reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious what it is even after just a few days, just watch it, and you will see. Why wait six months, when God knows how many times it will have been used as a citation here by then? This will be used to support everything that Wikipedia has been able to keep out of important British politics articles, by excluding the Mail. Everything from immigrants steal our jobs to the Labour Party want to nationalise your potatoes. Pleb worthy junk. Not usable for an encyclopedia. James Tiverton (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's existed for less than a week and you're suggesting that it shouldn't be used because of what you think it might do. Being neutral on Wikipedia doesn't mean not using sources that some people describe as being right (or left) wing. EddieHugh (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A week is a long time in 24 hour TV news. That's hundreds of stories in a paper like the Daily Mail. How long does it usually take you to figure out the commercial model of an obviously partisan source? And Wikipedia bans such sources all the time. You think people seriously checked a representative amount of content from, say, the similar TV channel, RT News? Just as that is a vehicle for Russian state propaganda, something which is obvious from watching it for a day, this channel is obviously a vehicle for the dark forces that brought us Brexit etc. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The term is "deprecated." Please find sources to support your view, User:James Tiverton. If the issues are as egregious as you report, begin accumulating critique in RS so that when this discussion is appropriate, you can make a better case than "just look at it yourself and you'll agree with me" (which is the definition of original synthesis). BusterD (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Did any one do that for the Daily Mail? Not that I heard. This process is about canvassing the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and they can use whatever they like (including their eyeballs) to make up their own minds. You might be thinking of the rule against Wikipedia editors putting their own thoughts into an actual article. That is obviously disallowed. James Tiverton (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I appreciate your fresh eyes on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail has been telling lies in public for many years so we have source material upon which to build a case for deprecation. I point out this massive and contentious discussion in 2017, another huge confirming discussion in 2019 and the more recent discussion about the DM headline claiming it was reliable in 2020. I'm going to link WP:Original synthesis so you can see the rules concerning using our own eyeballs for anything except sourcing, imaging, and keyboarding. This policy applies in every aspect of the encyclopedia, and certainly on a noticeboard where the subject matter itself is about WP:Reliable sources, which I've also linked. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you winding me up or what? After failng to spot any source material being given by the first five or so people in that first discussion, I decided to stop reading, since the point seems proven. And I similarly decided to stop reading the Original synthesis policy after I noticed, very early on, that it says "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.)" If you have any concrete proof that deprecating a source isn't supposed to feature Wikipedia editors just giving their opinions, and basing that on whatever they choose (evidence if they wish, no evidence if they do not wish), may I see it in a clearer format than this? Because I think you're trying to pull a fast one here. James Tiverton (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There are other potentially biased sources such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Times which are considered reliable on WP:Perennial sources. Even Fox News is considered reliable there for non-political news. Reliability isn't necessarily based on the outlet's political leanings, but rather its commitments to fact-checking and providing accurate information. Since GB News is pretty new, we simply don't really know how well it does on that yet. If/when reliable fact checking websites criticise the accuracy of GB's info, we can consider labelling it unreliable or deprecating. For now, we simply don't know enough about its accuracy and fact-checking to label it reliable or unreliable. IronManCap (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What fact checkers have proved Fox News is inaccurate for politics? None that I can recall. What they tend to do, is merely prove their output is the result of bias (such as having not mentioned a pertinent fact). This is not a problem in mainstream sources, where the purpose of the exercise doesn't include pretending inconvenient facts just don't exist. There is no point waiting, anyone with eyeballs can see what GB News is (and not for nothing did they choose to emulate the Fox News format). Britain doesn't really do fact checking anyway, since we have a pretty robust legal/regulatory system against printing outright lies. In America, any Fox News anchor is legally allowed to say the sky is green, call that a news report, and nobody can do anything about it. Not even the Daily Mail is allowed to actually say the sky is green. Nor is GB News. But if they want you to think that, if that suited the right wing agenda, you can guarantee they will find a way to present that view in a way that gets past the UK regulatory system. No need to wait to see what is already obvious. James Tiverton (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC) — James Tiverton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's too early to determine if the source is reliable. As such, the default position is that it is not reliable until proved otherwise, which should be fine. The chairman, Andrew Neil, was editor of the Sunday Times for over a decade and worked for the BBC for 25 years, even having his own show. He absolutely has the capability of producing reliable news programming. (Whether or not he does so is another matter.) I don't think we should ban sources because they have a right-wing editorial policy. CNN had Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as anchors, while PBS has had Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan as regular contributors. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is filled with wacky right wing conspiracy theorism. TFD (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Premature - It took us YEARS of discussion before we deprecated the Daily Mail (and that is still a controversial decision)… we can at least wait a few months to properly examine GB. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Premature They have an editorial charter and it doesn't appear that people are... saying it's unreliable. I'm seeing at least some reporting from reputable sources that seem to have a relatively optimistic outlook regarding its ability to cover regional news. And, it's got veteran reporters and people with editorial experience. But I don't think that we're ripe for this conversation in a perennial sense as of now. Even if it is a source with a stated political lean, it can still be reliable if it has editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and a significant level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Time will tell.  — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is premature to ascribe any level of reliability or unreliability to GB News. Reliable sources have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, unreliable sources have a reputation for the opposite but GB News is too new to have established any reputation. It is almost certainly going to be a biased and/or partisan source, but that is independent of reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks as though it will have a right-wing agenda and has "backing from pro-Brexit tycoons and a mission to produce “anti-woke” US-style news content". It will have "a focus on generating opinion and controversy, rather than original reporting". Some activists have said it aims "to monetise divisive political issues and to push the boundaries of UK TV news regulations, which require politically balanced broadcasts". Burrobert (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like it is heading down the Infowars route, and already is a byword for crapness. But then it is also early days, too early to say where it will end up.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment proposal is premature, but from coverage I've seen about them, we are probably heading that way. -Roxy . wooF 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (and please, close) obviously too soon. No disputed usage (no usage, actually), no previous discussion. I would suggest to close this thread. MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, why would you use it? It seems to be mostly comment. I would personally steer clear until we know more. If it is covering something that nobody else is then there may be a need to use it, if so until it is established as reliable it would have to be attributed. BLP might also be a worry. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences
I found [this book] it’s called Sex Differences Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies.

I was thinking about using it as a source for sex but I’m not entirely sure about using it as a source on that article. Because the author is a psychologist. Or more specifically a evolutionary psychologist, so I’m not entirely sure if she would be a good source for an article relating to biology.

Also the book is 21 years old, so it may be outdated.CycoMa (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What specifically in the article are you planning to use it for? It seems to be a textbook from 2000, and its self-description at the link says that it is for courses in evolutionary and human biology, psychology, and sexuality and gender studies. In general, I would have some worry that a 21-year-old book in a might be out of date on human biomedical information, but if it's for a definition of "sex" or something about biological sex that hasn't changed in the literature since then, then it's probably fine. I'm not an expert in the field, however, so I can't say the extent to which the field has changed since then. If you're using it to describe studies related to the article topic from up to the point of time of its publication, it would certainly be good to use.


 * Also, just a general note, if you have a specific question regarding a specific addition to an article, don't be afraid to be bold and make the addition without seeking pre-clearance. Usually, if a source is contested, there's discussion on the article talk page before it floats over to here. If it's the addition winds up being uncontested, then it's probably fine to use, especially so for an article heavily seen by active editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Participants of the WikiProject Medicine (WT:MED) or Biology (WT:BIOL) might be able to provide you with good guidance. MarioGom (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just copying over my comment from WT:BIOL: Limited use. It's not only rather old (2000), but the author is a psychologist and ethologist (behavior), not a genetics/biochemistry/sex differences academic. So I would consider her involvement in such subject matter to be not as high quality as those focused on the topic at hand. Silver  seren C 16:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah I honestly noticed that detail about her being a evolutionary physiologist, which is why the only time I used this book as a source was for sex differences in behavior. Since that is an area she probably has better knowledge on.CycoMa (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

OpenDemocracy
What is the reliability of openDemocracy for statements of fact, especially those with contentious implications for BLPs? The above discussions seem to say it's okay for attributed WP:RSOPINION (and so inclusion would be due if the person making it is an expert) but does not have an established record of fact checking? I am asking in relation to the use of this source on these articles, for statements of fact: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_274
 * Lubov Chernukhin
 * Brandon Lewis
 * Viktor Fedotov
 * Lev Mikheev


 * I'm not aware of any cases where they got the facts wrong. At least they are cited in government reports (EU, Canada, the Netherlands) and in numerous scholarly papers from what I have seen; also, it seems that pretty many scholars publish there; and that Reuters, Euronews, Deutsche Welle etc. treat their reporting seriously. While it is certainly a biased source, it is, IMHO, generally reliable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We have to distinguish between reporting and opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are rarely rs unless written by experts (i.e., writers with published articles on the topic in academic journals and books.) Bear in mind that opinion pieces generally summarize news stories to form an opinion. Per broken telephone, it is better to use the original news articles than opinion pieces discussing what they reported.
 * Much of their reporting is investigative journalism. While we don't have a policy or guideline for this AFAIK, I would not use them because of problems of undue weight. Only information that is picked up by other sources has due weight.
 * None of the cases referenced were straight news reporting. I would assume however that given the reputation of the site, that it would be reliable.
 * TFD (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Livedoor.com
It is a Japanese website and it is being used as a source for Bobby Rose (baseball) in a edit here[]. Is this website a reliable source. Here is a link via google translate for the article being used as a source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's an aggregate site. There's a thread further up this page right now about the Asahi Shinbun, and according to this Livedoor News posted an Asahi article that contained an error and posted a correction around an hour after the Asahi, and in the present case the article explicitly cites BaseballKing.jp: the original source seems to be here. Whether the above case of a retraction being issued means they can be counted on to fact-check aside, they are not really the "source" in this case, since they appear to have reprinted the BasballKing article verbatim. I've never heard of BaseballKing, though... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand
So, I've been working to expand our coverage of megaherbs and I wonder if things like this are reliable sources for things like physical descriptions of species, their occurrences etc. They have a writer noted but I am not sure what credentials they are expected to have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. They are a production of the Manatū Taonga, New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage, which does tend to argue for reliability, but I don't find any convenient description of their writing, editing, quality control processes. Can anyone describe these? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)