Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349

Science reporters
Is it permissible to cite scientific reports which written by journalists or science reporters? If they claim that they write what scientists and specialists say? --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In general, yes, but there are many situations in which doing so may be unadvisable. You must provide details: What are you citing these science reporters to say, what article do you wish to say it in, what is the source of the science reporting, and what are the objections to you doing so?
 * Without answering those questions, we cannot give you a definitive answer, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I will cite this report. --Averroes 22 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it relates to medicine, the answer generally “no”… see WP:MEDRS for more. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You still haven't said what you would cite it to say, what article you wish to say it in, and what objections have been raised to doing so. I assume that someone has objected to your edit, otherwise, there's little point in requesting a consensus on the content here.
 * Also, as Blueboar pointed out: For MEDRS stuff, (which this looks like it might be), a science reporter is not good enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Objection was that science reporters are not experts, so they cannot be cited because they may not have been properly understood what experts mean. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I still need an article and what you plan to say using that source to make a judgement call, but that's certainly a reasonable objection in general. Whether it applies here? I can't say without all the facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks likely to be Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry & the discussion at Talk:Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. - Ryk72 talk 02:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So from a brief skim there, it looks like this science reporter is being cited to counter primary studies. I don't think this falls under MEDRS, but it certainly doesn't look to be part of a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a problem of RS so much as DUE. The paper cited in the journal you referenced probably meets RS and could be used instead. However, the issue is how important this opinion is. Science journals often publish stories about views that receive little attention in academic writing. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The journal Capitalism Nature Socialism
Is the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism a reliable and due source? I saw it being used for a book review in this edit by. Inseparable in my view is the issue of whether it is WP:DUE for criticism of this book.

The journal is openly ideological, being ecosocialist. On their website's About page, they call themselves an online community of red-green activists and state that CNSWeb [Capitalism Nature Socialism web version] is a platform for intellectuals who may be outside or at the margins of academic institutions... This triggered alarm bells for me vis a vis WP:FRINGE.

As far as I know reputable academic journals are not explicitly ideological, even if the researchers who publish therein tend to certain viewpoints based on their studies or otherwise. So what is Wikipedia to do about these sorts of journals that claim to be academic but are openly POV? (Definitely unreliable journals exist, like Homeopathy, so having an academic publisher is not an automatic green light.) I am inclined to think they should be excluded. We do allow WP:BIASEDSOURCES, which comes up often for mainstream media outlets that have bias or for individual papers, but an entire obscure 'academic' journal? Crossroads -talk- 22:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve (We are affiliated with no political party or organised political tendency and are open to diverse views within left ecology/ecological left movements, etc.) over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside (an Entropy or an International Journal of Theoretical Physics). Maybe this is in the "use with in-text attribution" range. It's not clear how distinct "CNSWeb" is from the Taylor & Francis journal; the former intends to expand the aims of the latter and has different licensing policies and submission channels. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It is reliable because it is published by an academic publisher (Taylor & Francis) and has an editor board of academics. While most academic journals do not openly declare a political orientation, reliability is about factual accuracy. One would expect that the dozens of professors on the editorial board would be able to fact check areas of their expertise. As for DUE, the criticism seems to be representative of a large number of experts. TFD (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree it's reliable as per TFD's reasoning. Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Excluding academic sources due to relative infrequency of citations in citation indexes
It is an established principle here - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - that one criteria of reliability for academic sources is whether or not they and/or the journal in which they have been published have been cited in other reliable academic publications. And that checking citation indexes is one way to determine that. The question I raise here is this: If an academic source has a low citation count - that is, a citation count greater than zero, or perhaps greater than one or two, - is that low count alone a reason to object to the inclusion of that source in an article here?

At Talk:Gini coefficient editor Limit-theorem has argued that a particular extension of the Gini coefficient should not be present in the article because the academic sources which support that application have either no or, more important for this question, low citation counts. He says, "Please note that these papers have no impact, the most cited appears to have 9 citations on Google Scholar, the other one has 4. This is not encyclopedia level. As to the 'Parsa, Motahareh, Antonio Di Crescenzo, and Hadi Jabbari Nooghabi. 'Comparison of Systems Ageing Properties by Gini-type Index.' 13th Iranian Statistics Conference. 2016.', it has no citations."

The uncited paper is, of course, of questionable reliability. But does the fact, alone, that others have only 4 or 9 citations make them of "not encyclopedia level"? I can find no Wikipedia policy or guideline that would suggest that such is the case, but perhaps I've just missed it. (Let me note in passing that I'm not advocating for inclusion of the material. There may well be other reasons to exclude (or include) it. I'm just uncertain about using citation count alone, as is being argued there, as a criteria for sufficient reliablity to be included here.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any such guideline, either. It's a curious question: balancing WP:DUE against WP:V, but I'm not familiar enough with the state of economics literature to assess whether 4-9 citations is on a "nobody reads this shit," level of obscurity or on a "not the most popular research, but not bad," level. I know that in physics, 4-9 citations would be the former, whereas in New Testament studies it would be closer to the latter. I seem to recall that economics tends to see low citation counts, but I can't be sure enough of that to stand behind it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, Thank you for raising the question, I have been arguing that for a few months now on different pages, all related to reliability engineering. The field is fairly new and even though I have adapted most of these new papers professionally and have proven their legitimacy, their low number of citations due to the lack of academics in the field caused my edits to be deleted. In that particular case on Talk:Gini_coefficient, the use of the Gini Index was published in two books by highly reputable publishers of scientific literature with peer-review editorial boards, but was described as very very low impact by another user. As a matter of fact, the new use of the Gini index that I added extended the concept of the Gini coefficient from economics to reliability theory and proposed a Gini–type coefficient that helps to assess the degree of aging of non−repairable systems or aging and rejuvenation of repairable systems. As a reliability professional, I adapted this concept in converting the system aging to an index number based on the paper I read. As I mentioned, reliability engineering is fairly new field and not too much present on Wikipedia. Sarouk7 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's a new and relatively small field, that would explain the lack of citations. But it also might be an indicator that developments within that field are not notable enough for inclusion here, and in extreme cases, might be a case for arguing that there's some pseudoscience going on (there's usually at least a little pseudoscience going on in new fields, but it usually gets worked out quickly). My advice to you would be to point to this thread and explain that the lack of citations alone is not a compelling argument, and ask for any other reasons to exclude this material.
 * You may ping me at the discussion if you like, but be warned: I'm known for frequently changing my mind as I learn more details. I'll most likely show up, but whether I'll be on your side or not depends entirely on the quality of the arguments at that thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your support, and I think it's fair for you to change your mind on the subject after the discussion develops. --Sarouk7 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, because there are many reasons why a paper might be frequently cited. Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes and Milton Friedman are frequently cited because of their contributions to economics, but per WP:AGEMATTERS, their works are probably less accurate than an economics textbook published this year. But the textbook will probably receive few cites. TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you find a secondary source about this method? I think one the main—if not explicit—reason for this content dispute is that you are using the paper by Kaminsky and Krivtsov as a source for the method it describes, i.e. as a primary source . Primary sources are not banned, but they should be used with care, and sometimes the inability to find a secondary source can indicate that the conclusions or methods of the paper are not notable enough to be included in a encyclopedic article. JBchrch   talk  13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:RSP effectively a list of banned sources?
I know that RT is a deprecated source, generally I wouldn't consider using it, however it is a reliable source on what it publishes. Given that Eva Bartlett, the subject of this BLP, writes commentary pieces for RT, then I dunno, I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there? Apparently not,. I note especially in the rush to remove it both editors have managed to butcher the text leaving wiki syntax exposed.

My question, are we to remove anything sourced to RT no matter what the reason? WCM email 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Any source that isn't blacklisted could be used for content here, depending on the claim it was used to support. You could definitely use an RT article as a source for the statement that RT published that article. The reason you don't seen these sorts of uses all over the project is because of WP:DUE. If RT publishes an article saying X, and there's no better source covering the fact that RT said X, then it's probably not worth us mentioning that RT said X. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that in this instance the text was already supported by two other sources and that the link was more like an external link to an archive of the column itself (deemed unnecessary there). But, consider an opinion post in RT by a notable person, as MPants said it would depend on if it's WP:DUE and could also be attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTE) instead of stated in Wikipedia's voice.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I recall one editor, I forgot his name, seemed to spend his editing time going around removing deprecated sources. I don't think they should be removed automatically and if there is no remaining cite, then a cn tag should be placed, possibly even an effort to find an alternative being made by a removing editor. A lot of rt cites were made before it was decided that they were to be deprecated.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia", is what I think you meant to write there. --Calton &#124; Talk 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After a bit of searching, Discussed here and here. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Calton would seem to be right, you appear to be demeaning productive and valuable work which improves the encyclopedia in a number of both short term and long term ways. I get that you personally would do it differently, but that doesn’t mean that the other editors are wrong per say. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mention anyone by name initially and my comments were directed at indiscriminate removal by any editor as per the links I just gave.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, thats why I said work and not editor or editors in that first sentence. If they are only removing deprecated sources in situations in which their removal is valid (outside about self and other minor exceptions) then it isn’t indiscriminate removal, perhaps you mean something less hyperbolic? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate removal is what I am against and to repeat, it is explained what that is in the links I provided and as was noted by another editor, it seems we sometimes don't follow our own policies.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not seeing a policy based consensus that resembles what you’re saying in any of these links. In the discussion at hand here WP:BLP would appear to be the most immediate policy and it does not allow for any discrimination at all... It must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” (emphasis in original) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My initial response, which I had not really expected to be controversial, was directed at the general question posed not the specific case. As for policies contradicting each other, I don't what the rules are there, the solution would seem to be to amend the policies in clarification if necessary. I haven't looked at it, but if the facts of the specific case warrant removal, then it is not what I would call "indiscriminate".Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining it, looking back through the discussion I think the problem lies with the OP making a complete hash of the opening/naming of the discussion... We’re answering completely different questions. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was discussed here too: . This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be common sense that it could be referenced if only for what she'd said there?  Strange, that's not the rationale you gave in your revert: rv you need to look at how sources are used, rather than blindly remove them, in this case used to illustrate RT false reporting. How, exactly does this link do this? --Calton &#124; Talk 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is effectively a list of banned sources. If it's in red (generally unreliable), you need to think of a good reason for using it. If it's in dark red (deprecated), usage is effectively WP:IAR, and you'll need a very good reason to use it, or it'll be removed. The list of very good reasons is very small, and I can't think of any off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess rt should be considered reliable for what they say about themselves at least, aboutself.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecation is a sensible idea, but some thought needs to go into the removal. I listed the issues with this mass removal approach comprehensively at the ANI. The indiscriminate removal of sources, not addressing the content it apparently supports (ie by removal or replacement), objectively provides no improvement for the encyclopaedia. But regarding the issue of reliability for what it said, some editors just blanket oppose any kind of link to crappy sources. I highly doubt you'll find any consensus for any inclusion of RT even if reliable in context, and I doubt it's even possible to hold a discussion on how deprecated sources are best dealt with (see that ANI for reason why). The topic has become too politicised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We used to joke about cabals on wikipedia but sadly no longer. It's got to the point you can't have a sensible conversation about this. WCM email 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For BLP there really isn’t an about self exception to deprecation, our standards are higher in that space. In a BLP a deprecated source and anything solely sourced to it must be removed on sight, we have no wiggle room on that one unlike outside the BLP space. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's true. Why would it be okay under WP:ABOUTSELF to use a self-published, spur-of-the-moment social media post by Paul Politician to say "Paul Politician posted this", but it wouldn't be okay to use a planned, printed-on-paper opinion piece published in The Daily Mail to say "Paul Politician wrote this"?  That's not logical at all.  Remember, ABOUTSELF's first words are "Self-published and questionable sources may be used" – not "Self-published sources may be used, but questionable ones can't be". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecated =/= questionable, those are two different levels of unreliable. For our purposes publisher matters, note that in your example there are two different publishers (the politician and the Daily Mail) so it is entirely logical for them to be treated differently. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the same author writing the same thing, so it's entirely logical for it to be treated the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Same author, different publishers (one deprecated, one not). I will also note that your logic appears to be whatever is currently convenient for your position. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The disputable item that the OP linked to is a cite of rt.com used for the name of an rt.com section. Alalch Emis on July 19 inserted it. David Gerard on July 28 removed it "... per WP:RSP". Wee Curry Monster on July 28 reverted David Gerard. Calton on July 28 reverted Wee Curry Monster. My opinion is that, since WP:RSP is an essay-class page with "summaries" that can be unreliable and be based on formulaic context-less RfCs attended by a few people, its use to override real policies and guidelines would be illegitimate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Much ado about nothing. The statement was sourced to two other sources, so there was no need to keep a deprecated source. JBchrch   talk  18:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

oh, it's the DM fans again.

In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate", and often treat their favoured deprecated source as somehow worthy of greater consideration than merely bad sources that anyone would remove on sight. They will go to tremendous lengths to find excuses why bad sources are good, actually.

The appropriate policy is WP:V, which explicitly refers to the strong guideline WP:RS as the way to proceed.

WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.

WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Reliable sources.

Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. RT is a deprecated source. This means it has been found, by broad general consensus, to be all but unusable on Wikipedia.

The deprecation RFC for RT says: There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.

The referenced 2017 deprecation RFC for the Daily Mail says that it is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

(Note that a lot of the arguments above are the same arguments that Daily Mail and Sun partisans use, including Daily Mail partisans who are still unwilling to accept two broad general RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail.)

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

As such, removing links to RT is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

The particular usage in question was an WP:UNDUE fact about RT. It was eminently removable and there was no reason to think it was something that justified using a deprecated source.

If you want material from deprecated sources, then the onus is surely, by policy, 100% on you to find an RS to keep the material in. If you think I have this wrong, please explain why I have the policy above incorrect.

I would also like to hear from the people who don't want me to remove their favourite deprecated sources, detailing what they're doing about our massive backlog of deprecated sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I wholly endorse this comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 😂‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‏‏ ‎I actually saw that coming! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and it's a cut'n'paste response, but then it is in response to cut'n'paste arguments - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Doesn't change a thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. If the only "source" to mention something is absolute dreck, then it is almost always correct to remove that thing from the article, on the grounds that no one trustworthy has cared about it. If a deprecated source is redundant with reliable ones, then it contributes nothing, and the pointer to the deprecated source should be removed to keep Wikipedia tidy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have previously opposed some cases plain removal of some deprecated sources for uncontroversial material (mostly comparable to WP:ABOUTSELF), but didn't oppose flagging or replacement. For uncontroversial I mean, for example, referencing the exact date of a public diplomatic event. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that started a discussion of an editor without notifying them in any way. Best not have that become a habit - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the one thing we might agree about, and that's the reason I pinged you, as well as the editor whom you reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. The specific claim that was sourced was exclusively this: The "Op-ed" section used to be called "Op-edge". The source for this claim is an Internet Archive page (only the archive page) of the RT's website, as it appeared some time ago, when the section was styled "Op-edge". This absolutely verifies the claim. Internet Archive is an amazing source for what was on the internet. This was part of an edit that changed her work from "writes op-eds" (someone made a cardinal error when they figured out that the subject writes op-eds upon seeing that RT styled one of the sections on their website "Op-ed(ge)") to "writes commentary" (language actually used in a reliable source). Removing any mention of op-ed/"Op-ed(ge)" would have been fine as well, but retaining this term/name in some form, although contextualized, appeared to be a more conservative edit (technically a more gradual change). — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a Daily Mail fan, I've never bought the paper, it's not my preferred source and was completely irrelevant to mention it. Nor am I a fan of any "deprecated" sources. My preference is to ideally use academic sources. But your little diatribe does illustrate the issue, you start from the outset assuming bad faith, it's akin to a religious zealot denouncing heretics. In your mind, it's a black and white issue, you're right, everyone else is wrong and for some reason you seem to think this allows you to be gratuitously uncivil. But as a bonus I'm sure the DM appreciates the free publicity.

Except it simply isn't the case, there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite - for example the column of a writer who writes for RT. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and if anyone thought for a moment and applied a little common sense it would not be controversial. As one editor mentions above "This kind of removal actually doesn't make sense if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it, even if you believe the sources are the worst things to exist on the planet." I find it deeply sad that we're not able to have a reasonable conversation about this. You are welcome to have the WP:LASTWORD, I trust it will not detract too much from "Doing valuable and often thankless work to improve the encyclopedia".

I apologise for forgetting to ping you earlier, it's not something I would normally do and a simple omission on my part. You have a nice day now. WCM email 11:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Entirely second WM's comment here. David Gerrard's comment is simply gratuitous, based apparently on the idea that opponents of the DM ban must have loved it to the same extent that they (Gerrard) hated it, as though there could be no other motive for opposing blanket bans. I note that this intolerant attitude seems to have been the main cause of the recent exit of one of the ban's main advocates ("Kill it! Kill it with fire!"). FOARP (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If I add up the various times this issue has cropped up, I've spent a few hours of my life thinking about it (including reviewing pagefuls of DG's edits to see if I found any of them overzealous), and removal still makes sense to me. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or a CV host; we aren't here to tally every thing that a writer has written. If no reliable sources have taken note of someone's publishing in a deprecated source, then policy straightforwardly implies that we have nothing to say about it. If reliable sources have taken note, then we use them, and refrain from directing our readers to "references" in the worst publications in the industry. Is it a black-and-white issue? No ... but the gray side is really, really dark. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I wholeheartedly agree that "there are things published in deprecated sources that we might occasionally wish to cite” I wholeheartedly disagree that the "column of a writer who writes for RT” is one of those things... That clearly falls under WP:BLP and as such would require a high quality source which a deprecated source never is even in the situations its usable in. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another important thing I would point out is that when cleaning up depreciated or unreliable sources, the vast majority of removals are just replacing them with a higher-quality source or removing them as unnecessary because we are already citing better sources (which someone probably added because they recognized that the existing source was no good.) Those are just simple uncontroversial improvements; bad sources should be replaced by better ones whenever possible, and when we already have a strong source we shouldn't be citing a weak one, since it makes the article look bad. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources described Wikipedia's "deprecation" as a ban on a source. The only allowable use of deprecated sources is for "uncontroversial self-descriptions." That is the same for self published sources. But we cannot use articles attributed to third parties because we don't know if they were written by that person or if they are accurately published. If we allowed use of these articles, then we would be treating RT as a "generally unreliable" source. TFD (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As others have said, depreciation is technically not a ban because there are exceptions that allow sources to sometimes be used in limited contexts regardless of their reliability (eg. WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFPUB.) Opinion is a special case and is a bit more controversial because WP:RSOPINION is ambiguous on to what extent opinion sources are held to the WP:RS standar. But it does not free them from it entirely and no reasonable reading of it could reach that conclusion; in practice, depreciated (and in many case, even simply unreliable) sources can only be cited for opinion via the restrictions WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFPUB, the same way we would not cite someone's opinions from a blog without abiding by those restrictions; the lack of acceptable editorial control and fact-checking means that publication on an unreliable source adds nothing, so things "published" there should be treated the same as Reddit posts, Medium posts, or the like - ie. in extremely rare cases we might be able to do this, but the author must be an established expert in a relevant field whose output on that topic has also been published in actually reliable sources, and even then should be used extremely rarely and cautiously, and never, under any circumstances, for any statements about WP:BLPs, even when stated as opinion. There are almost always going to be WP:DUE concerns if no WP:RS has taken note of something someone has said as well - it is difficult to argue how an opinion that appears in no reliable sources at all could possibly be due.  The basic standard of "treat it like a blog" is useful shorthand for anything cited to an unreliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Zooming out to the more general question, what has been created is essentially a list of banned sources. The Perennial sources page, created simply to avoid repeated discussion of the same source, has now turned into a list of approved and disapproved sources. This is also the reason for the regular RFCs on this page to render judgement generally on which sources it is OK or not OK to use, without any reference for the circumstances it is being used in. This is just a bad development, harmful to the project. It has not even prevented repeated discussion, as the continuing re-opening of the DM ban on this page over the past two years has demonstrated. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean. To the extent that RSP is a list of "banned" sources (or at least sources banned outside of the narrow usages outlined above), unreliable sources have always been banned.  As WP:V says, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. The only difference is how quickly or aggressively we remove them.  RSP serves to formally settle whether and to what degree a source is generally reliable, but it does not change our basic policy on unreliable sources.  And WP:DAILYMAIL has decisively resolved confusion over whether the Daily Mail is reliable - all discussions since then have overwhelmingly backed that fact; the question has never again been successfully reopened, since the original outcome has been repeatedly reaffirmed (in fact, at a quick glance, it has received larger mandates each time, which shows that your feelings on the subject aren't widely-held.) As I'm sure you're aware, since you're one of the people who has most consistently rejected the outcome of those discussions, it's impossible to completely end discussion on a topic as long as there is anyone who objects, but since that RFC the Daily Mail has been handled consistently across the project in a manner that reflects our policies, which is the main goal of such RFCs.  And I think that, overall, the quality of our sourcing has dramatically improved since 2017 and since WP:RSP was created - you indicate that you personally feel that it has been "harmful to the project", but I'm not seeing how.  In the last few years the world has faced a deluge of misinformation that Wikipedia, overall, has handled admirably - and most mainstream coverage seems to agree.  See .  Some of these sources specifically mention our willingness to depreciate the Daily Mail as an example of how effective we are. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is harmful, it is being treated by some as a de facto ban in all but name, even the examples you give above are being removed citing WP:RSP as justification. Even if challenged the proponents are organised and will defeat any objection with mob rule (even when their edit and justification make no sense); I don't think it's healthy when their first recourse is to personally attack anyone they see as "crossing them" and tag team edit war their changes into articles.  It's become so politicised it's actually impossible to have a civil conversation with some editors. WCM email 11:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think made a point well in a different policy discussion that we should build a culture around building content and consensus and not necessarily rule-following. RSP is obviously a good thing, and the list is an asset to Wikipedia and the quality of its articles. The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule.I think as long as we keep doing this "DM fans" thing to halt any productive discussion, nothing will change on that front. I think the above parties should show a bit more restraint, but I recognise it's a very effective method of shutting down discussions that could change consensus away from ones preferred position, so I understand why the method is used I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What is your planned course of action, that doesn't violate the policy provisions I replied in detail with? You seem to be claiming some sort of false balance, not something based in anything substantive. What do you want to happen?
 * a very effective method of shutting down discussions This is what the Daily Mail deprecation RFC was for: stopping querulous nonsense where people kept trying to put forward this obviously terrible source. Much as, in the present discussion, an editor is trying to put RT into the wiki as a source. As such, you're saying that WP:DAILYMAIL worked as intended, to make a better Wikipedia.
 * I gave a detailed policy-based response to this issue above, and you're doing an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know DG, I don't have all the answers myself. But I do see a problem. From the ANI it's clear to me that some aspects of this 'deprecation removal' - perhaps not necessarily the specific issue preceding this RSN section - are wholly illogical and counter-productive to their stated purpose. I feel like you either don't understand that 'the deprecation of Daily Mail' (one of 40-ish deprecated sources) is a separate conversation to 'the nature of deprecation', or you're muddling them up. What I would like to see is a calm, productive discussion on the latter, as to how deprecation is best implemented to make a better Wikipedia. The implementation needs to be connected to the issue it's seeking to fix.
 * Some results of such an RFC should be to expand Reliable_sources with appropriate guidance to that effect. In addition, some thought needs to be given to how RFCs are conducted on this board. I'm not convinced, based on my experiences reviewing RSN discussions for closure, that the current system is ideal. Guidance needs to be added as to what RSN RfCs should be focused around (i.e. finding evidence of unreliability, what kinds of evidence one should look for [statements by other sources, independent regulators, how should each be weighed? I've seen inconsistent RSN discussions on those points for no apparent reason]). When should a source be deprecated, vs be marked as generally unreliable? What kinds of evidence should we seek for that determination?
 * Such a discussion cannot happen in this environment. It would quickly turn into a battleground. Part of the reason why, but not the only reason, is that you frame any discussion about deprecation into the "DM fans" relitigating a 2017 RfC. I'm sure such a group may well exist, but it hardly seems relevant to most of these discussions from my perspective. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to blame querulous attempts to relitigate deprecation on me saying "DM fans" comes across as performative rather than substantive, because you're still being vague as to the particular issues you claim to have with RSN RFCs - apparently deliberately, as you're tacking on excuses for being vague, rather than stating your claim. Instead, you're trying to make out that it's my fault for actually removing generally prohibited sources per the multiple RFCs that say that deprecated sources should be removed.
 * I suggest you put together something stating the problem clearly and convincingly, with examples that would convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, and stating actionably what you want to happen next.
 * Note that, as I link below, we've already had one RFC endorsing the concept of RFCs on general reliability. So you'll need to come up with something that addresses everything in that sufficiently convincingly - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I listed several specific issues at the ANI.
 * These are issues because, for example, if you have a sentence sourced to Daily Mail, which we say is very problematic, and you just replaced a cite that sticks out in red for those with the userscript with, you've just moved it into a tracking cat of 1 million pages making it even harder to correct and likely never to be reviewed again. Secondly, if someone does want to review it, being able to read the DM source might help them research other sources that could verify, but since you've purged the link that effort is made difficult.
 * As for my issues with RSN discussions, I listed some general ones above. A particular example is this. I don't read that source but I presume it publishes dozens of articles per day, incl on other topics (a skim of their site shows sports coverage). We're calling for it to be banned, and all existing usages to be purged, based on one story? There needs to be real criteria on when deprecation is appropriate and the specific remedies that should be employed to fix the identified problem.
 * As for whether discussions can happen, see this failed attempt at having a discussion, with several valid concerns raised there. The inability to stay focused (not just from you, I recognise) obviously led to it drying out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only issue is with the (at times) senseless enforcement of it, used to prohibit text or sourcing that would never be controversial in the slightest if people thought about the content in context and not just about applying an abstract rule. I'm not seeing this, in general.  The vast majority of removals of depreciated or unreliable sources fall into one of two categories - either there was already another source citing the text in question, or they get replaced with a higher-quality source.  Both of these are net improvements to the project; yes, it is true that the text is often less controversial - the low-hanging fruit is the easiest place to improve our sourcing - but in general we should work to improve the quality of our sourcing, which makes the encyclopedia look better and encourages new editors to use strong sourcing based on the quality of sources they see when they arrive. Additionally, such improvements make it easier to skim through sourcing and find the more serious situations (where unreliable or even depreciated sources are used to cite WP:EXCEPTIONAL or BLP-sensitive things.) I do not understand how anyone could reasonably object to such improvements - by my reading they are an straightforward implementations of both the relevant WP:RSN discussions and WP:RS / WP:V itself.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * de facto ban in all but name Or, as WP:DAILYMAIL put it: generally prohibited. You're protesting that a general prohibition, by widespread community consensus, and ratified in a second RFC, is treated as a general prohibition, with an extremely few exceptions. That's because the words generally prohibited mean it's a general prohibition. That is: you're using a lot of words and cries of unreasonability to try to do an end run around two broad general RFCs, an RFC endorsing the concept of RFCs on source reliability, and multiple deprecation RFCs since.
 * I don't expect you to stop, but I also don't see why your repeated attempts to go against broad general consensus should be treated seriously. If you think you could swing countervailing RFCs, by all means do so. At this point, you're just being querulous - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to stop, but I also don't see why your repeated attempts to go against broad general consensus should be treated seriously. If you think you could swing countervailing RFCs, by all means do so. At this point, you're just being querulous - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * generally prohibited means "generally prohibited" - it shouldn't be a hard concept - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, again you're simply being rude and obnoxious in order to avoid discussion. I have not made repeated attempts to go against consensus and such meaningless hyperbole is unhelpful at this juncture.  I am talking about the very few exceptions where it is appropriate.  The point being, you insist on removing even those.  As to "querulous" again you demonstrate a presumption of bad faith.  As I said it's nigh on impossible to have a reasonable conversation in such an atmosphere.  WCM email 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What you're talking about, then, is an editorial disagreement - and this entire section of RSN is a coatrack on an edit you wanted in a given article, and which multiple editors have already disagreed with you on, which suggests I was correct to remove it.
 * These are deprecated sources. A situation where they have almost no usage in Wikipedia is the expected outcome for sources which are generally prohibited. You are lashing out at being editorially disagreed with and claiming that disagreeing with you editorially is somehow malfeasance - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually several editors agreed with me that your removal defied common sense but I guess that confirmation bias and your general habit of finding reasons to ignore opinions you dislike allowed you to skip over that. I am not the one lashing out here, I haven't referred to you in a derogatory manner and lord knows given the attitude you've displayed it would have been understandable.  Once again you resort to ridiculous hyperbole, I have claimed nothing of the sort; the comment I made was that it should be possible to have a reasonable and courteous discussion between editors but your confrontational attitude makes that impossible.  As usual the WP:LASTWORD is yours, enjoy. WCM email 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oxford Dictionary entry for "generally": "1. in most cases; usually." "2. In general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions." "3. By or to most people; widely." So an RfC which says "generally prohibited" is not prohibiting everything, as the closers of the DM RfC made clear by saying that opinions are not banned. The policy-based argument is that WP:V policy says use reliable sources, but the determination of reliable sources can be via WP:RS guideline which points to context, determination via WP:RSP non-policy non-guideline is not policy-based argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * RSP was never intended to be a list of “approved” and “banned” sources, but I do think that is what it has evolved into. Evolution happens with any policy… subsequent interpretations often take the policy beyond original intent. At that point, question becomes: do we accept the evolution (and adjust the policy page to account for it), or do we reject the evolution and try to walk it back (clarifying the policy to make original intent clearer)? Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything needs to be done. It's a list of perennial sources, meaning sources which are frequently brought up here. As a result of their frequent discussion, we have solid consensuses on how to treat them, ranging from "this source is almost always reliable" to "this source is almost always unreliable". WP:RSP is thus a record of past discussions and their outcomes.
 * Is if effectively a list of banned sources? Well, no, not really. It includes many reliable sources, such as ABC News and Ars Technica. And even those sources in red aren't banned, but deprecated. They can still be used for attributed claims, and in some unusual contexts.
 * I certainly don't want to have a policy that states we can never cite Breitbart, for example, because they publish conspiracy theories and I may need to cite them to write in one of our articles that Breitbart published support for such-and-such a conspiracy theory. And I worry about scope creep, too. The last thing I want is to see generally reliable sources get banned because we aren't familiar with them, or we don't like their strident anti-Wikipedia bias, for example.
 * On the flip side, I don't want to see this list removed, either. It's made my editing much easier when I can scan WP:RSP for a suspect source and get a clear answer on its general reliability. Removing it would only make editing more difficult, and would embolden POV pushers who want to cite many deprecated sources to support their views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

International Journal of Molecular Sciences
Is the International Journal of Molecular Sciences generally a WP:RS for articles related to physical chemistry and adjacent disciplines, including WP:MEDRS when it intersects, with the normal and customary WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:MEDSCI caveats ? This a first quartile (5.923 impact factor), Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed journal. It is published by MDPI which was briefly listed on Beal's list of predatory publishers in 2015 but removed shortly thereafter after further investigation. (Note, the journal was never listed, only MDPI.) It has sometimes been favored by researchers with non-Anglophonic names which, unfortunately, I believe may be the genesis of questions about its reliability despite all evidence pointing this being RS. Chetsford (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC); edited 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of its papers, for what sort of claims, in what sort of articles? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've edited the question for clarity. Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear, in answer to my question, you have no specific citation in mind, no particular edit or content, and no identifiable Wikipedia article in mind when you posed your query? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * MDPI's troubles as a publisher have persisted well after 2015; having an impact factor and being indexed in Scopus generally suggest that a journal is wiki-notable, but they don't imply that it is reliable. And given the well-documented issues with impact factors, I don't see why having one in the "first quartile" of any population is particularly meaningful for our purposes. Without more details about the topic and the claim in question, it's hard to say more. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain six questionable articles for a publishing house that had published more than 50,000 articles in the last 10 years qualifies as something that could be characterized as "troubles". If that's our criterion we could easily eliminate Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and a host of others. Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I could name more articles than are listed there, some going well beyond "questionable" into crackpot. But what matters is not the total number or a ratio, it's how those articles call into question the process itself. It's reached the point where I wonder if Entropy, for example, has meaningful peer review at all. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering previous RSN discussions where MDPI was mentioned there seems to be no consensus that it would be reliable, — Paleo Neonate  – 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our consensus on MDPI at WP:CITEWATCH is to "evaluate on a case by case basis" which, as I read it, specifically directs us not to dump every journal into a pile on the basis of it having a common publisher and move on, but to spend time critically evaluating aspects of reliability of each individual journal. CITEWATCH specifically suggests several criteria to evaluate the quality of journals, all of which this seems to meet (a) indexed in a reputable bibliographic database (Scopus), (b) established 2000 or prior, (c) not included in Beal's blacklist. Combined with frequent citing of its articles in unambiguously reliable journals (a couple examples from a single IJMS article I chose at random: Cardiology, Neurology, Nutrition,  etc.), I'm having a hard time identifying if we have a rational, objective reason to determine this is unreliable, or if it really is just "it's MDPI"? Chetsford (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your point, but I'm wary of talk about "objective reasons" when the "objectivity" in question boils down to "this page with a capitalized redirect says so". Setting a cutoff at the year 2000, for example, was a judgment call; relying on that choice of year is relying on somebody else's subjective judgment. Maybe it was a well-informed one, but even so. Handing the decision off to someone else doesn't make the subjective into the objective, it just defers the responsibility. After all, "It's published by MDPI" is an objective fact, and one with a lot less ambiguity than other data (calculating an h-index, for example, depends upon the citation corpus, and what criteria the database builders use for including a text; Google's numbers will differ from Scopus's, because Google scrapes everything). I take the "evaluate on a case by case basis" advice to refer to evaluating each citation, not each journal, since the factors on which we might judge reliability can vary across articles within the same journal. So, without more specifics as to where and how IJMS is to be used, I don't think a call can be made. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty reliable. Abstracted/indexed by Scopus, NCBI, etc. High impact factor, high h-index (a higher h-index for the last five years than the Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine). A strong editorial board and a strong peer review process. No evidence of predatory behavior. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for a statement an IP has been adding at Economics in One Lesson
The book is by Henry Hazlitt and the statement is "However, in 1959 Hazlitt published The Failure of the New Economics, a detailed, chapter-by-chapter critique of John Maynard Keynes' arguments." The IP has now added two sources:

My issue is in part that we shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice (let alone the "However"). But the sources don't look reliable, being the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education. The reception section is basically sourced by using quotes from the Mises Institute or its supporters, with one mixed review from a blog by J. Bradford DeLong. Nothing from JSTOR. Four of the reviews in fact link to the Mises Institute which is flagged by the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable as a "generally unreliable source". See this discussion last October.. Note that two of the editors there, Flickotown and Festerhauer, were socks of the same editor, see Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive. I'm not surprised, my experience is that these articles seem to be part of a walled garden (in part because there aren't many people who aren't fans of this brand of economics interested in them).

Given the state of the article, from the lead on down, once the sources issue is decided I may go to NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Mises and FEE are stupendously biased to the point of crank territory (or "heterodox", as they put it in economics). I would say, delete the claim and those terrible sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yea, these overly ideological sources aren't generally great and shouldn't be used without attribution. But someone like Chamberlain should be reliable enough to give an accurate summary of a book. You could instead use this New York Times article, |New|the|of%20Economics|of|The%20Failure%20of%20the|The%20new|the%20new|failure|of%20the%20New|new%20economics|new|of%20the|of%20the%20new|The&termtype=phrase&set_as_cursor= The Labour Law Journal, this Reuters article, or this very brief summary from Foreign Affairs. Here are some additional sources you could use for the reception section for Economics in One Lesson:, , , , , , Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't really source unreliability: regardless of the axes ground by the Mies Institute, I would trust them to the extent of getting Hazitt's publication history correct. Balance is another story. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hall, Ian; Bristol University Press

 * Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019


 * Preview available on Google books


 * Would you consider it reliable source?

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge&#39; (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends. What is it being cited for? Do other sources contradict it? Context matters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bookku, an editor whose record on Wikipedia seems to be about showing how poor the status of women is in Pakistan, is attempting to show somewhat startlingly that the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi did not abandon his wife as has been widely reported in the international press, that Modi had a "child marriage," forced upon him by his family, and he thus stands absolved of abandonment or desertion. Bookku, in my view, is attempting to rope in Ian Hall in support of his quest. The RFC which Bookku has requested in this matter on Talk:Narendra Modi seems to be going near-unanimously against him. I suspect he is looking to use this paragraph from Hall (p. 64)"Soon after, other points of contention emerged. When Modi was about six, his father had made a preliminary arrangement for his marriage, as was customary at that time and in that community (Verma, 2014, pp. 9-10). By the time he was 13, however, he seems to have begun to protest against the idea of marrying (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, pp. 65-6; Marino, 2014, p. 21). Nevertheless, a ceremony was conducted at some point with Jashodaben, his intended spouse, either when Modi was 13 or 16 (his biographers disagree on the details) (Verma, 2014, p. 10). Another was performed to seal the marriage when Modi was about 17, at which point the couple were meant to live together, with his wife joining his parents’ household. This situation did not last long. Within weeks, he broke with both his spouse and his family. He left home and thereafter did not return, except very briefly, to either his wife or his parents.'"  In my understanding, Bookku would like to use this paragraph to reason that because Modi was "about 17," the marriage was a "child marriage," a term with much resonance in India, and many tragic tales of young Indian women being abused.  India did have a "Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929," which after one amendment in 1949 (after India's independence from Britain) stated that a (heterosexual) marriage was not recognized (and hence a child marriage) if the bride (woman/girl) was below the age of 15 or the groom (male) below the age of 18.  Jashodaben Modi, Mr Modi's wife was definitely above the age of 15.  Mr Modi's age on the day of marriage is murky.  In the RFC, ten editors have voted to support, "Mr Modi was 18 and his wife was 17" or words to that effect and in effect have voted against mentioning "child marriage."  The Child Marriage Restraint Act, however, always had the girl in mind, not the boy.  Its main concern was pre-puberty girls, often between the ages of 9 and 14, who had been abused in the institution of marriage in Hindu India for centuries. Bookku in my view is engaged in a rear-guard action in the last week of the RFC (which began on July 10 and which is) slated to close next week. Why he is taking a patriarchal stance in the instance of India, given his record of ostensible feminism in Pakistan-related articles, is a bit of a mystery.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that I'm not familiar with Ian Hall's work, but I expect that he is a good academic. His book is about foreign policy.  His paragraph should be seen as art, not science, in other words, reliable on foreign policy, less reliable on the murky travails of Mr Modi's marriage; Hall has attempted to write a semi-coherent narrative there, given the all too few published books discussing the marriage.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If a source states that someone was 'about 17' when something happened, one would generally assume that they are being non-specific for good reasons - almost certainly because they don't have the evidence to be more definitive. So regardless of whether Hall is 'reliable' on this particular matter (he would seem to be for the actual topic of his book) he can't be cited for anything more specific about Modi's age. As for what the article should say on the matter, without looking into it in further detail I'd do better not to offer any opinion beyond pointing out that policy suggests that if reliable sources differ on something they consider to be of significance, Wikipedia should generally say so, rather than trying to decide who is right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for digression, those users who feel that there is more scope of feminist encyclopedic discussion on South Asia are most welcome to expand Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia, in present status of draft I have taken note of criticism of Hindu Indian traditions   but then others may ask why you target south Asia only, I have worked on women's rights on global level articles too like My body, my choice and users are most welcome to constructively expand those articles rather than passing condescending judgements. ( I have paid some attention on Muslim women's feminism since few among them are active and writing on Wikipedia.) I have worked on conservative muslims side articles too like Islamic advice literature. I did not start insinuation or digression from my side so I do not expect any rebuttals here, join in improving women's rights articles across rather that will be more fruitful. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge&#39; (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You'd probably have got less digression if you'd included an explanation of what the source was being cited for in your first post, as requested at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Boston Phoenix
I recently reverted an edit to the Dale Bozzio article concerning an animal welfare conviction, noting that there had been a consensus on the Talk page several years previously not to include it in the article. Part of the reason for this decision was the alleged unreliability of the Boston Phoenix, a local arts and entertainment paper. Is there any particular reason this source should be considered unreliable? Do they have a record for publishing false information or getting sued? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that issue was squarely confronted; the issue was more whether the conviction was a noteworthy event in that person's life. you were involved in that discussion but it's been a while, do you still consider it good law? Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mackensen, it's a BLP issue still. A (now-retired) user, User:Doc2234, gave some pretty convincing arguments for why that paper (or at least that article) was questionable, but the bigger problem is this: a. apparently she was convicted on only one charge and served less than 30 days ("fewer"?), b. the thing is kind of like a magnet and has had a tendency for BLP-violating accretion, and c. if the Boston Phoenix is the only decent source for this, then what reason do we have to include this information? Drmies (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "Simon" was groovy, as is anything connected with Prince, and so is anything connected with Zappa... I'm inclined to like the woman. But isn't her animal welfare conviction sufficiently documented? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I confess that I spend less time with BLPs than others, but I'm unsure I buy the argument that we should exclude someone's criminal conviction from their biography because it's immaterial to their career as a musician. We certainly don't take that line with sportspeople, or actors, or even other musicians for that matter. A person's life is what it is, and we see them in the round. The repeated argument on the talk people that the publications could be sued for libel seems specious, at best, and makes me disinclined to take the user's other arguments seriously. This feels much like special pleading in this case and I'm at a loss to understand why. When we write about coaches and football players we include DUIs and speeding tickets, and we're arguing here about an animal welfare conviction? Either our standards need to come up or come down.
 * Anyway, main idea. The Boston Phoenix was an alt-weekly that apparently won some awards and like many alt-weeklies went under in the last decade. It is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, apparently without incident or comment. I see no real foundation for the attempts to undermine its credibility during this particular discussion; no one has disputed that they got the facts right. I would note that they are not the sole source for this story either. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One could certainly argue that her brief prison sentence was unfair; it's not like she was a threat to the public or anything, despite her previous conviction for (gasp) marijuana posession. But it seems strange to omit a notable person's imprisonment from their biography. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not strange at all to think a 90-day stint in a county lockup on a matter that has no connection whatsoever to a person's career or notability, with a ony single source paying any attention to it, would be omitted. --Calton &#124; Talk 16:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , though, to be clear, more than one source reported it, so that doesn't seem germane here, and that would seem to enhance the Phoenix credibility if anything. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that the Boston Phoenix is RS. However, if someone wants a source from a more established newspaper, wikimail me and I'll reply with an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader.  John M Baker (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well right, and could you just cut out the middleman and add it? For a negative, contentious fact in a BLP you'd want either an AAA-level source (which neither the Union Leader nor the Phoenxix are, as they're both biased and both probably have mediocre fact-checking), or two sources.
 * Well right, and could you just cut out the middleman and add it? For a negative, contentious fact in a BLP you'd want either an AAA-level source (which neither the Union Leader nor the Phoenxix are, as they're both biased and both probably have mediocre fact-checking), or two sources.


 * As to the BLP issue, that's for the BLP board, but in a nutshell what I like to consider is these things:
 * So, first of all, the Wikipedia is really big, and an obscure private person (like Dale Bozzio) is really little. We can say whatever we want about her, especially if it's probably true, and there's really nothing she can do easily do about it, is there. (Sucks to be her, but she could have chosen to be an accountant and not a singer and she wouldn't have come into our crosshairs, so that's on her.) Second of all, for most not-very-famous people, their Wikipedia article is their main public face. For Bozzio, as is not uncommon, our article is her first google result. And other sites copy from or look to us. Third of all, while the Wikipedia may not last long (or may), the database -- the articles -- may we be around in one form or another for a long time, and be passed on further. So it's not just "we create her public face" but "we create her public face -- forever".
 * And then, I say to myself, "with great power comes great responsibility". And I remind myself that I'm just as aswim in the moral world here at my keyboard as when I trip an old lady or give a dollar to a crippled orphan. I remind myself that "punching down" is a real phrase because it describes a real phenomenon, and that I'm not here to make people sad, hurt their feelings, hurt their reputation, if I can reasonably avoid it.
 * So then, I ask myself, is there any possible way to justify not writing bad things about this person, without being unfair to the reader or doing egregious violence to the project's mission. If the bad thing is central to understanding the entity and what they have accomplished (or suffered) such that they're worthwhile learning about, then it becomes a difficult decision to weigh. If a reader would justifiably feel betrayed that we gave her a false understanding of the entity by withholding the data, then it becomes a difficult question to weigh. If it's not, the answer is easy! I like questions with easy answers!Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't feel comfortable jumping into this BLP issue (especially since I edit under my real name), so I'm not going to edit the article myself. However, if someone else wants sources, I can provide them.  The Union Leader article is a good one and gives a fairly balanced view, but there are additional sources available, including the Associated Press, so this definitely is not an RS issue.  John M Baker (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't make her "obscure". She is well known to pop and rock music fans; I'm pretty sure Lady Gaga has heard of her. The suspicion is that if properly sourced negative information about a person is not included, the article is being whitewashed. I don't agree that there should be a presumption in favour of excluding such information. Problem is, when people tried to introduce the information, the quality of the sources was questioned, spuriously in my opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. Whatever it takes. I'm more concerned about the moral issue than worrying about being spurious on a website, see WP:IAR and WP:1Q. She's obscure. Maddonna or Beyonce I don't worry too much about because they are big enough to not be hurt by anything we say. This gal, not so much. it's not that I haven't heard of her, it's that google hasn't, much.


 * And of course we want to whitewash articles about obscure persons. Holy shit why would we not. We are not the Tattler. Altho not everyone thinks that, apparently. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well that's weird. How famous does someone have to be before negative information may be included? Are there some objective criteria for this? Given that she has a fairly substantial article and quite a bit of discography, she can't be that obscure. If they're notable enough to have a wikipedia article, they're notable enough to have a prison sentence noted. And citing IAR is never helpful in discussions, it's basically a catch-all excuse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... from deciding these things, if that's all that's available, will have to do. IAR is a key pillar of this project, one of the Five Pillars, and if you don't like tough luck. We are not rulebound and we are not the DMV or anything like that. And of course it's subjective. Most things in life are... How expensive a shirt you want, whether you want to hang out with Tim, if you would rather have Thai or Mexican tonite, if you want to keep watching the game if the Sox are down 7-1... etc etc etc etc. This is life. Do you think there are rules written down for all this? Is not editing the Wikipedia part of life? Do you image that you remove yourself from the moral universe when you sit down to type? You don't. You never can, not ever for one moment.


 * We hopefully have the sense that God gave sheep and can use our wits to figure these things out. If I write bad stuff about Kim Jong Un or Barack Obama or Mick Jagger, that's not a huge deal, because they won't care and why should they. They have a public face way too big for use to do much damage. This person, not so much. Yes like most everything in this world it is subjective. My subjective opinion is that she's small enough compared to use that it's punching down to be on her case about a one-time thing that's not central to what we want to present to the reader.


 * My take is, given the choice between fucking people over and not, I choose the latter. Other people might feel differently, but I will hinder them if I may. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * in the face of the existence of people like you, Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think the WP:BLP policy is wrong there are places to effect that change. This isn't one of them. Do you have any views on the reliability of the Boston Phoenix? You've opined on the reliability of its fact-checking but I missed where you gave evidence of that assertion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. That is uncalled for, especially since MaxBrowne2 actually removed the material in question from the article (in keeping with the previous RFC) and only then came here to ask for additional opinions. I think that as far as this goes, given that there's plentiful secondary coverage among reliable sources (which should be added to the article if we do include this, since we shouldn't rely on just one source), the hard requirements of WP:BLP and WP:RS are clearly satisfied, but that that doesn't necessarily mandate inclusion - there's a huge gap between stuff that we can include and stuff that we must include. In this case it has a reasonable amount of coverage but is not central to the subject's notability, so I think it's basically just an editorial call on our part based on complex stuff like how much is in the article overall and therefore how WP:DUE this would be relative to the biography as a whole... as well as to what extent the article subject is a public figure.  But those are more questions for WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN than here; WP:RS, at least, is satisfied. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Fame/popularity" is not really a policy based argument. High/low-profile-ness is, and that subject seems to be high profile as per WP:LPI. WP:BLPPUBLIC says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. There are multiple third-party reliable sources, (...). At a skim it seems no editor actually disputes that the event occurred, and AP is a HQRS, so BLP/RS objections seem a bit iffy. High profile individuals aren't eligible for the exclusionary protection of WP:BLPCRIME either, not that it'd be particularly relevant since there's a conviction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would add as a consideration (I don't know for sure) is if this something closer to just celebrity gossip rather than a "serious" conviction. We routinely do not post "everyday infractions" like speeding tickets, drunk driving, etc. unless that is a serious pattern for a public figure that merits enduring coverage in sources. It is hard (but not impossible) to find RSes about this conviction but there seems to be little more than news that she received and served the punishment for it, and it hasnt been brought up since 2009 that I can easily see. This question is far more subjective whether inclusion is merited, but we can state that it is not an RS issue that prevents inclusion since some quality RS sourcing exists. --M asem (t) 00:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, drunk driving is often covered in articles (eg Tiger Woods, Justin Bieber, Michelle Rodriguez). But in any case I don't think animal-cruelty conviction ... Bozzio was originally hit with 13 animal-cruelty charges, which stemmed from her failed attempt to "save" feral and sick cats from the New Hampshire woods. Two cats were found dead and 12 were put down following an indeterminable period of neglect falls into the category of everyday infractions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm saying its not a clear cut line. To take Bieber, he is well known to have a long list of confrontations with the law while younger, so it can been seen to make sense to talk about them that way. Here, there are sufficiently reliable sources to include it, and the baseline of PUBLICFIGURE is met, but its one singular case that seems isolated. I'm not saying it can't but there's reasonable arguments that could be made in a consensus discussion to omit. Just that saying we can't include because there aren't good RSes is not correct. --M asem (t) 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Phoenix (Boston/Providence/Portland -- they were very similar and shared a lot of material) is/was, as mentioned above, a pretty reliable alternative weekly paper. I'd put it about on par with the Village Voice? Editorial oversight, a mix of arts/entertainment, news, investigation, and opinion. As for whether it merits inclusion in the article, that's not really for this noticeboard. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Adult industry sources
Are the following two sources generally reliable for news reporting and WP:RSOPINION statements in their area of expertise (the adult industry)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual-type information on this particular topic
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual-type reporting on this particular topic
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on this particular topic, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

AVN (magazine)

 * Option 1 As far as I'm aware, here hasn't been any particular controversy in regarding to AVN magazine and its journalism. It is a the prime source for the subject area and so seems one of the most appropriate sources to use. Silver  seren C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1, I think: as we quote in our article on the magazine, The New York Times called it "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records" in 2000. We currently consider its awards significant on bios. It seems of comparable quality to a trade publication in any other subject area. If we reject AVN, I'm not sure what better sources there are on the sex industry. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - Additional consideration in that AVN does publish press releases as is, but does mark them as such. (Compare the labeled articles in this AVN search) Those press releases can not be relied on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for non-sponsored content and non-press release content as per . Otherwise needs an Option 2 disclaimer. I would say this is analogous to the sponsored content produced in many other news venues like The New York Times, The Economist, Wired, and others. We should not trust such content as RS, but for the rest, I think it's probably okay.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for any content that is not a copy of the press release. Reprints of press releases are only reliable for the press releaser stating something.--Hippeus (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for any non-sponsored content, which (per Morbidthoughts) can be distinguished from their own content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It can be relied on for reliability free from controversy. Sea Ane (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

XBIZ

 * Option 1 Being responsible for one of the main award competitions for the adult industry and not seeing any issues reported elsewhere regarding their journalistic side, I see no reason why they aren't a top level source for this specific subject matter. They aren't schlock celebrity news or anything like that. Silver  seren C 21:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1, I think: this one I've used in GirlsDoPorn (warning for sexual abuse: you need a really strong stomach to click that link) and found it as reliable as all the internet culture websites (The Daily Beast, Vice) and local coverage (NBC 7 San Diego) that broke the story and the mainstream sources that re-reported it (New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald). The Washington Post asked the president/publisher for a quote in their article. As with AVN, it's a trade publication and if we reject it there's not much we can write about the sex industry. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - XBIZ publishes press releases as is, but does not mark them as such. They used to. They're somewhat easy to catch since they list no author (like AVN), but I would not rely on XBIZ for anything contentious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 as per above, I think the issue is that they can produce sponsored content and not give it much definition to separate it. I would say that this means we should not use it for controversial matters, but otherwise GR. The industry is so extremely ad-based, that it makes sense that these considerations are a bigger problem here than elsewhere. Even more than typical journalism outlets which have a higher proportion of donors and subscribers.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2, as they do not clearly mark reprinted press releases.--Hippeus (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for their own content. The GirlsDoPorn GA Bilorv links above extensively uses this (same warning for sexual abuse) source which is a thorough and good piece of news reporting. Their other work also seems to be reliable (ie not fabricated). It's not great that they don't mark reposted press releases clearly, but it can still be identified, and that content should be unreliable (this would be the "additional consideration" I suppose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 It releases content without properly marking it. Sea Ane (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

freenews.live?
https://freenews.live/terrorists-took-the-blame-for-forest-fires-in-turkey/

2021 Turkish wildfires

"'Children of Fire' branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) claimed responsibility for forest fires. The organization declared itself publicly responsible for the fire through social networks and explained its actions through a fight with the authorities."

There seems to be a contradiction with another sentence in the article which says:

"This was denied by the PKK, as well as the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK)."

Incidentally the Turkish source for the first sentence is being discussed at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/Duyuru_panosu#Albayrak_Medya_Grubu_bile%C5%9Fenleri

freenews.live cliamed to have fact checked it - but as they mostly publish USA news and seem to have a small staff I doubt they have the resources to properly fact check non-USA news. Unfortunately local factcheckers here in Turkey have published nothing in English on the subject https://en.teyit.org/advanced-search?topic=fire&page=1

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Army Recognition
Is Army Recognition a reliable source? https://www.armyrecognition.com/ -- BlackShadowG (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * From a quick look, it seems to consist of press release material only. Almost certainly not, for that. If there is something specific you are asking about, you'll have to say more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would help if you indicate what you're looking to use it for, but I would say no. The editorial standards seem quite poor. Army Recognition essentially operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, billing itself as one of several online magazines that "provides online marketing and advertising solutions for the Defense & Security industries." A large part of its content is coverage that is copied, without attribution, from other sources, such as this article duplicating content from the United States Army's news service or this one duplicating content from the Australian Department of Defense. As such, I would generally prefer to cite the original piece in such instances, and would avoid citing Army Recognition directly if possible—certain uses might verge on contributory copyright infringement. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most recently discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344. I see no evidence that anything has changed since then, and the 900+ uses (see ) should be removed. FDW777 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gawker is back
Gawker is back, now owned by the same people who own Bustle. I've updated the RSP entry accordingly. Gawker was always a tabloid style publication, and this new incarnation appears to be no different. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Italian Wars Volume 1: The Expedition of Charles VIII into Italy and the Battle of Fornovo, 1495
Does anyone have information concerning Massimo Predonzani and/or Vincenzo Alberici?

According to Helion & Company:
 * Massimo Predonzani is not an historian. No mention of any academic standing.
 * Vincenzo Alberici is a ?model builder? and not an historian.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Predonzani is described as a researcher, so I believe that he could have some knowledge maybe, but you are right he is lacking much info. Is there a dispute going on that led you to create a topic here? For the most part the work seems uncontroversial if they are advancing a revisionist history of the War maybe it could be a problem, but I don't think there is too much concern here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No dispute, a "new user" posted their opinion that the French casualties at the battle of Fornovo are not accurate(which are cited by Spencer C. Tucker). Their words, "The french certainly did not lose only 200 men." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ingenthron's Borderland Rebellion
I recently picked up a group of books pretty cheap at an auction. One of them is Borderland Rebellion, a older book about Missouri in the American Civil War. Publisher is a defunct regional history magazine/newspaper named The Ozarks Mountaineer. Author is one Elmo Ingenthron, a former local school teacher and administrator, so not WP:SPS-level credentials. The book seems to be cited sometimes in RS such as and.

Normally, I'd just ignore this as a source due to the obscurity of the publisher, but it's one of the most detailed sources available for the topic of the American Civil War in the Ozarks, which isn't frequently written on, so it would be very convenient for some articles I want to work on (Battle of Clark's Mill, Battle of Hartville) if this were a RS. Normally I'd find myself confident in judging the source's reliability, but when I'm finding myself really wanting the source to be RS, I think it's better to get outside thoughts. Hog Farm Talk 02:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me. Go for it! 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ammoland
Is Ammoland sufficiently reliable to make a negative/contentious claim on a BLP for someone who works in an ideologically opposed role? The page is Joseph Sakran, the edit is this, and the cited article is Virginia: Threat Against Anti-Gun Activist Is An Alleged Hoax.

I bring this to RSN because this source is used over 150 times (though a good hunk of those citations appear to be endorsements for elections), so it may have broader relevance. It is also cited on a number of pages about firearms, a domain in which its reliability may differ from political and BLP topics. Jlevi (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My take: legitimately unsure, probably not reliable enough for this use, but unclear reliability for general use based on whate I've seen after a little poking around. Snope cites Ammoland twice as a source and it has not failed a factcheck on that site: . On the other hand Media Matters describes an 2013 op-ed from Ammoland as a myth: and has a big batch of other negative articles about the site (though it is clearly coming from its own bias). Jlevi (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if the source were reliable, the edit to the Sakran biography it is being cited for doesn't accurately reflect what it actually says. And if this is the only source, what it does say about what it refers to as an 'alleged hoax' doesn't seem sufficient to justify inclusion under WP:BLP. Sources basing content on Twitter speculation rarely are.


 * As to other questions of reliability, I'd have to suggest that they each need to be looked at in context. This is a source with a clear agenda, and one which seems to solicit content from supporters, on controversial issues. It might be 'reliable' for technical issues regarding firearms, but beyond that, use would need care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly not reliable for the stated use, and generally unreliable for statements of fact. AmmoLand is comparable to the case of as a similar group blog with a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. AL regularly promotes false or misleading claims that tend to align with its bias toward right-wing politics, such as the claim that there is "undeniable mathematical evidence" the 2020 American presidential election was stolen by Joe Biden (1 2, 3), that gun manufacturer John Noveske was killed because he exposed a link between prescription drugs and mass shootings, and that global warming is a hoax. AL plays fast and loose with the distinction between opinion and news articles, sometimes indicating who is writing and sometimes avoiding it, such that it is difficult to tell when they are making a factual claim or merely stating the opinion of its author. The problem with allowing its use for technical issues is that AmmoLand doesn't really cover uncontroversial technical stuff all that often, if at all, outside of clearly non-independent press releases and syndicated content (and it rarely lists when it is doing so, e.g. here) As such, we should generally apply the same caution to its mundane coverage that we would to most press releases. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable group blog, with a predilection for promotion of conspiracy theories, per the above - evidence against any meaningful editorial standards. At absolute best, no more citable in Wikipedia than any other blog - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on the site as a whole (haven't done my research), but it's rather obviously not appropriate as a source in the BLP mentioned in the heading. Hog Farm Talk 05:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with an Arabic-language source
Please comment at Talk:Ertuğrul. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

foodnavigator.com
They appear to have some sort of editorial oversight and state they don't publish press releases but rather use them to create stories. Can it be used to prove notability of a business (see Draft:Moving Mountains Foods (company))? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Food Navigator is a trade rag, my personal sense is that it's not useful to establishing notability (WP:AUD) but is otherwise reliable. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m with Chetsford here, perfectly usable for most things in its niche but for notability purposes they don’t count for much. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! —valereee (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC at the Abortion talk-page on the Guttmacher Institute as a source
Two editors objected to the use of the Guttmacher Institute as a sourse for the Abortion article, so I started an RfC on this question, see. Your participation is welcome. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Are studies published by "Western academics" unreliable on the topic of Cuba?
There is an IP edit-warrior on Elections in Cuba who is scrubbing content such as:


 * 1) Hyde, Susan D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Cornell University Press. p. 123.
 * 2) Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2019-10-03). "Who wins the most when everybody wins? Predicting candidate performance in an authoritarian election". Democratization. 26 (7): 1278–1298.
 * 3) Domínguez, Jorge I.; Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2017). "Authoritarian Regimes and Their Permitted Oppositions: Election Day Outcomes in Cuba". Latin American Politics and Society. 59 (2): 27–52.
 * 4) Domínguez, Jorge I. (2021). "The Democratic Claims of Communist Regime Leaders: Cuba's Council of State in a Comparative Context". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 54 (1–2): 45–65.
 * 5) Smyth, Regina; Bianco, William; Chan, Kwan Nok (2019-04-25). "Legislative Rules in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Hong Kong's Legislative Council". The Journal of Politics. 81 (3): 892–905.

from the article because the content is "published by American universities, or co-written by authors at American universities" and "western journals are hardly neutral". When the content is not being scrubbed, it's being described as being by "western academics" and juxtaposed with content sourced to sources such as the "Cuban Solidarity Campaign". This leads me to wonder: are peer-reviewed studies published by scholars who are affiliated with US universities unreliable on the subject of Cuba? Are university presses and journals located in the US unreliable on the subject of Cuba? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't you simply revert for sake of vandalism?Rastakwere (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP edit warrior is currently on 4 reverts within 24 hours and has been at it for the last couple of weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and no. It depends on who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on who they are and what the publications are, obviously, but content in peer-reviewed journals by professors at accredited universities are not just fine, they are probably the best we can find. This seems a matter for admin intervention more than RSN. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hold a minute Western academics unreliable? Isn’t Cuba a Western country?CycoMa (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, the IP editors stance is a too-large generalization to be useful. I also think what they're complaining about is more about bias than reliability. Towards a possible answer: I think it would depend on funding sources for the publication. If a researcher has received grants or runs a center in collaboration with US government agencies, then, yes, I think that might reduce the reliability of the source. — Wingedserif (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If they had a slightly different attitude I might agree, its clear (even by their use of the word western) there is far more to their objection than meets the eye. I agree with ht above this is a matter for Admins, and not RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly here to POV war. Bump it to Admins. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a POV. Snoogans has not exactly been good at hiding their POV that Cuba is not a democracy. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not POV, any objective standard would say Cuba is not a democracy. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I am not scrubbing content, in my edits I have not removed any sources (yet you continue to accuse me of this) and have in fact expanded on your sources by elaborating on their content. My issue is with your insistence to include the phrase "Elections in Cuba are not democratic", supported only by your sources. I have never sought to remove them or their claims from the lead, but presenting those claims as objective fact and suppressing the inclusion of dissenting sources (even when they are present in the main article) is my objection. I have never sought to argue that those sources are unreliable, but they are biased and must be presented in their proper context along with opposing sources (that are also, yes, biased). I'll admit to my own biases, I believe Cuba to be democratic, but I'm not the one trying to remove sources I disagree with here. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing I see from these sources to indicate that they should not be used. If IP repeats recomendmeing that an admin make it some only members can edit would be a reasonable next step. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not suggested they shouldn't be used, I've suggested that they are biased and shouldn't be the only sources used in the article lead, when the article already contains other sources that disagree. Snoogans et al are suppressing sources that don't conform to their own POV.
 * You are missing the point… there are multiple editors telling you that the sources you have challenged are reliable, and that the sources you want to add are not reliable. When multiple editors tell you the same thing, you need to accept that consensus is against you. Edit warring (which is what you have been doing) is not the solution. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Advice to 82.33.72.42 - first, become a true Wikipedian and not an IP number; second, do a thorough literature review (Scholar Google or Researchgate) with key words "Cuba" and "elections". Third, from those results discard any opinion and action committee papers. Discard also US sources if you do not trust them. And then, fourth, write a honest review of the remaining scientific papers (with DOI). Fifth, now you are ready to try and edit Wikipedia pages on the topic.Rastakwere (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In my experience “western academics” populate both ends of the spectrum of opinion about Cuba, so not really sure what we think we’re getting out of this. If you want a full throated conservative condemnation of Cuban Communism you’re most likely going to get it from a “western” academic and the same is true if you want a fully fledged Marxist defense of the perpetual anti-imperialist revolution... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

US State Department report on human trafficking in North Korea
The article Human trafficking in North Korea is almost entirely sourced to a report from the US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-trafficking-in-persons-report/

Is a single document from a state-run propaganda outlet really a sufficient source for content on an ideological enemy? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The US State Department is not a “propaganda outlet”. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me refrain from that emotive phrasing. It's undeniable that material published by the US Department of State is intended to promote America's ideological interests. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope… try again. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I presented a North Korean source that disputed these claims, would you accept that as having equal weight? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The US is not a one-party dictatorship with an extreme cult of personality that engages in terrorism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the US absolutely does engage in terrorism. During the Korean War they attacked civilian targets in the north indiscriminately, levelling around 85% of its buildings. To then turn around and say that they are a reliable source on North Korea is laughable. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not terrorism. No they did not target them indiscriminately. Even is that was true it still would have not baring, since it was more than 70 years ago. By your logic the State dept can't be used to report on Germany because world war II. This is clear POV pushing on your part and not only that reeks of communist apologism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The clear difference is that Germany is no longer under Nazi rule, while North Korea is under the same administration as it was during the war, and the US has maintained a hostile foreign policy towards them since then. And yes, deliberately targeting civilian targets during a war is terrorism. You can't honestly believe bombing 85% of all buildings was proportionate and that was a legitimate military response. This reeks of imperialist apologism. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deliberately targeting non-dual use civilian targets during a contemporary war would be a war crime, but it wouldn’t be terrorism (perhaps you are getting confused by the related term terror bombing?). Lets all cut the hyperbole, we can come to a consensus without calling anyone a _______ apologist. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly a UN mandate to protect a country from an unprovoked act of aggression is "imperialism" does not exactly ring write to me. Second as noted above the actions as you described them would be war crimes not terrorism and even then your reading of it as even being a war crime is hardly a settled matter. . 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue the OP is raising does not concern our personal opinions about the US vs North Korean governments, but rather sourcing. Certainly it should be possible to find more reliable sourcing for that article than a report from a rival government. The article Human trafficking has many RS listed in the references. There are international NGOs and UN groups that are devoted to the trafficking problem, and there are scholars who study it. There is no excuse for sourcing the article almost entirely to the US Dept of State. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with someone asking that we replace a source with better sources. But the State Department doc is certainly reliable enough that the article should never have been prodded for deletion. That, combined with the IP’s other edits, makes me question whether 82.33 is editing in good faith or just here to POV war. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I second Blueboar. Furthermore tend to downplay the fact that government civil servants tend to be strong professionals who regardless of the view of the country in question can still perform task without bias. My issue with the IP is that seem to be pushing a false equivalency between multiparty liberal democracies and one party dictatorships and treating them as though they are the same level of reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. Given this and their same POV about Cuba, it's time to report this IP to ANI per WP:CIR and WP:TE. Maybe try to get the articles semiprotected too. Also, have any banned or blocked editors acted like this? Could be a sock. Crossroads -talk- 23:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)I wasn't questioning the professionalism of people who work for the US govt, which publishes reliable information on many subjects. But reliability depends on context. When the context is accusations against a bitter rival, reliability goes way down. Would the government of India (which is a multi-party democracy) be a good source for a claim about human trafficking in Pakistan? The issue here is not democracy vs dictatorship. Allegations made by a political enemy are low-quality sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on the relative reputations for fact checking and accuracy of the political entities involved. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Would the government of India be a good source for a claim about human trafficking in Pakistan?" I would for the most part say yes although not as completely as say the US or Japan given India's corruption and other issues, but I imagine most civil servants maintain enough professionalism to be somewhat credible. However this is also a false equivalency since Cuba and the US aren't pointing Nukes at the others, engaged in border skirmishes or in the case of India compared to the United States have large sections of the country under either martial law or "emergency" as India does.3Kingdoms (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our personal opinions about India's failings as a supposed democracy or the US's failings as a supposed democracy are irrelevant to this discussion.
 * Aeschylus said that "In war, truth is the first casualty", and that can certainly be extended to cold wars (that were once hot wars, as between the US and N Korea or between India and Pakistan). If the only source that could be found for a claim of human trafficking in Pakistan were an Indian government source, then the claim would not be credible. Analogously for N Korea. I'm not at all defending N Korea on this issue, just saying that the article needs better sourcing than the US State Dept. NightHeron (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "supposed democracy" to you not consider the US one? Also I don't understand your point I simply explained why considering India's reports on Pakistan can be credible, but should be treated with caution, why the US can be treated higher for reasons explained above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If one wants to add more than they are free to, that does not mean the State Dept is not reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote "supposed democracy" because the term democracy is a loaded and emotional term whose definition is a matter of opinion. Clearly both India and the US fall far short of what many people consider democracy. The NY Times (not an anti-American newspaper) recently ran some videos contrasting the obstacles to voting in the US with the ease of voting in many other countries. The court system in the US allows the Republican Party to pass voter-suppression laws in many states. Two of the six most recent US presidential elections resulted in the candidate with fewer votes becoming president (because of the antiquated and undemocratic electoral college system). Running for national office requires huge investments of money, and gives the donors (usually big corporations and PACs) disproportionate influence as lobbyists. I won't go into India's failings, since you have already acknowledged them.
 * I never said the US State Dept is "unreliable". I said that its degree of reliability depends on context (as is true of many sources for Wikipedia, even the NY Times). Reliability goes down when it writes about a country with which it is in a cold war. NightHeron (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that the US State Department is a mirror for the (current, political) US viewpoint, it's not the UN. By way of example, look at what happened with Israel/Palestine reporting by the State Department under the Trump administration, mostly reverted by now but still.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree this is a primary source, and so should be used with care, if at all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2019 Canadian federal election also had the candidate who lost the popular vote become head of the country. What you have posted is POV and not relevant to the discussion. Democracy is not a loaded term. Finally if you want to add more sources that's fine, but that does not mean the state dept is not reliable, which is the whole point of this talk. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't start the irrelevant discussion about the pros and cons of the US government; you and other editors did before I entered the discussion. Any government information source, no matter how virtuous and democratic the government happens to be, needs to be used with great caution when sourcing an allegation about a country with which it is in a cold war. NightHeron (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You continued the discussion and brought in issues that did not concern this topic, I simply countered some of your reasoning, either way I'm dropping this since it is getting off topic.

This (however) is a separate issue from the use of academic sources and should be separated out, they are not linked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just because sources are not neutral does not mean they are unreliable. And in fairness, Western academic publishers publish works covering a range of views including in support of the Cuban government. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * True but this RFC is about North Korea and US state Department sources, not Cuba or academics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First, this isn’t an RFC… just a discussion. Second, this isn’t just about one article or one source… there is a pattern of editorial behavior by the IP that links the two discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As Blueboar said the bigger issue if the IP clearly pushing the idea that Western nations either by private or public sources can not be considered reliable on communist countries like North Korea and Cuba. This is a view not shared by wikipedia or the rules and the IP and pretty much reads a simple "I don't like" by the IP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It had been headed as an RFC, so I assumed that is what the OP intended it to be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If we can agree that the sourcing of the article on human trafficking in N Korea is inadequate, we should at least put templates such as "More citations needed", "One source", and "Primary source" at the top of the article. NightHeron (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think the sourcing is inadequate, however if someone wanted to add more than go for it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This article seemed unreliable
This article from Haaretz claimed Haredi divorce rates were increasing and claimed its source from the IDI. when looking at its claimed source: Which is apparently the IDI 2016. The IDI makes no claim that Haredi divorce rates are increasing. I am not (yet) saying that Haaretz in general is an unreliable source, but this article in particular needs investigation into its reliability. Can I have more eyes looking into this particular articles reliability?155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you specify in which context you or other editors want to use this article? JBchrch   talk  21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Full context on Talk Haredi Judaism.
 * tl;dr There is wikipedia voice which states Haredi divorce rates are increasing. This is sourced to 2017 Haaretz article. It seems that articles from that time on do not make that claim. In fact there appears to be isolated reports of Haredi divorce rate dropping.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not have the time to take a look at this today but other users can take a look at . JBchrch   talk  21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thanks for taking the time to look it over!155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging  .155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Haredi divorce rates have been climbing steadily for many years. That is a fact. However, this is not mentioned in the source cited above. However, there may be other IDI sources out there that the HaAretz article might have been referring to. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For example: this article says: "Over the years, we can see a rise in the percentage of single, divorced and widowed among the ultra-Orthodox, from 15% in 2003, to 17% in 2017." Now notice that that is not yet saying that the divorce rate went up (rather the total of singles + divorced + widowed), but it might have been misinterpreted. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * First, per wp:V, statements must be verifiable to a reliable source. The IDI source is from 2018. The Haaretz article was from 2017. Haaretz could not have cited an IDI report from 2018. There was no mention of divorce in the IDI's 2017 report. It seems that the Haaretz article is more unclear as we go on.
 * Second, the IDI did not claim that Haredi divorce was rising, it explicitly said that the rise from 2003-2018 from 15-17% of single, widowed, divorced may be due to marriage at later ages. We still have no reliable source that claims Haredi divorce is increasing, except for the increasingly unreliable Haaretz article. Thanks for looking into this Debresser, your research is extremely helpful!155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Divorce rates are rising among Haredim, not sure if anyone knows for sure what the percentages are. Not sure what this discussion is about. IZAK (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about a sources reliability. Is the given Haaretz article reliable? The Haaretz article claims to have been sourced in the IDI, yet on further investigation, its claimed source seems a doubtful source of its data. Do you believe the given Haaretz article is a reliable source?155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Although this is not part of the RSN discussion and belongs on Haredi talkpage, several sources claim that in certain predominantly Haredi cities, divorce rates are dropping. Maybe (feel free to ignore this, as this is just a personal conjecture of a non-expert) this belief that divorce rates are rising is anecdotal? If it is just anecdotal, it does not belong on wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this IZAK!155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think divorce rates are dropping, anywhere. In the Haredi communities in America they are definitely rising to my anecdotal knowledge. You are not going to find reliable Haredi sources for this taboo subject. They don't talk or publicize this subject. Just as they don't talk or publicize suicides, or sex abuse in the Haredi communities. So I guess, for now, we can go with Haaretz with the proviso that Haaretz is a secular news organization not sympathetic to the Haredi POV, so take it with a lump of salt. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Haaretz cites the IDI. It doesn’t claim that specific report, that’s just your assumption. There’s no real reason to question a generally reliable source herePipsally (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just spent a few hours checking the IDI website for haredi divorce rates and could not find the alleged Haaretz statistic. We have had at least 4 wikipedians look over the Haaretz article, yet none of them have found the source in the IDI. If anyone could find the alleged data which Haaretz claims to be from the IDI, this whole report would be wrapped up. Can we have more eyes looking into the Haaretz article to examine its claim of data coming from the IDI?

Here is the contested quote from Haaretz:

"According to the Israel Democracy Institute, the ultra-Orthodox community’s divorce rate is catching up to that of the secular Jewish community. While the divorce rate in the general population has remained steady at 13 couples per 1,000 since 2002, it has spiked in the Haredi community."

Useful links:

https://en.idi.org.il/

https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2020/?chapter=34272 155.246.151.38 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz is currently considered a reliable source. Engaging in primary research to attempt to disprove Haaretz is not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing, per WP:OR. If Haaretz is, in fact, wrong, or misrepresenting their sources, you will need to find a verifiable secondary source that says this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we do not second guess sources, either an RS has said they are wrong, or we have to accept they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add that given that quote from Haaretz, it does not necessarily imply it was from a published work by the IDI - the reporter in their investigation could have called IDI and asked what's the current stats over the phone, which would be otherwise difficult to document. If the quote led "According a report by the IDI..." and we couldn't find any sign of that report, that would be an issue. Otherwise, as above has said, Haaretz is generally reliable, and unless there is a conflicting report from another RS, I don't think we can doubt it. That said, I would simply make sure that the "fact" is attributed to the IDI in WP's prose. --M asem (t) 14:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is exactly right. Haaretz is generally reliable so we can just attribute IDI in text. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  08:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But in this case there is a reasonable doubt whether the claim they make is true and nobody seems to be able to find their source. That seems reasons enough for me to make an exception and not mention this claim in our articles until it can be corroborated by additional, independent, sources. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Policy question about OR on RSN
Based on the above comments, it seems that the way to go is contacting the IDI directly and asking them about this statistic. If they agree that they said it, fine. If not, then Haaretz's reliability in general is under question. Does this makes sense?155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Here is link to contact them: https://en.idi.org.il/about/contact/. Anyone else who independently contacts them is much appreciated!155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that would qualify as original research. The organization telling someone something is not directly verifiable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:OR "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". The OR policy only covers adding material to articles. This is not about adding material to articles, this is about challenging a given sources reliability on RSN. The verifiability issue only takes play when it comes into articles, not RSN discussions. Any wikilawyers want to weigh in on this? 155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that we would disregard a reliable source because you were unable to get a third party to specifically state for you that they had provided a certain statistic is not reasonable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, we are not talking about any random third party. We are talking about the source of the data! If they did not provide the data, the only conclusion is that the Haaretz article is incorrect due to either accident or malicious intent.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler is correct. You are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Contentious Claims

 * The best approach would be to follow contentious claims. See if other sources make this claim. If not, then it is either false or too insignificant for inclusion. Per OR, there is nothing to stop you from checking divorce rates over the years and seeing if they are in fact increasing. TFD (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification TFD! The issue is that no other reliable sources (that I have found) make that claim. If I am understanding you correctly, that means if no other RS is found for that claim the contentious claim should be removed?155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it fall into "contentious claims"? It's not surprising, it's not challenged, it's not out of character, and a bit of an uptick in the rates for this one group is not so major that one would expect broad mainstream coverage, yet it is of interest for something tightly on the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it falls into redflag territory! It is the only source which claims Haredi divorce rates are increasing, and its claimed source of the IDI has not yet panned out. A highly questionable claim of data is a big redflag!155.246.151.38 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:  The second source was checked and removed because it did not claim Haredi divorce rates were increasing.155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's contentious because it is saying that divorces are increasing among a religious group that doesn't recognize civil divorce and is restrictive on religious divorces. If, as says, it might be a slight uptick that is not reported in mainstream coverage then either the article should say it is a slight uptick or ignore it altogether. Weight says that facts largely ignored in sources should not be included. OTOH if there has been a substantial increase in divorce rates, one would expect that the reasons for the increase would be included. Has there been a change in policy such as recognizing domestic violence as grounds for divorce or are members increasingly acting against their stated religious beliefs? TFD (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All this comes back to that if we added "According to the IDI in YEAR, ...", then we remove what may be a contentious claim (here based on editors' somewhat expert knowledge that this would seem to go against the norm) that we take the statement out of Wikivoice and its inclusion wouldn't be an issue until any other either corroborating or conflicting source came along. Or alternatively, if the claim seems odd, it can be ignored until some type of collaboration comes along. Failure of the IDI or Hareetz to go into the reasoning why this may be true isn't an aspect we consider from a sourcing standpoint, but we can recognize that if a claim is thrown out there, without any relevant context/backup and which seems unusual, we can treat the claim factor itself with some dubiousness. But from the RS aspect, we can't doubt (unless proven otherwise) that Hareetz is repeating something the IDI told them, whether from a yet-published report or over a phone call. --M asem (t) 14:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks TFD and Masem for the explanation! Based on the two scenarios you laid out, scenario one involving us giving an in text citation to the IDI, there is one problem. We don't know what year the alleged IDI statistic came from and Haaretz was not kind enough to let us know. It appears we are left with scenario two where we ignore the source until other RS comes along. Is this user making any sense?155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the information feels like it needs to be included, you could say "According to the IDI via Hareetz in YEAR, ..." as to date that statement. --M asem (t) 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Influence report
A report called "Alternative Influence" has been used as a source on the pages Carl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, and the Social impact of YouTube, among others. The report was also picked up by some media outlets. However, the report was written by only one person and doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed, so it might not be a reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Academic sources treat it as reliable in these contexts. Its categories and methodology have been used in subsequent papers by others in a peer-reviewed context . It had quite wide coverage in popular media and in relevant academic subdomains from a variety of angles, so most statements in it are probably DUE.
 * Caveat: arguments this report makes about YouTube are based on the nature of that platform at time of publication in 2018. The author has stated subsequently that YouTube has changed, so it would be worth making clear the publication date in these contexts.
 * At this point, I've talked mostly about this specific publication, and I have argued that its treatment by other sources may mean it is reliable and due in most related contexts. I will briefly discuss at the level of publisher and author as well:
 * Publisher: Data & Society is a nonprofit research org that concentrates on technology. I have not found a specific statement about their fact-checking process. However, their publications get quite a good amount of media coverage, and their reports and personnel are often treated as experts in interviews and media outreach.
 * Author: Becca Lewis is an early-career academic getting a PhD at Stanford. She has a handful of peer-reviewed publications and has been treated as an expert on analysis of online phenomena and the online right in mainstream media publications . Her peer-reviewed research is highly related to the topics in the Data & Society report.
 * In conclusion, this specific source shows a lot of signs that we can treat it as an RS. It has received significant media coverage, has been used and cited in subsequent peer-reviewed academic articles, its publisher seems to have a good reputation, and its author is an early-stage academic with peer-reviewed work in the same field. Though early-career, she has been treated as an expert on these topics in mainstream media.
 * For noncontroversial statements and statements referenced in outside RS, this report can probably be referenced without attribution. For statements that are controversial and not covered by outside RS, it may be worth attributing in some contexts. Jlevi (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jlevi on all of this. Important and impactful report, carefully assembled by respected researcher - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * also agree with Jlevi. It's a reliable source where other sources have relied upon it, and a quotable source where they have not.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think how it gets used is something to consider. If a independent RS cites part of it I think we should consider it as something like the opinion of an expert that has been given weight due to others citing the opinion.  However, if we are just pulling out something that no RSs have covered when discussing the report then we need to consider that it was not peer reviewed and thus becomes the opinion of a group.  I don't see that the group is widely, generally cited like say CATO or ADL.  I'm also not sure it's DUE when this study is used to say something like [Youtube person] is a gateway to alt-right ideas. In that case the real news is that Youtube algorithms were linking people.  That doesn't mean [Youtube person] is expressing any ideas that should be considered controversial nor that they have tried to associate with (etc) the far/extreme-right groups.  It also shouldn't be used to say "Mrs Y is far-right" citing a classification list used in that paper.  Springee (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Unz Review
I saw that this site was used as source for an article on Robert B. Spencer. While the article was from what I saw was reasonable "That most American Muslims are not radical" its a pretty clear case of a broken clock striking right once. When one of the head articles has titles like "Jew York Times" and other racist and ant-Semitic articles, not to mention just reading Ron Unz's page makes its pretty clear to me that this should be Deprecated. Deprecated sources Does anyone oppose doing that to this site? 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate it. Thanks 3Kingdom for your work in improving wikipedia!155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. Their "About" page makes it clear that the site doesn't even necessarily stand behind the batty stuff their writers espouse. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as I think The Unz Review is an unreliable source, shows that it is also being used as a source for old journal articles. For instance This copy of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' by John Speirs published in Scrutiny, Winter 1949 is being used in the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In fact having a look through the duses, links to old journal articles seem to be the predominant use, and I don't think their use is problematic unless there are copyright issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Deprecation doesn't seem like the best solution. I am unsure of current or historical reliability. Jlevi (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a terrible source, dodgy enough that I'd be reluctant to use it even as a source for third-party material in this manner, as this might encourage its use in other contexts - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. There is no way in which using this source is good for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * this should prrrrrobably be a proper deprecation RFC, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. A lot of the bloggers are random racists or anti-semites who aren't expected to be reliable primary or secondary sources by whatever editors the site has. There are a few people where this domain is a useful source for their own views, so it's not a domain that should be blacklisted, but it is just about the last source I would want to see on any controversial topic. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I say we take off and deprecate the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. Unz is platform open for to any crank seeking to promote the very fringe of the fringe of racist and pseudoscientific beliefs; it should never be used to support statements of fact and views published inside it are almost always WP:UNDUE. To address the source archive points mentioned above, its archive of print journal articles and magazines to provide fulltext for older stuff may be useful for research, but that's not necessarily an indication we should provide a link to them in a citation. Now I'm no fan of how copyright law is currently applied in general, but these are the facts: Unz appears to be hosting a lot of magazine scans etc that are clearly not in the public domain, from the 1940s Speirs article to National Review articles published as recently as 2010, and he appears to do so without any sanction from the copyright holders or any meaningful restrictions on their distribution. So generally we'd avoid linking to these sources per WP:COPYLINK. There's really no compelling use of the source I can see. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Some comments:
 * - Wp:Deprecated sources: Deprecation "primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. ... Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability." So, the normal reason for deprecation is to prevent frequent discussions of questionable sources. However, as far as I can determine, this is only the third time that The Unz Review has been brought up at the RSN. Exactly how often have its articles been cited on Wikipedia?
 * - I think that it's a fairly poor idea to suggest that a Wikipedia article "makes it clear" that a source should be deprecated.
 * - Although a site may generally be regarded as a poor source, there may be particular situations where it has value. For instance, it may be used to show when its writers have been misquoted or misrepresented.
 *    ←   ZScarpia  23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

FB Publishing
This is used in 4 articles and a draft. It was hard to find anything about it but I did find this which says "FB Publishing is a niche imprint for bringing new and established authors writing about Islam and other non-western topics and beliefs. Primarily a POD and eBook publisher, we leverage these technologies and a network of proven contractors to offer a full suite of publishing services and share all profits with our authors. We know this works, as our authors are extending their contracts for longer terms. Our company has also started a new imprint- ClearSky publishing for more main stream titles."

Anyone disagree that we should treat this as a self-publishing house? Doug Weller talk 13:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The print-on-demand mention and the various published titles I see strongly suggest that it's indeed self-publishing... — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We Hunted the Mammoth
I am currently doing a cleanup of the YouTube suspensions page, and for some of the entries (mainlly Roosh V's) I could only find articles from We Hunted the Mammoth as verified proof. For those who don't know, it is a website that is dedicated to monitoring activities in the incel and so-called "Manosphere" communities, and was actually featured in a New York Times article on this topic, and a cursory glance shows it is cited in some Wikipedia articles. However the website has a very blog feel to it, and does have a informal, borderline-irreverent tone to its articles. My question is based on these factors, can this website be used as a citation? I couldn't find any mention of it in the archives. Mount Patagonia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So, definitely a blog, as it is usually classified, but its author, David Futrelle, has appeared in the New York Times, as noted, has authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post and a review on NPR both on the same broad topic of misogyny, and has been noted on Vox as a journalist with some expertise in the area. As such, I think we should basically treat it as an expert blog, per WP:BLOG.  I know that's not much for helpful guidance, but I think yes, we can use it with caution, but better to back it up for contentious claims.  Just one old guy's opinion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that whether someone was banned from YouTube has to be treated as WP:BLP sensitive, unless the channel isn't linked to a specific individual. So I don't think we can use a blog for that, regardless of the author's reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We Hunted the Mammoth is a self-published blog. It should be never be used for claims about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, per WP:BLPSPS. Given the blog's purpose is to mock right-wing individuals, particularly those that are part of the manosphere per it's tagline: Misogyny, tracked and mocked, it is entirely unusable as a source. There are better academic sources that discuss manosphere groups. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the blog's purpose is to mock right-wing individuals Its purpose is to mock misogynists; these are not identically the same thing as right-wing individuals. I see that the first version of your comment just said "right-wing individuals" without the expansion, suggesting you see the source in party political terms first - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * David, I dislike Manosphere groups as much as you. I was using the term "right-wing individuals" due to Futrelle's blog also covering American conservatives/far right figures. Some of that coverage goes outside the strict realms of mysogyny. Obviously mysogyny and the manosphere are Futrelle's main focus, but not exclusively. My concern is WP:BLP, we should not be using self-published blogs for claims about living people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On that I concur - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a blog. The author is a freelance journalist, as noted, and writes in RSes on the same topics. That said, it's a blog - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would very largely avoid it. It's arguably 'an expert blog' in the sense of 'no-one else documents a particular strand of thought quite as well', but also it's heavily biased and has a strong agenda (one I agree with, but hey!). We definitely definitely can't use it for BLP articles and in other circumstances I would be very cautious. Struggling to think of occasions when its use would be appropriate. The Land (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider music coverage
Is Business Insider (renamed Insider in February 2021) generally reliable for its popular music coverage (reviews, ratings, etc.)? Example article, example review 1, review 2. -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI here is the most recent RfC on this source. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324 I'm not sure if there is any reason to consider their reliability on popular music coverage separately. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see my responses below in the survey. In short, this RfC was intended to be narrower in scope than the last one to hopefully achieve some consensus around its reliability in a topic area. I unfortunately had bad luck in wording it. -- The SandDoctor Talk 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Business Insider)

 * Sure, why not, since ratings/reviews are all subjective anyway. It's reliable for the opinion of the publication or the author, which is the same as any other review of a piece of art. I would say it's mainstream enough where it's views could reasonably be of note in the reception section of an article, which is the real question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviews and ratings are not a reliability issue. Any source is self-evidently reliable for their own opinion pieces, which is what reviews and ratings are.  Whether or not any one review or rating or any other opinion is relevant to a particular article is a discussion for another venue, but strictly speaking, a source publishing its own opinion on a subject is always perfectly reliable for Wikipedia text that reports that opinion.  -- Jayron 32 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly permitted under WP:V and WP:RS. I can't put it more clearly or succinctly than the first two respondents, but just for the sake of registering my support: WP:PRIMARY sources are always valid as regards their own perspectives and the need for editorial controls simply doesn't apply in these circumstances.  As Jayron notes, whether a particular review is useful and appropriate under the WP:DUE and WP:ONUS tests in any given instance is a separate question that needs to be addressed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in each case, but for a certainty, there is no compelling high level reason to establish a ban on such reviews from this one outlet, any more than there would be for any other source providing a subjective artistic critique of any work. This is kind of so self-evident under our basic policies on sourcing that I wonder about the history that brought this inquiry here. Snow let's rap 21:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I apparently seldom have much luck wording RfCs. I saw that BI was "no consensus" at RSP following its status being raised as a question at a peer review, so wanted to see if we could get some consensus for a narrower scope RfC to a topic area. -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ^ -- The SandDoctor Talk 22:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: in that context the narrow-purpose RfC makes sense, as it will give clarity for anyone who might have non-WP:SECONDARY/WP:MEDRS uses in mind. Good call! S<b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes for statements attributed to their authors. Obviously. So you can say "Jane Doe of Business Insider says this is the best song ever written." But you can't say "This is the best song ever written" and source that to Jane Doe's review. For statements of fact I would use it, but carefully. "This song was recorded in 2014" is probably ok. "Taylor Swift was drunk when she wrote this song" I would leave out unless I had another source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is probably as good as most other sites reviewing music, which is to say pretty bad. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a question of WP:UNDUE really, not "reliability" for subjective opinions. So this really isn't the board for that - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Business Insider is a site that publishes reviews and reports news, just like any other music publication. Their articles are fine as sources as long as it comes with attribution. BawinV (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - being aware of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS distinction in any review between facts and the evaluation of the author as said by GA-RT-22... A “recorded in 2014” is fact “best ever” is their opinion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - Reliable depending of course on context, including for notability. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Ratings and reviews are the opinion of the author and Business Insider is like any other sites that do reviews. Sea Ane (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes So long as it comes with attribution. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes for things like that.Thelostone41 (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary
Source: Mimms, Sarah. (July 27, 2021) "Twitter Permanently Suspended Nine Accounts That Had Been Promoting Pro-Trump "Audits" Of The 2020 Election". BuzzFeed News. Question: Is this source reliable enough to use in the article? Does it comply with Wikipedia rules and guidelines? Notes: –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 03:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion has taken place at Talk:2021 Maricopa_County presidential ballot audit.
 * See WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for the general consensus about BuzzFeed News.

Key points by

 * Basically I compared it against the first suggested source in the thread and came to the conclusion that the BuzzFeed News article had more or less the same basic facts regarding the topic, but the article from PNT was worded in a fairly neutral manner, and aside from a few opinionated angles. It's not the source in question but it's what I'm comparing it against. Please also note that to stay consistent we should review the BFN article as it was written at the point the discussion began, it has since been silently edited and there is a risk it will happen again over the coming days.
 * The title reads as follows: Note the framing here; the audits are mentioned with the "Pro-Trump" qualifier, and there are quotation marks around "Audits" as if it wasn't an actual audit. The way I see it both of these points of framing go against WP:PARTISAN in the context of the Wikipedia article, readers who are Trump supporters and/or support the audits will likely read that as an attack on their opinions rather than a statement of fact. This is a problem because as seen on the talk page in general there are multiple readers claiming the Wikipedia article as a whole is biased, therefore we should take extra care to make sure the article sources aren't biased where possible. Furthermore both points are opinions. The audits in question are neither proven to be pro-Trump nor illegitimate, and thus cannot be regarded as statements of fact with sufficient confidence.
 * Second paragraph contains the following: There is an inline link as a source for "false conspiracy theories", but that page itself has some framing issues as the editorial commentary is inline but the rebuttals are collected at the bottom. Nevertheless, they are at least somewhat relevant to the topic of the article, even though the Tweets aren't from any of the aforementioned 9 accounts in question. The "including in a recent pro-Trump movie" part is completely irrelevant though, it's clearly meant to discredit Doug Logan, which according to the wording of that sentence is implied to be "overseeing" the official Twitter account of the Maricopa audit. Also note that the Twitter account isn't mentioned by name and the inline link is broken (even in the current revision as of 2021-08-06 06:34 CET).
 * These are just two of the points I've used to determine that the BFN article is unsuitable in the context of the Wikipedia article in question. The Maricopa audit is a very controversial subject in general and special care should be taken to make sure one side doesn't feel unfairly treated in the Wikipedia article. It is my understanding that a neutral point of view is extra important in controversial articles, especially while a semi-lock is in place. To that point; I see no reason the BFN article has any advantage over the initially suggested PNT article either. Both support the claim that Twitter accounts related to the audit were banned, and the Wikipedia article doesn't (and perhaps shouldn't at this point in time) go any further than that.
 * To summarize in a single sentence; I have major concerns with quality, POV, and framing issues in the BFN article, and there is already a more widely supported alternate source (PNT) which is sufficient to support the claim in the Wikipedia article with little to none of the same issues. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Key points by

 * Here's some of the corroborations that I brought up in support of using the source:
 * 1. Corroborating source (AZ Central) for the statement from the article that the audit is unauthentic.
 * 2. Corroborating source (USA Today) for this portion of the article "the official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election."
 * 3. Corroborating source (NPR) for this portion of the article "The audit accounts are just one way that pro-Trump figures have continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from him."
 * 4. Corroborating source (AZ Central) & (Vice) for the portion of the article regarding Twitter's ban of official audit accounts. Added at 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>)
 * 5. Corroborating source in general: "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on". AP News.
 * 6. Corroborating source in general: "Debunking Trump’s Latest Arizona Election Claims" FactCheck.org.
 * –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 03:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

New comments

 * do you think you can sum up the argument you make on the talk page against the use of this source? I’m having a hard time following it and its so long at this point that its easier just to ask. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As a source for which article content? - Ryk72 talk 03:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wanting to use this source in the lede section for "The audit stirred controversy due to extensive previous efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the election and due to assertions of rule violations and irregularities in the conduct of the count, leading to claims that the audit is essentially a disinformation campaign." –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 03:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was not the use discussed on the talk page. This is another use which is already sourced from two other sources. The use discussed on the talk page was the topic "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and possibly extended to "Although it may still warrant mentioning that Twitter has called out the Arizona state legislature for essentially lying on their platform." (no clear draft exists). SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We also discussed my edit that you reverted which put the source in the lede section for use that I mentioned above. I also think the source should be used for the topic "Various twitter accounts suspended". –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 05:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The source was not used in the lede section prior to the discussion of it as a suitable source was initiated on the talk page. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed reply. BuzzFeed News is considered generally reliable. But I'm not certain that this particular source is a great reference for that specific content. The source doesn't appear to directly support most of the text - for example, to support the last clause, "leading to claims that the audit is essentially a disinformation campaign", I would expect to find "disinformation" and/or "campaign" actually in the source. Neither appears. Nor does "overturn". And the only mention of "rules violations" relates to Twitter rules, not "election counting". That's not to say that any of the content is untrue, or should be excluded from the article; but, on inspection, this does not seem a good source for it. - Ryk72 talk 03:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would, however, be an acceptable source for content which it did directly support. - Ryk72 talk 04:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I consider Twitter banning the official AZ Senate account to be "stirred controversy", wouldn't you? The bans are what the BuzzFeed News article is mainly about. If you want we can put the citation specifically at that clause in the beginning. But I also feel it supports the entire sentence. The article is very clear about the audit having falsehoods: The official audit account had spread misinformation about the 2020 election.     06:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The bans are indeed what the source is about, and are what it should be used for; if it is to be used. For "stirred controversy": No, not really; It's an original interpretation of the source. It's better to simply write that the Twitter account was banned (which is the fact that the source verifies), without extrapolating from that. And the audit's official Twitter account having spread misinformation is not congruent to "the audit having falsehoods". Which text in the source supports extensive previous efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the election and due to assertions of rule violations and irregularities in the conduct of the count, leading to claims that the audit is essentially a disinformation campaign. I couldn't find any; even on a second reading. Again, I don't claim that the proposed content is wrong, simply that this isn't a good source for it. - Ryk72 talk 07:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: per WP:RSP, BuzzFeed News (as distinct from BuzzFeed) is currently a green-light source with some recent notes of caution due to a reduced newsroom. To the extent that the source is merely reflecting the consensus of content from other reliable sources, I would not consider it either impermissible or indispensible as a source for the point raised. BD2412  T 04:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * BuzzFeed is making the claim that the audit was not made or done in a way that reflects tradition or faithfully resembles an original, that it is unauthentic. They make no claims about its legitimacy; their claims are about the manner in which the Arizona Senate has gone about this audit.
 * The audit is proven to be pro-Trump: "Groups connected to prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump’s movement to cast doubt on the 2020 election results have raised $5.7 million for Arizona Republicans’ election audit" per AP News. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BuzzFeed News isn't making that claim in the title at all, they just put it in quotation marks. AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the main claim BuzzFeed makes throughout the article. One can conclude after reading the article that the intent behind the quotations for "audit" in the title was because:
 * 1. Professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit (AZ Central)
 * 2. It dose not resemble previous audits or what an audit is supposed to be (Basically all of the RSs) –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 05:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Some professional auditors do not consider it to be an audit. AZ Central picked a few to question and they may or may not be a representative selection of professional auditors.
 * 2. It does not resemble previous audits in a lot of ways, one of which is digital forensics.
 * 3. The nature of the way BuzzFeed News discredits the audits isn't actually relevant to the issue at hand; which is that 9 Twitter accounts related to them were banned and BuzzFeed News is discrediting the audits themselves in the article about the bans. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good Christ, you're impossible. I don't care anymore. I'll leave it up to whatever other editors decide here. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 05:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that we have any precedent that would disallow use of AP as a source merely because AP played a role in "verifying election results". Certainly there were not AP personnel counting ballots or directly supervising the initial election work of the Maricopa County Board of Elections. While AP was cited by many news organizations in its report of the outcomes, that is still just reporting the news. We have no standard for excluding a news organization from reporting a later development because they also reported earlier developments in the same matter. Furthermore, AP specifically routinely issues corrections when its original reporting contains errors, so it can not be said that they are biased towards upholding previous reporting when it is inaccurate. BD2412  T 06:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a reply to a subcomment above? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a reply to the general notion that AP is not a reliable source for this topic. BD2412  T 21:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding what I said; the AP is the selected partner for verifying the election result and as such has a conflict of interest in reporting the election results were definitely right but then report they were potentially wrong. AP is pretty big and I see no reason to exclude them altogether, but if they call the audits pro-Trump then I'd take that statement with a grain of salt. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable WP:NEWSORG. It would take remarkable circumstances to claim it was not one, particularly with the corroborating coverage. This issue seems querulous - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind this isn't about BuzzFeed News as a source in general, it's about this particular article. The supposedly corroborating sources listed above by FormalDude do not mention the Twitter account bans. Many (but not all of) the sources I've seen covering the Twitter bans are themselves using BuzzFeed as a source for those facts alone (list of Twitter accounts and statement from Twitter) but generally do not share the same POV and framing, see the PNT article. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable source, and I see nothing in the text of the article itself that would lead me to believe that this particular article has any problems with it. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just piling on here to say that BFN is a reliable sources as has been discussed numerous times at this very board, and I find the notion that AP is anything less than a top-tier source to be so remarkably bizarre as to suggest that the person making that implication is not doing so in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any opinions on the assertion that AP has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"? BD2412  T 22:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that is not just wrong, but conspiracy-theorist thinking from the editor asserting it, and good evidence that their opinions on sourcing should be presumed wrong and their edits should be examined. (Though I'm not going to personally get around to that last one.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the assertion laughable. The AP reports election results, as do MANY news organizations.  The fact that they report election results does NOT mean they have a "conflict of interest" in later reporting on the same election.  That makes no sense.  Participants in the election would have a conflict of interest.  The AP is a news organization, one of the most respected in the US, and is widely trusted around the world for its accuracy, its prudence, and its neutrality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're losing track of what this issue is about. It's about a single BFN article. Not BFN in general, not AP, and certainly not about me. To me this is starting to look more like a witch hunt to get rid of the question. If you want me gone then fine, take it up in the appropriate forum, but this is not the place for it. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confident everyone responding understands what the issue is about. Here's an explicit link from the general to the specific: since BFN is reliable, we'll only be convinced this particular article is unreliable if there are major issues. The points you raised are not issues, and if they were, not major ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asked to summarize, and that's what I did. I can go into way more detail as to why there are major issues with this particular article if requested. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you came with your most persuasive points. I am not eager to hear more. Are you willing to accept consensus on this issue? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I only summarized the points mentioned on the talk page because I thought it was going to be enough to initiate the discussion. I will of course accept whichever end result we reach, but I don't quite thing we're there yet as there are still more threads to resolve. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I have now realized you were all answering a different question to the one I thought you were asking, you can consider this question resolved with consensus. I don't think BFN is necessarily a reliable source but I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so. So the question as posed above isn't really something I needed an answer for, it's irrelevant to the dispute between me and FormalDude. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody was answering a different question. I put the extremely broad question "Does it comply with Wikipedia rules and guidelines?" for this very PORPOISE (I expected a scope fallacy from you). The sources ability to support the text, POV, and quality ARE all Wikipedia guidelines. The consensus you claim is not true.     04:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The single BFE article is encompassed within our judgement of BFN in general.
 * This is how we know what's reliable. Your method above of scrutinizing the source to pick out which parts you think are biased and which parts aren't is just WP:OR with extra steps. We look at the circumstances and history of a source; we look at their editorial control, their topical focus, how they handle mistakes, their fact-checking, how widely-cited by other reliable sources they are, what the credentials of the authors are and whatever else would speak to their trustworthiness, and then we make a determination whether or not to believe them. We don't analyze the language used by the author to try to take a guess at whether they're biased or not, because we really don't care whether or not they're biased, only whether they're reliable.
 * This is how neutrality is achieved. Once we've decided a source is reliable, we accept what that source says, regardless of whether it disagrees with our preconceptions or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely this cannot be true; how can we possibly maintain objectivity if some sources are regarded as publishing unquestionable truths? If a source under WP:RSP were to print "pigs can fly", would we blindly update the Wikipedia article about pigs to add they can fly? Furthermore, WP:YESPOV explicitly states Prefer nonjudgmental language., shouldn't we then prefer the much more neutrally worded PNT article over the BFN article? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point you're having a WP:1AM experience. The answer to your question in this particular case is "no, AP's reporting is fine and you're wrong." You're now trying to argue in ridiculous hypotheticals - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * SinglePorpoiseAccount: This is a very long thread so apologies if I missed it but can you explain what is the purpose of us preferring Phoenix New Times over Buzzfeed News? What difference does it make to what we will say in the article? If you could explain this, it may help us or at least me better understand your concerns over that particular Buzzfeed News article. If you can't because there it's not going to affect our coverage and you just want us to use Phoenix New Times instead of Buzzfeed News because you think it's a better source in this instance then sorry but I'm not just not sure this is even worth RSN's time. Source choice can be tricky but Buzzfeed News seems to be well accepted enough that I don't think it worth arguing over it especially not compared to Phoenix New Times. Even if it's true the article itself is better, the counterpoint is since the source lacks the reputation of Buzzfeed News, readers may not trust it as much regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit perplexed by all this talk about AP, it's a separate topic altogether? It's just my opinion that of all sources, AP probably isn't the one to use as proof for the audit being pro-Trump in a heated discussion. Also note the difference between evidence and proof; evidence points towards something being true while proof supports a statement of fact. An AP article can probably serve as evidence of the audits being pro-Trump, but it cannot reasonably serve as standalone proof of it. Take for instance the theory of gravity; we have mountains of evidence for it being true, even in a literal sense, but no respectable scientist will call it proved. We simply cannot definitively prove it from understanding of the underlying mechanisms (yet, which is why we're building increasingly advanced particle accelerators). We can still accept it as true based on the available evidence, but there is still no proof of it being true.
 * The "pigs can fly" example was an extreme hypothetical to determine the priority of WP:RSP status or overwhelming evidence. In other words; regardless of what the threshold for overwhelming evidence is, is there a point where evidence and reason takes priority over WP:RSP status or is all questioning of such a source constitute WP:OR in an absolute sense?
 * In essence I think a really strong argument for PNT over BFN for the context in question is that the Wikipedia article itself sees very polarized bipartisan traffic. Several IPAs on the talk page has questioned its bias over the past month, and off-site comments about Wikipedia articles like it indicating doing the same trend. Therefore I think it would be best if we avoid feeding into those conspiracy theories by using neutrally worded sources as much as possible. Again, the PNT and BFN article both have more or less the same basic facts about the Twitter bans and should be interchangeable from a factual standpoint (at least in the context of the Twitter bans as BFN covers a broader range of off-topic issues), but they are worlds apart in their apparent bias. If consensus turns out to be to allow the BFN article I would at least ask for it to be put last in the list of sources to the Wikipedia claim. It should be in our own self-interest to appear neutral in our selection of sources. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * wait so this discussion isn't even over whether to use PNT or BFN while keeping the content the same, but ultimately ends up being about which one to put first? Sorry but I really really don't think that's a discussion worthy of RSN. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to explain things from the beginning. An IPA started a new talk page heading about "Various Twitter accounts suspended" and used the PNT article as a source for their claim. Then FormalDude suggested we use the BFN article instead and (at least as I understood it at the time) asked for comments. I provided my comments, I'll paraphrase for brevity but I said it was my opinion that the BFN article had serious issues in neutrality and quality compared to the PNT article. Then there was some back and forth until FormalDude took it here. And here we are. If consensus is reached to use the BFN article over the initially suggested PNT article, I only ask that it would be put last so we don't transfer the apparent bias into the Wikipedia article by having it appear as the dominating source. It would be the only BFN article on the page and AFAIK BFN has a bit of a reputation on run-ins with Republicans, which means the conspiratorially inclined (and there are probably a lot of those surrounding an long-winded audit) would undoubtedly use it against Wikipedia if it appears as the dominating source to any claim in the Wikipedia article. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * your gravity example is completely flawed. It is the nature of scientific theories that they can never be proved - Hawking described them as "unprovable but falsifiable". Additionally there is no "theory of gravity" itself. And there is no doubt that gravity is a fact. It can even be measured. Doug Weller  talk 15:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a theory of gravity, there are in fact several. You might also want to read up on Higgs bosons. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * make up your mind. There are either a number of theories or one. But I was being pedantic and that allowed you to avoid the main issue which was about proof. Doug Weller  talk
 * I have called for a close with consensus on this RS/N case and will no longer be participating in this discussion. If you want to discuss something with me directly you are welcome to do so on my talk page. MrPorpoise (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Look at this point, you're approaching Chewbacca defense levels of misdirection and obfuscation. We've told you the sources in question meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, at this point your just beating a dead horse and it is growing wearisome.  I think we're done here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I'm not trying to misdirect or obfuscate, but if I'm being attacked over opinions I don't have I'm going to defend myself. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, "proof" is a matter of semantics here. If you're using "proof" to mean "shown to be unquestionably true for all time", then no explanation of reality is every proven.  If (as most people do) take "proof" to mean "consistent with existing observations" then theories are as "proven" as they need to be.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure they can, we can prove things like the Pythagoran theorem or use the more special legal term prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did or didn't do something. It's not just a matter of semantics, the words evidence and proof are different words for a reason. If you try to equate them then you're just diminishing the nuance if the terms. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Shockingly, IP accounts complaining about an article doesn't actually mean that the article is bad. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore IPAs. See WP:5P4. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those same IP accounts were also trying to insert links in the article to tweets by the auditors—not articles about these tweets, mind you, just to the tweets themselves—to counter the criticism of the audit being reported in reliable sources. BD2412  T 22:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and they failed in doing those things because there were more experienced Wikipedians present. But that doesn't disqualify them as real users, nor does it invalidate the whole of their opinions. And that's assuming those aren't VPN IPs, as VPNs are increasingly common. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that you honestly seem to believe that the average person is qualified to diagnose the bias of an author through what amounts to engaging in a post-modernist, subjective literary analysis of their writing, absent even the contextual data that lends a (mostly false) air of credibility to academic post-modernist literary criticism, in support of a POV which is generally held by people who hold post-modernist thought and academia in contempt is really a much bigger problem for you to be dealing with than the fact that this article says stuff you don't agree with.
 * One simply cannot maintain any degree of objectivity if their definition of "objective" is entirely dependent upon their own personal inclinations (otherwise known as biases). Here at WP, we look to the most widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources of information, and then yes, we choose to hold everything those sources say about the subject of their expertise to be accurate, especially when other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources agree with them. On those rare occasions when the preponderance of other widely respected and demonstrably accurate sources disagree, then and only then do we consider a source's claims suspect, and we then remember that we failed to trust them on this issue the next time it comes up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually consider myself fairly good a English for a Swede but that went over my head. Could you please rephrase the first paragraph in simpler terms? It's a little too much for me to properly make sense of when I have to look up so many uncommon words, like what is "academic post-modernist literary criticism" even supposed to mean? One by one, or in pairs, I can make sense of it but all of it together is hopeless.
 * To the second paragraph I fear we're getting into meta-levels of definitions. From a pedantic perspective everything is interpreted on some level, like text and words are interpreted to meanings based on existing knowledge of those words, but that's still just being pedantic. If you mean something along the lines of not everyone is qualified to determine what they should think is true, then I find that downright offensive. It's a fundamental principle of a functioning democratic society that one is allowed to form their own opinions and apply new information to their existing knowledge to determine what is true or false. Anything else axiomatically requires authoritarian truth, i.e. the basis of any stable dictatorship. It was my understanding that this is a part of what made Wikipedia "The Free Encyclopedia"; we only publish the facts and opinions which makes up a neutral point of view so that the readers can form their own interpretations and opinions. But hopefully I'm just misunderstanding what you mean. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we have an encyclopedia near at hand. I would suggest reading articles in the given order: Post-modernism, then Deconstruction (specifically the section on Literary criticism), then understand that you're refocusing at this point, read Literary criticism, and then for context, you can also read Postmodern literature and Criticism of postmodernism.
 * After that, I recommend WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FIXBIAS, WP:YESPOV and WP:RS.
 * As to my second paragraph, if you can't understand the sense in it (based as it is in our policies and guidelines), WP:CIR might be a good read. Pay special attention to the second, third and fourth bullet points in the first section. I'd say the first certainly doesn't seem to apply here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah those articles didn't really help much with understanding your first paragraph. They're using what I think are field-specific terms, i.e. you'd need to have a certain level of understanding for the field to grasp the terminology. So thanks for the links but I still don't understand what you're trying to tell me. I'd like you to read WP:CIRNOT, because the third point seems to qualify even incorrect punctuation as mid-level English fluency. I understand basic English and I've picked up a lot of advanced terms over the years, including a lot of field-specific terminology regarding mechanics and science, but the articles you linked are simply incomprehensible to me. I don't know how I'm expected to understand them.
 * Come on, discussing the suitability of a source on a Wikipedia discussion page can't reasonably constitute original research. But I think I get what you're trying to say; Wikipedia generally only cares about the majority POV in an article. It's a bit flawed when it's such a controversial subject as an election audit, but I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself for trying to maintain Wikipedias reputation of neutrality.
 * I have read your second paragraph over and over again, and I think it's starting to sound like "yes, then we add that pigs can fly, unless there are other reliable sources that explicitly say they can't". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources saying "pigs can fly", then we absolutely should say that "pigs can fly" unless we have other reliable sources saying that they can't. That's exactly right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed News is generally reliable, and without clear-cut and truly dramatic evidence that they screwed up in this particular case, that general judgment applies to the specific example here too. Such evidence is lacking. The claim that "AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results" is risible. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, if everyone here wants to take a stab at my comment that a single article from AP doesn't prove anything, can you at least give a clear answer to if FormalDude should use this BFN article over the initially offered PNT article? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Why would a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when 'it does not make sense'. He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must..." discount Buzzfeed as a reliable source. (quotation from Chewbacca defense). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? I'm not trying to discount BFN as a reliable source, I'm asking specifically about this article. Actually, that's not entirely true either; FormalDude initiated this process. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh, it's only now that I realize FormalDude didn't actually ask the same question that started this. An IPA offered the article from PNT, FormalDude offered the article from BFN as a replacement and asked for comments. I responded I thought the BFN article had "several grave quality issues". Some back and forth occurred, FormalDude created this noticeboard heading, and now we're here. The question should probably read "Is this source from BFN better than this source from PNT?". SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * JFC, you need to stop with your logical fallacies. Nobody misunderstood the intent of this RS/N (except maybe you). Every editor here has clearly evaluated the source in the context of the article and the article's other sources. You are grasping at straws, and this is probably the last one left.     01:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. You clearly had no intention of representing the actual issue at hand in an honest way. You've deceived all these Wikipedians with your framing and wasted everyones time. This is not how an experienced Wikipedian should handle source selection, it has even been pointed out to me that this is not the place to discuss source selection. Yes, I probably should've noticed earlier that everyone was saying BFN is generally considered a reliable source. It should've been a red flag telling me they were answering a different question. I accept that I made that mistake. But don't you dare pretend this settles the dispute we had in the thread. Your lies have had a very real effect on my reputation, nobody is taking my edits seriously anymore and I'm getting attacked with references back to this RS/N. You on the other hand have no excuse, you know the RS/N board is only to discuss the reliability of sources, not source selection, and by opening this question here you made me believe we would have help from other experienced Wikipedians to resolve our issue, of what has essentially always been source selection. As soon as I figure out how to bring this up on whatever the appropriate noticeboard is I want to make sure this is settled once and for all, because clearly you just cannot handle someone disagreeing with you. And please, don't try that WP:NPA reference again, we can all see in the original thread that you kept going after me when I repeatedly tried to deescalate. Well, I'm done trying to deescalate and follow your advice, we need an independent third party to settle this. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to bring up any issues at WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, which I notified you about on your talk page.     03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if there are two sources and one is considered by some editors to be "better" than the other, but both are permissible, then we can use both sources. That said, I see no record from which to judge Phoenix New Times to be "better" than BuzzFeed News. If the sole criterion is how harshly they appear to be treating the subject of a specific article, that is no basis for evaluation at all. BD2412  T 01:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this might have been the conclusion we eventually would've arrived at in the original thread with the appropriate help. It's kind of hard to keep the conversation civil when FormalDude continuously called me a liar though. Right now I'll need some help on how to set up a dispute resolution though, and even though we've disagreed you've been fair to me on the talk page so I trust you not to set me on the wrong path. As you understand I don't want to fall into the same trap again, I want the specific issue of "which source to use for the Twitter bans" from the talk page resolved with help from an independent third party. FormalDude and I clearly cannot resolve this by ourselves. Where do I go to request help? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am just a man who enjoys a good dessert, but it's almost like you can look back at this very long thread and deduce which way the community seems to lean....  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry for all the noise, I should've realized earlier that something else was wrong. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Call for close
Could an uninvolved editor, or a bold involved one, please close this section? At this point, both primary editors in the dispute have signaled that they would like a close, and multiple new participants have done so as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering that the source has remained in the article uncontested for some time now I think it's acceptable to close this section with a consensus that the source is reliable and verifies the text. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  01:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

End-product label about the contents of a mineral preparation
Hello, I'm working on a draft about a term describing several mineral substances. When I translated from the German article, I also transferred a slightly weird citation. I never had this case before: They support a statement saying that "long-term oral ingestion may cause siliceous kidney stones" by citing the product label on the end-product bottle they found in a shop, I think.

What do you think about this special case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC) --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Edited in a more stable link for (my link to) the citation; also forgot to sign after my first edit here, sry.
 * It would be preferable to use published research, not the label on the bottle. Likely falls under WP:MEDRS, which I recommend reading. There has definitely been some research done on silicate kidney stones in humans, though it may not use the term "siliceous earth": e.g.. - Ryk72 talk 00:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I got my Wikipdia Library Card only a few hours ago, but already do have access to the basic access package. However, I still consider myself quite green in searching for academic info, especially studies. Would you be so kind and point me in this case? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading thorugh WP:MEDRS made me think of calling an official national health organization or perhaps the ministry for food safety and ask if they have anything. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did call the State Ministry for food safety today and expected to get some info from them soon. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, . --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not having replied earlier. My medical research searching skills are not the best; particularly if looking for secondary studies. I had a quick search for "silica kidney stones" on https://scholar.google.com, and there were quite a few results, but I'm not sure which I would pick; or which process to follow in choosing. I would probably turn to someone like or  for advice on finding the best sources. Apologies to either editor if I've misremembered them working in the MEDRS area. - Ryk72 talk 00:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, sources say Siliceous earth is either an umbrella term, or the same as Diatomaceous earth, which is where the health claims are made. Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly unpublished doctorate thesis
I have found this source on academica.edu which says it is a basılmamış doktora tezi (en. unpublished doctorate thesis). However, this thesis is also available on the Marmara University's database. So, is this source published or unpublished? Are there any problems with me using it?--V. E. (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the topic area, you're probably fine. There is some information about how to handle theses, disseratations, etc at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. They aren't top-class sources, but if you are adding relatively uncontroversial material to an uncontroversial area I'd say go right ahead. The Land (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Neville Maxwell's India's China War a reliable source?
Is Neville Maxwell's 1970 India's China War a reliable source? I ask in the context of the McMahon line, which was drawn in the 1910s, and not in the context of Sino-Indian War from 1965. Neville Maxwell basically describes the geopolitical situation that led to the drawing of the McMahon line. recently reverted my edits with the edit summary that "He is no WP:HISTRS".



Chaipau (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Neville Maxwell, as his wikipage states, is a journalist. He can be considered a reliable source (of sorts) for the events that took place during his journalistic career, but not for the historical events of the British Raj.
 * He did have some kind of a research fellowship at Cambridge, when he wrote his book, and so had access to a library. But it is not as if he thoroughly researched the history to make informed judgements about it. After his book got published, he did publish a few peer-reviewed journal articles. I don't know if they are any more reliable than his book. But at least they would have had the benefit of a peer review.
 * But you should note that the scholars in the know thoroughly disagree with most of his historical claims. For example, Pradip Phanjoubam, who wrote a book published by Routledge, critiqued precisely the issues addressed in the reverted content:
 * Note also that I cited some 5 pages of discussion about the Inner Line and Outer Line by a much more thorough scholar . I suggest you read that discussion and contemplate it. If nothing else, you need to follow WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also that I cited some 5 pages of discussion about the Inner Line and Outer Line by a much more thorough scholar . I suggest you read that discussion and contemplate it. If nothing else, you need to follow WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think if you include dissenting opinions and make it clear its Maxwell's view it would be okay. I agree in general with the no historian view, but he could still have published a good book without being which has happened. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a historical fact that before 1826 (the Treaty of Yandaboo) the British Indian boundary was at the Manas river, the eastern limit of the Burmese influence. Then it 1914, in about 90 years, it expanded to the McMahon line.  So this "Inner line" and "Outer line" is splitting hair.  The section on the background of the McMahon line should be able to explain how this expansion came about. It is historically true that this expansion happened piecemeal—first western Assam (1826), then eastern Assam (1839), then the Duars (1843-44) and finally the hills, including the hills of Arunachal Pradesh (1914).  The writing of this background should not be predicated on the dispute of the Sino-Indian war of 1965.
 * Phanjoubam is not discussing Maxwell's book but a different article (why is Kautilya3 pulling in this here?). By way of disputing Maxwell Phanjoubam writes: "The Inner Line was designed to separate the British revenue districts in the plains from the non-revenue "wild" hill territories surrounding the Assam plains.". This is precisely how Maxwell has defined the inner line (page 28): "Inner line....taxes were not collected beyond it)".
 * I agree with that even though Maxwell wasn't a historian, the parts of the book that deals with the McMahon line cannot be dismissed outright.
 * Chaipau (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no dearth of solid scholars that have studied this subject. There is no need to cite a wishy-washy POV commentator like Maxwell as far as facts are concerned. If you want to state attributed views, be my guest. But not at the cost of actual facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You,, obviously have a non-neutral opinion on Maxwell. You have not shown yet where he has presented non-facts in India's China War. The Phanjaubam example is not appropriate as I have shown above. Your reading of the "Inner line" and "Outer line" are confused (part of this is probably because the British boundary itself was in a flux just before 1914). I do not think your overly strong opinion on Maxwell ("wishy-washy POV") has any bearing on the reliability of the book as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Chaipau (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If somebody writes a book with a ridiculous title like "India's China War", how can I possibly have a "non-neutral opinion" about it? The whole book is a one long op-ed.
 * As for a "non-fact", just take the idea of the "Outer Line", which he claims was the "international boundary". Yet ther is no treaty, no legislation, and no document that defined it! He is obviously just making up stuff to suit his story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the "Outer line", look at Mehra's book page 10, where the Assam Commissioner's Report mentions these. You are basically claiming that even before 1914 the boundary must have been the McMahon line which wasn't even created yet---ignoring all the maps and reports published pre-1914.  There are currently three maps in the article and one in the talk page which you yourself have placed—all of them show the international border along the foothills which you are trying to pass off as "Inner line".  Your biased POV is glaring!  You may find a book title offensive—that is your prerogative. It should not bother us here. I would rather go by reviews of the book like those from Francis C Hutchins' in NYT who provides a critical and nuanced appraisal.  Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read all the available sources, Maxwell will automatically fall by the wayside, because his information is patchy and quite opinionated. (By the way, I didn't claim anything of the sort you say here. Even if I did, we shouldn't be discussing that here.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out the extreme view you have and that you have overstated your case. I am not trying to discuss the McMahon line here. Since we are the two parties in this, I would have preferred us to stay quiet.  The links were given in an NPOV manner and I would have preferred others to give their opinion.  I am glad that they did. Chaipau (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Neville Maxwell’s opinion on the topic is a notable one (his book is either famous or infamous depending on where your loyalties lie). Without touching on the specific reliability of India's China War to avoid any partisan blowback I will just say that we shouldn’t in general be using fifty year old non-academic texts for statements of fact (especially controversial ones) rather than opinion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On the Reliable side if the line, but requires in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. I think you and  are saying the same thing. Chaipau (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup that is my view as well. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources
Should content be removed from Wikipedia because it cites secondary rather than primary sources? For example citing BBC and Brussels Times reports rather than directly citing legal code? More discussion at Talk:Shock_collar. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if anything it should be the other way round. Secondary RS are assumed to check their facts. So if they make a claim we can't use OR to dispute it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We prefer secondary sources over primary or tertiary sources. Interpreting primary sources has the risk of becoming OR, especially for texts with many interpretations like religious scriptures (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURES) and the law. Many primary sources are also unreliable, or only partially reliable (with some grains of truth), and there needs to be secondary sources to interpret them. WIKINIGHTS talk 18:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of dictionary.com
I am wondering if dictionary.com is reliable enough to cite for definitions, etymology, etc. Some information on it:
 * dictionary.com is directly connected to thesaurus.com, and possibly other reference sites.
 * According to its about page, it is currently owned by Rock Holdings, which, according to en-wiki, is a mortgage company.
 * Regarding its reliability, it claims that it:
 * is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Other dictionaries (Harper Collins and American Heritage) are also used for research.
 * is "proprietary".
 * hires experts to update and improve the dictionary.

It is actually entirely unneeded if its notability is in question, since several reputable dictionaries like Merriam-Webster and Collins publish online.

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but I'd like to see it added to WP:RS/P. WIKINIGHTS talk 15:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica used to be owned by Sears. As best as I can tell, the World Book Encyclopedia is still owned by the Scott Fetzer Company, maker of paint sprayers and knives, which in turn is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, who make underwear and ice cream and many, many profits. So the ownership seems immaterial.
 * "Notability" is not our standard for a source. Reliability is.
 * The idea that we have two dictionaries, so who needs more, sends a shiver up the spine of wordies and is a logic that would cast aside so many other categories of reference for which we have more than two already.
 * Something should have already been asked before it gets added to our list of "perennials", and that only examples I can find where dictionary.com was even questioned for reliability is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155, where it was a poster's secondary concern on which nothing move forward, and one passing mention to the idea that if the site had an opinion section, that wouldn't necessarily be reliable. Generally, when cited in discussion on this board, it's to provide a definition.
 * Do you have some specific reason to question the source's reliability (specifically on definitions, which is what it primarily used for)? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you planning on using this dictionary for exactly? Like what type of articles. If you are using it for controversial topics or the editors of that site don’t know much about a particular topic I wouldn’t recommend it to be honest. Like if you were gonna use it for the definition of a certain disease I would recommend a medical source instead.CycoMa (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I confused notability and reliability (as words) in my head, sorry. I just need a dictionary citation to verify the meaning of the prefix cyto- at "Skeleton". When nothing is controversial, one/two reliable sources should be fine so that a reader can quickly verify. I was wondering about dictionary.com as a potential source because I had seen it in a few other articles.
 * There are a number of reasons to question the reliability of dictionary.com, which relate to its unique existence as only a website or the lack of information one can find about it. From the RS we cite at "dictionary.com", several names of its staff are known, and some of them had previously worked on Random House. This may be enough to substantiate its reliability for a non-controversial citation, but I would say that a known reputable printed dictionary is more reliable. WIKINIGHTS talk 16:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Since it is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, I would use the Random House or another dictionary instead. When choosing reliable sources, I consider what if it's wrong. Good dictionaries explain their definitions in their unabridged versions and these can be crosschecked with competing dictionaries. Dictionary.com does not do that since its purpose is to quickly provide definitions of words to people reading online. They're not interested in subtle distinctions of meaning. So Dictionary.com defines evil as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked," while Lexico.com defines it as "Profoundly immoral and wicked." If they had unabridged versions, we could consult them to determine which definition is more correct. TFD (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * While dictionary.com is not necessarily unreliable, especially considering that its definitions presumably are usually uncontroversial, I'm not sure why you would use it when there are more reliable sources available. Onelook.com is a good way to access online dictionaries (although, to be clear, onelook.com includes both reliable and unreliable sources).  When I go there and enter "cyto," I get links to a number of online definitions, including several solidly reliable sources:  Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionaries (not the OED, but still RS), American Heritage, and Collins.  (There also purports to be a link to Webster's New World, which is RS, but it's actually a bad link to YourDictionary.com.)  So there are better quality sources readily available, and they cover both British and American usage.  John M Baker (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my specific case (you can see the case I am referring to at Talk:Shipping (fandom)), I am wanting to use Dictionary.com as a source for the "Notable Fandoms" section of the main article to add an entire fandom to the article. Am I allowed to use the site as a source? -- TheSNerd (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding. I am still concerned. One can assume that dictionary.com is used as a source in many, many articles. (I don't know how to search Wikipedia for refs containing dictionary.com to check exactly.) There are going to be content disputes in the future that involve whether a definition in dictionary.com is reliable. Is this a situation where an RfC should be called? WIKINIGHTS talk 21:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a lot of effort to address a problem that has not yet been identified. No one that I can see has raised a case where their definition is seriously in doubt; at most, the claim is it's not the most nuanced version.. It's derived from a reliable dictionary, staffed by some of the same people who made that dictionary, so that would suggest expertise. The idea that we should cast it out because it is an online dictionary rather than a print dictionary is an odd form of media prejudice, particularly given that Wikipedia actually prefers online references where possible as it makes verifiability simple. That does not prevent you from using another source for your editing, of course. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel it could be useful. The problem is that many editors (particularly newer ones) tend to view dictionaries as authoritative, defining sources to the point where they will argue that eg. the lead of a controversial article should be cited solely to a dictionary, and reflect just that definition, rather than summarizing the article (and its numerous higher-quality sources.)  It would be useful to have a singular easy-to-digest policy, consensus, or the like that says, broadly, "don't do that; the limitations on dictionaries mean that they are not the highest-quality sources in most circumstances and should not be prioritized over better sources."  We have WP:DICTIONARIES and WP:TERTIARYNOT, but they are long, complex, unwieldy, just essays, and use jargon that newer users are unlikely to be familiar with. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Eat This, Not That!
Any thoughts on eatthis.com? I'm thinking of writing an article about the company Kytch, who is currently involved with a controversy involving Taylor Company and McDonald's. Assuming it's a RS, and  would be useful references. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . My impression of Eat This, Not That! is that it is a sensationalist clickbait site. Here's a higher quality source regarding that controversy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, yeah, I had found the Food And Wine source and was going to use that too. Based on your evaluation, I'll skip the ETNT ones.  Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)