Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359

Bart Van Loo
User:Kansas Bear wants to delete Bart van Loo, spefically his work The Burgundians: A Vanished Empire from the Mary of Burgundy article. I don't think that source is a top academic source or something like that, but I think it deseves some mention because of the following reason, that I've posted on the Mary of Burgundy Talk page:
 * Just because someone is not a trained historian, that does not mean they don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia, which does accept even journalists's works and commentaries. I don't see anywhere the requirement that one must only cite trained historians. If we had a lot of sources on the subject to choose from, and the writer in question happened to have a controversial opinion, I would agree that we should move to a better choice. Van Loo's work definitely has an unorthodox, unacademic structure, but I don't hear anywhere that the basic events he describes are contested. Hans Cools, who is certainly a serious historian, thinks that the work does a good job in providing a Netherlandish/Flemings' take on the stature of its dukes, rather than the more known but propaganda-influenced of French (great!) historians like Jules Michelet, and that it provides good psychological portraits of personalities involved. I think the work is notable enough. Deamonpen (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A link to that discussion would have been helpful; Talk:Mary_of_Burgundy has some stuff. I don't understand Kansas Bear's "it's not in Google Scholar argument"; indeed, many things are not in there. The question is whether Head of Zeus is worth its salt as a publisher, and it's odd that this is the second time in two days that I ran into that publisher here on Wikipedia, both times with the same question: what kind of outfit is this? The document you linked is not helpful at all, since it does not appear to have been published, its origin is unclear, and it's even a translation from Dutch? No, that does not move me. What this needs is serious reviews; the Dutch and Belgian papers are full of stuff about the tour, the popularity, etc., but I have not yet found any reviews that judge it on its historical merits. I also find nothing for the author in JSTOR. So, for now, I do not see a good reason to accept it as a serious historical source. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Head of Zeus is a formerly indie publisher which is now an imprint of Bloomsbury. I'm sure it's non-fiction publications are perfectly fine by popular history standards, but as far as I know they don't make any claims to be an academic press.  Given that they aren't an academic press, and van Loos isn't an academic historian, I don't see any compelling reason to use him in the article: if a fact is worth reporting in our article, we should be able to find a better source for it; if there isn't a better source for it, I'd be concerned about due weight.  Mary of Burgundy is the kind of topic which there ought to be serious academic sources for (and I'm no medievalist, but glancing at the article it seems that at least some of the cited sources absolutely are Proper Academic History), so it's not one of those cases where we are forced to use less-than-ideal sources because nothing better exists.  All in all, I pretty much agree with Drmies: I don't see any particularly compelling reason to use van Loos.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I usually can find some mention of a source, either as a review or citation on Google Scholar. In this case, nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is probably because the book was first published in English on 28 October 2021 . On the merits, I agree with Drmies and Caeciliusinhorto. There is no reason to accept a source like this for medieval history, a topic with more than its fair share of Serious Academic Commentary. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the Dutch review that corresponds (it seems revised) to the French translation is here. When I said that the sources on Mary of Burgundy were few, I thought primarily about English sources. I have not run across a biography of her in English, and while there are articles/essays etc about her, it usually focuses on her image (as represented by her or by others), from a scholar whose focus is on art/art history etc., even though they do get published by notable publishers. The sources with more details tend to be from the 19th century. The French side has a bit more but it's pretty hard to access. Her latest scholarly French biography is G. Dumont, Marie de Bourgogne (Paris, 1982). The others are very old (the novels etc are more numerous it seems). The German/Austrian side certainly mostly tells the story from the perspective of her influence on Maximilian's life - And he has no proper English biography either, despite being a huge European figure; the old ones carry a lot of recently (ab. 40 years) corrected propaganda-influenced errors, which affect Mary as well; to be fair, the many fields her husband was involved with are hard to grasp (but inextricably linked to each other) and compiled into a single work with a normal chronological order, so basically only Wiesflecker's (five-volumed, and huge) and Holleger's works are usually noted. And to German-speaking historians, the sources related to his last wife Bianca Maria are nearer. From Karaskova's and others' works, it appears that once Mary of Burgundy got married, the chroniclers stopped reporting on her political actions, so what we know is either from Maximilian, or side commentators, or information deduced from propaganda images/artworks. Another problem is that the Burgundian Netherlandish court tried to build a mythology around her, who had a short life and a short reign, so Marie as a human and her earthly actions tended to become obscured.--Deamonpen (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

TWENTYSIX publishing company


TWENTYSIX appears to be a self-publishing company. Does this source fail WP:SPS? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Volker Schoßwald appears to be a pastor in the Nuremberg area. Absent proof that he's a recognized expert in the Reformation, I would say the source is unusable except for his own opinion. What's the proposed usage? Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Franz von Sickingen --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

How reliable is Bubbleblabber as a source?
Currently, Bubbleblabber is used on 137 pages. But, I have questions about its reliability and think it may be be a self-published source per WP:BLOGS and feel it may not aligning with the guidelines of WP:RS. Although Daniel Kurland, who has wrote for Den of Geek, is on the site's staff, as was Noelle Ogawa who wrote for Crunchyroll, as noted here and here. I am not sure about the site's other staff and if they can be considered reliable. I've never posted on this noticeboard before, so please let me know if this is the wrong place to post this, but I felt it is necessary to discuss this on here. I look forward to hearing from you all.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure as to its reliability (tv shows/movies are not my area of expertise) but a quick DuckDuckGo search does not seem to see them mentioned in any prominent sources. The description of the link (the site is under maintenance) to Rotten Tomatoes' description of the source says BubbleBlabber is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer ® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Daniel Kurland. Note that ScreenRant's author bio on Kurland does not mention Bubbleblabber at all.
 * In conclusion, Manual_of_Style/Film may provide some guidance on the use of similar websites. I personally don't see their use as highly problematic, and would suggest just adding a better source needed tag when relevant. In regards to their reviews, I'd follow RT's example of only using them when written by Daniel Kurland. Otherwise, as the source is not very prominent, it's best to use other critics and consider whether Bubbleblabber's reference should or should not be removed on a case-by-case basis. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A._C._Santacruz, thanks for responding! I was beginning to think that no one would respond to my question (and was even considering proposing a RFC on Bubbleblabber), but I am glad you did. I am not surprised that they are not "mentioned in any prominent sources," to be honest or that Kurland's profile on ScreenRant doesn't even mention it. I'll definitely take a look at that Manual of Style link and will follow that guidance to only use them for articles written by Daniel Kurland, which does seem like a sizable amount. I'll also try to use other critics, assess the use of it on a case-by-case basis, and add a better sources tag when needed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

La Voce delle Voci
Although Italian is Greek to me, I clearly know that La Voce delle Voci, an Italian news website, is unreliable for selling conspiracy theories. Hope that fellow Wikipedians who are proficient at both Chinese and Italian can spend some time verifying my claim and discussing the reliability of this website. Thank you!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Center for Inquiry sources on CFI-related articles
I believe that: and other Center for Inquiry publications should not be used as sources for BLPs of those affiliated with the organization (such as some of those listed here and all of those listed here) per WP:INDEPENDENT. For example, Taner Edis's page right now is entirely cited to sources that have CFI as a parent company (with the exception of those reviewing his book and his CV). This is very problematic as he is a consultant to Skeptical Inquirer, and so these references are a violation of WP:COISOURCE. I find the continued use of such sources on BLPs of people related to CFI wrong, and thus have created this post to get the opinion on the matter from others in the community, and hopefully to create a project-wide precedent. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  20:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Skeptical Inquirer
 * Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
 * CSICon
 * Center for Inquiry Investigations Group
 * QuackWatch
 * Point of Inquiry
 * Free Inquiry
 * The American Rationalist
 * Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
 * Philo (journal)
 * Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
 * International Academy of Humanism
 * Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
 * Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion
 * Make situational—As I brought up in a previous thread, there's serious issue with these articles being heavily reliant on ultimate independent or primary sourcing, especially when the publications themselves don't have a clear editorial policy or rigor in their publishing methods. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am far more concerned about their use to insert negative information in BLPs, especially when an article or sting is done by a fellow or member, as that essentially makes it a WP:SPS, which definitely should not be used in BLPs to insert negative or controversial information. There are also issues when someone conducts a sting operation, and the direct report of that sting operation is used to add negative information to a BLP, as then it's a WP:SPS as well as WP:PRIMARY. If the information from stings were WP:DUE it would be covered in independent reliable secondary sources. Using them as sources to puff up the articles of members is certainly a COI issue, but the BLP issues stand out to me as a much larger problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch is currently regarded as self published, with WP:BLPSPS applying, and that may be the case with some of the others. However, I do have a concern with Skeptical Inquirer. It often uses experts, and we've generally allowed experts under WP:PARITY, and have no major issues concerning its use to counter pseudoscience. However, my problem is similar to ScottishFinnishRadish above, in that I'm certainly concerned about the use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs. There a general problem with the overall POV of the source, which is clearly highly partisan, but also according to the editorial guidelines, "The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective". They have a review process they use for some articles, but not all, and where BLP is concerned I'd like to have stronger standards, especially as this is often used for negative material about living people. In addition, in discussing Donald Gary Young, there were significant concerns raised about errors in the Skeptical Inquirer's article that were not supported by the sources being used, and concerns have been raised about their articles elsewhere . I think PARITY should apply, and can see the source remaining useful, but I have strong reservations with BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Quackwatch is currently regarded as self published" &larr; not so. Only Barrett's articles are so regarded. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * True enough, but that does make up the bulk of the content. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ( Considering only as a question on BLP material ) Case-by-case. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, and reliable sources are independent and from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Apply as necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC); amended 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If "Center for Inquiry sources on CFI-related articles" is the context, it would be a case similar to WP:ABOUTSELF, usable for basic material that is not self-serving. As Bilby mentioned, these sources are often useful in other contexts for WP:PARITY.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable. I have not seen any instances where the reliability of these sources has been identified as lacking. Of course, reliability is almost always situational. It could be that some source of questionable reliability does exist that s published by this non-profit organization, but on the balance I think sources published by this group have been done responsibly and would continue to be done so. The evidence provided that there is a problem is essentially non-existent. jps (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INDEPENDENT:
 * It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this primary source is the only source available on the topic, this bias is impossible to correct. Such articles tend to be vanity pieces, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas.
 * If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in Reliable sources. Articles should not be built using only vested-interest sources. This requirement for independent sources is so as to determine that the topic can be written about without bias; otherwise the article is likely to fall foul of our vanity guidelines.
 * the use of the sources in the BLPs I mentioned is a problem due to COI, which goes against WP:NBASIC and WP:NPOV, as well as other guidelines I might be forgetting to cite here. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no independent sources, the topic is non-notable and should be sent to AFD. That's not a reason to ban the use of a source for noncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF sorts of uses, though. - MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * COI sources are not the same as SPS sources, so I ask you to clarify how ABOUTSELF applies here. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  16:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hope that didn't sound passive aggressive, just want some clarification on this as it seems nuanced. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this some sort of trick question? You wrote above 'should not be used as sources for BLPs of those affiliated with the organization'. Either they're affiliated (and the org is writing about itself) or they're not (and then there is no problem). MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I accidentally assumed you meant something else, apologies :)  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  16:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In general, this seems fine, per WP:ABOUTSELF. As wrote, Either they're affiliated (and the org is writing about itself) or they're not (and then there is no problem). There could in principle be exceptions, if claims are particularly self-serving or called into question by other, more independent sources, but such instances can be handled on a case-by-case basis if and when they arise. We don't expunge all sources affiliated with Harvard from the pages about Harvard faculty and alumni. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Your concern seems to be about independence of the sources for what they are being used to cover. That is situational based on the subject at hand. But it has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources. Regardless of COI conflicts in specific usage, the sources are still reliable sources. If you have specific concerns, then you should bring them up on the article talk pages or possibly the BLP noticeboard or Fringe noticeboard or other such article content-focused noticeboards. Reliability of the sources is not the issue here. Silver  seren C 06:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the book "A History of Kafferistan" reliable?
Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZoH2oQFIhWIC&q=chitrali+cap&pg=PA33|title=A History of Kafferistan: Socio-economicand Political Conditions of the Kaffers

Its a book about Nuristan province in Afghanistan. Nuristan was Back than named Kafferistan. Is this book reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:69b5:4300:ddb7:4a4c:f11f:37d9 (talk • contribs)
 * Give appropriate weight - To be honest the weight you should give to this work should not be very high, if more modern histories contradict it then go with what they say. The publisher appears to be a well-established publishing house so it does appear to at least be an RS. You appear to be looking at it in reference to the clothes people wear/wore there? I see no reason why it would be particularly unreliable for that. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Asia journal
Is this journal regarded as a reliable peer reviewed published source? Can it be used on Wikipedia?

https://www.ancient-asia-journal.com/

Metta79 (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It states the following on its main page: "Amongst its goals are to bring forth the research being conducted in areas that are not often well published such as... [list of countries]" If fact-checking isn't a problem, and the information they are publishing is based on facts and scientific evidence, then I can't see why not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They say that they are peer reviewed, and they list an editorial board apparently made up of academics. I would assume that they're a reliable source unless there's a particular reason to believe they aren't. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been assessed as a legitimate academic publishing venue by both the Finnish and Norwegian national publication venue ratings boards as well as by ERIH PLUS (link). I'd go with "reliable" unless there's some actual evidence to the contrary. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews needs to be reevaluated

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In light of recent events, I think the use of PinkNews as a "reliable source" needs to be reevaluated:


 * Bindel-v-PinkNews, Case No: QB-2020-002650 (7 July 2021)
 * Pink News Quietly Issues Retraction Over 'TERF Cult' Hit Piece, 4W, 25 October 2021
 * Pink News vs Julie Bindel, The Critic, 29 October 2021.

It was also forced to apologize to MP Joanna Cherry and pay for the legal costs of the lawsuit against them: Correction, PinkNews, July 3, 2019.

Then there are the barrage of yellow journalism headlines for "news" articles:


 * Outraged academics condemn government for handing anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock an OBE, PinkNews, January 6, 2021
 * Universities union backs trans rights in row over anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock, PinkNews, October 14, 2021
 * Anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock quits Sussex university in ‘massive win for LGBT+ students’, PinkNews, October 28, 2001
 * LGBT+ students claim ‘monumental victory’ after anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock quits, PinkNews, October 29, 2021
 * Tory equalities minister leaps to defence of anti-trans professor Kathleen Stock, PinkNews, November 2, 2021

It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it. The editorial decisions by PinkNews proves that it is nowhere near to being a "reliable source" for use as a citation in accordance with WP:RS. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yellow journalism? That's at least a bit contentious. I highly doubt "anti-trans" is the equivalent to little but spurious propaganda, unless you've a view to push. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Looking on your Talk page, I see the following:
 * "99g: 'Never known a female to "womansplain" anything to me or anyone, but "mansplaining" is a condescending entitlement of which the meaning isn't changed because those who do it wrap themselves with a multi-colored gender flag. Pyxis Solitary (yak)"


 * So if that's not the blueprints to a red flag factory, I'm not sure what is. Stock is pretty reliably considered to have undertaken transphobic actions by more than just PinkNews. Yes, it was forced to pay the costs of a lawsuit against Joanna Cherry; I don't see this as a reason alone to discredit them as a source. It is true that they're not exactly The Times, and that for serious matters you'd want more than just one citation from PinkNews alone credited, but I see no reason to deprecate them on the same level as the Daily Mail, for instance. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And you're using my response to a comment left in my talk page ... because _____. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What did actual reliable sources have to say about this? Did it get coverage at all? Because English defamation law is awful and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. And speaking of awful, I read those 4W and The Critic articles and wish I hadn't. Maybe we should consider them unreliable instead? Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the UK, but I found this barristers source: Julie Bindel settles libel claim with PinkNews, 5RB, 26 October 2021 Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a "news" piece from the law firm that worked for Bindel. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pyxis, I don't think you have really addressed the WP:BIASEDSOURCES issues in this filing. For WP purposes, the relevant question is accuracy - and headlines are not relevant in this context, since they can't be used for factual claims. And on the Bindel issue, I don't see how settling a defamation suit has anything to do with the source's reliability - if WP deprecated all sources that had ever settled a defamation suit, we wouldn't write very much about current events at all (which might be a good thing in some sense, but it would certainly be a major policy shift). Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * what exactly is the reliability issue you’re trying to highlight here? The headlines appear technically accurate and nothing I can see substantiates the claim of yellow journalism. If in fact "It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it.” then you can obviously provide reliable third party sources which say as such. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4W is an anti-trans activist blog, and The Critic is an openly astroturfed culture war paper, whose backer backed it because he wanted "culture wars content" (as noted and cited in The Critic (modern magazine)). If sources of this calibre are against Pink News, this is in Pink News' favour - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pyxis Solitary has been all over Wikipedia arguing in support of anti-trans viewpoints. And they're angry that PinkNews is one of the few reliable sources out there accurately covering anti-trans activity by groups like LGB Alliance and people like Kathleen Stock. That's the reason why this section was created. They don't want to have accurate media coverage criticizing the anti-trans subjects they like. Regardless of that, Pink News is a reliable source, Option 1 as we say around here, and has proper editorial background and vetting of articles and the information contained therein. Being biased in terms of being pro-LGBT doesn't alter their reliability status. Silver  seren C 18:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They do seem to be pretty heavily focused on a number of feminism articles that definitely brush shoulders with trans rights topics; Kathleen Stock, Joanna Cherry and Radical feminism all pop up in their most recent edits. This doesn't define a WP:SPA, and their edits in Wikipedia mainspace seem pretty reasonable, but it is a contentious area that editors should be cautious within. Their edits in Wikipedia's Talkspace, however, seem a bit more contentious, and at times pointed. I don't think this post on PinkNews as a reliable source has been raised in good faith, and while their conduct isn't the worst I've seen, I can see things going over the line in the future. This isn't ANI, but when an editor raises something like this on RSN and has a history of involvement in radfem-adjacent articles, it feels like something to be considered. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would be long until the culture warriors targeted PinkNews, and I don't think it should be too long until they are politely told that it won't be happening, either. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * re your remark about ‘culture warriors’: I refer you to WP:NPA Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on…..political beliefs and WP:ADMINCOND Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern, but I don't believe that labelling editors who come to Wikipedia to edit with a certain POV on a subset of articles (whether that be cultural, political, religious or anything else) to be derogatory, merely factual. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m surprised that you say that. In my experience, when people with different views call each other ‘culture warriors’, they are intending to insult each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a reliability issue here. It is inevitable that a news source will make a mistake, and given the state of UK libel laws it is inevitable that someone with sufficient cause will file and either succeed or settle in a court case. To give a tangentially relevant comparison, the BBC were forced into making a rather significant edit to an article that was heavily criticised for being transphobic, after one of the people who provided quotes posted some rather extreme comments on her personal blog. Should we now deprecate the BBC as a reliable source because of part of this article not meeting their content guidelines? Or can we accept that a reliable news source will occasionally drop the ball, and produce problematic content as a result without that affecting its wider reliability? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This complaint doesn't have enough oomph to justify any change to what we're doing, but a disturbing portion of the commenters are saying (roughly) "PinkNews supports the liberal political line so we have to keep using them". User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 20:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's plain conjecture and you know it. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the start of the discussion itself effectively says "PinkNews calls this person who I don't believe to be anti-trans 'anti-trans' and therefore we have to stop using them", which amounts to "this source is unreliable because I disagree with it." Underlying this is a fundamental reason why the topic area has become so tricky - there's such a sharply-divided view on sex and gender issues, especially when it comes to trans rights, that things some people think are unobjectionable will be viewed by others as so obviously wrong that it's seen as impossible to disagree in good faith. But at the very least it is well-established that we cannot declare a source unreliable solely for their views unless those views are plainly WP:FRINGE or unless there's reason to believe their views are interfering with the accuracy of their reporting in a systemic manner. I'm not seeing any serious argument for that here - there's extensive mainstream coverage of the view that Stock is anti-trans, enough that it can plainly be considered a widespread and mainstream position, even if there's competing mainstream positions and many more people who would disagree. (See eg.  - I specifically chose sources that are generally favorable to her; even those acknowledge that she's considered anti-trans by some or that her views are considered transphobic by a significant number of people.) Covering her from that perspective is not enough to affect a source's rating on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A news outlet publishing apologies - i.e., admitting it got something wrong - is hardly evidence of anything. Every news source that's been around for a while has a record of doing the same. PinkNews continues to be a reliable source. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, correcting errors is a positive criterion for being considered a reasonable WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if this were "par for the course" for the publication would that be an issue, which does not seem to be the case for PinkNews. --M asem (t) 00:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As others have said, issuing occasional retractions is expected for an WP:RS. And the argument that referring to someone as "anti-trans" is intrinsically yellow journalism is absurd - it amounts to arguing that the source should be depreciated because you disagree with its characterization of the subject. By that logic we could never call anyone anti-trans, under any circumstances, even with an inline citation, because you would argue that any source that refers to them that way is automatically unreliable; that is not how WP:LABEL works. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PinkNews has received a notable amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS in academic literature as a source of factual information for its news reports pertaining to various LGBT-related topics. They were cited for example by PLOS One(1)(2), Heliyon of Cell Press (1), Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online of Elsevier (1), Psychological Science in the Public Interest(1), Systematic Reviews(1), Culture, Health & Sexuality (1), The Journal of Sexual Medicine(1), and the Journal of Homosexuality (1).
 * A lot of HIV focused papers and reports appear to cite it, too. For instance those of the Journal of the International AIDS Society (1)(2), BMC Infectious Diseases(1), the World Health Organization(1), UNAIDS(1), and AIDS and Behavior(1). --Chillabit (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

With a source with a strong editorial bias like this one it is important to be careful about how the source is used. This would come in two forms. First, we need to be very careful when something PN reports is actually treated as fact vs commentary/opinion of the reporter inserted into an article that isn't called "opinion". For example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion. Second, if PN uses an appeal to authority ("Many consider X to be Y") we should consider how much weight should be given to that information. This is doubly true when evaluating the claim is inherently subjective/shades of gray. Being cited in academic work is a step in the right direction but we have to ask what they were cited for. Were they cited for hard facts or for as an opinion of some type? Were they cited for things they got right or wrong? I can see why concerns are being raised and even if they don't rise to yellow journalism the concerns point in that direction. With any source with such a strong POV it certainly makes for a "use with caution" in cases where the views expressed or the weight given views are subject to PN's editorial bias. Springee (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that Springee's first point, that (f)or example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion, doesn't actually carry consensus on Wikipedia. Some editors argue that we should expect RS to provide evidence when they make a judgement about the applicability of a label, but most editors do not agree, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, if only one or two sources are labelling a topic pro or anti, we should be attributing that. If a significant proportion of all sources that talk about a topic in-depth about a topic use that terminology, attribution is unlikely to be needed. I think given Pink News here, we'd have more cases that fall into the first situation, but that doesn't change anything with their reliability. --M asem (t) 14:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the "balance of sources" argument is logically completely different from the "sources should supply their own evidence" point. The former reflects WP policy; the latter is an additional standard to which a minority of editors is strongly committed (IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though I'd read the "provide own evidence" reflecting on if there's a lack of any other sources making the same statement. There's various levels of gray here, but as long as we know its coming from an RS, we don't expect RSes to provide their own sources, but for us, its applying the concepts of RS to know whether we attribute it or simply cite it in consideration of other sources if they are corroborating similar positions/information. --M asem (t) 15:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion (PinkNews)
1. My response to those who question why I think PinkNews needs to be reevaluated: The PinkNews of today bathes in headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages. It is laser-focused on creating controversy against subjects it disagrees with or does not approve of. Legitimate news sources do not sensationalize nor feed frenzied crowds with biased stories. Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail.

2. For those who are indulging personal attacks in this discussion: do you need to be reminded of Wikipedia policies -- or are you going to cry ignorance about them? [[WP:NPA|
 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor;
 * Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors;
 * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views;
 * Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views;
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence]].

[[WP:CIVIL|
 * Avoid condescension;
 * Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment]].

Because in case anyone has forgotten ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where the latter are headed. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 13:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Only commenting on #1, but every major RS today, perhaps outside of the NYTimes and BBC, engages in "headline hysterics" as well as less objective tones in writing as to draw and maintain readership. Fortunately, headlines are not part of a reliable source, and we have capabilities under YESPOV to extract what we know is factual info from more subjective tones (or place subjective stuff in attribution), as having bias is not the same as being unreliable. What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material (the Daily Mail's problem), or such adherence to misinformation and little regard to the editorial process to address that to make them unreliable for that (the Fox News situation around politics). --M asem (t) 14:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"PinkNews publishes stories removed from Google under 'right to be forgotten'", The Guardian, 2 February 2016; "James Charles Slams LGBTQ+ Media Outlet Pink News for Releasing “Ugly Edited Photos” of Him", Seventeen, January 16, 2020 (which resulted in: "An open letter to YouTuber James Charles", PinkNews, January 16, 2020); "UK outlet mocked for describing statement 'only females get cervical cancer' as 'transphobic lie'", Fox News, July 14, 2020; "Pink News Lied about J.K. Rowling’s Book ‘Troubled Blood’ – Without Reading It", Uncommon Ground, September 16, 2020; "WPUK, Lush and Pink News", Woman's Place UK, 2 December 2020. Just a handful. Because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... Pyxis Solitary   (yak). L not Q. 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material". To wit: the articles by PinkNews that resulted in lawsuits from MP Joanna Cherry (in 2019) and Julie Bindel (in 2021), which forced PinkNews to publicly apologize for publishing defamatory allegations about them (in the case of Cherry, it also included monetary agreements). Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My read of the case is that they did not create deliberate misinformation, but used innuendo and exaggeration, which said individuals asserted was defamation and thus took legal action and had courts rule in their favor. They did also redact these articles. --M asem (t) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Innuendo and exaggeration + news source = zero credibility. If putting PinkNews on the same level as the Daily Mail is considered hard to swallow -- okay, I hear you. But it isn't far-fetched to put it on the same level as The Sun.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 15:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is: When PN engages in innueondo and exaggeration against certain people or targets, it seems pretty obvious, while when they are reporting on news relevant to the LGBTQ community, its clear they keep a more level head (though clearly with a pro-LGBTQ slant). Whereas with works like other Brit tabloids, the lines between the tabloid reporting and any serious work are impossible to delineate, which makes it hard as a WP editor to determine what we can use for referencing in a serious nature. And of course in the Daily Mail case, falsification could happen anywhere, making the entire work suspect. As others have said above, there's reason to keep the current flags on RS/P related to PinkNews about some of their coverage, but that's easy to spot and keep far at bay from WP. We can excise the bad part of that apple and keep the rest to use, something we simply can't do with most tabloids. --M asem (t) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Still think PinkNews is an LGBT cousin of The Sun:
 * I just read through all of those... None describe the outlet as "an LGBT cousin of The Sun” which article did you think said that? Also just FYI Fox, Uncommon Ground Media, and WPUK are not WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A disgusting and outrageous comparison. Remind me which 94 victims of a disaster PinkNews openly taunted, lied about and denigrated in the same week that they died. Or is it just The S*n that did that? — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Second Masem's comment. There is nothing here that casts doubt on the general reliability of PinkNews as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * General reliability yes, but subjective commentary and weight should be treated with caution. As Masem said above, if the only source making the controversial claim is PN then we should be very careful with how it is used.  Springee (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say is accurate enough, but it is also reflected in the status quo RSN entry for PinkNews. Presumably the filer wants to change this, or we are all wasting time. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Related to PinkNews entry on RSN, while we're discussing it here could/would it be appropriate to more clearly define what exactly the additional considerations may apply and caution should be used are against this source? Both and I have had disagreements in the recent past as to the scope of those considerations, and spelling it out more clearly may help either or both of us when it comes to disagreements as to this source's reliability for certain statements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Concerning the first comment, Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail: this has not been substantiated in any way by Pyxis, and, for anyone who has actually followed the Daily Mail controversies, is quite obviously a false and absurd statement.
 * Concerning the second point, I would simply point out that personal attacks - especially, unsubstantiated ones - are no more appropriate on this page than they are elsewhere on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * indeed, were Pyxis to try to press this point it may be WP:BOOMERANG material. In any case, this is not in any manner collegiate editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages" - sorry, but calling someone "anti-trans" is headline hysterics. Nor is it drum beating, nor is it fomenting outrage - not when the subjects of these articles are the ones creating said outrage through their actions.
 * "Laser-focused on creating controversy" - again; PinkNews doesn't need any help in this department, nor does it "create" controversy. Seemingly everyone's favourite pastime in the UK is coming out as transphobic. Just reporting on it doesn't make it worse or create something new, it just reports on it.
 * My conclusion is that these things seem like they're creating controversy  your intention is to then ask "Please explain to me how their actions are transphobic?" - and I have run into enough bad faith WP:SEALIONing online in regards to trans rights to even  that as a viable thing to present at RSN. The actions of Stock, Cherry, and a number of others have been reported on  as transphobic. Reporting on someone being called anti-trans is not biased or opinionated.
 * This RSN is based on nothing, going nowhere, is clearly against consensus, and only seems to be prolonged so far in a bad faith war of attrition. I think we all have better things to do with our time than this. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What actions, ? Instead of parroting buzz-word attacks launched on these BLPs like "transphobic" and "anti-trans", why don't you actually say for what these people are being called so? In this Kathleen Stock case, they're clearly engaging in an all-out media campaign to wreck this woman's career, as an example to anyone that might dare express a similar viewpoint. What is transphobic? Apparently according to Pink News it's both "transphobic" and "a lie" to say that only females can get cervical cancer. That any source that makes a claim like that can even be entertained as "reliable" is worrisome. So please tell us, what are anti-trans actions? Since you throw around that language, explain what makes someone anti-trans? And, while doing so, take into consideration: only one biological sex is at risk of being forcibly impregnated. Only the other biological sex possesses the ability to forcibly impregnate (i.e., rape). Is it anti-trans to protect the former from the latter by having segregated spaces? Or is anything other than allowing males full access to females wherever they are at all times, rape and unwanted pregnancy be damned, transphobic?
 * I'll also mention that homosexuality itself gets called "transphobic" now. Gays and, especially, lesbians, being shamed and threatened with rape and murder for...being what they are.
 * So what is reliable anymore, on this subject? It seems clear to me that our business as usual approach is failing, here. This venue isn't the place to have this discussion. I would ask whomever evaluates the consensus here, the roughly 2/3 of the participants who show up at every single gender-related battleground and act as a monolithic bloc, echoing one another in discussions, and self-declaring their side as "consensus" ought to be given as much weight as one editor acting as a warrior in a battleground and know that they will say "this souce is reliable" unconditionally, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided, because it supports their POV. The POV of the OP doesn't matter, because she still has an burden of proof: she must provide proof that they are unreliable, she cannot just say "I just don't like it" like the other side can do without any repurcussion whatsoever (other than having their comments given minimal consideration by the closer). Therefore the attacks on her like the one below by Black Kite are out of line IMO. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not gonna justify that with a response, lmao. I don't have to, neither do I want to, nor do I think it'll help or go anywhere. Please hash these points out elsewhere with someone who cares to take this bait. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is reliable anymore, on this subject? It seems clear to me that our business as usual approach is failing, here. This venue isn't the place to have this discussion. I would ask whomever evaluates the consensus here, the roughly 2/3 of the participants who show up at every single gender-related battleground and act as a monolithic bloc, echoing one another in discussions, and self-declaring their side as "consensus" ought to be given as much weight as one editor acting as a warrior in a battleground and know that they will say "this souce is reliable" unconditionally, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided, because it supports their POV. The POV of the OP doesn't matter, because she still has an burden of proof: she must provide proof that they are unreliable, she cannot just say "I just don't like it" like the other side can do without any repurcussion whatsoever (other than having their comments given minimal consideration by the closer). Therefore the attacks on her like the one below by Black Kite are out of line IMO. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not gonna justify that with a response, lmao. I don't have to, neither do I want to, nor do I think it'll help or go anywhere. Please hash these points out elsewhere with someone who cares to take this bait. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's cut to the chase here. The OP does not want PinkNews marked unreliable because they actually beliee it's unreliable; they want it marked unreliable because it is being used to source material that they find objectionable. More than one admin has already suggested that certain editors on both sides of the transgender issue may need to be removed from the area; filings like this are only likely to make that result more likely.  This should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly reasonable, when a publication has had to settle a libel action, to raise the question of whether the publication should be treated as a reliable source. (That is why I am following this discussion.) And if you have been following this discussion, you will know that there is a serious question which has not yet been answered. So this discussion should not yet be closed. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is that perfectly reasonable? I don’t see it being reasonable unless the question has been raised by a WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because having to settle a libel action indicates incompetence on the part of either the publication’s staff, or their lawyers. In this particular case, I would have expected Pink News to be particularly careful over the possibility of being sued by Julie Bindel, because of the embarrassment if Ms Bindel won. If they can’t even get that right, what else might there be to come out of the woodwork? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can ascribe anything to what happened within the litigation aspect - only how they handled the matter as a result of the legal recourses that were made after the fact. That is, there's simply no way to predict if a lawsuit would be filed (defamation is generally a high threshold to prove malice, though I don't know the specifics of UK's laws here) nor whether they could settle or have the judge rule in their favor. But if/when ruled unfavorably, taking the steps to remove the offending article and issuing any redactions the like are all responsible steps expected of a reliable source. --M asem (t) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * UK's libel laws are much more strict that the United States, "acutal malice" for public figures is not a thing here. English defamation law is so strict in comparison to US law that the US specifically passed the SPEECH Act in 2010 to make UK libel judgements unenforceable in the US. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * … there’s simply no way to predict if a lawsuit would be filed I disagree. A competent journalist should know when to take legal advice as to whether an article is libellous, and a competent libel lawyer should be able to give a good assessment as to whether it is or not. I’m not saying that the outcome of a defamation case will always be predictable, just that in general, if a publication loses, the question of competence arises. But I agree with you that the action taken afterwards to correct the situation is important and highly relevant to whether the publication should be considered reliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how it works in England and Wales. See our articles on libel tourism and English defamation law. Lawsuits are routinely used to punish speech that one doesn't like. The defendant bears the burden of proof and has to show that no harm was committed. The only way to avoid retaliatory defamation suits is to never write about people or businesses or organizations—essentially anything involving a person—and still hope that you don't get sued. It doesn't even matter if you're a UK citizen or wrote/published the piece there. Woodroar (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on English defamation law does not support your statements Lawsuits are routinely used to punish speech that one doesn’t like. and The only way to avoid retaliatory defamation suits is to never write about people or businesses or organizations—essentially anything involving a person—and still hope that you don't get sued. But this is turning into a discussion on English libel law, and it’s getting off the point. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970, are you aware of any contemporary UK publications that have not had to settle a libel action? I am not. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never suggested that having to settle a libel action means a publication is automatically unreliable. I was responding to the apparent suggestion that the reliability of this particular publication should never be questioned, because (apparently) questioning its reliability is not allowed, and constitutes some sort of wikicrime. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Questioning the reliability of this or any other particular publication isn't a wikicrime. Questioning the reliability of a particular publication because an editor disagrees with its POV might be, however. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I don’t actually agree with it. I think that if you agree with a publication’s POV, you are naturally disinclined to question its reliability. That means that those who question a publication’s reliability are likely to be those who disagree with its POV. If there is a reasonable doubt, it should not be dismissed just because you disagree with the questioner’s views. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is a reasonable doubt is doing a lot of work here. I haven't seen any grounds for "reasonable doubt" in this instance - the only grounds given for posing the current question are the settled lawsuit, and some headlines with which the poster disagrees. That isnt grounds for "reasonable doubt" IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven’t made any comment about whether I think Pink News is reliable, because I am not in a position to do so. That’s why I have been following the discussion – to see the views of other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per consensus, it doesn't seem there a reasonable doubt amongst Wikipedia editors. "If there is a reasonable doubt, it should not be dismissed just because you disagree with the questioner’s views" reads as if agreeing with its views is tantamount to being NPOV, which implies that agreeing  a publication's views discredits what would probably be a large number of editors from even commenting on and contributing to a discussion.
 * As it's been explained and evidenced by others in this thread, there's no evidence of a reasonable doubt existing that anyone can seemingly put a proper, supported finger on; per time of writing, the request of for reliable, third party sources supporting a reasonable doubt for PinkNews' non-neutral POV has been unfulfilled, and a general, vague claim to unreliability does not substantiate a decent stake on the matter. No point raising that point unless there's something in it; if you don't support a claim to unreliability yourself, then that leaves maybe one person in this thread that thinks it holds water. Either we find a decent source on its unreliability and prove we have something to consider, or otherwise we settle for the seemingly obvious fact that we don't. "The views of other editors" means nothing if they go unsupported by reliable third-party sources. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider the reputation of libel law in the UK particularly good among those interested in maintaining a free press with integrity. As Donald Trump proposed that US libel law should look more like the UK's, it was pretty widely taken as a threat to the freedom of the press (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10). In Columbia Journalism Review, it has even been said that suing the media is so common for political figures in England that to not do so is taken as an admission of truth in whatever was written. Regardless, PinkNews being based in the UK as they are, in their joint statement with Bindel they did say the outlet has "revised its editorial processes". --Chillabit (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * in the original discussion section I asked "If in fact "It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it.” then you can obviously provide reliable third party sources which say as such.” yet you do not appear to have responded to my request. Would you mind taking a moment to help me (and presumably yourself as well) by doing so? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Not after what you did. I don't believe your question is sincere and no Wikipedia editor is obligated to satisfy another editor's demands.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 03:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you are required to respect WP:AGF and I have given you no reason to do otherwise. If no such source exists thats fine but can you at least answer whether or not such a source exists even if you have no intention of supplying it? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * when challenging the reliability of a source, you need evidence from other RS. At the moment you have said the source is unreliable, but you've not satisfied any editors bar maybe Crossroads. Horse Eye&#39;s Back has made a reasonable request for evidence to back the assertion that PinkNews is unreliable, and I'll reiterate it. Either provide evidence backing the claim that it is unreliable, or the conversation could/should be closed as no change required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that the Guardian story is addressing an issue between PinkNews and the EU's "right to be forgotten" legislation that does not raise questions about the source's reliability, while Seventeen is drawing attention to an apology PinkNews issued concerning a Snapchat "story" - neither source casts any doubt on PinkNews's actual published journalism. This looks like a witchhunt via Google search, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing WP:ASPERSIONS and assumptions of bad faith being made against the OP (Pyxis Solitary) at various points in this thread. She is not wrong to raise concerns if she feels that the source should be handled differently than at present.There are valid reasons to be concerned about this source. Some of them were brought up at the 2020 discussion and RfC. Here is the closure for that RfC in full: There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Several editors mentioned clickbait and opinion content, and suggested that editorial discretion has to be used when citing this source. Several editors cited the PinkNews's editorial policy and reputation for making corrections. Most of those who commented on PinkNews's reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. No consensus about the need to attribute Pink News in general. Now as for this more recent thread, there is a big difference between a source voluntarily retracting articles when it finds out it got them wrong, and being forced to by a court of law. Having to do this 2 times in less than 3 years is unusual to say the least. Additionally, editorializing as much as they do in supposedly factual articles, both in headlines and otherwise, is quite exceptional when compared to mainstream media outlets, both British and American. (Also, I don't buy the argument put forth by some that headlines can't reflect on the reliability of a source simply because we as Wikipedians have agreed that headlines alone are not a reliable source. They still reflect on the outlet that published them.)Regarding the point made above that we can "extract" factual info from more subjective opinion, well, that means all editors in this topic area then have to be extra careful to distinguish fact from opinion in this source. And this very much is a biased source, with very strong views on sex, gender, gender identity and self-identification, and so forth. I doubt anyone here would claim otherwise. That means, though, that WP:WEIGHT and WP:INTEXT have to be applied accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 03:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From the admittedly little I've read on the recent issue, it does not appear that PinkNews was "forced to" retract the article by a court of law. I haven't found that to be true of the previous situation with Joanna Cherry either. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They settled a legal action – this means that they retracted the article because they thought they would lose if the matter went to trial. They were not forced to do so by a court, but they did so under a legal threat. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not the only reason to settle a case, do you have reporting which supports your assertion that this is what happened in this case? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: there is a big difference between a source voluntarily retracting articles when it finds out it got them wrong, and being forced to by a court of law - that is as may be, but what PinkNews did in both these cases seems to be somewhere between the two, that is, settling out of court. PinkNews has expressed in the past that it has rather shallow pockets, so it is not surprising that out of court settlements have been attractive as a way to resolve these suits under UK libel law. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know how long ago we are talking about, but "in the past" they very well may have had shallow pockets, though I doubt if they still do. They've become a mouth piece for big pharma and its multi-billion pound gender industrial complex that "by the time [they're] finished there won't be any gay people left in England", I'm sure Pink News gets plenty of compensation in donations for towing the industry line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I echo 's comments about the push against using PN as a reliable source being more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AGF is not a suicide pact: several editors arguing against the reliability of PN don't try to hide their personal views on trans issues, and it's perfectly fine to gently advise editors that their own views might be compromising their editorial judgment. Likewise, personally I think it's pretty obvious that the Times' and the Telegraph's (and recently, sadly, the BBC's) coverage of trans issues is clearly written to help push this culture war nonsense being pushed by CCHQ, but I'm not going to say that those publications should go below a "be careful because of the editorial line" advisory.
 * Also, with regards to defamation law in the UK, I'm sorry to say there is no correlation between how often a publication gets sued and their reliability; Ian Hislop is the most-sued man in Britain but as far as investigative journalism goes, Private Eye is probably the world's gold standard. Indeed, the reason why the most prolific child rapist in British history was also a beloved national hero with the ear of Prime Ministers until his death was precisely because he had incredibly deep pockets to shut people up. Sceptre (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * After four days of discussion, no reliable source on the unreliability of PinkNews has been produced; we've discussed that libel actions cannot be considered to count towards unreliability here; and editorial consensus seems to overwhelmingly support that PinkNews can be used as a reliable reference on Wikipedia. Discussions on its unreliable nature seem to be circling the same drainpool of unsupported points now. Am I too hasty in considering this discussion pretty much closed? I don't see it going any further than allowing the same unsupported points to be repeated ad nauseam. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from one issue, where I tried to seek clarity on before per PinkNews' RSP entry but is currently unanswered, I don't think there's much else to discuss here. If that issue is perhaps better raised at another noticeboard, I'd appreciate directions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lecture by an academic
David A. King was a Professor of History of Science at J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt. His works—especially, in the domain of Islam and astronomy—have been published by academic presses like Brill, Springer, Franz Steiner Verlag etc. In a 2018 lecture at the Centre for the Study of Islamic Manuscripts in London, he noted a factoid about al-Khwarizmi's birthplace.

Can this lecture be considered as a reliable source? Editors argue that while David A. King is reliable, the video is not since it is hosted on Youtube. Hence his views might not be inserted, even with attribution.

More here. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because a lecture is a free-for-all zone. Sure, lectures can contain all kinds of great knowledge and uncontroversial stuff may usefully be sourced there. But once we get to a disputed point, and an editor is arguing for a lecture (a non peer-reviewed, unpublished source) as authoritative, we are in trouble. If the factoid in question is worth inserting, some WP:RS would be needed. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is a lecture different than a blog entry? And if we can allow blogs of scholars as RS, why not lectures? VR talk 19:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's amazing isn't it, how some editors can misread "largely not acceptable as sources" as somehow allowed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not at all bizarre, however, that someone might read Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications and think that might mean that some self-published sources are sometimes considered reliable. The key question here whether David King is indeed an established subject matter expert. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And at any rate, the source in question isn't self-published. It's published by the Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation.  I know nothing about them, so I don't know whether that counts for or against the source's reliability, but I don't see how WP:SPS applies. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think videos of lectures are ok, though not the best source. I've used them myself without complaints. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This would fall under WP:SPS. David A. King (historian) seems to have an impressive list of publications. Many of them are directly related to the topic of medieval Islamic civilization (to which al-Khwarizmi belonged).VR talk 18:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most objections by editors about using YouTube is related to copyright issues, which is not a problem in this case because the lecture is posted by the same organization that held the conference. Platonk (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case it's a red herring as we cite copyrighted sources all the time, books, journal articles, websites. A comfortable majority of sources cited in Wikipedia are copyrighted. There could conceivably be an issue with linking to it if the video was uploaded by someone who doesn't have permission, but that doesn't mean the talk itself can't be cited. However, the organisation will have permission from the speaker to share the talk so that shouldn't be a problem either. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern is for videos posted on YouTube that are copyvios, posted without permission from the copyright holder. We are prohibited from linking to any site that is hosting material that is a copyvio s  (WP:COPYVIOEL . - Donald Albury 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC) - edited 19:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's not only in relation to YouTube, also true for other literature: we shouldn't cite random/unofficial websites that host a copy, unless the license of the source allows it. It is a non-issue in this particular case, of course.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Moderate yes. Should be ok based on a number of editors vetting for both the speaker's and the institution's reputation as reliable/respected. However, if it is true that he has a long track record of publications on the subject I highly encourage you to find a non-video source, especially when the discussion on the value of the source started ~8 days ago. I don't particularly remember what the principle was, but in general it is best to avoid sources that are "easy to link, hard to examine" when possible. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  19:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason I assumed you had started the section on the Talk thread, my bad. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, there would be not much of an issue citing Rob Arnott's interview for Bloomberg Television as an expert opinion on markets and Tesla's valuation, but the strength of the article would be greatly improved by then replacing (or adding to) the citation with a reference to an article he wrote on the matter. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  19:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that YouTube videos aren't inherently unreliable, and that WP:RSPYT notes this. It gives the example of a verified news organization on YouTube, but for another example I've cited a historical society's YouTube video before. That channel does seem to be the canonical one for the Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation, since it's linked at the bottom of their website. --Chillabit (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be hesitant to use a lecture, even while stipulating that the person speaking is an expert, speaking within their area of expertise. Lectures aren't peer reviewed. People can make mistakes while speaking. That's why we prefer papers collected in proceedings over the live presentation at the conference, journal articles drawn from those papers over the conference papers, and books expanded from those articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with here. Recordings of presentations have all the problems of preprints, with the added complexities of extemporaneous speech. I don't think the organization that posts a video on their YouTube channel can be thought of as its "publisher" in all the ways that matter. Videos tend to go up without the kind of work that goes into peer-reviewing and editing written material. An editor at a journal solicits opinions from experts in the field, who can point to specific parts of a paper and ask that they be revised. Nobody checks a lecture video to see if it is careless, confusing, oversimplified, or meandering. If you're very lucky, they'll get an intern to splice the speaker's slides into the video so they're easier to read, and maybe trim the Zoom-fumbling from the start of the recording; that's about it. If the point was that important, it would have been put in writing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally no, per Alexbrn, Mackensen and XOR'easter. JBchrch   talk  19:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be considered something like a SPS by an expert with a few additional considerations. As XOR'easter notes, what is said may be the chain of words that popped into the speaker's mind at the exact moment and may not reflect how they would wish to state something if given the ability to revise the statement.  The most obvious example might be simply misstating a date or day of the week or name of a participant.  The concern about accurately hearing the speaker is also true.  Much of this I think speaks to WP:V rather than RS.  For example, if we cite a YT video of a presentation and the video is taken down.  The citation may be true (cites the actual performance rather than YT as the source) but how can we verify the claim if challenged?  As others have said, this is less a concern if the source appears to pass copyright concerns.  In summary, use only if nothing better is available and even then use with caution.  Springee (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Salaries for university administrators
Samford University, like many other private schools, doesn't seem to publicize their paychecks. Is this an acceptable source? It's based on primary (IRS) info, I assume, but can we rely on their correctness? Drmies (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Does IRS info publicly available? Shrike (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Although salaries are not explicitly mentioned in WP:BLPPRIVACY, I don't think Wikipedia should be publishing people's salaries even if they are a matter of public record. --SVTCobra 21:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to include salary info in articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Additionally, one could make a case for including information such as "x university is amongst the 50 best paying universities in the USA" with a reliable ranking list, but the actual people's salaries should probably not be included and the total salaries paid seems unnecessarily detailed for an article.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  21:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't see that as problematic at all, certainly not for public universities, where we have sourcing like this--I was more interested in the principle of it--the sourcing. Anyone familiar with academia knows that administrative pay is a huge thing, in public as well as private systems. If hedge fund managers and business people can have their fortunes listed, then this is no more an invasion of privacy. Drmies (talk)
 * It certainly seems like WP:OR if other sources haven't given any significance to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be OR to use a primary source that explicitly states the salary of the employee? I don’t read WP:PRIMARY that way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe not original research, but the comparison with the net worth of billionaires is inappropriate. The net worths are calculated by reputable newspapers. I don't think we should be mentioning individual staff salaries unless reliable sources deem it significant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not OR if the salary is simply listed, but it would definitely violate WP:BLPPRIMARY IMO. Especially for tax records and similar. On the more general issue i.e. if the person is deceased for over 2 years, I'd say it's also WP:UNDUE unless some secondary sources covered that person's salary for some reason. This happens with CEOs etc, and I'm sure it happens with administrators but it needs to actually happen not just some editor thinking the person's salary is too high or all salaries of public officials should be know or something. (If some analysis is done of the salary e.g. person Z is the top paid staff member at university A or in the 1% of university A or something then I'd say it's OR specifically syn. While the calculation is technically trivial assuming your details are complete which IMO may be a big if, it it's too complicated to count as simple WP:CALC.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure No. The website states that Data for this page was sourced from XML published by IRS (public 990 form dataset) from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/irs-form-990/202011689349300911_public.xml So the data seems to be coming from an AWS dataset located here, and whose Github documentation can be found here. (Note that the data is not collected by Amazon: datasets available through the Registry of Open Data on AWS are not provided and maintained by AWS. Datasets are provided and maintained by a variety of third parties under a variety of licenses ). So what we have is a rehash of an AWS dataset which is itself a rehash of data located on the website of the IRS (apparently?). Bottom line: can we trust weird website that republish republications of publicly available data in order to generate cash from the ad traffic? I dunno . JBchrch   talk  01:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC) On second thoughts, if I saw it "in its natural habitat", I would remove it. Too sketchy.  JBchrch   talk  01:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless someone's salary has been discussed, not just mentioned, in several reliable sources, it doesn't belong in an article. Doug Weller  talk 11:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doug; I think it needs to be discussed in a reliable source, ideally with context demonstrating the number's accuracy. This is different from coaches at public universities in the United States--their salaries are public and widely discussed. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t really think this is a reliability issue, as others have implied or stated the question here is whether there is WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Joy of Satan Ministries
Could anyone help untangling the sourcing at our article on Joy of Satan Ministries? I'm really not sure where to start. At a glance, the citations look impressive and possibly academic, but this falls apart when I start to look at individual sources. The second source, for example, was published by CESNUR, a pro-new religious movement and anti-anti-cult non-profit organization. I'd argue such a source is not reliable. However, the same author wrote the seventh source, published by Brill Publishers, which at least appears to be academic—though I'm not sure if any of their journals are reliable. Source #15 was published by Punctum Books, which (according to our article) is "scholar-led" but also print-on-demand, which seems sketchy to me. Then we have source #9, The Divine Province: Birthing New Earth by Jaemes McBride and Ed Rychkun, published by Ed Rychkun, who's also authored books on fly fishing.... After that, a Master's thesis that isn't widely cited in academia, plus all kinds of primary sources.

About the only sourcing that doesn't immediately fall part is cited to Jesper Aagaard Petersen, an actual, bona-fide academic. Is anyone able to determine if Petersen is reliable here? If he is, there's another concern that we're relying on his views for much of the article. Several other sources (Contemporary Esotericism, The Invention of Satanism, The Occult World, The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II, and probably more) appear to be journal articles by Petersen but we're citing the editors instead. We're also frequently using Petersen to repeat primary claims from the Joy of Satan Ministries rather than for his own views.

I realize that this borders on a few other issues, V, NPOV, possibly N. But I wanted to unpack any sourcing issues before moving on to those concerns. Woodroar (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A few quick observations:
 * Yes, Brill absolutely do publish high quality reliable scholarship. I have no particular view on Satanism: A Social History, but in general Brill are an academic publisher with a pretty good reputation.
 * Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters' theses are not generally reliable unless it can be shown that they have had a "significant scholarly influence".
 * Our pages on CESNUR and Massimo Introvigne certainly give a few reasons to question their general reliability
 * Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I went thru the lot, here are my notes:
 * The following venues were found either in the Finnish or the Norwegian national scientific publication venue ratings systems (or both) with classifications that indicate they are acceptable scientific publication venues: Brill, Brill Esotericism Reference Library, Routledge, Punctum Books, International Journal for the Study of New Religions, Equinox Publishing, Palgrave Macmillan, Oxford University Press. Based on that, I'd retain #4, #7, #11, #12, #15, #18, #21, #22, #23 unless there are concerns about the specific works themselves. Also, #26 seems to be fine per WP:SPLC, and #27 as per WP:RSPADL.
 * #5 and #6 are WP:PRIMARY.
 * #1 is a PhD thesis, and #29 is a master's thesis, so WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies. It seems #29 can be removed without losing much of value from the article, but #1 is used a lot. It does have a few citations to it according to Google Scholar, but I didn't check what those citations were.
 * The following appear to be SPS: #9, #14, #24, #28. Similarly, #10 is just a blog post, despite being listed under The Economist, see end of the text. #13 and #25 are from the websites of "Italian Satanist Union" which seems less-than-neutral for the topic based on the title. #8 is from History, which WP:RS/P says is "generally unreliable". #2 is from CESNUR, which WP:RS/P says is "generally unreliable". I think all of these should go.
 * #16, #17, #19 are Italian language websites that I can't make much sense of. I suppose they could be reputable news sources, but I'm not struck with that impression. On the other hand, I know approximately 2 words of Italian.
 * #20 is by a publisher I can't even find a website for, but the google books page doesn't fill me with confidence. At the very least it doesn't give any kind of a scholarly vibe.
 * #3 is tricky. It's supposedly been presented in an academic conference, but the conference seems largely unaffiliated with any larger organization. The publisher seems to have only ever organized two conferences (one co-located) and has been inactive for a few years now. There's no indication of whether there was a peer review process, any fact-checking, or anything like that. Not found in any of the scientific publication venue rating systems I surveyed. I'm inclined to view as unreliable unless evidence to the contrary is found.
 * -Ljleppan (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrispondenza Romana (#19) seems of heavy catholic bias (as can be seen in this article on vaccines, anti-islamic, and of inflammatory character from a cursory look on their site, so I would heavily heavily discourage their use. Their information page does not seem to establish a reputable editorial policy, either. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consul Press (#16) is most certainly not reliable based on their editorial policy. At all (quite an entertaining read, if anything). A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Heroic Phoenix (#17) is probably reliable only when it comes to Neapolitan cultural news (especially theater). No mention of them by reputable sources based on a google search also indicates that their opinions do not merit inclusion based on notability of source. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I agree with 's analysis above in other sources. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consul Press? If I remember correctly they’re old school fascists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I got that impression, yeah. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  08:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the American Political Science Review a reliable source?
I added one sentence to the Mass shootings in the United States article that said the following:


 * A 2021 study in the American Political Science Review found that "the vote share of the Democratic Party increases by an average of nearly 5 percentage points in counties that experienced shootings—a remarkable shift in an age of partisan polarization and close presidential elections."

The content was removed by the editor 'Springee' who claimed that a study in the leading peer-reviewed political science journal was a "Primary source" and that the content needed a "secondary source". The editor claims that a "recent" discussion on this board justifies the removal – the discussion is more than a decade old and on the issue of race and intelligence. The "this is WP:PRIMARY" retort seems like a common but misguided way to scrub content sourced to peer-reviewed articles from Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines clearly identify peer-reviewed publications as "usually the most reliable sources". While we would ideally want to use comprehensive literature reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, Annual Reviews (publisher) or something along those lines, there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that advises against the use of other forms of peer-reviewed publications. This leads me to ask two questions:


 * 1) Is the American Political Science Review a reliable source?
 * 2) Would it be wise to clarify WP:SCHOLARSHIP so that it prevents editors from scrubbing academic content with the claim that something is WP:PRIMARY? Currently it seems like editors who for one reason or another disapprove of content sourced to academic publications abuse WP:PRIMARY to justify removal, which creates issues for those of us who work hard to add content sourced to peer-reviewed research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note while primary is a concern, per the talk page discussion DUE is a bigger concern in this specific instance since an entire subtopic of the article was cited to this single paper. Springee (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (1) It is obviously reliable. (2) I do worry about citing individual studies: a study can be published in a reliable publication but not replicated elsewhere, or an individual study may be WP:UNDUE because it prioritizes a single result over scholarly consensus. That said, I think they way you presented it ("a 2021 study found …") is the best way to approach this. The information is relevant and peer-reviewed. It should just be contextualized—as an individual study—and not as consensus. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Primary vs secondary does seem to be a point of confusion and I will admit some confusion myself. A similar question was asked less than a month back .  Often peer reviewed studies are directly cited in articles.  Based on prior discussions there seems to be a consensus that peer reviewed, review papers (ie papers that try to summarize the state of the literature) are often the best sources.  It seems less clear when dealing with peer reviewed sources that, report on the findings/research of the authors.  In general I would support using such sources as RS in articles but I think it gets hard to decide how much weight to give them.  For example, the mass shooting wiki article at hand here cites a number of studies looking at causes and contributing factors.  In that case, editors are, essentially doing and presenting a literature review on the topic.This case is a bit different in that an entire subtopic of the wiki article and the only part of the article to discuss the politics of mass shootings is a single sentence sourced to a paper released earlier today.  Thus, by asking the question here Snoogans side steps a serious WEIGHT problem with the inclusion in question.  Even if this single article is found to be reliable for use as a secondary source (or treated more like a primary expert opinion) that wouldn't address the serious DUE weight issues with the edit in question.  Springee (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The important distinction (there are others, but the salient one here) is that primary sources, such as the original peer-reviewed research where some result is reported, can be used to verify their own findings but cannot be used for providing context for those findings, such as establishing significance. Which is to say, you'll want to cite a primary source to verify what that source said, but you still need to cite a secondary source to establish that the results are important enough to write about in a Wikipedia article.  That is, unless a secondary source (like a review article, a summary in a respected journalism source, a well-utilized textbook, etc, etc,) has themselves placed the research in context and established it as significant, including such research in Wikipedia is WP:UNDUE.  Basically, you either cite the secondary discussion of the original research and the original paper, or you don't cite the original paper, since it is a primary source, and cannot be used for context.  Per WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. and Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  Whether or not something is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article is interpretation and analysis.  We need someone else to do that first.  -- Jayron 32 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a policy basis for the claim that Whether or not something is important enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article is interpretation and analysis. When we use news articles, for example, we do not rely on additional news articles about the initial reporting to determine whether or not the initial reporting is DUE for inclusion. It seems to me that some editors are erecting scaffolding that sets a higher standard for the inclusion of academic studies (based on an overly robust and restrictive interpretation of PRIMARY) that is not accompanied by parallel restrictions on the use of lower-quality sources. The result of this is that we can write SYNTHey articles based on an accumulation of news pieces, while the use of academic sources (even academic sources that rely on and interpret those same news pieces we have accepted as evidence in articles) is rejected as PRIMARY. This looks to me to be an absurd and dysfunctional outcome, from the point of view of the project as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is correct. J's writeup about "a" primary source might well be correct, however his first assumption that this citation is a primary source is incorrect and therefore the rest does not apply. Platonk (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UNDUE, which is part of Wikipedia policy. The relevant passage is Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. and later If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it,  If some bit of research has only been reported in the initial paper it was published in and literally no reliable source has reported on that paper, it is WP:UNDUE to the point that it doesn't bear mentioning in Wikipedia.  -- Jayron 32 18:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You assume the conclusions of this study are novel, WP:FRINGE, and a minority viewpoint. Surprisingly, they are not. Take a peruse at the titles and dates of other published writings from the 90+ list of citations in this study. The topic (violent incidents and subsequent voting behaviors) is far from new. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that. Can you show me where I said that?  At no time did I say any such thing.  I never said that the study above represented a minority viewpoint.  Not once.  Please stop inventing things I never said, and then claiming I said them.  -- Jayron 32 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably posted the wrong link after your words "less than a month back", because that link points to an RSN from 10 years ago. Platonk (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the issue. The search result shows a tag 261 KB (36,860 words) - 12:39, 10 October 2021 but the discussion is 2010 as you said.  That said, the primary/secondary question comes up a lot with academic work.  This is very big when you look at MEDRS questions.  I personally feel we normally operate with peer reviewed, primary research articles treated as if they were 3rd party sources.  It would be good if that could be clear since MEDRS treats them as primary (not without cause).  Of course, there is that question regarding using a single sentence summary of a single article to be 100% of the political section in a rather politically charged topic. Springee (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * reliable This is a canonical definition of a reliable secondary source. In this case, the primary sources are voting returns. If you were to get a bunch of voting returns and say "voting returns from county x show that democrats gained 5% after the shooting" you are using a primary source (and engaging in OR). A secondary source analyzes primary sources to reach conclusions and create knowledge - like this paper. A tertiary source summarizes secondary sources but does no additional analysis. This is cut and dried - there should be no dispute on this - disagreement on this point is demonstrative of either WP:CIR violating ignorance or bad faith. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable and NOT a primary source - The source in question is labelled a research article with 3 authors and over 90 citations. Around 6 of those citations use 1 or more combination of the same 3 authors, meaning they have been published before but are not relying heavily on their own prior works in this article. Two authors are professors of political science at separate well-respected universities, and the third has her own bona fides in poli sci at a third university. All three authors are engaged in the same field of expertise as the study/article. The article was published in American Political Science Review, a well-respected and over-100-year-old peer reviewed journal. Nothing in the abstract indicates this is a primary source, and certain wording ("The literature on...") indicates it is not. Platonk (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable per the above analysis. This is clearly quality analysis done by a reliable, trusted source.  -- Jayron 32 18:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously a reliable journal but this is a primary source. There is some confusion by some editors above. A research paper documenting research done by the authors - as opposed to a review article - is a primary source, per WP:PRIMARY: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. What is being described above are the results of a social science experiment. This is how WP:MEDRS treats it as well; while voting patterns are not a medical topic, that does clarify the primary/secondary distinction. The WP:SCIRS essay may be of interest, and the WP:SECONDARY policy shows that editors should not be relying much on single study results. Academic review articles and books are very, very much preferred. Crossroads -talk- 02:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that US electoral results are an experiment in terms of WP policy, though for the real world they are of course a kinkd of (nerve-wracking) living experiment. Political Science writers typically, as in this case, work with data that has been collected by others. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In pretty much every scientific field these days, a lot of research papers consist of analysis of pre-existing raw data stored from something prior (e.g. the Kepler telescope). These are still fresh research papers just the same, and are equivalent to experiments, not review articles. Crossroads -talk- 02:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many papers in the social and human sciences - perhaps most, outside of psychology - cannot readily be classified into "fresh research papers" and "review articles". I don't think that makes them all PRIMARY - and neither do you, according to your judgements on other sources (q.v. the discussion on Critical race theory, below). Newimpartial (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already so much misunderstanding on the subject of primary and secondary as it relates to academic studies, and it doesn't help when Wikipedia editors on discussion pages interpret it poorly (and often wrongly). As is written in WP:IDENTIFYPRIMARY, "Secondary" does not mean "good" and "Primary" does not mean "bad" and All sources are primary for something. WP:MEDRS is a very strict subject-specific policy where primary research is unacceptable for Wikipedia, but not all of MEDRS' cautions have counterparts when dealing with non-medical content in Wikipedia. And MEDRS doesn't apply in non-medical related articles, such as the one at issue. So whenever I see someone trot out "MEDRS" in their argument, I can almost always cross it off as bunk. The same circles that would call this APSR source 'primary' also call current news coverage 'primary' as well, and yet in Wikipedia news coverage is considered a secondary source. Q.E.D. Platonk (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MEDRS was only mentioned by analogy and your IDENTIFYPRIMARY quotes have no clear connection here. No matter how much any editor may like any single paper, a paper that is describing scientific research done by the authors is specifically stated by the WP:PRIMARY policy to be a primary source. "QED" indeed. Your comment of "same circles" reeks of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I am quite shocked to see editors who should know better try to set this sort of precedent. There are numerous social science papers out there saying finding all sorts of things; we need to rely on secondary sources to prevent undue/OR cherry-picking. If you think this primary source is worth using, then make a case that way; don't muddy the waters as to what is primary and what is secondary. Crossroads -talk- 14:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should try sipping a little WP:GF with your morning coffee. I was not referring to "circles" in Wikipedia, but in areas of research, a là: Is a newspaper article a primary source?; Primary and Secondary Sources: A Research Guide, Primary sources include: ... newspaper reports "from the field"; and other online references I had open yesterday but cannot find again this morning (grr!). My point was that the issues are not as cut and dried as "Ugga bugga, primary source, bad, delete!" One must use critical thinking skills including logic and judgment which is so often lacking in favor of rote following of individual lines extracted from WP policy (or several unrelated lines strung together). And I was referring in general, not to any specific individual WP editor. However, my advice to you at this point is to stop using MEDRS (in non-medical-related discussions) as an "analogy" while quoting it as if it applies across the board in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, I think the distinction between a review paper and original research paper is rather simple (it was in my field). If the objective of the paper is to report on the conclusions of others then it's a review paper.  If the paper is drawing up new conclusions from either a newly collected experiment/data set or from an existing data set it's original research and thus would be a primary academic source.  I do think this question of how we use primary academic sources should be revisited since I suspect perhaps 90% of the academic material cited on Wikipedia is primary vs secondary.  It's probably OK per this part of PRIMARY, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources., which notes that primary sources can be used.  My read is it's probably OK to say, "Academics have studied the topic and found X Y  and Z" where XYZ are different primary academic sources.  Making a primary source an entire subtopic in an article would seem to be a violation of PRIMARY.  I do want to note for those who aren't involved at the article level, Newimpartial Neutrality did revise the section in question by adding additional sources on the topic and making it read more like a review of related academic conclusions.  They also corrected a mischaracterization of this paper that was in the original wiki edit.  At this point I'm satisfied with the updates.  Springee (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that 's edit was quite the improvement to the article. Platonk (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, my point above was that, in the social and human sciences, much of the academic RS are attempting neither to report on the conclusions of others nor drawing up new conclusions from either a collected experiment/data set or from an existing data set - or perhaps they are doing both at the same time. A new critical response to the previously published findings of others, for example, can be seen either as a primary source for the new criticism or as a secondary source on the findings of others, and Crossroads for one chooses to see it as primary if he wishes to discount the criticism or as secondary if he wishes to include it. What this says to me is that the essentially scholastic question of primary vs. secondary sources does not apply equally to all kinds of academic work, and people who try to apply it in this way may be motivated by extrinsic factors. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable; whether or not it is due the weight in that specific place is a separate question. This edit reduces the relative weight put upon it, inclining me to think that its use is basically fine. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't honestly understand how primary versus secondary is even a discussion here. The primary source here is the the county by county election results and the location of shootings. A secondary source, the researchers, has analyzed that data and interpreted it and provided that analysis. That is not a researcher performing an experiment (unless you are saying the researchers are committing mass shootings to see what impact they have on future elections?) This is a. reliable (obviously) and b. secondary.  nableezy  - 21:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The election data is the raw data for this experiment. The government data doesn't try to tie election results to school shooting events.  How those data sets are correlated and the conclusions associated with those correlations is the original research/primary contribution of the paper.  As such it is the primary source.  Springee (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, an experiment requires control. This is a secondary source on the election in that it analyzes the results and provides an interpretation of them.  nableezy  - 03:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think an experiment requires a control? What was the control for the Trinity test?  Are you suggesting the statistical interpretation of the results was done by others?  If so what was the novel contribution of this paper? Springee (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a little off topic but the Trinity test actually did have a number of preceding conventional control tests. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do I think that? Because without controlling it is an observation, not an experiment. And observations are secondary to the action. Your way of claiming a source is primary would make any historian examining primary historical records and reporting on them a primary source, and only usable when some other source reports on their findings. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it is also a secondary source for the other studies on the same topic that it cites that have reached the same conclusion. Q.v. my previous discussion of this distinction as "scholastic" in many cases. The key questions should be (1) is this peer-reviewed scholarship? and (2) is it consonant or dissonant with the general consensus of scholarship on the topic? If yes and yes, then we should bypass the whole primary/secondary distinction that is based on practices in other fields (such as ones that actually conduct experiments, that maintain a clear distinction between reports of new findings and review articles, etc., etc.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A background section of a paper might be considered a 3rd party review but that wouldn't mean we would consider the paper itself a review paper. The authors in this case conducted research and reached a novel conclusion.  We are sourcing the paper to report on it's novel conclusion, not it's background discussion.  As such it's primary source.  I would be very uncomfortable with editors trying to answer question 2.  For a lot of subjects, this one included, there may not be much information out their from which to conclude one way or the other.  Regardless, I don't see any way we could read this paper to be anything other than a primary academic source with the limitations on how we might use it per WP:RS.   Springee (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes; I get that you don't see any way not to bracket off this APSR piece as primary. But with many other editors, I think you are wrong not to see, at a minimim, that statements in this article about prior literature are SECONDARY (and relevant to its use in the diff provided above) and at a maximum, that the distinction you are trying to impose between "review papers" and "novel conclusions" is unhelpful in this domain and counter to the intent ot WP:RS.
 * Also, when we have reliable, academic sources that state, X, Y and Z studies have reached conclusion A and no reliable, academic sources that support conclusion not-A - then, without SYNTH, we can conclude that A is the academic consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to say, per WP:RS, this is a primary source. If we are citing the background section of the paper then you can make the claim that we are using this non-review paper as a review paper.  However, that isn't the case here.  As to your second point, can you show where policy or guidelines support that?  We don't have a 3rd party academic source that says this paper is consistent with existing research in this area.  I think most of us would agree the general conclusion isn't surprising but again, how does that move the paper from primary to review?  Springee (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Spribgee, WP:RS doesn't say that primary academic sources are not reliable; it says that secondary sources are often better. And the second bullet of RS:SCHOLARSHIP is not at all limited to secondary sources such as review articles: Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. My point was never that the paper was "secondary" and not "primary". My point is that secondary v. primary is not a bright-line distinction, outside of MEDRS, and that policy requires us to interpret studies not in isolation but in relation to the literature in the field. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. Where meta-analyses are not available, on subjects that are not "complex and abstruse", editors are precisely expected to place weight on single studies, or not, based on their relationship with mainstream academic discourse - in the words of WP:RS itself. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea I said a primary academic source wasn't reliable? I said they were primary and thus are subject to RS-primary restrictions.  Please see the WP:PRIMARY part of the NOR policy, "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment.".  How much clearer can it be?  That doesn't mean we can't use it without a secondary source but we have to restrict how we use it.  As for your claim that primary vs secondary isn't a bright line, well that is a point that we can try to debate but if we are reporting on the novel findings reported in this paper then yes, it is a primary source.  Your last point was basically addressed as I suggested a while back, report on the findings of multiple sources rather than a single primary source.  Honestly I'm not even sure why you are arguing about this so much since the point I was making today was that taking raw data provided by someone else, then running an analysis on it and reporting the results is primary not third party.  Springee (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is misreading of WP:PRIMARY. Let's take history for an example: PRIMARY explicitly applies to historical documents, but does not apply to papers or books that historians publish based in their interpretation of those documents - what we would normally call "primary research" by historians is SECONDARY in the sense of WP:NOR policy. I can understand your confusion, but I hope it is clear to you now. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Primary explicitly applies to historical documents? From PRIMARY, "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment."  That is referring to modern scholarship, a recent experiment or finding.  Using election and crime data to come up with a novel conclusion (ie not one previously reported, not simply summarizing/confirming someone else's conclusion) make the author's paper the primary source.  This is a plain read of the text.  Primary doesn't limit to only historical documents.  Springee (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I used that example because WP:PRIMARY uses that example: Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources - there is nothing in PRIMARY to suggest that the findings of what we would call "primary" historical research are PRIMARY. By the logic of the other examples of original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved - like accident witnesses and political insiders - the problem with a new experiment conducted by the author is the directness of involvement of the scientist, and not the "primary" nature of working directly with data. It seems, for example, that the kind of re-analysis of data we have seen so much of in the process of vaccine approvals is not primary in the sense of PRIMARY, even though it is absolutely research directly with data in the usual sense of "primary research". Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm using clear sentences from PRIMARY to say that if you are conducting a new analysis of data to come up with a new conclusion that you are publishing. So I guess what we have to decide is if this is history or political science.  In this case the choice of how to conduct the statistical analysis is the science.  If there is any statistical analysis that is conducted as part of this (accounting for other factors, comparing otherwise similar locals to correct for general shifts in voter preferences in areas removed from a school shooting etc).  All of that work is recent science and conducted by the authors.  That would thus be primary. Of course the easy way to handle this is what was eventually done in this case.  The content was included but not treated as the sum of all relevant information on the topic.  Instead it was added to a section that summarized research in this area.  That solution should keep us all happy. Springee (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable and generally secondary (if that matters), here this secondary article analyses primary information which is, inter alia, reported violence events, registration, and votes in counties, together with other secondary sources (cited). The existence of those primary pieces of data were not in any way the creation of the scientist/author. The author is interpreting the exogenous primary data and secondary sources and is thus making secondary interpretation. This is not a situation where an author/scientist controls their laboratory conditions and says what happened in their lab. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable and secondary The distinction here is the production of data vs the analysis of data. Studies that do experiments and produce the data are not independent sources for the analysis, therefore such studies are primary. Studies that use external data they didn't produce and that merely analyze that data are independent of the data produced and thus a secondary analysis of the primary source data. Of course, because of this distinction, there are some fields of science where almost all of the studies would be considered primary (biology, for example), whereas other fields would be almost entirely secondary (political science, for example). But that's just how things work out. Silver  seren C 04:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On what are you basing that opinion? If the analysis or findings are original to the work how is that not primary.  It certainly was in the fields where I published. Springee (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the misapprehension that WP:PRIMARY applies to all of what is referred to off-wiki as "primary research". It doesn't map that way, according to the text of the policy itself. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I understand what I'm saying. You are trying to say that the background material in a primary academic source can be treated as 3rd party.  I wouldn't dispute that.  However, I hope you understand that new, novel claims presented in a paper are primary.  They are the reason a non-review paper exists.  So, if you want to cite this paper for raw data, I guess that would be OK as 3rd party.  However, if you want to cite the author's novel contribution from the paper, well why would we think that is anything other than primary?  Springee (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are focusing too closely on the wording in WP:PRIMARY without also looking at the wording in WP:SECONDARY, such as "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Sounds just like your use of "novel claims" but is categorized as SECONDARY, not PRIMARY. Platonk (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At the very least that seems quite contrary to the spirit of the guideline, to say that political science studies are thus more authoritative than biology ones simply by virtue of disciplinary differences in how the data are usually gathered. And: is a study involving analysis or reanalysis of archived physical science data then a secondary source? Crossroads -talk- 07:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable and secondary. The argument being used to try and frame this as primary is nonsensical and would essentially make all academic sources except review papers WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't reflect what that policy says at all.  To quote the policy, A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.  This paper is a synthesis of the election returns (which are a primary source), preventing evaluation, interpretation, and analysis of them; it is therefore a secondary source. Analysis and interpretation of existing data is not a new experiment by any stretch of the imagination - they are not producing new experimental data (which would be primary); they are analyzing the data produced by others (which is the definition of a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would make all scientific papers primary. You mean exactly what we prescribe with MEDRS? Are you suggesting MEDRS is wrong for making this distinction?  Have you ever published an academic paper?  One of the most critical parts of writing one is explaining what is the novel contribution of the paper. Clearly this is something that needs to be sorted out since editors are arguing that we treat some aspects of research differently than others. If we use published data sets to draw out an epidemiological conclusion we would say it's primary but if we use similar published data sets to draw a political conclusion you wish to call it secondary.  How can you reconcile the difference?  Springee (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has suggested that MEDRS is wrong, just that given the topic area it has stricter requirements on what is/isn't a primary source. Context matters, and this paper is not in the medical field. Also while I'm not Aquillion, I have published academic papers as a first name author, and while I won't comment on this specific paper until I've been able to read it, it is possible for a research paper to be secondary without it needing to be a review paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I certainly agree we can treat primary vs secondary differently if we are dealing with a non-MEDRS topic, why would we define them differently? Springee (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Without reviewing the discussions surrounding the definition of MEDRS, I would hazard a guess that it's because of misinformation as misinformation in that field can have immediate life threatening or life changing consequences. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point you are being POINTy. Wikipedia policies PRIMARY and SECONDARY say what they say. MEDRS says what it says. And you are trying to argue that they are wrong in a thread dedicated to the question of a single academic paper. This is the wrong venue for arguing that Wikipedia prim/sec policies are all wrong. Please read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution. Practically speaking, it is impossible for Wikipedia to be 100 percent consistent, and its rules will therefore never be perfect. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Platonk (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have been on Wikipedia for less than a year. We are very much debating what wp:PRIMARY says.  I think your accusation of POINTy is problematic and honestly, totally wrong in this case.  Things like "Don't disrupt to illustrate a point" is typically focused on editors who make a bad edit to article space.  That is not the case here.  Please review WP:AGF.  Springee (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, PA-ing me while telling me to AGF! Would you rather I had quoted WP:BLUDGEON ("making the same argument over and over, to different people")? You have made your same point over and over and over in this thread, and multiple other editors have tried to point out that SECONDARY and PRIMARY aren't the same thing in and out of MEDRS. I can see a consensus. But you're not hearing them. Platonk (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any PA. Quit the WP:ASPERSIONS. And the claim that "SECONDARY and PRIMARY aren't the same thing in and out of MEDRS" - that they have different meanings rather than permissibility to use - remains unsupported. Crossroads -talk- 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Inferring my length of time on Wikipedia makes me ignorant and my viewpoint worthless is an insult, Crossroads. Platonk (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable, weakly secondary The journal itself is reliable, I don't think there's any question about that. As for secondary vs primary, unfortunately I can't get access to the paper to read it so I'm not fully confident. In the abstract it mentions using a difference in differences approach at analysing the data, and as it's combining multiple datasets (electoral results & turnout over time, and school shootings over time) I'm leaning towards that this is a meta-analysis, and which are inherently secondary. If I can find a copy of the text, I may adjust this opinion based on information on how that analysis is structured but for now I'd say weakly secondary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable (seems to be rated on the same level as e.g. Nature on both the Finnish and Norwegian publication venue rankings) and at least insofar as the quoted sentence is concerned obviously secondary. It contains the, where the primary source in this case is the data on voting behavior and shootings. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable peer-reviewed article in eminent journal. I've often opined that our rules about sourcing would be greatly improved if the primary/secondary notion was almost entirely expunged. It never did us any good in the past and it won't do us any good in the future either. However, though I believe it is irrelevant to reliability, the primary source here is the election results, and the authors' analysis of them is a secondary source. We aren't allowed to add our own analysis of the election results to articles, but we aren't allowed to add our own analysis of the authors' conclusions either. We are perfectly entitled to report the election results without adding our own analysis, and we are perfectly entitled to report the authors' conclusions without adding our own analysis. Same rule for both. Zerotalk 04:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-RfC comment: I have to disagree with users saying this is a secondary source for this specific content, according to WP:PSTS. The word analysis in the policy seems to refer to philosophical analysis, not statistical analysis. If the paper were merely commenting on historical records, i.e. analyzing them, it would be a secondary source for the contents of those records. Likewise, it is secondary for the contents of earlier research discussed in its literature review section. But the analysis of the relation between school shootings and voting behavior in this paper is essentially a new experiment conducted by the author. The disputed content regarding the vote share of the Democratic Party is the outcome of that experiment. Experimental (primary) research papers don't just collect and present data. Even in undergraduate biology I and my classmates were expected to analyze the data from our experiments and draw conclusions from it. That was our novel contribution, just as the relation between school shootings and voting is this paper's novel contribution. The reason WP:MEDRS says to use review articles is because researchers sometimes make mistakes in analyzing their data or ignore other relevant data, even with peer review. The same should apply to other topics IMO. This specific paper was published online less than a week ago. There hasn't even been time for other research papers to cite it. Using it in a Wikipedia article seems a bit premature. The paper is definitely a source regarding "a remarkable shift in an age of partisan polarization", which is simply the author's opinion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921
I would like to propose that Firuz Kazemzadeh's 1951 book The struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921 be considered generally unreliable and outdated, at least concerning Armenian topics. Kazemzadeh often writes about Armenians in a disparaging tone, often trivializes massacres of Armenians and seems to blame Armenians for the Armenian genocide, something that would be too WP:UNDUE to include on Wikipedia. Because of this, he is very popularly cited on webpages dedicated to denying the Armenian genocide. Kazemzadeh writes, "the Armenians in Turkey were by no means an oppressed and miserable people" (page 8), an odd thing for a historian that should be aware of the Hamidian massacres and Adana massacre to claim. He also writes, "already in the nineties they were preparing armed uprisings in Turkish Armenia, for they hoped to provoke conflicts which would attract the attention of Europe to the national struggle of Armenians" (page 10). Kazemzadeh frequently refers to "Armenian bands" (page 10), something that frequently appears in Turkish sources denying the genocide. Michael Karpovich criticized the book for containing false information, and wrote that Kazemzadeh had a background with the Turkish "points of view".

Being over 70s years old now, it would be fair to suggest Kazemzadeh's book is outdated (WP:AGEMATTERS) at least on Armenian subjects. The Armenian genocide hadn't began being extensively researched until over a decade later (Until the mid-1960s, a “conspiracy of silence” cloaked the issue, which served Turkey’s interests). This means Kazemzadeh's book was published before much material about the Armenian genocide was available. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Firuz Kazemzadeh is a top source on the history of South Caucasus, and remains one of the most cited sources on the subject in scholarly literature. This is obvious even from a quick search at Google books. Scholarly publications as recent as the last couple of years refer to Kazemzadeh. Kazemzadeh was one of the most distinguished US scholars, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard, and a professor at Yale. His works received generally positive reviews, and not a single reviewer advised against Kazemzadeh being a useful read on the subject. Regarding genocide, Kazemzadeh never wrote on that subject, and is not an expert in that field. If someone selectively cites Kazemzadeh to advance a certain agenda, it is certainly not Kazemzadeh's fault. And Armenian bands did exist, and some of them were very violent, attacking civilians. Kazemzadeh's work is based on archival research, and the activity of such irregular groups is well documented in Russian and other sources. Karpovich did not write that Kazemzadeh "had a background with the Turkish "points of view"". The review was by Hugh Seton-Watson, and not by Karpovich, and he actually wrote that "Mr Kazemzadeh is however well aware of Turkish and Persian points of view." That is a totally different thing. And Seton-Watson praised the work of Kazemzadeh, by writing that Kazemzadeh "produced a book which will be of value to all concerned with Russian empire in the 20th century". It should also be noted that the book in question earned Kazemzadeh a PhD from Harvard, which speaks for itself, and Karpovich was his mentor. The PhD dissertation was so good that it was published as a book that remains one of the top sources on the history of Transcaucasia in the beginning of the 20th century to this day. I don't think such an important source could be disqualified. Also, please note that the proposed use of Kazemzadeh's work is Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related articles, covering the period from 1905 to 1920. Grand  master  10:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to professor Anna Geifman, Armenian Dashnaktsutiun was the foremost terrorist organization in the Caucasus at the beginning of the 20th century: So Kazemzadeh's works on the topic do not contradict what other researchers say.  Grand  master  08:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * She wrote an article advocating for stronger ties between Azerbaijan and Israel. She even talks hostilely toward Armenia for being Iran’s trading partner. She actually further proves that Kazemzadeh had personal biases. Her work regarding the subject or at least in relation to Armenia seems to be partisan and unreliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this related to her book on terrorism in the Russian empire, which received very good reviews? And she never showed any bias against Armenia. Even the article that you quoted mentions Armenia in a very neutral manner. And smuggling of weapons and technologies by Armenia to Iran is officially confirmed by US authorities, it is nothing new. Grand  master  10:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The TCA, formed in 2007 with $30 million from Turkish-American businessman Yalcin Ayasli has made the “academic controversy” project a major focus, funding publications that attempt to undermine the historicity of the Armenian Genocide, supporting a major project at the University of Utah (the Turkish Studies Project), and repeating the existence of "a scholarly debate". A section of its website is headlined,“The Ottoman Armenian Tragedy Is a Genuine Historic Controversy / Many Reputable Scholars Challenge the Conventional, One-Sided Anti-Turkish Narrative and/or Refrain from Alleging the Crime of Genocide.” and that “The notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history does not reflect the truth and must be utterly rejected.” Excerpts from the writings of some 34 scholars meant to illustrate this point are provided. The citations for this excerpt are “Firuz Kazemzadeh,”Turkish Coalition of America, http://www.tc-america.org/scholar/kazemzadeh.html (accessed 10 Dec 2014). and Firuz Kazemzadeh, “The Slaughter of the Armenians,” New York Times Book Review, 25 April 1993,13. If an somebody used "Slaughter of the Jews" instead of "Holocaust" would they not count as Holocaust denier? --Armatura (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Give appropriate weight - All historians have biases and blindspots and it should not surprise anyone that Firuz Kazemzadeh had them. This means assessing what Kazemzadeh said against the consensus of other historians, particularly if anything he said has been superseded by modern research. We should not include any of Kazemzadeh's WP:FRINGE theories, where the overwhelming majority of modern historical analysis is against him. Therefore it is not possible to give a general blanket "yes it's reliable"/"no, it's not reliable" viewpoint, but I would say that in most areas I would not give his views much weight where they disagree with the views of modern historians. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, given that Kazemzadeh wrote a book called “The struggle for Russian Azerbaijan, 1918-1920“ it’s pretty clear where his personal biases lie. He should not be considered a non-partisan source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Give appropriate weight, pay attention/ommit material that has been debunked by the majority modern WP:RS - Kazemzadeh is a good source, and he should primarily be used for the stuff in which he specialized, i.e. Iran and Caucasus history. However, some of his sources are outdated anno 2021, and some of the material has been debunked by the majority modern WP:RS. Indeed, Kazemzadeh isn't the main one to blame if Armenian genocide deniers misuse his writings for negationist nonsense, unless there's solid proof that he was a denier himself. And with "solid proof" I mean comparable to the stuff we have for figures such as Lewis, Lewy, etc. As this mainly revolves around contentious AA2 topics, editors should pay even more-than-usual attention to WP:AGE MATTERS, and assign precedence to newer quality sources over such mid-20th century writings. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Kazemzadeh should not be used as RS regarding contentious topics like Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Turkish, Armenian-Tatar/Azerbaijani conflicts as his biases clearly exceed his academic qualifications. He has enough bias to for his works to be cited by Turkish Coalition of America, in their coordinated attempt of giving academic air to Armenian Genocide denial.  Marc Mamigonian from Tufts University writes that
 * The fact that someone refers to Kazemzadeh to advance a certain point does not make Kazemzadeh unreliable. And Mamigonian does not mention Kazemzadeh. The quote is totally unrelated to the topic. We are not discussing reliability of TCA. Kazemzadeh had no connection with that organization. Grand  master  18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News
lmao feminist (+) 02:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note, do people think that Fox New's reliability has changed since the 2020 RfC closed? The 2020 close happened before major events such as the 2020 election, and I know that Fox received a lot of criticism for their coverage of the big lie, though obviously a lot of that was from television pundits and not the news coverage itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking whether we should explicitly mention "COVID-19" as part of Fox News's coverage of politics and science at RSP. feminist (+) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From just two days ago, MSNBC video, Fox News caught red-handed deceptively editing Biden speech. Platonk (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not "deceptively" edited in the slightest. They just focused on the part that was the "oopsie" rather than burn airtime with irrelevant material. MSNBC also took only part of his remarks and focused solely on what FoxNews omitted.
 * Full context (What was omitted/What MSNBC also omitted): "And I just want to tell you, I know you’re a little younger than I am, but you know I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher in the pros — in Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige"
 * It was a mistake and he corrected himself. Politifact pointed that out as well "Biden used the phrase “the great Negro,” but then corrected himself to describe Paige as a great Negro Leagues pitcher." and added punctuation to his verbal remarks to help distinguish it.
 * It clearly wasn't intended as calling him a Negro, but it was said. Calling it a "gaffe" vs "mistake" is little more than spin. Buffs (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd think COVID-19 would obviously count as science coverage, is it not being treated as such? - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The tweet I linked isn't really about science, it's more on the side of politics (i.e. culture war). Lots of topics adjacent to coronavirus (e.g. lockdowns, economic impact) have more to do with politics than science. (Now that I think of it, maybe "culture war" is a better term than "COVID-19" if we are including one at RSP.) feminist (+) 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Feminist, you're right. (BTW, you need to fix your non-standard sig.) Some changes began before 2016, but really took off after that election, and Fox went along for the ride. It made a conscious decision to become fully and solely a political machine supporting TFG, and it's been a two-way synergy ever since. Science denial=denial of reality has become a political movement. It didn't used to be this way. Both the left and right used to accept science, reality, and respect experts. Now one side denies it in several areas and values the uninformed opinions of politicians over real experts. A number of GOP political talking points and political platform positions are related to science denial. Texas and Florida make laws to deny science and the application of its findings in the areas of climate change, COVID-19, and vaccines. In fact, many GOP-controlled states are doing this. These issues are shibboleths and loyalty tests (like the refusal to withdraw support of TFG even after he correctly(!!) said he could shoot (murder) someone on 5th Ave and not lose any voters), and if any GOP politician doesn't toe the line of TFG, they lose his support and get hacked on by the others. It's cultish, and Fox News is a large part of the reason. -- Valjean (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Fox News isn't reliable news. Like Valjean said, it divorced from reality and I suggest that the editors steer clear from citing it as a reliable source. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given Fox News' slide down the reliability scale, is it worth doing a full RfC on this? WP:FOXNEWS is in green, minus politics and science. Arguably this incident is current events, and not either of those two other categories. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Border control ... sounds like politics to me? feminist (t) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A piece about the non-border related death of a border control agent is not a piece about border control, especially when other sources say he died of Covid complications. It's a tangential reference at best. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I’m no Fox News apologist but at the same time, they are a major news network whether people like it or not (makes me nauseous saying that); editors should simply use neutral discretion. Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and I have personally used Fox News (the website) quite a number of times on articles about GOP politicians and election primaries. Hence Fox News on politics is placed in the yellow column, i.e. additional considerations apply but can still be used as a source in many situations. feminist (t) 01:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering their status on RSP, foxnews.com is currently used in over 16,000 Wikipedia articles. Platonk (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ...used in most of them before the new downspiral, if I may add to this. If no better source exists, then cite them with caution. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be funny but while Fox News clearly has problems, I'm not sure this example is really particularly meaningful in terms of RSN concerns. The link there is https://fxn.ws/3ndi0Jd which goes to [//www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death]. There's nothing in the source which mentions the border migrant crisis not even the headline. Unless you count that stock photo which I'd argue barely shows anything and the caption "" seems more random than politicised. I went through all 7 archives in in the Internet Archive and none of them do or seem any different [//web.archive.org/web/20211113182610/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211113182711/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211113202242/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211114024042/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211114025405/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211114112607/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death], [//web.archive.org/web/20211115090652/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death]. I can't rule out there is some version perhaps only shown to certain audiences that wasn't captured, but I think there's a good chance the headline was never in the actual article. (Note 2 of the archives listed [//web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty-death here] with slightly different dates end up sending you to the older version, and the most recent one at the time I wrote this was from me.)  Yes the article doesn't mention anything about COVID-19 but nor does this from the AP [//tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/border-patrol-agent-dies-in-line-of-duty-death/article_d1d6c072-1f0b-5572-9f98-7375dd1b8c63.html] or this from Az Central [//www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2021/11/11/tucson-sector-border-patrol-agent-dies-line-duty/6393477001/]. And if we look at those that do like [//www.kvoa.com/news/border-patrol-mourns-loss-of-tucson-sector-agent-who-dies-from-covid-19/article_2a653c42-4316-11ec-bef0-138be4942c2c.html] [//www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/border-patrol-mourns-loss-of-tucson-sector-agent-who-dies-from-covid-19/75-5f79caab-4e10-478c-948e-6fd0cc4614b5] they talk about "Border Patrol sources". So I think it's not unreasonable for Fox News to exclude such information. Whether it was a conscious choice because they felt it unnecessary to speculate on someone's private information based on "Border Patrol sources", or they simply never uncovered this in their limited research.  That headline on Facebook [//www.facebook.com/FoxNews/photos/a.184044921335/10161129945526336] (maybe other social media?) is clearly horribly misleading. But there's a good reason we never take headlines in otherwise reliable articles as reliable sources themselves, whoever puts them out. While some sources are worse than others and they perhaps provide a small amount of clue how much we should trust said source, ultimately I think misleading headlines let alone misleading headlines on social media are a bit of a wash.  Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an AP News story, word for word. Platonk (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Prabook.com
Prabook.com is an openly editable wiki that describes itself as a place to make a encyclopedic profile for any person, not just those notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It’s content is a mix of automatically scraped details from other sources, and contributions from anonymous editors. It allows individuals to “lock” a profile, but has no mechanism to ensure it is only locked by the subject of the profile.

This iteration of Prabook.com appears to be founded in 2018 (per Valery Tsepkalo), but there are earlier posts at RSN about a similar-sounding website.

How should we list it on WP:RSP?


 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Additional considerations apply. For example, do not used to satisfy Notability, only for Verifiability.
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false, fabricated, or unverifiable information, and should be deprecated

I have already removed it from several articles where I’ve found it used as a source, but would like to formally propose deprecating it per WP:USERGENERATED. Thanks, <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm  talk 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 4 - As a self-published database it would rarely be usable in Wikipedia, but the fact that it has been edited by anonymous people for which we cannot determine who or whether they are qualified, it should be excluded entirely. Deprecate. Platonk (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there a reason this is an actual RFC? Is this being used as a source on a wide scale? On it's face is unreliable, we don't need this whole rigamarole. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , finds that is currently used in a whopping... 1 article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because the nominator removed it from all the other articles. I removed it from the last article after someone reverted nom's edit. Platonk (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well how many articles was it in originally? If it's only a handful it was removed from, why not just move straight to blacklist? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it from ~10 last week and it appeared on a few more since then, so not too many. I wasn’t sure if the formal RfC was needed to blacklist/xlinkbot/edit filter, but I’m happy to withdraw the RfC if it’s overkill. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm  talk 00:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a full RFC is necessary, since I don't think blacklisting it as a source will be contentious. I'm firmly on team blacklist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment seems that if it fits under the same heading as sites like find a grave or IMDb, in that it often contains factual information but may also be subject to inaccuracies because it’s open to anyone that edits. I think we just need to treat it the same way we treat the above two sources, in that we may want to put it in as an external link or something like that, but not as a citation. It seems like “blacklisting“ is more for stuff that is often false and/or defamatory.  Montanabw (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a mystery to me where they get their data. I suspect they scrape from one or more Who's Who-s, since I inevitably find that any old biography I want to write has a Prabook entry with identical data to some Who's Who entry from ages ago. But I also don't see a clear need for a RfC, because it's not often used as a source. If we have deprecated Who's Who, as it appears we have, we should deprecate this as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the RfC? Is this an issue in doubt? Why are editors being asked to spend time considering this? Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 5, which would be "close this as not being useful". We do not need an RfC and formal listing for every random website used a handful of times, and that dilutes the usefulness of the list and is wasteful of volunteer time for people to read and comment here. It is clearly user-generated and clearly unreliable, and we don't need an RfC to determine that, let alone formal deprecation (which, similarly, should be resolved for the worst of the worst actors, generally those who deliberately and knowingly publish falsehoods). If it were nonetheless used in hundreds or thousands of articles, it still might make sense to spell out its unreliability explicitly, but ten? Let's not have more like this, please; it is abundantly clear that this site does not meet the RS guidelines without having to hear it in a formal RfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Replying to you, but to respond to the other comments asking why I filed an RfC) I thought this might be overkill, but I filed an RfC because a long-term well-respected contributor suggested it might be appropriate in some cases, and I thought it possible that other contributors might agree. In terms of the number of times its been used, there are about a dozen that I noticed over the last week, but a RSN discussion about a previous iteration of Prabook noted 200 uses (Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211), so I’m not sure how many times its been removed without someone noting. I thought it would be helpful to have a clear-cut reason to deprecate it and have XLinkBot help keep it clean. It seems to be added to a few articles a week, and I didn’t see harm in adding it to the list. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 03:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Try listing it here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Platonk (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Platonk, I’m not sure that’s the right spot for this, since it doesn’t seem to be deliberate spamming effort, but rather unrelated good-faith editors using Prabook believing it to be a reliable source. I’ll just keep an eye on it for the next few weeks to see if it continues to pop up. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it even used in article space at all? Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not since I’ve removed the instances I’ve found. It was used a few more times over the last week. I’m not sure if there’s a way to search revision histories to see how often its been used but removed ad-hoc. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 04:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment No need for this RFC. This is not a debatable site; it's a self-published wiki-type site, which is already a clearly unreliable source.  Not every source needs to be added to RSP; the list (and discussions such as this) are for sources where there is some reasonable contention as to whether or not it meets some definition of reliability.  Editors not reading or understanding policy is not "reasonable contention" and this RFC is pointless.  If you find it, it should probably be removed, and if it is continuously added back, the media blacklist is the correct place to go next.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As has already been said, this is a standard user-generated site and use case is low. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would be the proper place to bring it, if it is being persistently cited. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Prabook is inherently unstable as a user-generated, tertiary, source (just like Wikipedia) and thus generally unreliable, but from what I've seen, a good amount of content is mined from published directories like Marquis Who's Who and other Who's Who works, which can vary in their reliability, but have the reliable permanence of ink and paper (right or wrong, the information never changes). Many of these books can be viewed and verified at Internet Archive, e.g.Who's Who in Science, Who Was Who in America. Prabook entries often nod to this by statements such as "recognized as a Marquis notable". So the source of information in Prabook isn't always a mystery, even if not credited. But of course, the original directories should be cited in place of Prabook. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Love Reading Website
I have been informed that Love Reading is a user generated site. It looks like a 'reliable source' to me but I'd be interested in another opinion. Thanks.--Joenthwarls (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific statements would you want to cite from a specific page of Love Reading for a specific Wikipedia page? -Ljleppan (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * *Unreliable No it's not a reliable source for literary (book) reviews. Firstly, it's an affiliate internet bookshop and a commercial enterprise so the primary intent of the site is commercial, which is a red flag. Notice the "compare prices" link to *eight* different affiliate marketing platforms on each book page. Secondly, LoveReading is a "vanity" review site. There's no editorial process. *Anyone* can get their book (even self published books) reviewed packages starting at £120. See here: https://www.lovereading.co.uk/your-book-reviewed . Also, most of the "reviews" are appear to be based significantly on the publisher's blurbs, or press releases, to the extent that much the content of the "reviews" can be found on other sites and Google searches will reveal the "review" content is not unique. On many pages, much of the "review" content is actually derived from and quoted from other more credible literary review sources. See here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/book/17739/The-Midnight-Guardians-by-Ross-Montgomery.html and here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/book/9781912650828/isbn/No-Said-Rabbit-by-Marjoke-Henrichs.html. This is a good indication that WP editors should be using these quoted sites and/or authority sites in children's literature such as "The School Librarian", " The Bookseller", "Books for Keeps", "The School Reading List", "Booktrust" or significant national press sites such as "The Spectator", "The Guardian" or "The Sunday Times Book Review". Finally, there's no evidence that the "reviewers" have any authority in the field of literary criticism, and in most cases, the name of the "reviewer" is not even detailed on the "review". There is further evidence on the various "LoveReading" sites, that the reviews are in fact unsolicited and user generated content. No editorial process or authority checking is detailed. See here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/review-panel Tonyinman (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Slovenski Narod newspaper
Note: this is the second re-listing.

source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev. article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted). content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. -- Local hero talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:
 * Journalism
 * Opinion pieces by non-scholars
 * Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
 * Any primary source, etc.
 * Per Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
 * Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
 * "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
 * Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
 * Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.
 * That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. -- Local hero talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary WP:RS cited in the same article (Hristo Tatarchev).Jingiby (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I somewhat concur with Jingiby here. Newspapers are hardly a good source about history anyway and such news stories are presented without context (an invitation to OR). We do not know, if this newspaper was reliable sources for this topic even back then (ethno-nationalistic POV pushing was one of the main reasons for existence of such local newspapers). In any case, if the only source for this information is this newspaper, it is certainly an undue information and should not be included in the article. If this information is mentioned in higher quality source (eg. history book), then use that source (discussion about due weight applies here, but that is out of scope of this noticeboard). Note useable sources are not restricted to English language, which is preferred, but not required. Pavlor (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the input, Pavlor. I can't think of a POV that a Slovenian newspaper would have to push in 1904 Ottoman Macedonia. Slovenski Narod was apparently the first daily Slovene newspaper, in print for over seven decades. Another user had originally added this source to the article but was reverted by Jingiby. I took a look and it seems legit, but hoping to get guidance here as to whether it is RS.
 * With regard to your other point, I am not able to find it in books. I was only able to find it stated in places like the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle's website (link). -- Local hero  talk 00:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis incident
Hi,

the other day, I followed a citation in an article to a published work, which in turn cited "WK 2011", which turned out to refer to a 2011 version of the article in question. Based on what I've found in the meantime, it looks like this involves dozens of other articles as well. Your username appears in the list of citogenesis incidents, so I'm hoping you can deal with this in an appropiate way, or notify the appropriate person. Here's the overview:

Between about 2007 and 2013, a series of books authored by Peter Baofu was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The titles follow the general pattern The Future of this: Towards a New Theory of that:

The publisher is a bit dodgy, according to their article; and these books are dodgy by the standards of that publisher, I think: Quite a lot of the prose was copied verbatim from Wikipedia, paying no heed to whether that content was cited or not. The only upside is that this author does credit Wikipedia.

Later on, people started citing those books in the articles they'd been cobbled together from. A Wikipedia search for the author currently yields 35 hits:

I've only checked a handful, but I'd be very surprised if the pattern described above doesn't hold for practically all of them. I did wonder whether the citations might have been intended as product placement, to steer Wikipedia readers to the books. Across the ones I checked, this does not seem to be the case, though; the responsible editors and the timestamps are quite different for each one. So the likelier explanation is that occasionally, someone applies a tag to one of the passages appearing as-is in one of the books, and then someone else coming across the tag, and googles the former, and finds the latter at google books, and fails to wonder about the "WK" attribution there, and adds it as a ref... and voila, circle closed.

So this seems to be more benign than many of the listed citogenesis incidents, in as far as there's no deliberate fabrication at the root of it all, only originally uncited content. Let me know if you need any extra information, or if I can be of any further help with this issue.

- 2A02:560:42E7:3600:A538:6E0A:4565:830F (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reposting this from my talk page - I don't get on as much as I was able to in the past so this could benefit from someone who can take more immediate action. In any case, this is definitely something that needs to be looked into. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Easy enough to see how this can happen. Almost every day I get an email from academia.edu telling me that I have been cited in a publication. Which is strange, as I haven't published in a scholarly journal in more than 45 years. Some of those notices result from one of the academic authors who share my name. Many of them result from an "author" following the attribution rules, and listing me as a contributor to a Wikipedia article they have incorporated into a book. Maybe an essay on what to watch for in sourcing would help. - Donald Albury 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I get similar emails. Probably for the same reasons - my only article on Academic.edu is one published in the UK Skeptic Magazine. There also seem to be quite a few Doug Wellers. Doug Weller  talk 09:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't feel too flattered – emails keep arriving saying my name "is mentioned in an Early tetrapods paper uploaded to Academia", to find out what it's about they want me to "upgrade" i.e. pay money. My guess is a rather rough 2006 illustration, much improved by Pixelsquid in the current article, has been re-used by them. Since I'm no expert, rather surprised they couldn't do better, but am not paying to find out more. . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, these look like benign instances of cn tags getting filled too carelessly. In other words, they're pretty much exactly what the cartoon warned us about. I've been working my way through the list; most are redundant or easy to replace, though we'll need replacement citations in a few cases . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gotten the list down to Wuxia, Carriage, Deforestation, and Creativity (religion). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've rewritten the relevant section of Creativity (religion) to avoid citing Baofu. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone feel like tackling the last three? I don't know when I'll get the time. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wuxia has been debaofued.
 * - (OP) 89.183.220.246 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Carriages have four round wheels but now zero circular citations, leaving only Deforestation.
 * - (OP) 2A02:560:421E:4400:60C4:A40A:3BA3:7860 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Cambridge Scholars is not known for strong editorial oversight. It does not surprise me that they would do this. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, they seem to have been flipping in and out of the various publication ranking systems I have easy access to. For example, the Norwegian system classified them as level 0 (not a proper scientific publication venue) in 2020, but level 1 (meets basic criteria) in both 2019 and 2021. The spotty track record makes it pretty difficult to make any general statements beyond "consider every work carefully and in isolation". -Ljleppan (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just don't use anything by CSP ever. They're garbage vanity press/predatory publisher. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Tank Magazine a reliable source for archaeology and religion?
It's being added a lot by - I started a discussion at WP:FTN because some of the material is fringe, but there may also be a COI issue and of course refspamming. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to our article, Tank Magazine is a fashion and culture magazine. In fields with such an abundance of academic sources like archaeology, I can't see why we would ever want to use Tank Magazine when we can use academic journal articles and books published by academic presses.
 * Looking in particular at Timeismotion's edits, this seems like a deeply questionable use of Tank Magazine, for instance. Why are we citing a review in a fashion magazine by an author with a BA in journalism as a source on the "scholarly reception" of a work of history, archaeology, and anthropology?  Tao Lin isn't an academic and doesn't have relevant expertise, and the review isn't in a scholarly journal. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it self-evidently isn't RS for such subjects. Blatant promotional refspamming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the editor is clearly promoting Tao lin as well, eg Kmart realism sourced to what seems a blog.. Mentions of him in articles here. Interestingly enough, his article says "The Atlantic described Lin as having a "fairly staggering" knack for self-promotion." He's obviously very notable, but is being promoted by this editor and at times inappropriately. As an aside, I see Gawker is used several times as a source in his article. Looks like he may have been editing the article himself in the past. [User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller ]] talk 16:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Unz as an external link or a source for a quote?
Here is a search for Unz. I haven't checked many, but the first few are all ELs to people's works, while at H L Mencken it's a source for a quote. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is concensus for UNZ that a major issue was WP:COPYLINK and that their reprints weren't authorised, so probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends. The Unz periodical archive (which is separate from, and predates, the controversial Unz Review, despite now sharing the same web domain) consists of large amounts of scanned public domain material, similar to the Internet Archive or Biodiversity Heritage Library, and possibly some material still in copyright. Anything published in the U.S. prior to 1926 is public domain in the U.S., as are post-1926 works whose copyrights weren't renewed after 28 years, or for a variety of other reasons. So this 1924 article by Mencken is 100% free (in the US) to be re-hosted, reprinted, repurposed, etc. To my knowledge there are no concerns with the faithfulness or accuracy of the scans, as the archive was initially praised by publications across the ideological spectrum. .  Addendum: Some indexed content is clearly marked as under copyright and not publicly displayed, for instance here and here. And many of the outgoing links appear to simple author pages (e.g. William Kristol), not articles themselves, which is similar to Internet Archive author or links to journalist pages, which might be considered per WP:ELYES if no other "official" links exist.  --Animalparty! (talk). 20:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

AJ+ (operated by Al Jazeera)
As described on Wikipedia, AJ+ is an online news and current events channel run by Al Jazeera Media Network. I have recently observed this channel to publish, via its Twitter account, a three minute propaganda piece regarding the Kenosha unrest shooting which tells outright falsehoods. In particular, it explicitly claims that Rittenhouse brought a semiautomatic weapon across state lines - a statement known to be false and which has been acknowledged in RS to be false for over a year (1 2) and which is currently treated as a particularly important myth to debunk (e.g.). This is, after all, the entire basis for Dominic Black facing charges.

Given this egregious disregard for truth, which appears to derive from a strong partisan bias, I urge that AJ+ cannot be treated as a reliable source. I further argue that incidents such as this reflect negatively upon the parent organization, Al Jazeera. 174.93.70.56 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Nah. The weapon across state lines talking point has been mentioned all over by journalists of all kinds of media outlets that we consider generally reliable, and I don't think we should do any mass deprecation based on this single issue. MarioGom (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AJ is hardly the only media source to repeat this particular claim (it has, unfortunately, been repeated by a LOT of news sources that we consider reliable). So let me ask… are there other situations where AJ has misstated facts to this extent? If not, then I would suggest we call it “unreliable for reporting on the Rittenhouse story” … without calling it “generally unreliable”. The same would be true for the other outlets that repeat the claim. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, their written coverage hasn't repeated the claim in question. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is in general why WP:NOTNEWS is a thing, breaking news is *always* going to be wrong to some extent. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but that statement about Wikipedia is not a newspaper is simply not correct, at all. "Not a newspaper" is about... what WP is not; it makes no mention of the reliability of newspapers nor anything else of the kind. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." is the language you are looking for that says we should avoid including breaking news stories and wait for that to filter to something that has had time to get the facts right. --M asem (t) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Have other outlets continued to spread this lie (not a "talking point", as it is not in an way a justified description of reality, and not something they have any real excuse to get wrong) after the dismissal of the gun charge, indeed after the trial? If it were up to me, I'd deprecate all kinds of media outlets instead. They ought to know better. I agree in principle that this sort of thing can reasonably be tailored to the topic; but it comes across to me that when other sources have been deprecated generally, the people voting against those sources have had at most one example to point to. 174.93.70.56 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Um.....I very sincerely doubt that any source has ever been deprecated here because of one single instance of misreporting. As for "they ought to know better" - perhaps, but how does any news organisation acquire 95+% of their information? By tapping into the reporting by the "top level" news agencies. Once a false story gets into circulation and widely repeated, it's very difficult to stop its propagation. As for your railing accsations of "lies", it is clearly an honest error that resulted from a commonm sense assumption...and really, whether you've carried a gun across a state line and killed two people with it, or whether you get your buddy that lives on the other side of said state line from you to buy the gun for you, then cross over into that state, pick up the gun and then kill two people with it...I know it makes a difference to the courts, but to everyone else in the world that is a petty detail.  2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This relates to the point I made about Fox News a few days ago. Although this is a talk point in a video on Twitter rather than simply a headline which is clearly not an RS, I think generally we should be careful about stuff posted by RS on social media. In a lot of cases the standards tend to be more lax. And especially for Twitter, TikTok or Instagram, the medium is more tailored for brevity which can lead to excessive simplifications etc. (Although I acknowledge this is simply an error.) If AJ+ only posts content on social media, I don't know if we quite have to deprecate them but I don't think we should use them much anyway and should take particular concern with stuff that only seems to be mentioned by them especially if there's no reason to. (If it's a story that hasn't received much attention elsewhere then maybe.) And I don't think it tells us much about the standards at Al Jazeera in general. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nil makes a very good point… We tend to consider social media accounts and postings unreliable for facts (except in rare SPS situations). And I could see an argument that AJ+ is really a social media account rather than a news outlet (or perhaps it is the social media account of a news outlet). It blurs the lines. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the social media account of Al Jazeera; the content seems to be created separately and AJ+ appears to have its own website that seems to very intentionally create short-form videos as its core "news and storytelling" purpose. I have no prejudice against news organizations that primarily use video as their form of communication, but I do think that they should be evaluated for editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In some ways, it would appear that AJ+ and Al Jazeera have different reliability. We would consider video news made by WP:NEWSORGs to be within their scope, as far as I am aware. I don't think it's simply an issue of social media postings on Twitter, as some indicate above. AJ+ has an extensive collection of short videos on Youtube that deal with politically sensitive historical topics; if we were to encounter a video made by 60 Minutes or BBC Newsnight published on YouTube, I imagine that we'd evaluate it based upon the reliability of 60 Minutes or BBC Newsnight as a news source rather than simply assuming it's generally unreliable because we found it on "social media". Why does YouTube matter here? Well, that same video that the IP linked to on Twitter also appears on the AJ+ YouTube page at this link. I'd find it rather odd that we'd apply one set of reliability standards to analyzing reliability of 60 Minutes content posted on YouTube and another set of standards to AJ+ content posted on YouTube. I also think that we shouldn't write this off as the mere postings of a social media account on a medium that reduces quality for the purposes of brevity, as others above have suggested. And, AJ+, after all, does have a website that apparently also includes both reporting in a written medium and videos that are literally links to its YouTube, so the source probably needs to be evaluated more broadly if there are issues with fact-checking and accuracy in its video productions. Perhaps an RfC is in order to see if AJ+ and Al Jazeera should be treated as if their reliability is different? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the broad picture I think it makes sense to avoid using anything posted to social media even by a verified RS as absolutely reliable since these may not have the editorial scrutiny of published works. That said, most good RSes when they use social media usually include a link to a their story with more details, and that's what we should be using. --M asem (t) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think that this Video from 60 Minutes unquestionably has the same reliability as 60 Minutes that's hosted on its own website. I don't think that we should be using tweets from news organizations; there's something analogous in reasoning to WP:HEADLINE that apply inasmuch as most social media posts are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers. But, I don't think that standalone videos, like the one brought up by the IP, are the same sort of thing. If the video is standalone (i.e. is not an excerpt of something longer that it links back to), then the purpose of the video is to actually tell its viewers what the news is with a strong degree of fact-checking and accuracy (or it should be, if it's a reliable newsorg). Videos from AJ+, being that they don't tend to link back to their website and don't appear to want to attract readers to any other longer article, probably should be evaluated by the typical reliable sourcing standards. If they're not reliable, then we should probably modify WP:RSP to indicate that AJ+ is not reliable and should be evaluated separately from the remainder of Al Jazeera-related content. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, long-form videos on YouTube are fine, and I agree that treating social media like Twitter or Instagram (which are meant to be short, concise messages, not long-form works) should be treated like HEADLINE. (But that's a broad statement, not specific to the AJ+ situation) --M asem (t) 22:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Should the text that appears alongside YouTube videos be considered reliable?
Recently, a large number of citations have been added to Led Zeppelin song articles with links to YouTube song videos as the sources. The videos are accompanied by supplemental text, which is being used as sources for "Personnel" sections in song articles. The videos (actually only audio) themselves appear to be "official": the upload information includes "Provided to YouTube by Atlantic Records" and "&copysr; 2012 Atlantic Records", but also includes the disclaimer "Auto-generated by YouTube". (click on "SHOW MORE" right below "Provided to YouTube by Atlantic Records")

The problem is, sometimes the information is incorrect. For example, the linked video text includes "Unknown: Andy Johns", but the actual album liner notes indicate "Engineers: Andrew Johns, London; Terry Manning, Ardent Studios, Memphis, Tennessee". It seems that an "official" upload by Atlantic Records should at least contain the information that the record company itself lists on the actual album. So, although the video may have been provided by Atlantic, it appears that the supplemental text may not have been, or, is something less accurate than the album liner notes. Should the text that accompanies YouTube videos be considered reliable? Pinging, who added the citations, for their input.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As it is "auto-generated" I suspect ita not reliable, as it obviously is not being either fact-checked or has any editorial oversite.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good heavens no. In theory, if some YouTube account were to say "all our comments are checked and edited by these known people, who stake their good reputations on the accuracy thereof," then maybe there'd be a hint of a possibility.  But just good heavens no.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's frequently wrong - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No, these are auto-generated based on AI, similar to Google Knowledge Graphs, and subject to numerous unchecked errors. Personnel should only be sourced either to liner notes (in many cases) or to reliable published material otherwise (i.e. something like Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions).  There is no evidence this text is reliable, even if it is posted under "official" videos.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My instincts tell me they are about as reliable as the CC captions. As everyone else has put it, no way. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like all this user is adding to those songs is the names of the band members and their instrumental/vocal contributions under "Personel." It's an odd way of going about sourcing it, but...does this particular info really NEED a source? That Robert Plant sang, Jimmy Page played guitars, John Paul Jones played bass, and John Bonham drummed in Led Zeppelen is kind of a BLUESKY thing, ain't it? And if it does need a cite, the albums themselves could be used as sources, right? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Things sometimes get more complicated, with specific types of keyboards, guitars, Page or Jones on mandolin, who sings backup, etc. To go with the standard "A on vocals, B on guitar, C on bass, D on drums" may give an incomplete picture or actually be wrong (I was surprised to find that the instruments on several Beatles songs were played by different members). If it's worth adding to an article, it should be properly referenced (bios, reviews, album notes). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It also isn't always, or even often, true. I mean, officially in the Beach Boys Brian Wilson played bass, Carl Wilson and Al Jardine played guitars, Dennis Wilson played drums, and Mike Love played random other instruments.  In reality, on the recordings they mostly just sang, and the Wrecking Crew recorded most of the instruments.  Similarly, while we all know the Beatles official instrumentation, there are plenty of times when Paul played drums or guitar; when John or George played bass, when any of them or someone like Nicky Hopkins or Billy Preston played keys, etc.  Recording is a complex process, and we shouldn't assume that the convenient roles of band members necessarily plays out in the recording process.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignatievka Cave
On Ignatievka Cave, another user has aggressively pushed the citation of a newly-published (but I believe reliably published) reference on the dating of the material of the cave, has removed other sources stating that the dating is less well agreed upon, has rewritten the article to state that the cave material definitively has the date given in the new reference, and has refused to answer questions on their behavior on talk, instead casting wild personal attacks. More experienced eyes on this article would be welcome. I'm bringing this here both because I think this board has people with the appropriate experience of sourcing and because the dispute concerns the removal of prior sources and the appropriate use of sources (although not the reliability of the newly added sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Would this not be better solved at WP:DRN, ? Or better yet, starting an RfC on the talk page of the article before engaging in the noticeboards. If I understand correctly you are not here to discuss whether a particular source (or group of sources) is reliable or not, which is the point of this noticeboard, and have more issues with potentially disruptive editing by the user. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  21:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It concerns the removal of other sources in the same edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the issue you are bringing up here is not the reliability of those sources, is it, ? From what I can see in the talk page the consensus is both the sources removed and added are reliable, no? A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Re-open Forbes discussion
The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to what appear to be unhelpful edit challenges about reliable sources. This results in editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources, and then switch them for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time in re-doing sources apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The distinction isn't between "print" and "online", it's between items by Forbes staff proper and those by "contributors". I'm pretty sure that almost every Forbes "contributor" piece I've seen added to any article anywhere was pointless bloviating. I don't see any reason to change the status quo represented at WP:RSP. It's too bad that we can no longer tell two categories of page apart from a split-second glance at the URL, but that's life. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there is evidence that Forbes' "contributors" now receive proper editorial oversight, I agree that there's no need to change the guidelines given at WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. "It's inconvenient" is no reason to throw out our long-established guideline that self-published sources aren't generally reliable, and blogposts without editorial oversight are effectively self-published, no matter whether the blog is hosted on forbes.com or wordpress. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The only real issue is that you can no longer easily tell by the URL if a Forbes online article is from paid staff or a Contributor, so editors going around blinding removing Forbes online sources are creating problems. Forbes clearly has bylines for who is staff or not so it does require a check of this. --M asem (t) 19:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't call WP:FORBES or WP:FORBESCON guidelines. They are parts of an essay-class page. Guidelines are what's in WP:GUIDELINE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not just “contributor”. I also avoid using sources with the “Forbes Tech Council” byline, such as [| this one]. If it’s not staff, it should be avoided. But Forbes versus Forbes.com is not the issue, as pointed out above. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, Wikipedia is formally separating Forbes as distinct from Forbes.com, with Forbes green-lighted and Forbes.com red-lighted in the list here: WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The page you link does nothing of the sort, if you read the actual text - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Additionally, I don't really see a need to change the status for either Forbes or contributors. A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with Forbes is that two contributors in the same topic area can have drastically different reliability, for example in defense/security with HI Sutton (very high quality) and David Axe (very low quality). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP says no such thing, . Platonk (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP does say that exactly as I presented it,, . You need to read both separate listings side by side to see why Wikipedia editors are losing contribution time by needing to redo edits due to the link I just provided causing Forbes.com to appear to be blacklisted. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your failure to understand the difference between Forbes Staff and Forbes Contributor content is the issue, not Forbes.com vs Forbes print. You have been repeatedly told this yet you appear to not understand it at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are being confused by the titles of the redirects WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. WP:FORBESCON does not stand for "Forbes.com" (it's spelled with an N rather than an M, for one thing), it stands for "Forbes Contributors". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No failure to understand this on my part. My GAN for BTS is currently being challenged for about a dozen FORBES ( FORTUNE ) cites using contributor Hugh McIntyre, who writes for both Forbes and Billboard. There is nothing appreciably wrong with any of his work, and his numbers and stats match up directly with all other sources. Still, because of the full blacklisting of all Forbes.com contributors currently by Wikipedia, I am required to mechanically change-out each one of his citations and replace them with the exact same data from other sources. That sounds like wasted editor contribution time for all those editors who wrote the original citations using McIntyre. McIntyre is entirely reliable when writing for Billboard magazine, but Wikipedia says he is fully unreliable and unusable when writing as a contributor for Forbes. A better formulation of Wikipedia's ambiguous stance about Forbes vs Forbes.com contributors would be helpful for the other 12 editors who contributed their time to writing the BTS article and using McIntyre. My link above is to WP:RSP and not to WP:RSP. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you're not very good at communicaton your ideas clearly. Fortune is a separate publication from Forbes, not even published by the same company, so again I am confused. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there's nothing "ambiguous" about the advice given at WP:Forbes and WP:FORBESCON; you just don't agree with it. Secondly, the fact that a particular source gets facts right does not make it reliable. If I write a blogpost, it doesn't matter how right my facts are – as I am not an expert with a history of publications in the field, I'm not a reliable source.
 * Thirdly, if your particular Forbes contributor is an expert with a history of publications in established reliable sources in the field, then per WP:SPS even self-published sources by them may be considered reliable except for BLP issues.
 * (Fourthly, if you think the advice given at Forbescon should be changed, it might help if you proposed a change!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with all four of these points. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are both asking for a response to item four just listed above, then it can be presented in short form. A better and more consistent policy for Wikipedia would be either to designate both the magazine and its website as reliable, or to designate them both as unreliable. The current 'mixed' policy used by Wikipedia leads only to lost contributor editing time for Wikipedia editors who develop edits from Forbes sources, only to be asked to remove their edits after being told about caveats about some bad apple editors at Forbes. Either designate both the magazine and its website as reliable, or designate them both as unreliable. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a problem at Wikipedia's end, but at Forbes' end - they deliberately confused the Forbes magazine and staff content with blogs by random bozos. Wikipedia editors can distinguish them easily: if it says "staff" or "from the print edition", it's the RS; if not, it's blogs - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not some bad apple editors; it's a bad barrel. If people didn't add bad sources in the first place, we wouldn't have to waste time replacing them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand in what sense it would be either better or more consistent to have a specific exception to WP:RS for articles published by Forbes' staff or Forbes' contributors? The current advice at WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON is just an explanation of how our reliable sourcing guideline (in particular News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact and Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight) applies to these sources.  I'm also baffled at how you think changing that advice would in any way solve the problem?  How many people are aware of (and bother to check!) WP:RSP yet are unable to comprehend Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes?  If you are conscientious enough to check RSP, you'll be able to check whether or not the article you want to source is produced by a contributor or an author; if you aren't, then changing the advice given there will make no material difference to you.  If the advice instead said "Forbes is generally unreliable" then the people who are currently citing Forbes' contributors will continue to do so, happily oblivious to the change (and we've created a bunch of work for editors to replace references to Forbes' staff articles for no real benefit).  Changing our advice to say that blogposts without any fact checking or editorial oversight are generally reliable – and contradicting WP:RS in the process – is, it should be obvious, a non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both David and XOREaster seem to be saying that the editorial board at Forbes showed very poor judgement about allowing their website to accept contributions by non-experienced editors. To some Wikipedia editors, such poor judgement by the Forbes editorial board would be enough to justify opposing the use of both the print version of Forbes and the on-line version containing their non-experienced contributors. Others will still say that many of the non-editor contributors are still top writers, such as Hugh McIntyre who also writes for Billboard magazine, and therefore both the print copy and the on-line copy should both be allowed for Wikipedia editing. I would support either of these last two options as being a consistent Wikipedia policy which will not confuse well-meaning Wikipedia editors, who put together their edits in good faith, only to be told about the caveats which require their edits to then be deleted or switched out to other sources causing lost editor contribution time. Wikipedia policy should be consistently one or the other, either call Forbes reliable or unreliable, and not a combination of polar opposites stating that Forbes is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable. It should be one or the other. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree on establishing such an absolutist judgement on Forbes. As forbes explicitly states when an article is written by staff and when it is written by contributors, being forced to choose both or neither as sources is an unnecessarily extreme measure from my perspective. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please tag me!  00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gothamist caught copying text from Wikipedia
The New York Times reports that four articles from Gothamist, a news site owned by WNYC, used language from Wikipedia entries and articles in Salon and The New York Times without credit, according to a comparison of the pieces and the original sources.. The articles were, per the NYT, all published by the same individual. The four articles are enumerated in the NYT article and have all been pulled offline at this point. No Wikipedia articles appear to have referenced them.

The individual accused of plagairism served in several roles, including senior editor of WNYC’s race and justice unit and as host of National Public Radio news program "All Things Considered", according to the NYT report. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this; editorial oversight at WNYC seems to have failed to a good extent in editing one of its senior editors if the NYT report is true, though the eventual issuing of a retraction indicates that there is editorial oversight. I'm a bit skeptical of the remainder of the individual's reporting in that unit. The only partial analogue to this I see on WP:RSP would be the listing for Der Spiegel, but that was for fabrications rather than copying from Wikipedia.

How should this reflect on reporting from WNYC and its affiliates more generally? Are there additional considerations that should be taken for articles that come from its race and justice unit more broadly, or should additional considerations only apply to articles created by former senior editor whose articles now face retraction? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I don't see a broader issue here given that the articles weren't referenced here, which would have created a circular referencing problem. People and institutions make mistakes; WYNC appears to have done the right thing, editorially, albeit after the fact. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Copying from WP should certainly lower the reliability of Gothamist as a news source. After all, we don’t consider WP reliable, so how could a source that copies from us be considered reliable?  Correcting the mistake after the fact is good, but not enough to off-set the negative. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was a problem with one writer, as seems to be the case, I'm not sure that it should affect how we treat the organization more broadly. An infraction by one individual isn't the same as an institutional dedication to fabricating claims. Make a note of it and see if Gothamist has more problems down the line, I suppose. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding An infraction by one individual isn't the same as an institutional dedication to fabricating claims, I agree. The senior position that the individual held within the editorial structure of WNYC, however, bites me a bit more than if this were simply a lone journalist on the ground. Would this indicate something along the lines of diminished editorial oversight under this particular individual, which could then affect the reliability of articles that the editor reviewed? If this were a mere staff journalist, I'd understand limiting the scope, but I feel like there's something different when senior editors at an institution do this sort of thing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but it still seems too grand an inference from the information we presently have available. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a similar situation in the video game area where one writer for a major site otherwise deemed reliable was found to be plagarizing. However, the site helped in that they redacted all of their articles, leading us to also redact the articles that had been used on WP. The site otherwise maintained its editorial reliability and hasn't changed how we used it.  I think checking to see if work was plagarized is not something usually done by the editor's desk most of the time, but a good reliable source when caught will do all the necessary redactions and similar steps to eliminate the problem article. --M asem  (t) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Isolated problems require isolated solutions, if one author was the problem then we proscribe the Author not the source. If however future reporting on this case suggests that the issue is more systemic than this we can have a broader discussion at that time. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability doesn't mean infallibility and even the most respected publishers will have this type of problem which they will then go on to correct. No action is required. TFD (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Like most one-off incidents, this doesn't say anything about the source's general reliability, especially since they immediately issued a retraction; as WP:RS says, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections... I also broadly disagree with the argument that we can / should focus on that individual - doing that sort of thing extremely unusual and would require more serious, sustained indications of a problem than this. No source is flawless, but part of the general trust we have in a source's reliability is that they will look into issues, generally discover them, and take appropriate steps; digging into individual contributors starts to get messy. Unless there's a reason to doubt the Gothamist in general, in other words, we can trust them to review the author's other contributions, and to stop using them if there is a reason to believe there will be a problem going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Expertscape a reliable source?
An IP wants to add the claim that this researcher is the third ranked zebrafish researcher worldwide, sourcing it to Expertscape. An article on this company was deleted multiple times and is currently protected from being created, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these rankings are not reliable. However, I find it difficult to figure out exactly how Expertscape calculates its rankings. Any guidance is appreciated. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) No it isn't a reliable source. 2) Even if it were "third ranked zebrafish researcher" is beyond WP:TRIVIA and doesn't bear mentioning in a Wikipedia article; I don't care if the BBC itself published the information, just no.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)