Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378

Is Congressman Thompson or any congressperson an RS?
Details in this revert.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let’s assume for purposes of this discussion that the list in question is a list of coups and attempted coups (per its title), rather than a list of mere allegations of such.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. No politician should be considered a reliable source on any topic other than areas in which they may have professional expertise outside of politics (such as, for example, a medical scientist with publications who now holds a political office and says things related to medical topics). Politicians hold political opinions, and they espouse them, often with valid-sounding rationalizations. Some political views are demonstrably false (for example "the 2020 election was stolen"). Some are demonstrably true. But the fact is, they are just personal views often espoused for political advantage without regard to truth, even though the politicians may truly believe their views. But belief does not equate to reliability. I happen to agree with the view expressed by the politician in the linked edit, but I vehemently disagree that we should consider that politician, or any other, as a reliable source on a political topic. They are reliable only as primary sources for the purpose of verifying what they say. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I'd lean towards yes in this situation. Rep. Thompson is not simply airing his own opinion, but speaking in his capacity as chair of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Zaathras (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you say it’s a primary source, or instead a secondary source? Per Identifying reliable sources (law), “primary sources of law include amendments that were proposed but rejected (including constitutional amendments and legislative bills), reports of legislative committees for legislation subsequently enacted, legislative floor debates leading to passage, judicial concurrences and dissents, common law, contracts, and documents issued by one person each, such as wills and, sometimes, letters.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You quoted an essay, which is not part of our WP:P&G, its just an opinion piece. And for that matter, a rejected amendment is by definition not a primary source about law, merely one for failed legislative proposals (by definition those are not "law").   Also a legislative committee report based on multiple primary sources is potentially a secondary or even tertiary source depending on context.   Thompson's comments were made outside the scope of a declaration the committee had voted.  That makes his remarks his remarks and they are a primary and acceptable WP:ABOUTSELF source that he thinks this.  Until the committee votes or a court makes a finding or some other body makes a formal statement, we have Thomspon's characterization.  I don't mind admitting that I happen to agree with him personally.  But NPOV requires that we all approach this work in a way that allows us to write NPOV text that disagrees with our opinion but agrees with opposing editors at least to the extent possible giving appropriate weight to available RSs. ... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you feel the same about comments made by Rep Gowdy, who chaired the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, since you're firing off multiple salvos without citations how could I know what statements you're asking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Any of his statements made as chair. And please link to the diffs of the “multiple salvos.” Mr Ernie (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Diffs provided at usertalk here User_talk:Mr_Ernie NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No such diffs were provided to be clear. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes but Anyone is always an RS about themselves. In this case, using inline attribution that Chair Thompson described Jan 6 as an attempted coup satisfies WP:Verifiability.  Taken alone, I don't believe it would be enough to pass muster with WP:WEIGHT, but there are loads of others sources describing those events with that word, and the only sources I know that say it was not a coup are Trump aligned sources doing little more than scoffing hand waving and table pounding.  I have yet to see any logic-based reasoning that rejects that term, but I would look at the best anyone can offer with an open mind.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The congressman is a reliable source for what he thinks or alleges. But this is a list of coups, not a list of coup allegations.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well this is the RS noticeboard. You raise a worthy point for discussion at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The congressman may turn out to be correct and reliable secondary sources may reach the same conclusion, but for now he’s not a reliable source about whether a coup occurred, only about whether he thinks a coup occurred.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes The inline-attribution whereby Thompson describes the Jan 6 failed-insurrection at the Capitol as an attempted coup more than satisfies WP:Verifiability, and there are many other sources now describing those events with 'that label'. Easy call. Makofakeoh (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Straw woman issue The article text attributes the statement to Thompson. We can certainly use the well sourced publication of a statement by an official as the statement of that official. We are not using a transcript of the hearing as a primary source for fact about the insurrection. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's being used for inclusion on "list of coups", which is makign a factual coup in Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 23:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As of now, its not wikivoice. I'm the most recent editor this version, and Rep Thompson's statement is explicitly attributed inline as his statement.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This statement in the lead is in wikivoice: “ This is a chronological list of coups and coup attempts….” So is the title of the list.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it now. I think you have your answer that Thomspon's statement is RS for the fact that Thompson said that so this noticeboard thread should probably be closed. You're raising the same point in different forums... per WP:MULTI we should keep the discussion about how to deal with alleged coup attempts to the open thread at article talk. Since Thompsons statement is RS for Thomspons statement, the actual issue you're debating is how that article is defined.  That's beyond this venue's purview.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the only noticeboard where I’ve raised the issue. The congressman’s statement would be a reliable source for his personal POV, but this is not a list of personal POVs, it’s a list of what the lead claims to be coups and attempted coups.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And until the Jan 6 panel concludes and convicts with the bases of "attempted coup", we definitely can't use a lawmaker's claim, or even mainstream media's claim, that it is. That might end up being a conclusion, or perhaps in years from now, the conclusion of academic sources, but either way, putting on that list is a TOOSOON, RECENTISM issue due to the poor sourcing for it. --M asem (t) 23:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No It doesn't belong in the article unless it becomes discussed in the body of literature about coups. It seems to be part of the U.S. habit of casting their political opponents in extreme terms, e.g., Trump is a fascist, Biden is a socialist. TFD (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, US commenters have company among various non-US intelligence agencies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Deuceperson, this is RSN. You are raising an NPOV/WEIGHT issue. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, they are only an RS for what they say, which may be DUE to include w/ attribution on an article. For example, a lawmaker introducing a new bill on the basis of a claimed statement that X is true can only be used with attribution. --M asem (t) 22:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:V permits it, but also warns us to be careful to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Even from the sources themselves. This is a hot button issue. Extra care must be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakeWashington (talk • contribs)
 * UNDUE - I am sure we can cite several members of congress who say it wasn’t a coup attempt. Wait for historians to pass judgement. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar This is an RSN issue. You are raising an NPOV/WEIGHT issue about the article itself and the subject matter, which is a different issue all together. The article text attributes the statement to a member of Congress and we can certainly use a well-sourced publication of a statement by an official as the statement by said official as we have in countless examples over the years. It's not as if anyone is using a transcript of a congressman as a primary source for facts about the insurrection/coup attempt. You yourself even use "undue" as your reason, which is besides the point and misses the point. Makofakeoh (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Nobody is arguing that the cited news source is unreliable. The source quotes a statement made by a politician. The question here is whether we can assume that the politician himself is a reliable source sufficient to support the context of making the same statement in Wikipedia's voice. That has nothing to do with weight or NPOV, and everything to do with RS. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody proposed stating it as fact in WP voice. That is OP"s straw argument. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist As SPECIFICO said, I am not proposing that we state it as a matter of fact in WP's voice. If it needs to be said again, that is the OP's strawman (woman?) argument. Incidentally, many MANY other sources since the hearing are comfortable calling Trump's actions "an attempted coup" in light of the damning evidence provided at the opening hearing. With that out of the way, this is RSN, and no one else proposed stating it as a matter of fact in WP's voice, either. You're ignoring the point. Makofakeoh (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually that is exactly the context of this RSN discussion: stating it as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice, specifically in the article List of coups and coup attempts. Yes, plenty of sources can be found calling it a coup, in spite of the fact that it doesn't quite meet the definition of a coup. Sources that call it something else, such as an insurrection or attack, far outnumber the sources that call it a coup. That is a weight argument that has no place here. The point that is highly relevant to RSN is that someone proposed using a quotation from a politician as a rationale to list the Jan 6 insurrection in a list article about coups and coup attempts, thereby designating the event as a coup attempt in Wikipedia's voice. Is that an appropriate use of the source? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This thread and related article talk threads have called attention to the fact the lead to this list article needs improvements setting forth listing criteria. I've started a thread at article talk for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, no. One reason we know she's not reliable is that she might be wrong -- it's not incontrovertible that 1/6 was a coup by the commonly understood meaning of the word. I'm not sure myself that that's the correct word. "Might be correct" is well beneath our standards for sources. Not only that, there's plenty of motive here for the congresswoman to use words for polemic effect. She's not an academic historian disinterestedly discussing 18 Brumiere.
 * The question is "does her opinion have standing' -- is it worthwhile telling the reader about her opinion?" Sure, but the passage as doesn't give opposing opinions by other people with standing, such as Kevin McCarthy or other Republican leaders, and those would need to be including if you're going to use the congressperson's words.


 * Hmnh here we have something called "Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project" which is an arm of the the University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana, flat out saying "It Was an Attempted Coup: The Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project Categorizes the January 6, 2021 Assault on the US Capitol". Since these guys spend their careers specifically studying coups, and are (in theory at least) disinterested and expert acadamecians, maybe there is the source you want. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, Bennie Thompson is a man; thanks for the ref.  FYI, I've started adding refs from the academic professional literature to Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wrong question/venue. No one is disputing that he (it's this Bennie Thompson, right?) said it. The real questions are whether his opinion should be mentioned in the article (which is a due weight issue), and also what should be the inclusion criteria for the list of coups. Neither of this questions has anything to do with reliability. Alaexis¿question? 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The question absolutely is about reliability, as the statement we know he made is up for debate whether it should be treated as fact in wikivoice or require attribution, which changes how the material is included in List of coups (which is presenting all information in factual wikivoice). --M asem (t) 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article edit cited by OP, and to which the objected, did not state it as fact in Wikivoice. Do you have a diff to where that was done? SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The diff in the OP - adding the Jan 6 as a coup or attempted coup on that list page based on that source is treating that as factual in wikivoice --M asem  (t) 15:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But isn't that properly attriuted ("according to...") and cited to numerous secondary RS? Similar editor-selected items appear in most of our list page, and I think list pages are full of UNDUE content, possibly including this. But I am not seeing Thompson used as a source in OP's diff. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Mere inclusion on a list like this implies that the event is factually a coup, even if the explanatory text included the attributed statement. And yes, any other such elements that do not have strong backing from a multitude of legal/academic sources should be removed too--M asem (t) 16:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See our guideline at WP:LISTCRIT, which explicitly anticipates lists that might be at least somewhat subjective. " In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." since the our P&G anticipates the problem with hints of wikivoice by directing us to use inline citation, and since the text at issue goes the extra mile via inline attribution, I don't see the problem.  We're complying with the P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider List of alleged Chinese spy cases prosecuted in the United States. This list is split up into people clearly acquitted and people clearly convicted.  There’s also a more subjective section about people accused who may be guilty or innocent.  By the same token, if you’d like to expand this list to include coups, attempted coups, and other alleged coups too (including conspiracy theories about coups), then that can be done by following the China spy example: put “alleged” in the article title, explain scope in the lead, and include inline attribution in the subjective section.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would read the LISTCRIT to imply that you have an RS, not an RSOPINION, to back it up. And that RS should be appropriate as a subject-matter expert or source in the assessment of a list. To use the example Anythingyouwant gives, for a list of spy cases, the only allowed sources for a list of convicted persons would be sources reporting on a court's decision to convict, not an opinion that argues the person was clearly guilty. The same case here, for a coup or attempted coup to be added, the sourcing should be pointing to legal decisions or wait for long-term academic analysis that has decided the event was a coup, in the absence of where a legal entity can rule it that way. Not the opinion of a congressperson or a judge in a non-decision document. --M asem (t) 18:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Alaexis and @Masem... I've found new facts however. It wasn't merely Thompson's opinion.   Several months earlier the committee subpoenaed records from Trump advisor John Eastman, who tried to refuse via a lawsuit in federal court, in which Thompson was the lead defendant.  The court ruled in Eastman v Thompson et al that the Eastman/Trump "campaign" was a "coup looking for a legal strategy."  When Thompson made his televised remarks he was standing on that court ruling, which is law until its overturned. So its no longer just an alleged coup and its not just Thompson's opinion. The federal courts say so.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nowhere close to a legal conclusion that the Jan 6 was a coup, that's just the RSOPINION of the judge and not a final actionable decision on the nature of the event. That would not be sufficient to call the Jan 6 events a coup. --M asem (t) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Had the judge made this comment before the local Rotary, I'd agree that WP:RSOPINION applies. However the judge included this in the concluding judgment section of a 44-page federal court decision, so I'll need some convincing that its "just the judge's opinion" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That was an order, not a final opinion/decision, as to allow disposition of documents from Eastman. That statement cannot be taken as a legal conclusion. --M asem (t) 16:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For better of for worse, court rulings don't get special treatment on Wikipedia so this ruling does not automatically mean we should be calling it a coup in wikivoice. Usual standards of WP:NPOV apply as always. Again, this is not a question for this board. Alaexis¿question? 17:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, its used with both inline attribution and citation, so that's not a worry per WP:LISTCRIT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I will remind everyone that “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion”. Does the source (reliably) verify the attributed statement that Congressman Thompson sees Jan 6 an attempted coup?  Yes.  Should that attributed statement be included in the article? No. Mentioning Congressman Thompson’s view is UNDUE. Debating the reliability of an UNDUE viewpoint is irrelevant. If there are other (better) sources to support listing Jan 6, they might be used… but Thompson should not be included. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, there really should not be "list articles" like this one that depend on any subjective content or weight decisions by editors. List articles should be for items like Academy Award winners, 4-homer games, and World's Longest Bridges. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the P&G provide for them (e.g., WP:LISTCRIT), that's probably a conversation for the Vpump. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean come on, using attribution so that we can say that we're not saying it in our own voice is often used as a fig leaf for a disengenous way to slip in an opinion. Any editor that denies that this happens sometimes is, in my personal opinion, demonstrating a less-than-excellent knowledge of Wikipedia history or a less-than-excellent level of coldblooded fair-mindedness.


 * And I believe that the distinction is lost on many readers. Human brains work such that "Smith is a scaramouche"[refs] and "Smith has been described as a scaramouche"[refs] and "according to [person with standing], Smith is 'a scaramouch'"[ref] pretty much give a similar effect. That's mediocre, but: people.


 * If it's sky-is-blue true and/or accepted by virtually everyone with standing, it doesn't much bother me. That is not true in this instance. If the passage is like "[person with standing] has described Smith as 'a scaramouche', while [other person with standing] has called him 'a model of probity'"[refs] it's usually OK. Altho clever editors can twist this a bit if they want (famous popular source vs obscure or unpopular source, cherry-pick the characterizations).


 * If you're wiling to add an opposing quote from Kevin McCarthy or even Speaker Gingrich or VP Candidate Palin or whomever, OK. I still wouldn't include it except in a section "Debatable events" or whatnot. But that's a different matter. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Show me an RS that walks through a critical thinking logic-based analysis that says it was not a coup, and I'll be really interested to study it. In this case, Thompson was the prevailing lead defendant and based his comments on the 44 page federal court analysis I've already linked in this thread.  Partisan table pounding on either side has no place here, but reasoning on either side certainly merits consideration, at least. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP assumes innocence until proven guilty, and in the same manner, we cannot treat Jan 6 as a coup in a factual voice. there's enough sourcing to call the event as an attack, but to call it a coup is implicitly laying guilt on any of the politicians close to it (including Trump, etc.), which we absolutely do not do. M asem (t) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "coup" is against the law. This is not the only item on that page that suffers from the same issue you are addressing. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Attempted coup" is not a crime, you won't find it in any law code, it's an evaluation of a circumstance. So, it's only ever going to someone's evaluation, not a court's judgement. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, there's no question that implying someone was in a coup before (in this case) the Congressional panel concludes and establishes that as the fundamental conclusion that that is applying a contentious term towards those involved. We can discuss that they were planning/executing a coup with attribution all day long, but can't do that factually in wikivoice without running into BLP/NPOV problems. --M asem (t) 19:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Implying what? No one is implying.  Like the University scholars cited above, they are flat out saying it, not implying it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one academic source, and that would be a case of using SPLC to classify hate groups - they should still be attributed - meaning that that one source still isn't sufficient to include as a fact. Again, this is basically cherry picking to force a certain viewpoint. There certainly might be a weight of sources to do that in the future (and I would bet that that will be the case in the future) but RECENTISM tells us to make sure we have more than enough sources, and not RSOPINIONS, to do that. --M asem (t) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone arguing about attribution. And what "other sources", at present, all the sources brought here are saying the same thing.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're using something with attribution, it cannot be taken as fact. Inclusion on the coup list based on attributed statements is a problem for that reason, because by simple inclusion on the list, its being treated as a fact. (Of course, as if suggested elsewhere, "alledged coups" was added as a section, then that would be fine to include with the attributed statements. --M asem (t) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Calling something a "coup" is always an analysis, it is never a simple fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Masem, comment 18:59, no one is debating over listing the 2021 United States Capitol attack as a coup, so that argument doesn't apply. At issue is describing Trump's overall Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. So sources that are just trying to frame the attack with whatever label aren't addressing the issue presented here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is likely part of the problem, that the connection between Jan 6 and the rest of the activities that Trump and the GOP did are rather tightly connected so making sure to distinguish Trump and his allies' part separately from those that specifically attacked the Capitol is going to require careful evaluation of the sources. --M asem (t) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well if that issue-framing argument is made sometime when I'm around, I'll likely say it's a strawman argument, since the the most substantive sources with the most analysis about "coup" don't bifurcate the Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election in that manner. But since you seem to be ruminating about a future hypothetical, we can call it wrap for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument above you had was suggesting the Jan 6 attack, and then "attempts to overturn...", are separate topics, since the Jan 6 was being listed as a coup. I don't think you can separate them, as they are too tied together to make it hard without engaging in OR to determine where the line is drawn. They should be treated as the same event (the Jan 6 attacks as one part of the attempts to overturn), and whether coup applies to the whole thing should be the point of discussion M asem (t) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One could discuss NAEG's education, or NAEG's college undergraduate, or NAEG's senior year in college, and even though they are all part of the final product (my education) it is possible to discuss them at any level. The attack was an element of what is being claimed was a failed coup.  I agree with you it would be POV/OR for Wikipedia to use the attack or simply "January 6" as a standalone event or standalone date as though those are adequate synonyms for the entirety of Trump's (alleged?) coup attempt. But since we're not doing that at the article which produced this dispute, this seems to be a case of no smoke, no fire.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is debating over listing the 2021 United States Capitol attack as a coup? That’s just not true.  You have not provided reliable sources that say it was a coup or coup attempt, with or without Trump’s involvement, have you?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you are one of the primary objectors at the origin of this dispute, you should know that the proposed text does not link that article. Instead, the proposed text links Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.  It's looking at the overall package of Trump's efforts, not just the attack itself.  That said, I think the article on the attack mentions "coup" somewhere.  But we haven't been debating proposed changes to that article here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2021 United States Capitol attack says "coup" 43 times at present. Lots of discussion about that and the abundant sources that it was decided are sufficient to support the standing text there. The only real issue is how we should define a list article's content and whether that can be editor-curated based on consensus as to NPOV or whether we should not be publishing lists that aren't based on readily availalbe objective metrics. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing where that term is used, most of the cases are in statements of attribution. What really is the case here is that we're still really in the case of RECENTISM. History will decide whether it was a coup or now, but even just 1.5 years out, I would not expect history to have come to a conclusion yet. Including statements of attribution is fine and dandy, but they should be treated as such until we know we've gotten past that point where there is good widespread agreement. Which may be a year, may be 5 years out, may be 20 years out. We are not in a rush and neutrality (not favoring any side) is more important than being timely. --M asem (t) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And attribution is appropriate. But OP misstated the issue that's now grown into this confused thread. The statement in the list page at issue is also attributed. There is no objective list or source for "coup", so the remedy would be to decide on and tell our readers the criteria for the list. A subjective list is always goint to be based on the weight of the sources. I don't like list articles or labels much at all, but if we have subjective lists like this one, the page should simply define the standard for inclusion, i.e. tell the reader what it's a list of.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there was going to be a section on "claimed coups" where a multitude of attributed sources back (and represent a DUE opinion, not one random wacko making the claim), that would be a solution. But those should be disguished from those coups or attempted coups that history has well concluded were really coups. That would be a way to fix the problem and keep this on there. --M asem (t) 21:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course not I really can’t believe I have to make this comment, but no a politician making a political statement is not a reliable source in any shape, form, or fashion. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Was Bill Clinton a reliable source when he said he didn’t have sexual relations with Lewinsky? Or when Nixon said he was not a crook? It’s sad to see how far our standards have fallen. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Point of order The heading of this section asks if a person is a reliable source. We do not typically consider people to be sources; we focus on documents - written articles, recorded videos, etc. - created by or about people to be sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the New York Times articles cited in the diff in the original question are reliable sources. Of course, reliability is a necessary but not sufficient question for inclusion of information in an article; WP:DUE is not an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard but that is likely the question that should be on the table. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with ElKevbo. The answer is yes to any intelligible issue here, the source is reliable, and the title of this section is a red herring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Can we please use the correct title "Representative"? Senators are also Congressmen & women, as they 'too' are a member of the US Congress. Yes, I know about WP:COMMONNAME, but let's use the correct titles. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Citations stating "Jan 6th committee calls the attack a coup" include PBS - The Guardian - AP News - ABC News...DN (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: We now have a separate section in this list for List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Request Could an uninvolved editor with experience and knowledge of our practices regarding Categories have a look at this new category that OP has recently created. Seems as if it might be pointy and misleading to our readers.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that cat is a problem. Too controversial when events can be added to it without the ability to source inclusion. M asem (t) 15:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable for their own words. If Congressperson X makes statement S, they are reliable for they sentence "According to Congressperson X, S is true." However, they are not reliable for the sentence "S is true". Just to emphasize the point, I'd like to make an analogy from the other side. If former President Donald Trump says "the 2020 election was stolen", that's a good source for the sentence "According to Donald Trump, the 2020 election was stolen." However, it's not a good source for the sentence "The 2020 election was stolen". Hope that clears things up. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s now a talk page section about editing the list of coups and coup attempts to remove the items that reliable sources say are only claimed or alleged, and putting them in a new section that is separate from items that reliable sources say actually occurred. See Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's playing with words. No RS doubts the Jan 6 attemp occurred. The issue is whether WP can use the word "coup". Please do not insinuate that the event might not have occurred and is merely a "claim".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course he is a reliable source for his own view, thats always true. He is also probably a reliable source for the view of the committee as its chair, though that may depend on if his view is challenged. Is he a reliable source for if there was actually an attempted coup? Hell no. With all due respect to the people missing the point here, a politician is not a reliable source for his political opponents or allies for that matter. The DNC is not a reliable source for the RNC, AOC is not a reliable source for Madison Cawthorne, MJT is not a reliable source for Nancy Pelosi, none of them are reliable sources for the actual events of January 6th or any other day besides maybe their birthday and only for saying it is their birthday, provided they have some form of proof. You cant seriously be suggesting that a politician is a reliable source for a historical fact. Cmon, separate the principle from the particulars here and you have to see that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC about coups and coup attempts
An RFC has started related to this matter. See Talk:List of coups and coup attempts.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding GitHub to Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Whilst looking at an AfC which uses GitHub at a reference I was searching for information about reliability so I could explain it to an editor and saw that there has been a discussion of GitHub in the past at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_368 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352 and possibly other times and I was wondering if it could be added to Reliable sources/Perennial sources? I wanted to start a discussion here before adding it there. Gusfriend (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also brief discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_72#Addition_of_source-code_hosting_places I think only one of those discussions is substantial so shouldn't be added to RSP until another discussion had. Looks like strong consensus however is can be reliable as a primary source, rarely reliable as a secondary source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think GitHub would clearly be generally unreliable, since it's basically a repository of user-generated content (WP:UGC). Similar sources are marked generally unreliable in WP:RSP (e.g. WP:RSPAMAZON, WP:CRUNCHBASE, etc).  - GretLomborg (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

70s/80s Stalinist propaganda
I would like to hear the community's thoughts on The History of Albania: From its Origins to the Present Day. 

This work was financed by the Stalinist government of Albania under dictator Enver Hoxha with the goal of influencing the opinion of foreign readers. Originally published in French, it was later translated into English by a respected academic press (Routledge). It has been described in scholarly literature as a book that promotes Greater Albanian expansionism and anti-Slavic bigotry. 

Its primary author is described elsewhere as a "nationalist Communist" whose primary goal was nation-building through "constructing a canon of natonal heroes". I don't believe it qualifies as WP:RS but I would like to see what the community thinks. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you give some context? The way you describe it, it doesn't look like a RS but possibly there are some non-controversial facts it can be used for. Alaexis¿question? 17:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Historians have perspectives. The fact a historian was writing under an authoritarian regime and supported that regime does not in itself render them unreliable. If you find exceptional claims, it may not be reliable for those, if you find opinions they should be attributed if their inclusion is warranted. What is the exact claim the book is sourcing? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Routledge book you link does not seem to describe the book as being bigoted, it uses the milder "anti-Slavic tones". Books from a national perspective tend to view foreign invasions into their territory negatively. If you look at Spanish history books from the same time, they almost universally view the Moorish invasion of Spain negatively, and sympathise with the Hispano-Romans who were under Visigothic rule. I would identify both anti-Visigothic and anti-Moorish tones in much of Spanish historiography, even some stuff written today. That wouldn't mean they were not RS...Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, any historical account from the Soviet era has to be taken with a grain of salt unless it is corroborated by another source. The Soviets and their aligned governments had a great tendency to literally just make stuff up in order to sow either division or unity, or achieve another state goal. A good example of this is the Cäğfär Taríxı, which was forged by the NKVD to sow division amongst the Tatars at a time when that group was experiencing nationalism. General rule of thumb is if it can't be found in another independent source and it seems exceptionally suspect, it is more likely than not a fabrication. Curbon7 (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

John Stossel's views on Wikipedia
Article: John Stossel (section on Political Positions)

Claim: In 2022, John Stossel stated that he loved Wikipedia, but complained that it was biased.

Cite:

Rejected by: @User:Zaathras
 * Stossel: What's Going On With Wikipedia's Attitude Towards Communism? (realclearpolitics.com)
 * Wikipedia Bias (Foundation_for_Rational_Economics_and_Education)
 * Google News search for primary sources, first one in the list is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; the sources are papers which carry his syndicated column.

Which, if any sources should be used in the article, given the standards of reliability and notability? If this will require an RfC about including the sentence or something similar, which source or sources would you recommend for the proposed text?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is piss-poor, but it isn't really a question of that. John Stossel is just a longtime talking head, a pundit. Pundits criticize lots and lots of things, that is the nature of their profession. We don't need a laundry list of everything a pundit doesn't like in their biography. Being a conservative male who doesn't like something the (arguably) liberal-leaning Wikipedia did is not noteworthy in his career. We're not talking about a Larry Sanger here, a Wiki-critic who at least has a Wikipedia connection. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In order to include his opinions, you need to show they have weight, i.e., they have been reported in reliable sources. So if tonight, CNN says "Breaking news, Stoessel comments on Wikipedia," then we could consider it. Otherwise, it's just a wholly predictable commentary by someone who thinks that Wikipedia should give equal weight to science and superstition. TFD (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am unclear as to why his opinion on Wikipedia would belong in a "Political Positions" Section. Wiki is, or at least aspires to be neutral and accurate above all else. So the question itself seems a bit flawed. To TFD's point, for his view on Wiki to be considered for inclusion, it should have a certain amount of WEIGHT to be included, not to mention, in a section where it is relevant to the article. Finally, Realclear is not a good source for much of anything. If you are intent to include this quote, there would preferably be a consensus among reliable sources about this. You seemingly have a collection of very biased sources aside from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (presumably, I'm not familiar with that one either), to put it in a section that doesn't seem to fit the context. Unfortunately, I can't seem to think of any suggestions for inclusion of an opinion about Wiki, even if it is a direct quote from the article's subject. DN (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. Instead of bringing up opinions, the addition could just be "Stossel edits Wikipedia, and has donated in the past". It could go in the part about his personal life. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is the "second largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh" according to the article on it. My dilemma is that it is a primary source, one of many papers reprinting his column. What is better, a higher quality primary source, or two lower quality secondary sources?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This would need high quality secondary sources to establish significance.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of your advice I went and looked for another source. This one from El American doesn't say that he loves wikipedia, but it does say that Stossel thinks it is biased. Is El American good enough to establish significance for a shorter addition of "Stossel's opinion is that Wikipedia is biased"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It's still blatantly undue emphasis to include it at all. Pundits pontificate; it's what they do. They have to grind out stuff to maintain an audience. That does not make their assertions notable in any way. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion enough to count as one of the two discussions for Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources? I mean for El American, not the think tank. Or should I start a new discussion just about El American?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't really about the reliability of the sources at hand at all, despite its appearance on this noticeboard. It's about whether Stossel's opinion about Wikipedia is sufficiently noteworthy to mention. That is, the question at hand is one of WP:WEIGHT, not WP:RS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we care if he rakes his own yard or gave five bucks to the local food bank? So he edits Wikipedia.  So what?  Is there some insane controversy or success story so popping about his Wikipedia life that its reported by independent secondary sources, (not just his own)?  I agree this is a WEIGHT question and if you had better sources I doubt we'd be here so the answer is likely "not sufficient weight to include". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can tell that this is being perceived as part of his punditry. I see it as part of one of his other career facets, described in "Give Me a Break". The article links to a preview of it on Google Books for reference 80; the book describes a series of hands-on fact-finding projects.


 * I agree with separating the question of El American's reliability from the question of weight. I get the impression that some sources are guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of what happens with Stossel's article I think it would be good to start a discussion just about El American. I think it might be good enough to get colored green in the list. Would anyone object to me starting a new discussion just about El American?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Michi Kobi
I looked for Michi Kobi's Japanese name and I found out that it's either ミチ・コビ or ミッチ・コビ. I have put both names in the lead of the article of her. Are all the sources that I've used reliable? Thanks. FunnyMath (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren't telling you what you think they are. They are simply translating her name into Japanese which isn't the same as a Japanese name. An actual Japanese name wouldn't be in Katakana but would likely be in kanji and maybe some Hiragana, but definitely not katakana. So it seems she didn't actually have a Japanese name, just an anglicised name translated into Japanese, which isn't the same thing. So no I'd say those sources A) aren't reliable and B) she may not have had an Japanese written name. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the quick answer. I'll trust your judgment on that. I thought her Japanese name was 岡本まち子 based on her VIAF page, but someone at the Japanese Wikipedia told me they're two separate people. So I guess she didn't have a Japanese name after all. FunnyMath (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, would it still be appropriate to include those two katakana translations in her Wikidata page? FunnyMath (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so. Best not to include wrong versions of names. NadVolum (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I removed them from the Wikidata page. FunnyMath (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for your help. FunnyMath (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no problems. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

CNN interview with Xinjiang police whistleblower
Is this CNN piece a reliable source to support the following?


 * Article: Uyghur genocide
 * Text in article: A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, revealed to CNN in 2021 details of the systematic torture of Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang, acts in which he had participated, and the fear of his own arrest had he dissented.

Some editors have recently disputed the reliability of a CNN report on the talk page. One editor pointed to YouTube and Twitter as casting doubt upon the whistleblower actually being a Xinjiang cop. Another said that the interview was questionable, claiming a lack of media reporting about the interview.

Some editors, including me, have argued that the source is reliable, as CNN is WP:GREL on WP:RSP and multiple international news organizations have provided coverage of the whistleblower, including The Times and The Telegraph, as well as Sky News, and Taiwan's Central News Agency. The whistleblower revelations have also been covered by Business Insider, China Digital Times, and has been cited in a 2021 report from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that focused on the state of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

I'm looking to see if there are any other opinions on this board with respect to the source's reliability for the sentence currently in the article.

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging, , and , who participated in the preceding talk page discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting this enquiry when I already posted a query at NPOVN and you are discussing it there? TFD (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there was one issue with extent to which a particular sentence is due (which is appropriate for WP:NPOVN) and also an issue with the extent to which the CNN source is reliable for supporting that sentence (which is appropriate for this board). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We should assume that if this is CNN's original reporting, they have validated the person's identity, former position, and likelihood that he would have these details, but we should still make it clear that what this person claimed is their own words and not fact, which the proposed wording is not quite doing. --M asem (t) 02:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about A former Chinese police detective, exiled in Europe, told CNN in 2021 that he had participated in or witnessed inmates in interment camps being beaten, having their genitals electrocuted, raped, waterboarded, deprived of sleep for multiple days, and hanged from ceilings? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a lengthy sentence, it can be broken up, but the first part appears to properly make sense it speaks with attribution M asem (t) 04:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * was reported, but none of them interviewed the alleged police officer or confirmed the report. Apparently the story was ignored by the vast majority of major mainstream media. Since the original publication, neither CNN or other sources have re-visited the story. It seems dubious because the disguise used by the informant would not have hidden his identity. But it's really an issue of weight. If it fails weight, it doesn't matter if it is reliable. TFD (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you asking a due weight question or are you questioning whether or not someone interviewed by CNN is telling the truth about their experiences? Those are completely different lines of questioning and the second is wildly inappropriate per WP:BLP unless you have a WP:RS which backs up your aspersions. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue at NPOVN and notified the discussion in which you were participating. And no, it's not a violation of NOR or BLP to question a source, otherwise this noticeboard would not exist. TFD (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say question the source do you mean CNN or the policeman? The first is appropriate the second (for instance speculating about whether a disguise is credible or not) would in fact be a BLP violation without a WP:RS doing the same. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the original publication, neither CNN or other sources have re-visited the story is not true. The Sky News UK coverage of this same individual indicates both that the organization independently vetted his identity and that it conducted a second interview with him as a follow-up to the CNN reporting.
 * On a possibly related note, there was also a pseudonymous "Wang Leizhan" who has made substantially similar allegations (some of which have recently been revisited by Le Monde), though it's unclear to me if there are RS that connect Wang and Jiang as being the same person. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By looking at the uniform and similar "disguise", I believe it is the same person. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As well as the head shape, I might add. Cycw (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a poor disguise then, which detracts from the credibility. TFD (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Must admit they are poor disguises! I thought on first glance they were the same but have come to the conclusion they are different - which rather surprised me as it is quite common for people in that position to make things up to push their position. Every particular feature like ear shape and hair line and eyebrows just seem significantly different. I guess the ones talking about it not being possible for uniforms to leave the country think somebody copied them - personally I'd have though it would be easier to do most of the journey with a policeman uniform! I'm not sure how much a good disguise wouldhelp - their superiors wouldknow they are missing pretty quickly! I guess though not making their identir=ties public does help their families. NadVolum (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We have (at minimum) two established newsorgs that have vetted the person's identity and published lengthy interviews with the guy that frame him as a whistleblower... and the counterargument is that he had a mediocre disguise? Really‽ Are there  any  reliable sources that question whether this guy's a former Chinese cop? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The truth is that this person really is not mentioned that much, which means it is even more unlikely to find a rebuttal article of a similar format. Cycw (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite true. There are plenty of garbage-level sources (such as Global Times) that are making the claim that the person was not actually a cop, but the difficulty is in finding any reliable sources that provide a rebuttal article. And, to be frank, the fact that only garbage-level sources are the ones who are publishing those attempted rebuttals speaks volumes about how weak the evidence against Jiang's former employment being a police officer truly are—especially when multiple independent reliable sources vetted his identity. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to consider sources like the Global Times. Cycw (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Sky News story was published days after the CNN interview. Wang Leizhan may be the same person as Jiang, although its unclear why he would use his real name then days later use an alias. So essentially it's a story that received attention in some sources at the time, but was ignored by most reliable sources and has received no attention since then. Unless you think that everything reported about the topic belongs in the article, you have to use some other criterion for inclusion other than RS. That's why there is a weight policy. TFD (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, this raises further suspicion about this person. Cycw (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Raising suspicion about this person is not within the remit of the Reliable sources Noticeboard (we evaluate sources, not sources sources) and is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP unless a WP:RS does the same. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Cycw (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually they looked different to me, but whether they are the same or different I definitely agree the contents of the interview should be attributed and not taken as straight truth. Can't say I'm surprised by lack of coverage - stories tend to have to be big enough there isn't a definite  target for Chinese media warfare. NadVolum (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Unverified stories from a man who claims to be a former police officer from Xinjiang are not a reliable source for the fact of the matter about what occurs in Xinjiang, as multiple editors have pointed out now. The CNN article is only a reliable source for the fact that that interview took place, and the stories would need to be attributed to the whistleblower in his interview with CNN. There are of course separate WP:DUE concerns, but those are probably better left for WP:NPOVN. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cycw (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources, from the US, UK, and Taiwan, might be completely reliable for most things, but they generally follow their government's line on China. Relations between those countries and China are at a new low, and during a "cold war" it's common for every false or exaggerated report from a refugee to be reported as news. Maybe this report is accurate, and maybe it's not. NightHeron (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable when attributed, but note WP:DUE I agree with Masem regarding reliability, it's usable, but needs an edit to remove the wikivoice. But there are still editorial concerns here, and to be brief it's not the best source, if there are better ones (and from reading the section, I think there are) I would prefer just using those sources. Jumpytoo Talk 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not really a reliability issue with CNN. CNN is not exactly making any claims here. In fact, CNN states they "cannot independently confirm Jiang's claims". Ditto for The Telegraph who "could not independently verify his identity" . It would be perfectly fine to state that "Jiang told CNN X, Y, and Z." But it may be worth mentioning that his claims have not been corroborated by any independent news outlets. (FWIW, some academics have taken note of the interview, as seen in this book.) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Cycw (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Citing a book that's not in WorldCat
WP:V tells us: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." And I have no argument with that. But what about citation of something that's claimed to be a book but examples of which can't be located via WorldCat and clear evidence of whose very existence can't be found via Google?

For those wondering what prompts me to ask, see Draft:Cora Sheibani, and my comment at its head. And no, of course I don't suffer from the popular delusion that every published book, or even every recently published book that's worth citing, has an ISBN: I'm merely asking about an ISBN; I'm not demanding one.

(Pinging and .) -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I initially thought that this related to something else as I declined something at AfC as which had 9 ISBNs from 2004 to 2021 which, when added to the cite tool, gave a handful of different books and didn't find the others. Gusfriend (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly, Gusfriend. But now that you've put aside your initial thoughts..... Hoary (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * PS Neither do I suffer from the popular delusion that the verifiable existence of an ISBN for such-and-such a book proves that the book exists. Still, an ISBN for a book generally does have an actual book to go with it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the book exists, and is reliable, that OCLC has an entry on it or not is rather immaterial. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The book is Valence by Cora Sheibani, Ettore Sottsass, and Ashkan Sahihi btw. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Having spent some time on Wikidata and seen items which don't match up as they should I agree about the book existing being the important thing but it needs to be referred to accurately. Gusfriend (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, I'll concede that Valence exists. But WorldCat doesn't show it. Are assertions about somebody verifiable if they are sourced to a book that can't be found via WorldCat (and that may be, or have been, published by that same person)? I'd expect to see that the book is in some library somewhere: London, Buenos Aires, Poznań, New Haven or wherever. I wouldn't be able to go to any of these libraries myself, but I'd know that some people would. Of course, plenty of good libraries don't participate in WorldCat; I'm open to finds in the OPACs of other libraries. (Also pinging the knowledgable .) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The book exists regardless of whether or not Worldcat knows anything about it. You don't need Worldcat's data or approval to obtain the book. If you have the book, all you need to do is open it to verify whatever is being said by it. Worldcat is not involved at any point in the verification chain.
 * These artists books are generally self published, so they usually meet WP:ABOUTSELF, but little else, and certainly don't count towards WP:N. There's also a question of WP:DUE. Is it really important to mention that some guy wrote a paragraph in a self-published book? I doubt it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Headbomb, he's described as having written an "essay". That aside, you say "If you have the book,..." And of course I don't. And I'd guess that none of the regular denizens of WP:RSN does either. In itself, no matter. Consider the article Teikō Shiotani, in which I make 26 references to a book that lacks an ISBN, that I bet isn't on your shelf, and that you won't find at Amazon -- however, I do provide an OCLC for it (and an NCID as well), showing that yes, it is in some libraries, and so some people would be able to check that the book indeed says what I describe it as saying. Of course the question I'm posing is a verifiability rather than a reliability question; but though WP:VN exists, it's WikiProject Video games/Visual novels. -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can view the "essay" here. It's a paragraph. Maybe there's more, maybe it starts a few pages before that, but it's not an 'essay' in the usual sense if there's anything. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That link is already broken by the way (for me at least), less than a day after you posted it here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "the book exists" is a red herring. WP:V requires "reliable, published sources", which implies that every member of the public can in principle access the source. Yes, that doesn't mean that this access has to be cheap or easy. But if the book only exists in form of some sheets of bound paper located in a private collection or archive, it can't be regarded as published and is not usable as a source for Wikipedia, even if the fact that it exists is verifiable via (self-)published sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On the flipside, the actual WP:PAYWALL policy notes says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. That last part about rare historical sources seems to indicate that these sources are OK, even if they're in special archives or museum collections, which cuts directly against the notion that if the book only exists in form of some sheets of bound paper located in a private collection or archive, it can't be regarded as published and is not usable as a source for Wikipedia. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I specifically said "private collection or archive" - with private as in not accessible to the general public. Again, as I already mentioned, that access doesn't have to be cheap or easy (for example, it may involve travel). But as soon that access is limited to only part of the general public (or granted only upon request), we are not dealing with a published source.
 * For illustration, consider that about 4 million people have access to classified government documents in the United States. Yet when someone would try to cite such a classified document as a source, we wouldn't let them argue "but but WP:PAYWALL says you can go ask someone at WikiProject Resource Exchange". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't look like anyone else has said it yet: WorldCat isn't perfect. I've failed to find things in it before. The fact that it isn't in WorldCat really just means its a relatively obscure by English-speakers' standards. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WorldCat has major loiitations: itsi nclusions is based primarily upon Us library holdings; it is not complete for books not likely to be found in libraries, and drastically incomplete for nonacademic publications outside the US and the UK. There are vaious ways for getting enough information to scites: see WP:Boook sources./ I'll check this one in a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC).

Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject
In an article in the Jerusalem Post, by a mother about her son's color blindness, she comments about the fact that her son could indeed succeed in life, stating that Many color-deficient people have been successful in life, among them former president Bill Clinton, actor Paul Newman, singer Bing Crosby, golfer Jack Nicklaus, and even our own television host Yair Lapid, whose color deficiency is reportedly the reason he always wears black. Can this be used as a source about these people being color blind? Animal lover &#124;666&#124; 08:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant guideline for this is WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. No comment on the specific question you asked. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with that unfortunately. But you might be amused by one example I know of where a colour blind person was manager of the paint shop for a car manufacturer. :-) NadVolum (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Militaryland reliable?
I was looking for information on the structure of the Azov Regiment. It would seem to be well done. But I don't know if the site is reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * From the about page I'd say no. They're a self-confessed military fan, not a recognised expert in the field. There seems to be no evidence of oversight on it, and plenty of their pages and the like seem to support the general public logging in and adding information (such as the Losses database.) Even on the Azov Structure page it states the history is unknown for the 1st company, so clearly they're not making any of this info available from a position of knowledge as any kind of authority. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a self-published source. Unless there is evidence the author is an established subject matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, I wouldn't view it as reliable. Doubly so for any of the user-generated content. Ljleppan (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and remove the references to it that I could find. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Metro for coverage of soap operas
There's a DYK nomination that's been stuck for a while, Josh Hudson (nom). I've marked it as on hold, because I'm uncomfortable with the amount of content that is sourced to Metro, an RSP-redlit tabloid. The nominator, Soaper1234, claims that Metro is well-regarded for its coverage of soap operas – is there anything to that? I'd be happy to withdraw my objection if that's true... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The British tabloids (like Metro, Daily Mail, and Daily Mirror) actually have respected reviewers on board for television and film (eg there's a whole book on this ). And so under RSOPINION, 1) UK critics are DUE on articles related to at least British TV if not other television that broadcasts there, and 2) despite their unreliability on RSP, their opinions are fine as long as they're called out as such. In the article, I see one use of the Mirror to support a fact, which should be replaced, but the other two usages appear to be on criticism so should be okay under RSOPINION. --M asem  (t) 01:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Political Science Association
Are materials published at that web site considered WP:SPS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There are some older editions of the Cambridge-published academic journal that are hosted on the website, which I presume are treated just like any other reputable academic journal. But if you're asking about other materials (such as announcements and advertisements asking people to pay their dues), then generally yes. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking into the origins of this request a bit more, it looks like you might have a particular question about this source. That is a conference paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association. It looks like a modified version of the paper was eventually published; I'd strongly recommend that only the published version be used rather than the conference paper, as conference papers in this field tend not to receive strict editorial review in ways that published papers do. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Packt Pub "blog" post as reliable source?
In 2019 discussions at Talk:GrapheneOS about this packtpub.com (aka Packt) source said " Packt Hub is a blog that promotes Packt's main publishing business – the blog is a borderline source, and routine announcements like the page provided tend to be ignored in deletion discussions when it's not coming from a more highly regarded source. " More recently,  wants to keep the source, because it supports material they want to keep in the article (my paraphrase). IMO, the blog post just repeats what was stated on Twitter, so it is being used to include tweets, in essence; including info' from a couple other tweets is also being disputed at GrapheneOS but I digress. In 2009 RSN Noticeboard discussion, Packt did poorly, IMO. Some of their publications have been cited many times in wikipedia. Please help us decide whether the "blog" post should be used at GrapheneOS. Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have decided not to participate in this RSN discussion because I could find that statement in multiple other third-party sources. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The Spectator Australia
Currently, The Spectator is listed as having no consensus. In a previous discussion, there was disagreement, with some pointing out "climate change denial" but others noting its "excellent" cultural reviews. However, I would like some insight into the views of editors on the reliability of The Spectator Australia (https://www.spectator.com.au/). It's a long-standing magazine, but in my opinion (which could be incorrect) that the website has examples of contrarian articles on climate change and the coronavirus. For instance, the website has a section titled Flat White (which I am unsure if these are opinion pieces?) with an article that stated that:

"The Andrews government tortured the people of Victoria over the last two and a half years. Their refusal to wind back restrictions and mandates has cost people their businesses, jobs, livelihoods, and their mental health. Dictator Dan, as we have come to know him, appears to aspire to be like Victoria’s own Xi Jinping."

I am unsure about the line "Their refusal to wind back restrictions and mandates" as Victoria just relaxed numerous vax and mask rules merely a few days ago (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-18/covid-restriction-changes-vaccine-masks/101164032). Another article seems to be marginally reliable and borderline covid denial, stating that "Masks are ineffective in curbing the spread", linking to an article that merely said that "the routine use of face masks in the community is currently not recommended, while the rate of community transmission of COVID-19 is low" and "the use of a mask, alone, will not prevent infection". Besides, it also said that "Because, despite there being no evidence of outdoor community transmission, there might be outdoor community transmission", linking to NSW health stat reported by 9News, though this only refers to NSW current of July 2021, not indicative of worldwide, like other studies are different in results.

In this article, it said another article:

"One of the real signals of CO2-induced warming is in the deep atmosphere at 75,000 feet. Satellite data had shown only one-third the warming (0.70C) predicted by climate models."

The article subsequently concludes that:

"Third, an important reason for both Covid and climate catastrophism is to spread fear and panic in the population as a means to spur drastic political action."

In another article, the magazine seems to be against the effectiveness of vaccines, citing a single letter (unsure if it's an article, though it was designated as a letter) for the conclusions, considering:

"In a little over five months in 2022 until June 7, with very high vaccination coverage, Australia has recorded more than almost three times the total number of deaths with and from Covid compared to the previous 22 months. This takes us back to the question: are vaccinations contributing to the upsurge in Covid cases and deaths, (i) by a combination of reduced efficacy over time, with the rate of reduction accelerating with each successive dose as cautioned by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and (ii) owing to harmful side-effects?"

However, Australia also had considerable fewer coronavirus cases during the prior 22 months.

I could also find examples of numerous other articles being relatively similar to contrarian articles on climate change (1), (2), 3 (the latter is a standard article from Features Australia.

I am unsure if these are opinion pieces, but The Spectator does not seem to distinguish between them. Yes, they have sources, but they seem to be against the consensus. Therefore, could you please comment upon whether these are opinion pieces demonstrating occasional inaccuracies or whether inaccuracy is consistent throughout the magazine? Please inform me if any links don't work or if anything I pointed out is incorrect; many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like it follows the UK Spectator model, it is mainly opinion pieces. WP:RSP says of the UK version "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG." NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies! It seems that this is similar to the UK Spectator, so do you consider it to be marginally reliable or lower? Though I am unsure on how news and opinion pieces are clarified by the website, i.e., in Flat White The Spectator describes: "Flat White" as In-depth analysis of the day’s news, plus stories and gossip from Australian politics." This "analysis" might be opinion, although I am somewhat unsure. However, Features Australia seems to be news, as the magazine offers no clarifications. IMO, there could be a note on RSP cautioning the site not separate news and opinion clearly. Furthermore, to me, lots of coverage on science and politics could be generally unreliable, considering the previous examples given, and if there is consensus in this discussion, an additional line may be added. Otherwise, thanks for your response. VickKiang (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems it is not a reliable source. These kind of newspapers and magazines, quite often are exaggerating to make a point.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 11:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends - sources like the Spectator do not fall into neat “always reliable”/“always unreliable” classifications. There may well be some topics where it is unreliable yet other topics where it is quite reliable. As for its opinion journalism… judging the reliability of opinion journalism depends on several factors: 1) who is the opinionator (are they an academic? A politician? A media pundit? Randy from Brisbane?) 2) are we citing it to support an unattributed statement of fact (“X is true”) or an attributed statement about the opinion (“Opinionator believes that X is true”)? Reliability has to be examined in context. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so you agree with the current RSP statement that it is marginally reliable? Also, could you please give examples on which topics you believe the site is more or less reliable if possible? Furthermore, do you think that the opinion pieces only consist of the Flat White parts? Many thanks and thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * RSP was talking about the UK Spectator but I think it probably is true for the Australian one as well. The individual articles have to be assessed on their own. I think the reputation of the author is the most important factor and probably none can be considered as straight factual like a newspaper article. NadVolum (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The first example given is talking about the past: "tortured ... over the last two and a half years", not any current policies. No, we don't use statements about a period in the past as sources about another time. The second example even has the line "Calm down, it’s satire. Well, mostly" at the top! No, we shouldn't use satirical sources in articles on serious topics. "One of the real signals..." I've no idea about the accuracy of this; I also have no idea why anyone would think it a good idea to use such a piece as a source of facts about climate change. "Third, an important reason for both..." this is an opinion; it could be reasonable to use this as a source for reactions to climate change/covid, but listing individual opinions isn't a good approach anyway. "In a little over five months..." again, why would we use this as a source of facts about covid? It's an opinion in question form. Et cetera... I haven't looked at the others. There's nothing in these examples to support an outright condemnation of this source; we can simply apply existing standards (yes, 'it depends' is accurate). EddieHugh (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough replies and explanation on why the source is marginally reliable. Could you also point out some other reliable opinions from the source? Many thanks. Also, given the first coronavirus policies in Australia incepted at around March 2020 or so, hence "the last two and half years" could possibly be referring also to this month. VickKiang (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey
The disputed fragment:

"Judith Reisman is 'the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement'. About gay marriage she wrote to SCOTUS: 'this Court should not permit the institution of marriage to become the latest victim of the Kinseyan model of American society.' She also wrote that mainstream sexology is 'an ideology built upon the sexual abuse of infants and children, and the libeling of the 'Greatest Generation'.'"

An IP claims at Talk:Alfred Kinsey that MSNBC is not reliable for the claims being made. WP:RSP says it's reliable.

And I don't understand the alternative: does the IP claim that Reisman did not write that? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * IIRC, MSNBC had a bit of a problem preserving opinion labeling when it transitioned to its new website. The old url (available here) shows that it's a part of its "equality" vertical by someone who was described as a national reporter at the time, so this doesn't appear to be one of those instances (the "equality" vertical seems to be w/in its newsroom rather than some sort of dedicated "voices"/opinion section). But even when a source is generally reliable, there are other considerations to consider, such as WP:RS/QUOTE, which states that To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). ... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.
 * It's quite clear that an MSNBC article from the spring of 2015 constitutes a partisan source in the context of AmPol, so I understand why the editor might be concerned at first glance. But the article links directly to the brief, where the two quotes sourced to MSNBC appear on Page 5 and Page 4 of the brief respectively. As such, it might be better to also cite the brief directly, but the potential RS/QUOTE issues appear to be non-issues. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, also WP:CITED the WP:PRIMARY source. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Bitter Winter
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bitter Winter ? Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail
 * Comment: CESNUR is listed as unreliable on WP:RS/P, but there's nothing explicitly noted for the affiliated magazine Bitter Winter, which mainly focuses on oppression in China, and whose reliability may be different from CESNUR itself. From the section for Bitter Winter on CESNUR, I can see it being used by other WP:RS such as Le Monde, The Manila Times, Radio Free Asia, World, and the Department of State. This may call for a different evaluation of reliability than for CESNUR.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The US Department of State is an arm of the US government, and would not be a reliable source for anything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts. Here, we're discussing a publication focused on China. Any statements by the State Department about China have to be viewed as political, and are not necessarily accurate. Radio Free Asia is also an arm of the US government, and per previous discussions at WP:RSN, caution is advised for subjects that the US government could have a political interest in. During the pandemic, for example, RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China, pushing figures that are a factor of 10 (here, 40k or more) to 50 (here, 150k) times higher than scientific estimates (approximately 5k). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing where it says that RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China. Is there a missing link? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "it" you're referring to, but we've had this discussion a number of times already. You know the articles I'm talking about (and I linked them above). RFA's recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China is absolutely clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have WP:RS which support the fringe claim that RFA has a "recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China"? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411 is quite obviously comparing scientific studies to RFA reports to indicate that we should conclude that the latter are unreliable. It seems to me you're asking that question rhetorically because you feel that it's necessary to have a source that explicitly accuses RFA of pushing misinformation. But that's not the case. Thucydides411's argument is, in principle, in an acceptable format: WP:OR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. However, I personally disagree with Thucydides411 on this: it could be a case of good-faith disagreement between sources or a case of early speculation on the part of RFA. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Radio Free Asia is considered generally reliable per RSP, with attribution suggested where US has a geopolitical interest. I think in terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, citation by RFA would count positively towards seeing it as a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thucydides411 clearly said disinformation not misinformation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I don't see any evidence that Bitter Winter is necessarily free from the concerns that plague CESNUR as a source of information. This doesn't mean that they aren't working in China and aren't the subject of unethical reprisals by the Chinese government.  I don't see their work cited by those sources, I see that those sources are reporting on the basic facts about the source.  There's something of a use-mention distinction here; the source is being mentioned and described, but not being used as a source of information by reliable sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, it seems like you're correct that many of the sources in the article aren't relying on Bitter Winter for information but rather are reporting on Bitter Winter itself. However, it does seem to be the case that some WP:RS do cite Bitter Winter as a source for information, including Radio Free Asia 1 2 and Voice of America 3. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of which are U.S. Government funded sources, they are generally reliable, but with a caveat, from WP:RSP "Many editors consider that VOA is biased towards the interests of the American government and that its interference is enough to cast doubt on its reliability in some topics, particulary in news related to American foreign policies." for example. For non-politically-charged topics, I'd consider VOA and RFA fine.  For one like this, no.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The source is used by other WP:RS such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. There are no known examples of the source spreading misinformation and not correcting it. The only controversy I can see related to the source is a brief spat with ChinaSource that was seemingly resolved somewhat amicably with no conclusive evidence of falsehood being spread by Bitter Winter. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC No indication where it's being used on Wikipedia that's causing a dispute. Even if there was, it could go on the relevant talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Looking at Bitter Winter it's clear that as well as being published by CESNUR its editorial staff is drawn from the same group of individuals. A look at some of their content suggests the same distorting advocacy that renders CESNUR unreliable. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can see regarding CESNUR, most of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only assume you’ve misread or misunderstood the objections. The comments above and below, including my own, refer to the problem of the group’s advocacy mission distorting its reporting of the facts. Its desire to achieve its ends frequently takes precedence over accurate and complete reporting, and leads to serious omission, distortion or alteration of the facts. These render it useless as an RS. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 Insufficient information available to pass judgement. What is the context? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Not enough indication of any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which means we can only go by the reputation of the parent organization...  which is terrible.  It could perhaps sometimes be used for opinion but even that should be done cautiously for WP:DUE reasons. I don't think being cited by Radio Free Asia and VOA are sufficient in this context for the reasons outlined above - they're WP:BIASED sources with a bias that would specifically push them to rely on weaker sources, so they're not sufficient to overcome the problems with the publisher or the lack of usage outside of that bubble. --Aquillion (talk)
 * Option 3. Bitter Winter is the house organ of CESNUR, an activist group working to hold China accountable for human rights violations. Their goal may be worthy, but the publication exists to achieve the larger goal rather than to print the truth. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus for outlets with a similar set of goals (e.g. VoA, RFA) is that they are generally reliable and able to be used, even for coverage on China. I don't see how this is any different. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For RFA, the consensus is that it should be treated with caution for any subject that the US government has a political interest in. That makes use of RFA for any China-related subjects highly questionable. Just to illustrate the risks of using RFA for China-related subjects: during the COVID-19 pandemic, RFA has promoted disinformation about the death toll in China (inflating it by a factor of 10 to 50, relative to scientific estimates) which I discussed in a comment above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 with the note that their research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS so there will still be a lot of legitimate uses here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS, WP:USEBYOTHERS applies, and it is most likely a reliable source. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Except when it isn't as in this case, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a gate not a trump card. Zero chance in hell Bitter Winter is reliable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is not as if the Chinese Communist party is a white dove that benevolently oversees the country; Bitter Winter merely chronicles the government's abuses.XavierItzm (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3: No justification or context has been provided why Bitter Winter would be any better than CESNUR. I would put no weight on the usages by VOA & RFA due to the rationale provided by Aquillion. If RS do use them in more than a "According to X, Y happened" I would cite the RS directly. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Explicit justification has been provided in favour of the position that it would be better than CESNUR. [M]ost of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, as the RSP entry also notes, editors have observed that the content is unreliable on its own terms. Your claims about it merely being a problem of bias, which is a severe one, are nevertheless not founded in reality. Its advocacy is sufficiently motivated that it evidently has no compunction about misrepresenting the facts in the service of that end. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 if not option 4: One look at the site's coverage of Falun Gong, for example, tells me that this is by no means a reliable source and under no circumstance should it directly be used as a reference on English Wikipedia. It is an obvious WP:RS fail. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any particular articles that are factually inaccurate? If not, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applied to sourcing. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the whole uncritically parroting every imaginable talking point from the notorious Falun Gong, for starters ("Falun Gong was successful and popular because, although this was later denied by critics, people found that it did deliver the health benefits it promised"—those pesky critics! "The CCP vehemently denied the practice, and successfully recruited international academics and journalists who insisted that either it never took place or was discontinued after an initial phase, although governments and international organizations did mention organ harvesting in their criticism of China’s abysmal human rights record." — those pesky international academics and journalists!). This entry reads like it was written by the group itself, complet with no mention of the New York compound, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, extreme right-wing politics, Trump administration intermingling, hope that Trump would bring on the apocalypse, etc., just a bunch of doubt tossed on "critics", "scholars", and "journalists". Get outta here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is claiming that Bitter Winter should be MEDRS, so a passing statement that Falun Gong has health benefits should not discredit the source any more than the low quality of health and wellness reporting across the board in major newspapers should discredit all major newspapers.
 * Criticizing "critics", "international academics" or "journalists" does not inherently make a source untrustworthy. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or possibly 3. They have an editorial board, along with regular contributors who all seem to be professionals ; there is an editorial control. The content does not raise any serious and obvious red flags as outright misinformation, at least for me (including even examples linked above). Yes, this is definitely a case of WP:BIASED. I think it might be useful as a source for human right issues, although not the best source. CESNUR does look suspicious (probably would be "3"). My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 The publication is not independent from the owners and has no journalistic oversight. The publication publishes anything that makes China look bad, regardless of whether it is true. While it may be that they have discovered important information, we can assess that by looking at reliable sources that pick up their stories. TFD (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Ipnsaepl28's arguments. they are used by BBC and other papers of record. Cononsense (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 if not 4 per Bloodofox. Links to CESNUR apparatus strongly suggests option 4, those guys did PR for Aum Shinrikyo AFTER the Tokyo subway sarin attack Feoffer (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the death of the Emperor
Would editors chime in here, there's a dispute on what the article should state regarding the death of the subject. Magherbin (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

US department of state
Article: Imarat cemetery

Source:

Edit: ; "According to the US Department of State the sacred and historic 18th-century tombs of Imarat Garvand Cemetery, the city's "Martyrs' Alley," were among the cemeteries throughout Aghdam that had been desecrated, looted, or destroyed. Western diplomats who visited Martyrs' Alley reported that there were holes where bodies had formerly been interred and that there was just one damaged tombstone left in the cemetery."

Is the source appropriate and reliable for the above edit? Government sources aren’t inherently reliable, they aren’t historians or journalists. This page doesn’t even have an author. The Iranian-Azerbaijani photojournalist cited in the source, Reza Deghati, arguably makes it biased for Azerbaijan. He works for the Azerbaijani government and saying he's pro-Azeri would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesman,. The source cites him uncritically and doesn’t bother to cite any Armenian sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an attributed POV, and I'm not sure why historical or journalistic expertise would be needed to say that a monument had recently been looted. Geogene (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a reliable source for the claim that "According to the DOS, [content]." Whether it's WP:DUE is a separate question, but if you're researching contemporary human rights violations, then Western government reports are some of the most reliable sources there are. The author of this document is the US Department of State. I don't see that it cites Deghati for this specific piece of info. It doesn't cite Armenian sources, yes, but that is not surprising for a source documenting human rights abuses in Armenia; these kinds of documents are not literature reviews and more like WP:PRIMARY sources containing factual claims. JBchrch   talk  03:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The US Department of State is a serious body which wont risk their reputation by including controversial information to their report. I don't see any reason why the reports they make aren't reliable. Yes, may be they are neither historians or journalists, but I believe that they properly evaluate and check information before including it. Furthermore, do we really need historians to declare that anything was looted or destroyed?
 * Moreover, I am not sure why we brought Reza to this discussion. Reza is not part of the cited edit. Reza is famous photographer known for his work for National Geographic, and he served as Creative Director for National Geographic's most viewed documentary. However, even for the case of Reza report included only those things for which Reza have actual photo evidences. Why we shall ignore information supported by factual photo evidences from Reza, because one say that Reza is pro-Azerbaijani?
 * To summarize, I believe that this source is perfectly fine for cited edit if used with proper attribution.
 * P.S. This page in my watch list since last time I raised RSN here. Abrvagl (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient to attribute incidents to Jane's Revenge?
which only says " A collection of property damage and vandalism hit the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg overnight. According to the Lynchburg Police Department, officers responded at around 10:40 a.m. Saturday to 3701 Old Forest Road for a report of property damage and found the building spray-painted with graffiti. Multiple windows were also broken. Video footage from security cameras shows the masked group of people carrying out the acts." is used twice and says more or less the same thing. As does the link to a Facebook page.

And a quick look at Timeline of Jane's Revenge attacks shows the National Review being used for statements of fact. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed three references from the article that don't mention the group by name. Notable incidents of violence and notable protests could be worth mentioning at United States abortion-rights movement, or similar, but as the group is just a loose affiliation of protesters, we need to be wary of blaming current pro-abortion-rights violence on any one group, and be cautious when using sources that vaguely say that the group might be to blame for an incident. Storchy (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the website Culture Trip a reliable source of information?
I am beginning to write an article on the Des Peres Pickle Jar. I found Culture Trip while searching for good sources of info and it has some very good information on the subject. Does anyone know if this website is a reliable source of information?

TheFeldman (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @TheFeldman, welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming you mean, then no. "Webshops" almost never are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Des_Peres,_Missouri. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a advertising webshop, IMO this is unreliable. Would probably be lower in quality to other travel agencies (e.g., The Points Guy). The only all right source I can find for your subject matter is this, which is marginally reliable. But thanks for your contributions, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on TASS
Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?

Option 4 This report is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: ''Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.''. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: ''Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. '' Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time. I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, see Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?
 * Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake.  Volunteer Marek   08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
 * NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”
 * NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated
 * Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Both Reuters and Getty Images  have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where the reliability of Tass varies based on the content. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't name the article. If you want to re-name it, you need to go to the discussion on its talk page. Whether or not these defacto republics are legitimate is irrelevant to whether or not they asked Russia to invade. TFD (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor: Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government. We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war.  And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2/3 Generally unreliable, reliable for statements of the Russian state and pro-government politicians (and perhaps for uncontroversial minor facts), very unreliable for controversial facts on topics where the Russian state has an interest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Generally unreliable, but reliable for official statements of the Russian government officials and state decrees. Grand  master  21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. TASS is the official state news agency of Russia. I don't think TASS has any reason to distort statements of say president Putin or laws passed by the Russian parliament. Quite the contrary, this is where the official information is published, therefore TASS should be considered a reliable source to reflect the official position of Russia, with proper attribution. However, when it comes to general reporting, TASS is a propaganda outlet, and cannot be used for statements of fact. For reliable news coverage better use third party sources with a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grand  master  10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Of course they also publish many outright fabrications (which would be option "4"), but I am against depreciating anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4. As others have stated, Reuters and Getty Images have cut ties with them. MBFC has them listed as mixed on facts, biased on politics, and limited press freedom. It has suggested they promote conspiracy theories and it also describes them as "100% Russian propaganda all the time."Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4, roughly half a century too late. TASS is a propaganda operation. We can discuss what it says, as described in reliable independent sources, but not cite it as an authority. I learned this at school. I left school in 1987. Why are we still discussing this? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4: The one good argument I've seen against it is that it does sometimes provide quotes from Russian government officials. I could see an exception in this case but to be honest I'm a little worried that a source that fabricates information as blatantly as TASS does might also not be reliable for the things we think they might be reliable for. Other than that, blatantly fabricating information is an instant deprecate vote from me. Loki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could the editors who voted Option 3 or 4 provide a few references to blatantly false information published by TASS? I guess those who voted Option 2 might be willing to change their vote if they were provided with some examples of fake news. So far I've seen opinions but no evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g. For example, a July 2021 article titled, “OPCW report proves Germany’s link to provocation with Navalny — lower house’s commission,” claimed that the poisoning of Navalny was “anti-Russian provocation” linked to Germany. As one can read in that article, the claim that the Navalny affaire was an anti-Russian provocation was not made by TASS but by Vasily Piskarev, chairman of a Duma commission. TASS is reporting (with attribution) Piskarev's statement. So News Guard is making a blatant mistake that no experienced editor of Wikipedia would ever make. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the point that News Guard is trying to make. They are illustrating that TASS often uncritically repeats statements by the Russian government, even when they have been shown to be false elsewhere. It says this several times in the report, including on the title page: "The site uncritically promotes the false claims of the Russian government." The quote you provided came after the sentence "TASS also has advanced false claims about the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny." [emphasis added] Journalism is intended to be held to a higher standard than Wikipedia articles.
 * I would add to their analysis that TASS attributes ridiculous claims to unnamed sources in the government. For particularly ridiculous claims they insulate themselves further by nesting attributions like "'According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,' the source said." This tactic has been in play since the 80s when TASS reported that Peter Nikolayev reported that according to "British and East German scientists" AIDS was man-made, had been tested on humans at Fort Detrick, and had leaked from the lab there accidentally.
 * If you look at my vote, you will note that I quoted MBFC as saying that TASS "promotes conspiracy theories" and is "100% Russian propaganda," not that they misreported that propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I attributed those statements to them, so my reporting of the unreliable source stands, according to the logic being used to justify the continuation of considering TASS reliable. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have maintained it at 2 instead of dropping to 3 but for the current situation viz a viz the West which will likely result in some deterioration but I should add that I don't really have any evidence of that and News Guard is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the current WP consensus, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Gitz6666, please actually read the discussion. The very first comment here provides exactly the kind of reference you're asking for.  Volunteer Marek   21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't, and I myself have commented (at 21:05, 18 May 2022) on Adoring Nanny's test case aimed at showing that TASS is unreliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But here is more:, , . It's not like it's hard to find this stuff.   Volunteer Marek   21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 4 per Adoring nanny's, MrOllie's Disconnected Phrases' and Space4Time3Continuum2x's analyses, which show that TASS has published false and fabricated information and should be deprecated as such. TASS' reliability has worsened and needs to be reevaluated since its last discussion in 2019, which is particularly important given the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DEPS also establishes that in this scenario it can still be used as a source for the position of the Russian government, but at any rate said position would already be covered by more reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per Adoring nanny, TASS clearly publishes blatant fabrications—blindlynx 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 per Adoring nanny and Space4Time3Continuum2x. TASS used to have a veneer of reliability in the past due to some of its editorial practices, but it seems like this has changed, due to the needs of the state in an environment where other outlets to engage in information warfare have been reduced in impact in outside countries after feb2022. it's why reuters and getty dropped them as partners. info from tass is sometimes useful, but when it's useful, it should show up in reliable secondary sources. Cononsense (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 the majority of examples of false information allegedly published by TASS are in fact faithful relaying by TASS of possibly false claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, which is not the same thing as directly reporting claims that are known to be false. By that standard all news outlets would have to be deprecated simply for quoting people in disputed situations. The closer should not merely count the number of arguments or votes but take into consideration the weakness of the arguments for option 4. Remember that WP:BIASEDSOURCE explicitly states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and the faithful quoting of unreliable statements is a form of bias, not a form of fabrication. Since the source accurately relays claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, but those claims are themselves suspect, due weight considerations apply. TASS should only be used to give further detail on claims that other sources agree are notable. TASS is likely to be reliable for reporting unrelated to geopolitics relating to Russia, given the fact that they had partnerships with other RS until Russia invaded Ukraine. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2: additional considerations apply, as usual with many state media agencies. On a case-by-case basis, it may require in-text attribution. And, of course, oppose this trend of attempting to outright deprecate full media outlets based on some anecdotal report on some controversial topic. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This entire nomination by Adoring nanny bases itself on Western media POV, what the western media wants to say about eastern media. To understand: This wiki's language is English, and its primary readers / authors are English speaking persons (which inherently exposes their ideology more towards western views and reporting – particularly, promotes the United States' geopolitical interests and goals). i.e. enwiki has "Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory" (0 TASS references), while ruwiki has Обвинения в создании Украиной биологического оружия ("Allegations of Ukraine's development of biological weapons", 2 TASS references). The coverage of political events on enwiki has also been diluted to mainly or only western reported sources and views of events. It appears Adoring nanny even attempts – in this very RFN thread – to cancel the existence of Russo-Ukrainian War which started in 2014 by denying its "escalation", whatever that may be in this context. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Per Ipnsaepl28 and WP:BIASEDSOURCE. In the past, TASS has been inclined to systemic bias due to its Russian sources, but has been generally useful. When you move from country to country, systemic bias becomes more obvious. While is quite correct about secondary sources, our reportage of curent events has  been based on secondary sources, but on news sources, which must be treated with a high degree of caution.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably Option 2 or possibly Option 3. Don't have a strong opinion. There may be some cases where TASS is useful for news relating to Russia that is not controversial or suspicious. I can see where if it is not deprecated there may be problems with editors inserting TASS references that are extremely questionable but I think 2 or 3 cover this. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may be relevant to the discussion that our perennial sources do occasionally report information disclosed by TASS. The use they make of this information is no different from what should be allowed to Wikipedia editors. A few examples include ABC News, Guardian   , New York Times , BBC  , Washington Post , CNN  , Le Monde  . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Voetbalprimeur
Source: https://www.voetbalprimeur.be/ (Note: English translation is "Football scoop")

This source is extensively used (80 links as of this moment) in the following article List of Belgian football transfers summer 2022, as a reference for specific football transfers. IMHO this website falls under WP:Questionable sources, because it often publishes article on transfers based on rumours, before these transfers have been officially realized/published. Often they do become reality, but sometimes the website is mistaken and the transfer doesn't come through.

I feel it would make more sense to use the official website of the in/out-going club once the transfer is final, rather than to rely on this website. <b style="color:#4863A0;">Pelotas</b><b style="color:#F88017;">talk</b>&#124; contribs 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Lavender oil has an RFC
Lavender oil has an RFC for adding proposed sources to the article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

drugs.com for MEDRS
Source: www.drugs.com

It has recently come to my attention during a discussion that "drugs.com" is possibly widely used as a MEDRS-quality source for backing up medical claims on Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wikipedia article in question made claims based on the "Clinical Overview" section of the drugs.com lavender page, a conclusion reached by the anonymous author of the page. This is worrying because according to https://www.drugs.com/support/about.html 1. This is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a private company's database "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers".

2. "The Drugs.com website is owned and operated by Drugsite Limited, as trustee of the Drugsite Trust. Drugsite Limited is a privately owned company administered by two New Zealand Pharmacists."

3. "The only funding we receive from pharmaceutical companies is by way of advertisements that appear on the Drugs.com website"

4. In this particular case, almost every paper listed on the page as a "source" was more than 5 years out of date.

The Wikipedia editor that was defending drugs.com as a source also didn't seem to be aware of the above information, as he was also insisting that drugs.com was a superior source to a recent meta-analysis that I found in a peer-reviewed journal. So I'm curious if other editors are aware of this, if they use it for citations that should meet MEDRS standards, and if Wikipedia as a whole should continue using it in that way. It seems to fly in the face of nearly every recommendation on the MEDRS page 50.45.170.185 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I use drugs.com for work; it's generally reliable as it's run by pharmacists, but it's mostly unsourced/commercial info, I prefer to use better sites like the FDA, CDC or Health Canada for drug info. They don't present incorrect info on drugs.com, it's more of a commercial site, used for the average Joe to look stuff up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this would fit into the WP:MEDRS criteria as they stand. This doesn't mean the information is necessarily unreliable, but like a lot of other cases we should be citing the peer reviewed secondary studies or medical body recommendations instead of a third party aggregator of that information. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the IP: The top of this page says to please include:
 * Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example:.
 * Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.
 * Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: "text" . Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".
 * It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it's okay; sometimes it's not.  Drugs.com is more likely to be useful for statements like "the active ingredient is ____", taken from their copy of a Medication package insert.  It is (much) less likely to be useful for statements like "This proves that alt med works". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that it is "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers, including; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Cerner Multum and IBM Watson Micromedex", wouldn't those "information suppliers" be a better source for such information rather than the aggregator itself? Citing it feels like citing Wikipedia (no offense). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia. The question wasn't about all purposes, just whether it meets WP:MEDRS guidelines for WP:BMI. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It violates MEDRS, which says, "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources." This is clearly a tertiary source. Otherwise it would meet rs for information that fell outside MEDRS. Personally, I never use tertiary sources for any articles, but there is rule against doing so. TFD (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also I just noticed that many, many pages for various drugs have a direct link to www.drugs.com at the top of the page. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secobarbital 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS does allow tertiary sources - it recommends textbooks and suggests that biomedical encyclopaedias by certain publishers can be good quality, for instance (both of which are tertiary sources). WP:MEDBOOK. Tristario (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These are actually secondary sources as defined by Wikipedia. Notice your link does not use the term tertiary source. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MEDRS used to say, "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."
 * That was the original reason for implimenting MEDRS, although that has since been removed. However, I think that just as Wikipedia should not provide advice, it should not tell readers where to get advice. While the source is in my opinion generally reliable, Wikipedia does not have a method of determining whether a source is totally reliable in all its information. If people are trying to determine whether to take a drug or to seek treatment, they should look at several advice sites, talk to their doctors and make their own decisions. But I can't tell them which sites to visit or who to talk to.
 * TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Under WP:MEDDEF textbooks and encyclopaedias are defined as tertiary sources. Tristario (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an important distinction you might be missing.
 * An example of a tertiary source is an " undergraduate or graduate level textbook."
 * Whereas WP:MEDBOOK says " medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Textbooks for undergraduates and graduates are typically published by academic publishers and they're still medical textbooks. WP:MEDBOOK even mentions undergraduate and postgraduate textbooks, with the caveat that those for students may not be as thorough.
 * If you read through all of WP:MEDRS it's pretty clear that tertiary sources aren't forbidden - it also mentions them under Basic advice. Information in tertiary sources is still based on secondary sources - the use of them doesn't contradict the first sentence in WP:MEDRS. This is all besides the point, though, this doesn't mean that Drugs.com is a reliable medical source. I don't have an opinion on that currently. Tristario (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that section is just saying tertiary satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Re-read the first sentence of WP:MEDRS two more times. If after that you haven't changed your mind then we agree to disagree. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the opening line of MEDRS is very explicit: only secondary sources are allowed for biomedical information.
 * WP:MEDBOOK does not contradict this: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources."
 * The rest of the section is mainly pointing out difficulties when using books such as them often being out of date, containing too terse of information, and not being peer-reviewed. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, some encyclopedias are considered to be secondary sources. Typically, these are specialized and contain signed articles written by experts and providing sources. Do not confuse use of the term tertiary in Wikipedia and in the rest of the world. Review studies for example are considered tertiary in the rest of the world, because they summarize secondary sources. First year university textbooks are generally considered tertiary in Wikipedia, while advanced textbooks are considered secondary. TFD (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Example of an encyclopedia that is a secondary source? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 1. TFD (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant relevant to this discussion about medical sources. Also, how did you determine that this particular encyclopedia is a secondary source? WP:TERTIARY explicitly states all encyclopedias are tertiary. Perhaps this page needs clarification? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still uncertain on my view of this, but it seems like this might fall under the advice given about webmd and eMedicine under Other sources on WP:MEDRS - okay for uncontroversial information, but other sources are preferred. Tristario (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since MEDRS is a guideline, there may be exceptions, but each one needs to be explained. In this case, you would need to explain why drugs.com is preferable to reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I was just answering about drugs.com generally but in this particular case there may be a reasonable argument for preferring it, but that wasn't what the question was. Tristario (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the exact same sentence that WebMD is mentioned there is "however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly". i.e. according to WP:MEDRS, things like WebMD are never preferable when reliable secondary-sources are available. And when reliable secondary-sources aren't available, things like WebMD should never be used for anything that could be considered controversial as per the rest of the sentence. Uncontroversial things might be chemical name or molecular formula for a drug, not the supposed health benefits or lack thereof. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This argument about whether Drugs.com is a tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good) is silly. It is a big site. Some of its material is secondary and some tertiary. The disputed article for Lavender Oil cites the primary research literature and therefore is more similar to a secondary literature review than it is to other more typical tertiary sources like the NHS, WHO or CDC websites, say.
 * The underlying dispute is about "a patented lavender flower extract, known as Silexan" and a review of small studies all conducted by the same team and funded by the manufacturer, is sufficient evidence. Looking at the current article, it seems editors have found to be an acceptable current review upon which to make limited claims. Arguing over whether Drugs.com is generally better than x or y or z is not really productive, as it is too varied in its content. -- Colin°Talk 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good)". WP:MEDRS is more than just some people's opinions. It's a very important community-wide guideline with community-wide consensus. The conclusions reached on drugs.com are not peer-reviewed by a third-party, and they are self-published. It's important that we reach a consensus about whether or not drugs.com is WP:MEDRS compliant because it is currently being widely used as such, which is potentially extremely dangerous for the readers and Wikipedia's reputation.
 * After-which... Wikipedia might need a lot of clean-up depending on the consensus reached. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The premise introduced by the IP for this discussion is incorrect: Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source, to my knowledge or in my editing, but rather mainly as a monograph for herbal products and prescription drugs, providing for the former some of the best reviews available in its Natural Products Database where publications are commonly in unreliable alt-med journals, and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors. Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information, and among clinical practitioners I know, the professional edition is a go-to resource for pharmacology and prescription details, and for FDA drug monographs and approvals. Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes under Clinical data, and has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade. I suspect it will continue to be a valued resource for updated drug information. The frantic editing behavior illustrated in this thread and nearly all of some 150 edits in 4 days by IP 50.45.170.185 indicates WP:SPA over a single issue: that weak publications on lavender oil be used to claim efficacy in treating anxiety. Two admins have page-protected Lavandula and Lavender oil against the disruptive editing by IP 50.45.170.185. Please stop and move on - WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * >Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source It absolutely is. And you even admit to wanting to use it for a biomedical claim here. "I retain the position of our previous article conclusion: 'There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety', as well as here admitting that not only do you not know who publishes drugs.com but you think Drugs.com is a superior source over a meta-analysis, which flies completely in the face of MEDRS. This is like adding "Vaccines don't protect against viruses." to a page and sourcing it to some self-published for-profit encyclopedia under your dishonest concern of "better to side with skepticism about research quality"
 * >and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors Reviewed and published by drugs.com? That's makes their reviews WP:SELFPUBLISH and thus not suitable for biomedical information.
 * >Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information What does publishing FDA alerts in this blog have to do with anything?
 * >has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade Doc James's 10+ year old inquiry didn't even have that much support in the discussion you linked, only a handful of responders, and them saying things like "I wonder occasionally if it has an American bias" and "I'd say it was preferred to editors doing an amateur version of NICE themselves"
 * >Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes Which is very concerning, considering Doc James was the one who added an external link to a private website filled with ads at the top of every drug-related Wikipedia page after his inquiry got that weak response. I notice you yourself are also a major source of edits adding reference to the site.
 * <more personal attacks against me> Can you please stop? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding
 * Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also since you seem to have not seen it, I will quote WP:MEDRS again here:
 * "Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Drugs.com may be useful as an external link, but clearly is not a MEDRS source for statements in Wikipedia's voice. It may also be a source of further MEDRS-compliant references. I hope that clarifies matters. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to the extensive WP:TENDITIOUS editing and commentaries by IP 50.45.170.185 in this thread and others, use of Drugs.com in the lavender oil article is appropriare because the topic under dispute there - that an oral lavender oil product can be used to treat anxiety - is less of a MEDRS issue and more of an herbalism issue, a topic for which high-quality MEDRS sources, like systematic reviews or Cochrane reviews, either don't exist (who would invest the funding and time on unpatentable herbs or quackery?) or mainly have negative conclusions; Cochrane example here for lavender aromatherapy to treat dementia. Drugs.com is used in Wikipedia medical articles as a trusted encyclopedic synopsis of prescription drug facts, and is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources. The literature under dispute about anxiety therapy at the lavender oil article falls into this unreliable herbalism category, as discussed on the talk page. A meta-analysis of junk studies reported in the Journal of Junk remains junk. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for general information since it uses information from (what seem like) reliable databases such as multum/micromedex while also utilizing expert opinion from ASHP. I'm also assuming that older medications like aspirin, which have been around for awhile, wouldn't have new research that show what their general side effects are etc. and drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for such info. I was also curious to see if WP:PHARM or WP:MED listed anything about this and looks like WP:PHARM lists it as a reliable source, wondering if there's already been a previous consensus on this or similar sites? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That resources page does not show a consensus that drugs.com is a MEDRS-compliant source. It just says it contains material from reliable sources. Wikipedia also contains material from reliable sources, but we aren't supposed to cite Wikipedia or drugs.com for biomedical claims because they are self-published, self-reviewed tertiary sources.
 * Additionally, Doc James was the one who added drugs.com to that resources page. If you look at the discussion above, you'll see that he was also the one who first asked about it as a source and got a very weak response from only a handful of people, he is also the one who added an external link to it (a privately-owned site filled with ads) to the top of almost every drug page on Wikipedia. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * >[drugs.com] is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources. Well... glad we agree it's not a reliable source then.
 * If a topic doesn't have reliable sources, then it doesn't have reliable sources. We can't cite Dr. Quack's blog on his miracle pill just because there are no other sources talking about the pill. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Worn and Wound watch blog reliable?
This describes itself as a "blog". It's not clear whether they publish corrections and so forth as we usually require for a RS. The site is used in about a dozen articles; here is a sample where it is used to establish the first electric watch. Not sure a blog is great for historical firsts. Other examples seem more squidgy and fan-like, such as a list of "special edition" watches from a "lifestyle brand". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

www.human.gov.az

 * Links to past discussion of the source on this board: Could not find previous discussions on that source.
 * Source:.
 * Article: Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh.


 * Content: "According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village. Diff".
 * Comment: This source is not generally viewed as reliable because it is not a third party and represents one of the conflicting parties. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that an official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we have any examples of official government websites not being regarded as reliable for the attributed position of that government agency? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all thanks for spending your time on this case. I am not sure if there is any case like that, but I came here because my edit was reverted by one of the editors with following comments:  not a neutral reliable source Abrvagl (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's perfectly fine for the governments position for the edit in question. We're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice or claiming that the entire world believes this, but we clearly state it's according to the government. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Reliable, needs to be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Alaexis¿question? 11:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reply. Do you think above provided statement(content) is correctly attributed or you think that it should be reworded? Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very biased. For example, it calls almost all Armenian forces terrorists. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fist of all, nowhere in the article all Armenian forces called as terrorists. Article says that ASALA is a terrorist organisation, and ASALA is indeed an international terrorist organization. Calling things by their names does not mean being biased. Second, the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons, and actually the only source which can reflect that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not accepting, or portraying, it as truth, we're accepting and portraying it as their position. This is the only reliable way to do so and as a result primary sources are aceptible. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Canterbury Tail Still I wonder if any kind of source can be used as long as we say it's attributed, even if gov position? The source accuses Republic of Armenia having "terrorists units" and "terror activities", it's definitely not just ASALA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, just not usable on its own... If we're being honest its ahistorical nationalist nonsense which is of no use in building an encyclopedia. WP:RS are more than sufficient for providing the view of the AZ government, there is no need to stoop to this level. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here: According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village.. Abrvagl (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If they're the only source then WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies even if they're reliable. That means that if what you just said is true even if this discussion is closed as reliable you're not going to be able to use it where you want to use it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. What I said it that only governmental body can give governmental statistics on the missing persons. It does not fall under EXTRAORDINARY category, nowhere close to that. We're not expressing it in Wikipedia's voice, nor are we suggesting that everyone should believe it, but we clearly attribute it to the governmental body. That is how encyclopedia works. Abrvagl (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable, Voting as the creator of the RSN. The governmental body of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is reliable to reflect governmental position about the missing persons if reflected with proper attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs)
 * Unreliable I agree with Horse Eye&#39;s Back, this source shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia even with attribution. It's just a piece of hot garbanzo, simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I reviewed the sources in this article. Nobody cares, nobody on the outside's monitoring the situation. You will have the bulk of your sources be either Armenian or Azerbaijani, and both will be biased on a scale from somewhat-very to extremely-very. Make the best of what you got: attribute in-line, balance, and use with caution. And in the end even the most nationalist governments do have to have some level of accountability to the global community and to a baseline awareness of their people. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

japanese-wiki-corpus.org
In the past few days I've come across www.japanese-wiki-corpus.org used as a source in at least two articles related to traditional Japanese culture. A quick search shows that it pops up on English Wikipedia as a source about 22 times.

My concern is that, per the website's About page, "The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) has created this corpus by manually translating Japanese Wikipedia articles (related to Kyoto) into English", with the articles "formatted into human-readable text". The "more info" link on this page links here, where the project is described as "[aiming] mainly at supporting research and development relevant to high-performance multilingual machine translation, information extraction, and other language processing technologies".

This website seems like a mirror of Japanese Wikipedia, machine-translated into English with the sources removed. Its goal seems to be accurate translation rather than sourcing, and I'm concerned that it's being used as a source on Wikipedia. I think this falls under WP:MIRROR, but since it's mirroring a sister project, I just wanted to make sure it would count as a mirror, and therefore be unsuitable as a reliable source.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say, yes it is a mirror. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian Telegraph Agency
Belarus News | Belarusian news | Belarus today | news in Belarus | Minsk news | BELTA

This seems to be the main propaganda organ of the Belarusian state. A cursory look at the English site shows most articles are direct quotes of officials and especially Lukashenko w/o editorial commentary. In general, BELTA seems to stick closely to the concept of a wire service and the vast majority of its articles are long quotes. However, the opinion section and esp. articles relating to the invasion of Ukraine take a much more clearly misleading position that does not appear substantially different from Russian state media. Furthermore, in 2012 the EU imposed sanctions on Dmitry Zhuk, then director of BELTA for "relaying state propaganda in the media, which has supported and justified the repression of the democratic opposition and of civil society on 19 December 2010 using falsified information." As far as I can tell, it seems like a great source for who is claiming what, but the claims themselves are nearly all worthless. Should BELTA be used for information beyond ascertaining that an individual made certain claims? Hussierhussier1 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * treat it like any other propaganda outfit, it is useable to say "BELTA claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

DOB
Is this stat site usable for date of birth? Most stat sites I've encountered are user generated with no dedicated staff, no claims of fact checking and just a forum to report errors. This one lists their staff, claims to check a large variety of sources for their data, and claims their staff reviews any reports of errors. I'm assuming it's a no, but just wanted to check with more experienced editors. Cheers. – 2 . O . Boxing  13:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Per I'd say this is WP:USERG, so no WP:DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea looking at that page I'd make you right. Thanks very muchly. – 2 . O . Boxing  15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003)
Is heise online / c't a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?


 * Source


 * Article
 * GrapheneOS


 * Content
 * In April 2022, Jan-Keno Janssen of heise online for c't stated GrapheneOS' approach of running Google Play services differently without system level access "works quite well", and said the operating system's focus on security is "uncompromising".

The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video) includes a disclaimer at the bottom: ''c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week.''

84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Do not use the particular source (without comment on heise.de reliability in general), as it is contrary to WP:RSPYT.
 * Correction Re: "The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video)"
 * The cited heise.de source does not include a transcript. It, in essence, is entirely a transcript.
 * As stated in the Talk, the more concise issue is: a transcription of a Youtube video is just as contrary to WP:RSPYT as the video itself. This is trying to use a Youtube videos as a source, by "laundering" it through an (maybe) otherwise usually reliable source, for articles within editorial oversight, if any. This particular source is outside any editorial oversight, as stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of the transcript of the youtube video. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is? As I understand RS if a source reports something and it is an RS it does not matter if the origin is "some bloke down the pub" as we would source it to the rs. And to accuse an RS (assuming of course it is) of "laundering" smacks of wp:or.
 * As to the question, a publisher is not an RS, it is only a publisher. What they publish maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don´t think this disclaimer is meant in that way (no editorial oversight), my understanding is the channel provides content not available in the magazine. Author of said video/transcription is an editor of the ct magazine, the channel is sanctioned by the magazine ("c't 3003 ist der YouTube-Channel von c't") and the transcription is on the magazine website (well, heise.de is the site of several tech related media of the Heinz Heise publishing house). From my humble POV, this source is reliable (as a source for the above paragraph), certainly not "a self-published group blog". Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the videos were "endorsed" by, and given editorial oversight by heise.de (or c't subsidiary or whatever), then the disclaimer would say something like that. Instead, they use words like "standalone content" and "independent of the articles". If they were given oversight, they might avoid obvious errors. An example of obvious (to me) erroneous content in this particular YouTube video: They say, at about 3:38 in the video, which includes English subtitles, " "The five custom ROMs that I tested together with my colleagues from c't are all based on Google's AOSP, but of course do not have Google's closed-source software integrated. Instead of Google Maps, for example, Magic Earth is preinstalled on /e/, Organic Maps on Calyx, and OSMAnd on Volla. " This is an obvious error to me, because I am familiar with Magic Earth being not open source; rather, being a closed source, proprietary app, included with /e/. A suggestion: They say the video is based on previous testing done for the c't magazine. That may be a better source. I could not get beyond the paywall to see that article, but if available at least a written article, clearly endorsed, would not be contrary to WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Google's closed-source software . It's not to be taken out of context or interpreted to mean something it doesn't say (WP:OR / WP:SYNTHESIS); the statement also does not say the other software is all open-source (rightfully so). There's no Google in Magic Earth (publisher General Magic), at least according to the external link you've posted. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary "Yae4 taking things out of context for his benefit (again))" is a personal attack, and false. I don't think they meant to say instead of Google's closed source software, you get someone else's closed source software. In context of all they say about "open source" throughout the transcript, I think they made a mistake. The other two Maps apps they listed - Organic Maps and OsmAnd - are indeed open source. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Even reliable sources can be sometimes wrong (don't know if this is the case). However, we have here regular magazine staff, posting video on a regular channel of the same magazine with a transcription on the magazine website. I really don't see any reason, why this transcription shouldn't be useable as a reliable source for the above paragraph. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: heise online is referenced by other (at least marginal) publications. Some examples (English translations of foreign source titles have been machine translated) : 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Android Police. Valnet Inc. rang a bell. Previous comments on Valnet et all at RSN have not been favorable. This suggests I should not have added Android Police sources, and we should remove them. Stopping here, assuming you listed the strongest first. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In no order of preference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Heise Online is an umbrella website for several Heinz Heise magazines/publications - content quality may vary (there may be even "sponsored content"). The transcription in question is under ct magazine heading, so reliability of the ct magazine (and its web content) should be judged here. Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP has referenced the c't magazine on several occasions. I've added more references are below. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: c't magazine is used as a source by other independent publications. Some examples: 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine."
 * You continue sidestepping and giving distractions from the main issue and the disclaimer, regarding the stand-alone, independent YouTube video (transcript) you wish to cite. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The editor of c't 3003 web videos also appears as an editor or co-editor for the paper c't magazine in their work (several examples): His opinionated personal experience news report has been published in heise online (not c't): 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment:
 * See managing directors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See managing directors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) ; edited 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jan-Keno Janssen was listed for "Cover story coordination in this issue" (Titelthemenkoordination in dieser Ausgabe) and "Managing Editors" in "Mobile, Entertainment & Gadgets Department" (Ressort Mobiles, Entertainment & Gadgets, Leitende Redakteure) in an issue in 2018. Today, I cannot find their name on the current Impressum. I'll grant you the videos are entertaining, but I could only watch the one you want to cite for less than 4 minutes before seeing misleading info' and feeling they were careless with details. Their written articles are more likely to receive independent oversight by other editors (and not be tagged with a disclaimer), but that is not what you are citing. You are citing a YouTube video (transcript) which is " stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. " -- Yae4 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alle Redakteure. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Direct link: . Independent of the articles in the magazine (in sense of new content), but certainly not independent of ct (their staff member, their channel, their webpage...). Pavlor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The blurb " Jan-Keno Janssen lives in virtual reality, but sometimes still likes to go into the uncomfortable real world. The full-blooded nerd only learned to distinguish oaks from beeches as an adult, but was able to use Emacs as an 8-year-old. Since 2007 at c't. " does not make a case for expertise, if that's your point? -- Yae4 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I must admit I really don't understand your point. The text you quoted highlights his IT experience (in a humorous way). I fear we are runing in circles and wasting our time. This source is reliable (for the stated purpose). Too bad I'm the only one yet writing my opinion here - beside you two (heise.de is no FOX news...). May I ask, is there some other reason I'm not aware of why we should so carefully examinate this source (eg. something like AmigaOS4/MorphOS rivalry and associated fanboyism/canvassing)? Pavlor (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like this to be turned into an RfC with options 1-4 for the reliability in general. I do have an opinion on the reliability of stated source and why this rehearsing happens, but I'm not going to express it now. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

first edit claims the statement (actually, a modified version of the statement) is "dubious", "editorialized" and the source is "based on a self-published source" in edit summary. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Trans Safety Network
Source:

Articles: Stella O'Malley and Genspect

Content: Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group. They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. In addition, they reported that seven of SEGM's eleven clinical advisors are also members of the Genspect team. Namely, O'Malley, Julia Mason, Avi Ring, Sasha Ayad, Roberto D'Angelo, Marcus Evans and Lisa Marchiano.

For context, Trans Safety Network is a registered non-profit Community Interest Company which reports on anti-trans groups. They are often quoted and referred to in accepted sources as an expert source, and we cite them in other locations on Wikipedia. Does this count as a reliable source/acceptable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The website itself appears to entirely contain self-published blogposts, so citing the website for facts about living people seems like a bad idea policy-wise. I'm not particularly familiar with whether Mallory Moore is a WP:SME SME for this sort of stuff; the extent to which the source is reliable for facts (that are not about living people) hinges on that. That being said, if the only basis for claiming that the individual is an SME is that they once wrote for TruthOut, I'm skeptical given that the website has been OK with and doubled down on per se libelous complete fabrications in the past even after being proven wrong. What's your rationale for considering Moore an SME? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. BTW Incredible strikeout, thank you for your service. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * They are notable enough to be treated by other reliable sources as worthy of comment, and are a registered non-profit devoted to this issue. Mallory has been cited for her statements as a researcher by various other reputable news orgs. The claims present are all backed with sources in the article and easily verifiable. Namely, that is how TSN described SEGM, most of the donations are > $10,000, and those members are on the board of both teams. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The group does not appear to be a well-established news outlet nor does the report appear to be WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If I were to make an investigative report on a subject about which I am an expert and post it on my own blog, I don't think anybody would reasonably be able to cite it on Wikipedia for contentious facts about living people even if my analysis is wholly correct. And, that a source is a "registered non-profit" that news organizations find worthy of comment does not make their website reliable within its area of focus; by that logic, the website of Moms for Liberty would satisfy the qualifications to be a reliable source for public education in the United States. While there are some nonprofits that are WP:GREL, this doesn't exactly have the longstanding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy coupled with strong editorial review processes that something like Amnesty International or Pew Research Center does.
 * On top of that, the text of the report doesn't quite support the sentence as-written; the only way to conclude that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars would be to conclude that the GoFundMe accounted for over two-thirds of the group's funding at the time the report was written. The report itself doesn't allege this, but instead says that they can't find tax return data on the group despite efforts to search online. So, in that sense, no the source is not reliable for the claim that They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. The bigger question is whether or not the source is WP:DUE for the remainder of the content. If there aren't any established NEWSORGs or scholarly works that have provided weight to the particular parts of this report, then the answer is that it's almost certainly WP:UNDUE. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you mean Subject-matter expert when you linked to WP:SME?? SVTCobra 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did; thank you for pointing this out. I've struck the erroneous link and inserted one to the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I would say that Trans Safety Network are reliable. Articles published by TSN have been cited in scholarly research as authoritative;, , , as well as in reliable media; , ,.
 * Mallory herself has been quoted in media sources as a researcher;, , , , as well as in scholarly research; , , and by at least one legal scholar . As such I believe she qualifies as a subject matter expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe related . --SVTCobra 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mhawk10. WP:BLPSPS is very clear and we have to be cautious with BLPs. Sometimes well-known blogs and other SPSes are cited in the occasional academic paper, and lots of blogs and tweets get linked in media sources - especially ones with a clear political POV on a matter. Crossroads -talk- 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Mallory counts as a subject-matter expert per what Sideswipe9th said, and Trans Safety Network has at least some use by others; they're reasonably citable with attribution for the opinions in the first part of the paragraph. But we cannot cite a SME directly for WP:BLP-sensitive stuff, and should generally use the highest-quality sources for that regardless. Based on that, is fine for the first three sentences (which do not name any individuals) but I'd skip the final sentence with the names, which isn't really necessary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say that anyone commenting on politically sensitive trans issues should be attributed in-line, expert or not. It's still an extremely young movement with a pretty vigorous and sometimes messy debate even in academia. Now what's known specifically about Moore that would make her articles an RS? She's a relatively local journalist, so she knows the editorial process, but that says nothing of whether the blog in question has any such process or standard. She's also not an academic, and most of the reason academics can be considered reasonably reliable as self-published sources is that they face significant consequences if they are academically deceptive or negligent even in something like a personal blog. Of course the other test is if the work itself is verifiable -- if all sources are meticulously cited -- and she does a pretty decent job of that in her SEGM article. The warnings above about BLP are correct, but this seems like a reasonable article to use when discussing an organization, with attribution. And use common sense with hot issues to avoid nonsense: if you use it for a fact, double-check their source link for the fact, and remember to cite "source, as quoted by blog." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment Google news searches certainly produce results for site:transsafety.network. To what extent can the normal rules such as of WP:RSOPINION be brought to apply? GregKaye 09:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The ordinary rules of RSOPINION ([s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact already apply here. In general, a piece in which X author wrote Q opinion is a reliable primary source for the fact that X author wrote Q opinion, even if it's a self-published blog (see: WP:ABOUTSELF). Problems can occur when that opinion involves contentious claims about other living people and is self-published (WP:BLPSPS), when the opinion advocates fringe theories (WP:PSCI), or when basically no other sources talk about that particular opinion (WP:WEIGHT/WP:BALASP).
 * On a separate note, the fact that google news indexes a website is not a good measure of that website's reliability. Google news also produces results for site:infowars.com, and InfoWars is quite a bad source. Looking through the WP:DEPREC publications, it also indexes basically all of them: RT, The Grayzone, Veterans Today, Global Times, ANNA-news, Baidu Baike, CGTN, CrunchBase, The Daily Caller, The Daily Mail, The Daily Star, The Epoch Times, Frontpage Magazine, The Gateway Pundit, HispanTV, Jihad Watch, Last FM, LifeSiteNews, MintPress News, National Enquirer, New Eastern Outlook, NewsBlaze, Newsmax, Notable Names Database, Occupy Democrats, One America News, Press TV, Rate Your Music, Republic TV, Sputnik News, The Sun, Taki's Magazine, TeleSur, The Unz Review, VDARE, Voltaire Network, WorldNetDaily, Zerohedge, Breitbart, and Lenta. In fact, aside from self-published peerage websites, the only deprecated publications that don't appear to be indexed by Google News were BestGore, NewsBreak, News of the World. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We Got This Covered revisited
It seems that We Got This Covered (WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED) no longer accepts non-staff contributions. https://wegotthiscovered.com/write/ now redirects to their main page, and their About Us page lists several editors and staff. That's not to say it's now a perfectly reliable source, but the "lack of editorial oversight" and "contributions accepting from non-staff contributors" appear to no longer apply. DannyC55 (Talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)