Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294

Archive 290

←

Archive 292

Archive 293

Archive 294

Archive 295

Archive 296

→

Archive 300

Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?

I'm not saying History.com is not reliable... but it's not reliable—ජපස (talk • contribs) 21:00, May 4, 2020‎ (UTC)

Is the website for History generally reliable? I'm not talking about ancient aliens stuff, but information posted on their website such as this? Back in 2009 it looks like it was deemed reliable per how reliable sources are determined, but that was 11 years ago.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Articles like this one are just fine to cite for historical articles, especially those that are not well studied or super controversial. However, university press books and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are preferred. Certain topics, such as Antisemitism in Poland, may have higher sourcing requirements. buidhe 02:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, that article exudes the whiff of bullshit. And in fact areas that are not well studies are precisely the areas where we should avoid History Channel, due to its long association with cranks. Guy (help!) 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highly unreliable — They produce popular pap, not serious history. Zero^talk 03:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Use with caution - a lot of those articles look like Buzzfeed-style and using the example you asked about I can't find any information on the background of the author "Evan Andrews" to tell if he's a credible historian. I'd be very careful of WP:CIRCULAR issues as well with articles like this. Use of programs as citations might work if the credits show contributions from reliable historians, but of course then there is the problem of availability for verification, and the danger of "artistic license" and dramatizations. I'm almost tempted to say that if History is the only source available for some inclusion, then perhaps its not really worth inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Even when the History Channel shows a genuine expert saying something, it doesn't mean it is reliable. What is not shown is often more important than what is shown. I have unfortunate personal experience of this (two shows that I appeared in which egregiously misrepresented experts). They are an entertainment outlet, not an academic institution. Track down what the expert wrote independently and use that. Zero^talk 03:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use with caution - I agree with Netoholic's concerns. I wouldn't object to using it as a source for a basic fact but if anouther source contradics or if the claim is controversial I would be cautious. Springee (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Use academic sources instead, treat press releases with caution, and avoid entertainment outlets entirely. If it's significant enough to include in an article, it will be found in much higher quality sources. If the only available source is the History Channel, then it's most likely not significant enough to include or undue. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Probably not, no. It depends on exactly what fact(s) you want to ref, but... Ghengis Khan has been very thoroughly studied for many centuries, there's tons of good academic material I'm sure. If you've got a fact to want to use, and this is your only source for that fact... that's a big red flag, plus also an indication that the fact may not be very important. For obscure subjects it'd possibly be different. I don't have a good vibe about how thoroughly the article was checked by an independent fact checker, altho that's just a guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable (yes because of the ancient alien stuff), When they were not the "UFO channel" they were "the Nazi channel" or "the conspiracy channel". Basically the TV equivalent of one of those "fact or fiction" magazines that peddle sensationalism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable I can't imagine any reason to use the History Channel as a reference; the few articles I paged through consisted of superficial factoids and are almost certainly based on higher-quality sources that we should find and cite instead. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable It's a legitimate news channel with professional writers. The issue here why anyone would chose to use as a source an article called "10 Things You May Not Know About Genghis Khan," no matter who wrote it, especially when it does not provide sources? If the top scientist at NASA wrote an illustrated book called "Wonders of our Universe for Children," it would not be a useful source, whoever the publisher was. TFD (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

But from what I have seen this is the level of most (well all I have seen) of their content. Its all "ancient Aliens" and "Hitlers 10 worst underpants".Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, in the current climate, I might even watch that. Guy (help!) 20:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. The publisher publishes information on aliens in ancient history as well as conspiracy theories about Hitler's demise (see: TV Review: ‘Hunting Hitler’). The History channel does air (and write) some reputable documentaries, however separating the wheat from the chaff is impossible on a publisher basis here.--Hippeus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Avoid. Anything accurate can be better cited to sources that are far MORE reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable: As the popular media descend into a frenzy of clickbait, it's rather sad that history.com has joined them — popular pablum may be nice for the public, but we need reliable, well-sourced, preferably academic sources, especially for history. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, with caution though (as with all sources). As mediabiasfactcheck reports They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. Disqualifying them entirely is extreme. As others have said in most cases a better source exists probably though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Media Bias/Fact Check is unreliable as it is self published and has questionable methodology per WP:MBFC Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: wasn't aware it was in the list thanks. I've checked real quick the discussions. Am I correct in saying it has been considered to have questionable methodology in relation to the "left/right" bias but not the "factual" score? Seems that way from a quick look at the linked discussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: While much of the discussion was about orientation, much of the other discussion was about that it apparently changes the result based on users, and the that it uses wikipedia as a source. I would avoid using it. The main issue is that is a self published source by a single person who appearently works as a healthcare professional, Wikipedia usually avoids self published sources for a reason and if they are to be used they should be subject matter experts, which he is clearly not. What makes him any different to some person with a blog on Medium? I don't see any good reason to cite it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's a bit of an exaggeration. The "publisher" is apparently one person but he does use a panel of evaluators to make an assessment according to a published methodology https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ We have relied on stuff like https://beallslist.net for years on wiki and some people still do.

In any case your point is valid and I agree it's not the be-all end-all of media reliability (nothing is) but in this case I agree with their assessment. You can read their assessment as mine except for the "to favor liberal causes" which I have no clue about. The political spectrum in the US is very different from the European one. Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto Yes, but quoting assessments because you agree with them is called (not to be rude) confirmation bias. We don't take self-published sources (like blogs) at face value as RS unless they are "Established experts" per WP:SELFPUB. Jeffrey Beall is a professional librarian, and therefore an established expert on the topic of academic journals. As far as I am aware, nobody involved with MBFC has any sort of established expertise in politics or media, and therefore it should hold the same due weight as a random medium post, i.e. none. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful, Wikipedia would not exist. It all depends on the methodology you employ and obviously all methodologies have their flaws. Interesting read citing MBFC: [1]. In any case, as I have said I was unaware of the finer points of MBFC when I cited them. However, confirmation bias notwithstanding, I stand by my assessment. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Think about it, if only experts could provide something useful

I'd say that, no, you haven't thought about, ESPECIALLY since you're positing this misinterpretation in the very place that disproves it: what, exactly, do you think the function of a "reliable source noticeboard" is? It's to figure out who really ARE the experts who can provide "something useful" and not some amateurs who are simply saying what you want to hear. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hemiauchenia and Gtoffoletto, Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is indeed a self-published source authored by someone who is not considered a subject-matter expert under the definition in WP:SPS. This means that MBFC should not be used in article space. For discussions in project and talk space, it's okay to link to MBFC if you agree with its analysis, but linking to MBFC does not make your argument any stronger than if you asserted it without referencing MBFC. When editors cite MBFC on this noticeboard, I point out the fact that MBFC is self-published – not because its evaluations are necessarily wrong, but because MBFC's evaluations carry no weight compared to statements in reliable sources. MBFC is still a good starting point for research: MBFC's entries frequently include links to reliable sources (such as reliable fact-checkers). However, in past discussions, editors consider MBFC's evaluations to be generally unreliable. I hope this clarifies the use of MBFC on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree 100%. In any case. This discussion is not about MBFC. We are way off topic. Thanks for illuminating me on MBFC as I was not aware of the problems with that source. I still agree with their assessment of this source. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm not sure why any article like "Top 10 facts about Genghis Khan" should be cited in any article, we should preferrably be using academic papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that article is not a reliable source and much better sources are surely available. I would hesitate to disqualify the entire publisher though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, honestly, I wouldn't be at all reluctant. Guy (help!) 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy, haven't you stated the opposite in your vote below? I completely agree with what you said below: "case-by-case" and certainly not the only source (I would apply this to everything though) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, what I am saying is that based on this report I would be at least very cautious, but I leave the door wide open with a Welcome mat to evidence supporting deprecation. I would never cite History Channel. Guy (help!) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy I see what you mean and agree. But I wouldn't disqualify them completely as they do also publish interviews with sources that would not be usable if we disqualify the whole publisher. I would advise caution with this source and always prefer alternatives but blanket bans are quite extreme and can have unanticipated repercussions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly not blanket reliable, given their history of publishing complete bollocks, so I think this would need to be case-by-case. That said, if History Channel is the only source for something? I would exclude it anyway. Guy (help!) 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable, having done some more reading. Here's an example: [2]. HC broadcast a conspiracy theorist documentary. It was knocked down trivially easily by a blogger, *but* we can't cite bloggers. So if we allow HC to be considered reliable, given their long record of producing, frankly, bollocks, we introduce a situation where a source that is known for producing bollocks might stand as fact until a reliable source decides the bollocks is notable enough to publish the debunking. I repeat also my earlier assertion:L anything that is only on HC should not be included. Which leaves a situation where the only legitimate use of HC is as an additional source for something that is already covered by a better one - and by linking the redundant source we risk drawing people down a rabbit hole because we don't know what else is in the programme and we can't trust them to stick to tiresome reality. Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trade off - There is an old Wikipedia trade-off that is useful for us and our readers (see generally wp:preserve). We want our articles to say something, and we want our articles verifiable (but note verifiable does not mean always cited). Basically, there is noting wrong with telling a reader here is something true (if it is true and relevant) and history channel says so too. But if it's something not true or there is a controversy about it history channel is going to lose out to better documentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, and who judges? Say, for example, History Channel produces a documentary that claims Amelia Earhart ended up in Japanese custody on the Marshall Islands, and the US Government knew but covered it up? Who says whether this is true or not? Should we "preserve" that content because it has truthiness? Guy (help!) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipdians judge. As for my judgement, I would not host a new theory or claim or speculation from the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Most of what it pushes these days is of little substance. If the fact you want to add to an article is of any importance it can be found elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable, but basically useless as anything they publish factually should be sourced to better sources anyways. For anything which is reliable (i.e. not the Aliens crap, etc.) it serves as a very shallow tertiary source with so little depth as to be basically useless. Not the "burn with fire" sort of stuff we would seek out to remove immediately, but it should be replaced when convenient and avoided when better, more scholarly sources exist, which they usually do. --Jayron32 19:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable I don't watch much TV and certainly I am no expert here, but in the few shows that I've watched they TV-ized the facts to make them more interesting and sensational. I vaguely remember one show where they presented information as though it was mind-blowing new information when as a matter of fact it was widely accepted stuff. IMO it is worth watching but not worthy of using as a reliable source. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Something in the back of my mind is going "oi mate look over here", I seem to recall just such a usage of some history channel tosh in just this way. Some old and not at all new theory being presented as if it was some new and shocking revelation. AS I said above sensationalist rubbish that gores the intellect for click bait cheap shocks.Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - not everything on the site is crap, but too much is. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say I really enjoy Forged in Fire (TV series) myself as light entertainment combined with technical wonkery. But yeah, I wouldn't say history.com is reliable for history.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. It is, at very best, far too shallow to be actually useful. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• History Channel? Even though the OP is "not talking about ancient aliens stuff", nevertheless that is the outlet with the credulous UFO programs. Absolutely not reliable. If there's what looks like a reasonable documentary with academic sources, why wouldn't we instead look for those sources? Though apparently one of History.com's sources is Wikipedia,[3] — you know about Wikipedia? It's a user-generated site that anybody can edit! Bishonen | tålk 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Note: The diff you linked isn't about history.com. We were talking about something else -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable and we shouldn't be basing our encyclopedia upon listicles anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - offers far too much obvious rubbish. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Multiple editors have already mentioned Ancient Aliens and UFO Files/UFO Hunters, but I think History's most egregious violation of journalistic expectations is their handling of their discredited 2017 documentary, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. The documentary presented a photograph that was claimed to be of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan being captured alive by Japanese forces after they disappeared in 1937; however, two days after the documentary aired, the photo was confirmed to have been published in 1935. History stopped airing the documentary and withdrew it from streaming services, but never retracted the claims that were made in the documentary despite promising an investigation, with this page on the conspiracy theory still online. This incident illustrates History's lack of fact-checking, and their unwillingness to retract discredited claims. With the unretracted Earhart documentary, pseudoscientific programs like Ancient Aliens, and other conspiracy theory shows such as Hunting Hitler (discussed by Hippeus above), History as a publisher makes enough false and unsubstantiated claims to be considered a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 12:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable/Attribution only - we should avoid History as a source , with the only possible exception being an in-text attribution if, say, a notable historian were interviewed in a History program/article. The issue with citing History as a source is that they often try to cover WP:FRINGE perspectives, a viewpoint which fundamentally conflicts with Wikipedia's encyclopedic prerogative to reflect what is covered in WP:RS. History is presumably right some of the time - something-something blind squirrels and stopped clocks - but we can also presume that any important historical detail they write into their programming will be covered in more traditional, reliable sources better suited to be cited by Wikipedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on a personal note I think their programming is swill. When I was younger I used to love watching their military history programming, but when I grew older, began reading actual literature, and started working in some of the industries covered I realized what garbage the programming I watched was. AND keep in mind this was stuff that was on before History became infamous for covering sensationalist, fringe topics... I can only imagine what the channel airs now. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Should be black listed...... an embarrassment to the academic community. People who thinks it's reliable should not be editing history articles at all.--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this discussion is being used to remove article content covering interviews and documents published by History and regarding the article subject [4]. I don't think this was the point of this discussion (which is also not over yet). I don't think the consensus is to ban or black list the source (although some have proposed it). If anything I think this is an example of why we should not COMPLETELY ban this source. It may report interviews with witnesses/sources/historians (like SamHolt6 pointed out) and we should be able to use History's coverage if useful. I think most agree there may be sensationalist language and wild/fringe speculation but the reporting is usually attempting to be factual. Mistakes happen but as the Earhart documentary mentioned above proves when information published is disproven or not verified it is usually removed from programming. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying History.com is not about UFO's... but it's being used about UFO's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you see an expert saying something on HC, it doesn't mean that the expert's opinion has been fairly represented. It is dirt easy to convert a critic into a supporter, or vice versa, by selecting what to show. I know from personal experience with "documentaries" shown several times on HC that this is something they are willing to do. From this I know that they are not reliable even for attributed opinion. Zero^talk 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable, would support blacklist. This morning I reverted an entry to the infobox of Cyrus the Great stating that he was a Zoroastrian using history.com as a source. It's not surprising that a lot of new and some more experienced editors will use this website. I'll note that this was by history.com editors and not a named source, but I'm not sure that that doesn't make it even worse. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, any fact from them should be easily checkable and attributable to a better source... If not it probably shouldn’t be there in the first place. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: a clear pusher of conspiracy theories, with no convincing evidence in the discussion so far that there are situations where it useful to cite History.com. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: this was different about a decade or two ago, but they’ve produced a lot of content that is against scientific/historical consensus (at least this hypothesis about Srinivasa Ramanujan communicating with aliens is relegated to Ancient Aliens). Examples where they do present consensus material can be cited elsewhere. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely unreliable: Per Newslinger and others. Someone should add this to the notes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources when it is archived. Trying to water down that there "maybe" something good somewhere, is espousing we should allow unreliably sourced content to exist until one day, possibly 10 years down the road, someone actually looks at it and sees factual errors because the site is more entertaining than factual. Facts may sometimes be seen as boring and may not be a better selling point (for ratings) than "juicing it up". If something is considered "basically useless" we can call it "Generally unreliable" but the bottom line is that it is still "unreliable". Policy states: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Thousands of articles sourced only with IMDb is evidence that, if we are not at least somewhat vigilant, sites that are "generally considered unreliable" will just keep being used. Please note: Deprecation is not a ban. I wish one of our Wikipedia wizards would start a RFC to add a yellow warning sign (caution) to the far longer list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources like the "stop sign" at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. My bad! That might be too logical as an editorial help for new and more established editors but some may likely consider it censorship. I do like to think we are still attempting to build a reliable encyclopedia though. Otr500 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I love the History Channel. Their documentaries are well-produced and at times fascinating. However, they have promoted conspiracy theories in the past and haven't retracted them, which IMO is an instant disqualification. Additionally, virtually anything on History that's accurate can be backed up by another, higher-quality source. We won't lose anything if we declare History unreliable. JOEBRO64 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable and Deprecate based on description by Newslinger and Zero0000. I strongly disagree with Gtoffoletto; this conversation is precisely about whether it is acceptable to cite History.com content. Any source in which "the reporting is usually attempting to be factual" but lets unreliable fringe authors make these factual claims is useless as a source. The problem isn't that there isn't any factual content from History.com. The problem is there is no differentiation between factual content and absurd content. Daask (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we consider author ethnicity ?

While discussing a ways to determine WP:COMMONNAME selfstudier suggested that we should discount[5],[6] Jewish authors because they may use Hebrew name(which is btw is name of our article(Naharayim) about the place which apparently WP:COMMONNAME).I think such comment goes against our policy but I like to hear community input on this.Thank you --Shrike (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should, but in the IP area, people routinely throw out any Jewish/Israeli sources, such as any Israeli NGO's while simultaneously keeping pro-Palestinian NGO's (such as ARIJ or B'Tselem) so I do think it's an issue that needs to be discussed since there is a double standard. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute not something that should be here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, please be aware that B'Tselem is a Jewish/Israeli NGO. Yes, it criticizes human rights abuses of Palestinians, as all people of good will ought to do, but its founders and leaders are overwhelmingly Israeli Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, if that were the only point of the organization, but it's not. It's an agenda driven organization that is also against all settlements that has nothing to do with abuses but a political issue. It has been caught many times making up stories. Just this past month it made up a story about Israel and coronavirus, when even the UN praised Israel and the PA for its cooperation. The point is that when another NGO is used in articles, people are told that it's a "pro-Israel viewpoint" and a different source is needed. There is a double standard with regards to sourcing. Ma'an News is allowed, when they make up stories and has zero independence, but the claim is that we have to let it, or so we were told in a past RS thread. Meanwhile, a week or so ago, they tried to get rid of a RS solely because it was Jewish albeit religious. I'd ask you to visit the IP articles so you can see how much of a bias exists in Wikipedia. But it's not for this thread. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

However I will answer, no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No... We should not discount authors on account of religious-ethnic background. We use whatever names will be most recognizable to our English speaking readers (which will be whatever is most commonly used in English language sources). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An author's ethnicity does not affect their reliability. The linked discussion doesn't appear to mention reliability, so I don't think this matter is within the scope of this noticeboard. The neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better fit. — Newslinger talk 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(comment moved to section below) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that this just falls in the general case-by-case situation. At a major reliable source like the New York Times, in the area of factual/non-editorial coverage, it is extremely unlikely that the ethnicity of the writer is going to have any influence on the product. At a less reliable (but one we'd still consider) source, on their op-ed pages, that ethnicity may come into play - someone of Jewish heritage may not give the most fair descriptions relating to the situation in the Israeli/Pakistan war. A Chinese national writing for an English paper make have their own specific take on the Hong Kong situation, etc. But as I noted, this likely only becomes a problem with works that are closer to op-eds and less likely to have editor scrutiny for fact-checking, and for less reliable sources. eg: even for an op-ed written by a Jewish author from the NYtimes I would expect that any claims made in a factual tone to be valid (checked by the Times' editorial staff) or otherwise held in check so that the op-eds aren't going off on a bed of lies that you might find in something like Brietbart. --Masem (t) 13:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding naming, there are lots of examples of different groups/organizations/nations calling things by different names. There are huge fights over "Taiwan". Some people says that there is no such place as Israel. Others says that there is no such place as Palestine. And don't get me started on Danzig vs. Gdansk!

My advice: don't attempt to create a general rule about naming. It won't be followed anyway. Just deal with the disputes on a case-by-case basis. If discussion does not result in agreement, post a neutrally-worded RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Even in the case-by-case example, we shouldn't be looking at ethnicity, we should be looking at their claim to expertise on the subject at hand. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I do think it's appropriate to consider what other languages an author speaks when determining what the WP:COMMONNAME is in English. I can imagine a situation where Chinese writers use a Chinese loanword even when writing in English, but Indian and Australian writers use a different one. In this case, I would prefer the Indian and Australian term, because it is unambiguously English, whereas the Chinese term is not. The process of a foreign term becoming accepted as a part of another language is a process, and its status at any time is on a spectrum or gradient, not an absolute. This can be seen in the fading use of italics as a term becomes accepted. There is no easy way to determine when a writer is using a term where they regard the term on the spectrum. I'm offering guidance in general terms as I think is appropriate for this forum; I would rather not explore the details of your particular discussion and debate.

we aren't talking about language. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Atlanta Black Star

Is Atlanta Black Star a reliable source? For my next project, I am thinking about writing an article for the current "Hate Me Now" (Joseline Hernandez song) redirect. I have stumbled across a few Atlanta Black Star articles about the song (1, 2, 3), but I would greatly appreciate further insight on the source. Here is the about us page for the site. Although that part of the site does not explicitly talk about editorial oversight, they do have a job posting for an assistant news editor here which may suggest something. I am honestly uncertain about this site so thank you in advance for any help! Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable but should be attributed in most cases, their coverage can at times border on advocacy. For something not directly related to American politics like an article about a song you probably don’t even need to attribute. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

The aforementioned organisation reviews kids’ stuff (movies, TV shows, books etc.) based on how suitable they are for children. From what I understand, they have separate ratings for feedback from kids and parents. The organisation itself also rates media on different stuff like violence, language, positive messages, quality etc. So, is the rating and description by the organisation (I’m not referring to the public feedback) appropriate for the Reception section of kids’ TV show articles? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Courtesy links to pages where CSM is a source: Talking Tom and Friends (TV series)#Reception and Accolades and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (TV series)#Critical response RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They'd be reliable... but on that side, nearly all of our projects involving contemporary media rarely get into the issues of ratings and content issues related to films and televisions (eg we don't include things like MPAA ratings unless they are a matter of controversy). So unless there's a common thread of discussing how appropriate a show is for children already from sources, I don't know if we'd need to include Common Sense Media here for that reason. --Masem (t) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the suitability for children section they also give a review of the film on its own merits which is in the same style and content as any other professional film critic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. It's a review site run by a nonprofit with content by in-house paid editors. I can't find anything about their policies or processes, but I see no reason to question their reliability. Daask (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable this was discussed here last August when the majority view was that it is a reliable source for reviews such as film reviews. Its reviews are used by Rotten Tomatoes as a top critic and there is no identification of any unreliable content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for entertainment reviews only. Outside of these reviews, Common Sense Media is an advocacy organization, and I would consider it a situational source. As a biased or opinionated source, Common Sense Media's statements on all subjects should generally be attributed. — Newslinger talk 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyone who responded to this discussion. I was aware that this organisation was rather well-known, but my concern was whether special interest groups’ reviews are acceptable (I have attributed their statements, so there should be no issues), which is why I asked this. Considering that Rotten Tomatoes uses CSM’s reviews, I am convinced that CSM is an acceptable source. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Eclipse of the Assassins

A editor on the Kiki Camarena article insists on using the book Eclipse of the Assassins as a source. I think the book is conspiracy theory garbage but can anybody here confirm if the book can be used as a reliable source. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be attributed but anything that comes out of the University of Wisconsin Press or similar is presumed to be reliable. With all due respect if it were conspiracy theory garbage it wouldn’t have survived peer review. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree -- the opinion of an editor ("conspiracy theory garbage") doesn't weigh much at all against a book published by a university press. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see this post when I made a duplicate. I've included my own post here so discussions can be combined. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources used at Kiki Camarena

When the DEA investigated the killing of its agent Kiki Camarena in Mexico City in 1985, agent Hector Berrellez led their work. The DEA ruled that Mexican drug lords were responsible for the death, but the US Justice Department has recently reopened an investigation into the possibility of CIA involvement in the killing.[7] Berrellez "has long alleged a CIA connection to Camarena’s death."[8]

Russell and Sylvia Bartley, described as a professor and a historian respectively by U Wisconsin Press [9], wrote a book that discusses Camarena's killing. They conclude,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that [journalist] Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

An academic review that summarizes other academic and journalistic writings on the topic, titled "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War", written by professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht, comes to the same conclusion:

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

Another academic review also treats the book favorably. Now the US Justice Department is investigating and there are many mainstream newspaper articles on the topic.

However, every addition I make is reverted by Jaydoggmarco, who cites no sources but states that "the [Bartley] book is unknown... the people interviewed and cited in the book are known kooks and liars... I don't have the book..." Jaydogg also maintains that three DEA/CIA witnesses, of the dozens interviewed in these academic and media works, are "friends" and unreliable: "The two DEA agents are friends with [former CIA contractor] Tosh Plumlee, Eclipse doesn't even have any reviews on amazon."

I earlier posted at WP:BLPN, where the only comment [10] (by Nomoskedasticity) suggested I add the material in.

Are these unreliable sources? -Darouet (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Jaydoggmarco: This is a side note but that “known kooks and liars” bit is a WP:BLP violation, don’t do it again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Americans United for Separation of Church and State - uses of court/IRS documents & a statement that the AP has politically labelled it

Here[11] USer:Ihaveadreamagain has stated that Fox News and the Associated Press have labelled the organisation as conservative and liberal politically. These articles don't seem to be statements from the media organisations themselves.

Also added was a paragraph sources entirely to an IRS document and a court of appeals decision. I've always understood that we need secondary sources for this sort of thing. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue: https://www.foxnews.com/story/pols-sharpen-rhetoric-over-schiavo-case.amp is an AP article, that states: "DeLay's remarks were made public by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a liberal group." This is a statement from AP, not from anyone else. It is placed by the writer as a description of the group and is in between a quote from DeLay and a statement by Dan Allen, but it is not from either of them. It is definitely from the AP.

This link https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-judicial-nominee-may-survive-senate-panel-vote contains the same description, linking AU to other abortion rights groups and liberal activists. It is a description by Fox News, not by anyone else and cannot be read otherwise. "But a coalition of abortion rights groups and liberal activists, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, are aligned against the McConnell because of his writings on church-state issues and Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed women to choose to abort their pregnancies."

Regarding the second issue about sources: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

Thank you for bringing this to talk instead of just reverting like many do! --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Content published by Bandcamp as WP:RS

What is the current view on citing genre based material published by Bandcamp, personally I think WP:COISOURCE applies, it's not a WP:IS because of its commercial nature; what Bandcamp publishes is essentially promotional content (PR) for the music it hosts. Views on this? Acousmana (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an online record shop, and all genre labels are applied by the bands when they're uploading stuff - so fail as UGC as well.

Their editorial articles (Daily Bandcamp) are also marketing content, even as I'm also confident they're music fans.

I concur with you - I wouldn't use it as a source for any such claim, no - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends entirely what is being sourced. If it's something uncontroversial, such as the "reissue" of an album, that would be acceptable. If it's attempting to support notability, no. There is a lot of latitude between those two poles. And it's not a COI source, it's a WP:PRIMARY one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

in terms of COISOURCE v PRIMARY, Bandcamp is clearly "not independent" of musical topics the "organization has an interest in promoting." You will see a list of music they suggest you should listen to (purchase) at the bottom of these editorial articles they publish, they profit from the sale of said music. I personally would not be in a hurry to cite such content. Acousmana (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Video Vs review

An interesting question has cropped up at Planet of the Humans‎, WP:CITEVIDEO (not a policy to be sure) says videos can be sued as a source for "plot". But what happens when RS reviews or commentary say X yet the (as in [[12]]) contradicts these. My take is that an editors opinion of what a film contains does not trump RS. But thought I would seek second opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

worldofwonder.net - reliable for anything?

I see that we are using it,[13] but I'm not convinced we should. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Powered by Wordpress. No 'About us' page. No information about their authors. That's a no for any assertion at all, as far as I can see - and given that they seem to be all about celebrity gossip, I'm guessing this is being used on BLPs, which would be disappointing. Where are we using it? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

They produce a tremendous amount of live events and television so are certainly reliable sourcing for their own events as a primary source until a RS secondary one can replace. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: sorry, meant to include a search link.[14] World of Wonder (company) is the company, but I'm not at all sure about using it for BLPs and of course we need to be careful it isn't use to promote their own productions. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DougWeller Weird - for what appears to be a professional entertainment company, that's an exceedingly dodgy-looking website - never having heard of the company, I just assumed it was some sort of auto-generated celeb-gossip sham site. I agree that it's likely to be promotional, and I'd definitely be concerned about using anything there on a BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the website of the drag-focused entertainment company World of Wonder (company). I agree that their celebrity gossip content ("The WOW Report") should be avoided; I'd consider them marginally acceptable as a primary source for interviews and as a non-independent, promotional source for information about the company's own projects. Cheers, gnu57 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. World of Wonder is the production company that makes television shows like RuPaul's Drag Race, and it's a reliable primary source on its own work. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

100 most powerful drag queens...

This has been inserted into many—nearly 100 I’m guessing—articles lead sections: “New York named ____ one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019”. The problem is that the source article only ranks RuPaul Drag Race contestants ignoring all other drag queens worldwide and throughout history, including leaving out RuPaul herself. As this is a notable bit to add, it’s likely it will stay but what is the NPOV way to include? The source article states, “we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars”.

Some options:

• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens in June 2019.
• New York magazine named Oddly one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens in June 2019.

References

Something else? Any help appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Thanks for linking this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#Top 100 most powerful drag queens. I would like to comment that I don't think this is an entirely accurate summary of the discussion we've had so far (it's only a summary of your view). I would like to add a few points.

Here are a few issues with the summary as stated:

• The sentence quoted above is not quoted as actually stated in our articles. The actual sentence reads: "New York magazine named ____ one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America in June 2019." Here is the critical difference: in our articles, the phrase "Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" is capitalized, because it is a title granted by New York magazine (the name of the list in the source article is "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America"). It is not written in lower case in our articles (as has been erroneously presented above). Being in lower case would change things and would be wrong, as that would imply the phrasing is Wiki editors' own description—but it's not. It's a proper noun phrase reproduced from the source.
• Furthermore, the sentence as it presently appears in articles is factually true: New York magazine called the person one of the 100 Most Powerful Drag Queens in America. Changing the sentence leads to a statement that is not true or supported by any RS: New York magazine did not call the person "one of the top 100 most powerful RuPaul Drag Race drag queens" (not even grammatically correct) or "one of the top 100 most powerful drag queens."

New York magazine called each of these queens what they called them, and the sentence on Wikipedia objectively presents that fact. Changing the wording is WP:OR and violates WP:V. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's allow for outside views now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is exactly what the discussion on this page higher up, under #Headlines, cautions against: The article headline says "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America" but the body (the actual reliable material we use) says "Here,... we rank America’s top-100 Drag Race superstars." The list is clearly the RPDR contestants, no more no less, and any attempt to frame it as the first bullet point fails RS policy as headlines are not reliable sources or content as part of a reliable source. Article headlines are rarely written by the author of the article, they are there to grab your eye and thus cannot be taken as reliable or used as statements of fact. --Masem (t) 05:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To add, do not try to bring in any part of the headline into the claim. Do not call them "Most Powerful Drag Queens". Leave the headline completely out of it, unless the body repeats. The best you can stated is "The top RPDR superstars" which reasonably can be taken as "The top drag queens that participated on RPDR." But you can't use the word "powerful" here. --Masem (t) 05:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and after reading #Headlines above, it seems it would be helpful for policy/the MOS to address this explicitly. That said, I still see a meaningful difference between "[Source] called X [quote from headline]" vs. simply "X is [quote from headline]" (sourced by [source]). Our sentence doesn't even claim that [quote] is true/objective/anything; it just notes that [source] said [quote] about X. That's true regardless of what [quote] even is, no? Armadillopteryx^talk 06:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you can say, legitimately from the linked article, "New York magazine named ___ as one of the top 100 drag queens on RPDR." as everything in the body of the article should be taken to be part of the reliable source and author's opionion. But the headline that uses the word "powerful"? We do not presume that was written by the author (it might have been , but there's no proof) and while the intent is there from being a top contestant to being a powerful drag queen (I'm a reality junkie so I know what's implied here) it would be original research and misuse of the source by our policy to include the headline in that form. Just basically, any time you see an article, blank the headline from your mind , its only purpose is to fill out the citation template. --Masem (t) 06:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It may boil down to semantics, but whether it was the author, an editor or someone else, someone from New York magazine said X, and "[name of the publication] said X" is all that Wiki articles state w/r/t this very specific issue—no more, no less. Unlike some of what is discussed in #Headlines, we haven't presented the capitalized list name as a fact that is sourced to NY mag; we only state that "NY mag said this" (which is objective).

That aside, perhaps the more important question I have is: could you link the sections of policy that you mention? I am not sure which ones you are referencing, but I would like to read them in case I have not seen them. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Awards and accolades for a work in progress guide on this. The simple answer is that these "100 best" lists are not encyclopaedic. Certainly not to go in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. Guy (help!) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, people are framing a dispute as a reliability issue when it is really a DUE WEIGHT issue. Why do we care what New York magazine says? Is it considered an expert publication on drag queens? Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, there may be reason to keep something like this. If the person notability has been tied to their appearance on RuPaul's show in relation to how well they performed on the show, and they are high on the ranking on this list, this would be a reasonable source to include about that. However, I would not use this list as to demonstrate notability, as the only statement to support their performance on the show, or as a lede statement. To also note, this is NYMag's "Vulture" property which is about pop and counterculture, and so maybe not THE authority on drag queens, but a fair authority on the the discussion of drag queens from a reality TV show. Mass spamming it across articles is inappropriate, but cautious and selective use is appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it seems the editors leaned on reporters and a judging panel so it’s reasonable to think this is more than just a run of the mill list. At the RPDR Wikipedia project a rough consensus is emerging to only use it on the Top Twenty queens, which is how the article also breaks it down.
    • Also worth noting is that all of the top twenty queens articles undoubtedly meets GNG already. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Per Guy and Blueboar, I think that removing the sentence altogether is the best solution. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A' Design Award

I came across an award in an article currently at AfD. Called the A' Design Award, it is administered at this site, where you can see the entry regulations. Two questions: a) is this RS? I am thinking no, and b) can reference to this award safely be deleted from existing articles? The award is used in too many WP articles to list here.

They do appear to have a jury. But they are also promising certain awards based on a preliminary rating, which you get from submitting your work for free. You get a preliminary score, then they tell you how much to pay. I clicked through the award site and discovered that with a preliminary rating of "8", for 825 Euro I would likely be guaranteed an award.

Here are some fee schedules for different scored, with expected awards: 825 Euro for "expected Silver or Bronze award status: If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Change the URL a bit and I am in the digital category, which for 413 Euro means that "If nominated, your design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award." Fiddling with the URL gives all kind of fees up to 2500 Euro. The award is cited by many articles on Wikipedia as a notability-generating item. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Notion Press publications

Is the following book considered a reliable source: Harjani, Dayal N. (2018). Sindhi Roots & Rituals. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64249-289-7

It comes from a self-publishing service, Notion Press, but I can't tell if its an exception to the "self-published sources arent RS" rule.

It was recently inserted onto the following pages: Soomro, Soomro dynasty in the following context:

"The name of the dynasty derives from Soomro and Vegho, two Parmar Rajput Hindu brothers who were appointed to rule the region; while Vegho remained Hindu, Soomro converted to Islam.[5]" (where [5] is the source in question)

The source in question also pops up at Thul Hairo Khan (Buddhist Stupa), Lohana, and Sirnikot.

Thanks!

Definitely not. Self-published by "a businessman that goes by the pseudonym – Daduzen. He is a poet, philosopher, philanthropist and writer of several spiritual articles and author of self-help books."[15]. Remove it and maybe the text. If you leave the text, cn tag it. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

WatchMojo

WatchMojo is a pop culture publisher that is most famous for its youtube channel, with over 22 million subscribers which is well known for its 5 daily uploaded top 10 videos on a variety of topics. including such highlights as: "Top 10 Booty Songs", Top 10 Cartoon MILFs" "Top 10 Video Game Ninjas", "Top 10 Animated Kids Shows With Surprisingly Sexy Women" "Top 10 anime deaths" (which has become an internet meme) and tasteful true crime ones like "Top 10 Most Evil Kids in History" (which was actually cited in Freeman family murders until I removed it). It has apparently been cited on Wikipedia 223 times   (Note: that count has gone down significantly as I have systematically removed a lot of them). In my own opinion WatchMojo is a terrible source, it is a low effort, lowest common denominator content farm designed to appease algorithms with a massive volume of content, with no evidence of fact-checking or editorial oversight. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's an interesting account by a former freelance writer for WatchMojo, stating that while the rankings done by the writers were researched, (i.e. rankings were drawn from at least 3 other existing rankings on the topic), these were often arbitrarily changed by the editors based on their whims without any justification for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable. I think it would be appropriate to nuke most of those 223 citations. You would have to take a bit of time, though, and determine on a case-by-case basis whether to remove the claim, keep it wit a Citation Needed added, or find a reliable source for the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, I have left only the interviews or ones that qualify as ABOUTSELF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Reliable for same reasons as WhatCulture above. Tends to be the source of listicles of useless "top 10" works. --Masem (t) 13:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem:, I assume you also think the same about Ranker? As all three websites have the same format. I think it might be worth opening a RfC on all three sites to try and get them depreciated, as they all fall far below the standards of reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, their primary content is just these types of lists without real discussion of "why". They're definitely meant as clickbait. --Masem (t) 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Question Please be more specific. Reliability depends on context. Per the directions above, what are the a) source, b) article and c) content that you are concerned about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

a. watchmojo.com and citations to watchmojo's youtube channel (which is already considered unreliable anyway) b. every article it is used in c. The entire website https://watchmojo.com/ just take a look at it and see for yourself, it almost entirely consists of low quality listicles, which are not appropriate to cite on an encyclopedia. Many citations are not to articles, but to self-published videos or even direct youtube links Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Having gone and removed some of them, most use cases seem to be in the reception section of media stating something like "Watchmojo.com ranks X as number Y on the top 10 Z of all time", but as Watchmojo is primarily a listicle publisher, with no real expertise or authority in any media it covers, I don't see how its lists can be considered authoritative in comparison to something like Sight & Sound for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have found one ref on the Breaking Benjamin article which I think is usuable because it is a direct interview with the band, rather than being a listicle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: has undone some of my edits removing WatchMojo from articles, would you like to explain here why you think Watchmojo is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I see you have also undone one of my removals, can you explain why you think WatchMojo is a reliable and authoritative source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable - WatchMojo is nothing but a content farm. They have no editorial oversight, no staff with actual experience in journalism, and certainly no history of fact-checking. With a catalog of videos including classics like "Top 10 Running Out Of Oxygen Scenes In Movies" or "Top 10 TV Grandmothers", I see no reason why this should be used as a source for Wikipedia. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - that seems reasonable and fairly clear-cut, but I'll just comment that's it's poor form of Hemiauchenia to have reverted my edit prior to seeking clarification or justification of his own. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: sorry about that, the issue is I am systematically removing all references, aside from a few old interviews and ones that otherwise sufficient (ABOUTSELF etc), and I appreciate that I could have been more considerate in retrospect, apologies Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mainly unreliable though the interviews should be acceptable as primary sources regarding the interviewee baring evidence that they have produced fake interviews.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed,. I didn't remove any of the interviews Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable It's a content farm which, for the top 10, their criteria it's a little bit odd (even for serious rankings) I think we should delete Watchmojo rankings in the reception section. Of course, if there is any interview, it should be included (the interviewed it's reliable). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable and borderline spam. Guy (help!) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry to beat this drum again, but the question is not one of reliability, it is one of WP:UNDUE. When a WatchMojo listicle is cited, why is it being cited? It is being cited to quote or paraphrase what the review states. A subjective review like a ranking listicle is not, of itself, subject to concepts like "reliability", which is about the veracity of the thing which is written. If Watch Mojo has ranked Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls as "the #1 comedy movie of all time", let's say, and we cite a sentence which says "If Watch Mojo has ranked "Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls" as the #1 comedy movie of all time", then that citation is scrupulously reliable because Watch Mojo really did say that, and the citation really does confirm that fact. The question is not "is the citation believable and does it correctly verify the fact being cited", because in this case it does. Reliability is not the question. The question is more "Is Watch Mojo's opinion one that has widespread acceptance for it's expertise and experience in the field of movie criticism". That is, would I put the opinion as on par with that of, say, the American Film Institute, or Leonard Maltin. If not, then we don't include them not because their opinion is unreliable; ranking things based on subjective feelings like this is not reliable or unreliable. Their opinion is merely WP:UNDUE because it isn't a widely respected expert on the subject matter. We need to stop trying to say that reliability is the issue here; we're essentially asking about the reliability of direct quotes being cited to the original source itself. It usually always is. The question is why are we including the quote in the first place. The opinion of non-experts is not relevant, that's why we omit it. --Jayron32 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: This is the noticeboard to discuss the nature of sources, where do you suggest discussion around the use of these sorts of sources should take place instead? Watchmojo wasn't just being used for rankings, it was also being used to justify facts, See: [16] [17] [18] which makes it applicable to this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In those uses, it is clearly unreliable. That's why we need to establish why we are using the source. For statements of fact, it is unreliable. For statements of opinion, it is non-expert. --Jayron32 13:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable, with the exception that being a top-something listing in WatchMojo might be of some very minor note to those listed.--Hippeus (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Local papers

Generally speaking, are local newspapers reliable? A comment by Dflaw4 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayne Tunnicliffe made me wonder. Effectively, are the following three sources reliable:

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Evening News

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

The first and third are Newsquest publications, the Manchester Evening News seems to be independent.--Launchballer 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Why would they not be? Guy (help!) 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local papers are fine and see no reason why they shouldn't be. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• It depends on the specific paper... some local papers are very reliable, others are garbage. The hard part is determining which is which. To be deemed reliable, we require that a source have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. But many local papers don’t have any reputation at all (neither good nor bad). Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(added) I note that this question is being raised due to an AFD nomination. There is a consensus that coverage in local papers (even reliable ones) does not properly establish notability. There is a bit of a grey zone when it comes to DEFINING “local” (for example, there is some debate as to whether the NY Post should be deemed a local or a regional paper), but agreement that the more “local” you get, the less it establishes notability. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the “what is local” argument can get a bit frayed in the areas around major cities, I’ve has the NYT rejected as appropriate for establishing the notability of a CT politician because it was considered by two others to be “local coverage.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many local papers are more reliable than national papers, winning Pullitzer Prizes, less sensationalism and less political bias, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG and others regarding local papers - one example, the Times-Picayune, New Orleans winning a Pulitzer for its comprehensive coverage of the "Dead Zone" and the threat to the world's supply of fish, and another Pulitzer for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. If the source is being cited for material about local events and WP:V needs to be satisfied, then yes. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Local paper can become less reliable the smaller the number of people they serve, which is generally going to reflect in the number of people in the editorial chain. I would not call a 2-man paper doing the reporting for a 500-person town to be necessarily reliable out the game, though if they have shown that historically then that's okay. There is a key facet that as the paper gets more "local" it loses its independence which is importance for considering notability and UNDUE facets related to a topic, and this starts much sooner than issues with reliability - eg a paper covering the news for a 50,000 person town is going to have some independence problems but likely will be reliable. --Masem (t) 00:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Guy (help!) 16:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, and as many know by now, my position on the news sources of today has always been to exercise caution, particularly internet news and breaking news. We also need to keep the scope of the local paper in mind, and not conflate a community paper with a local newspaper, the latter of which is still by far considered generally reliable. Unless I see actual evidence of unreliability in any source, I am hard-pressed to deprecate and downgrade sources based only on the opinions/analysis of users which I see as WP:OR, some of which may be based on a small few incidents, or unknowing political bias. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many RfCs?

(Separated out from section above) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Limit RfCs when rating entire sources

subheading added 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) by ^Atsme _Talk 📧

Newslinger, there needs to be a change in how we approach the reliability of entire sources because some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions, and that includes this discussion and this one that rightfully attracted the attention of Drmies. You are already aware of my concerns dating back to November 2019 when JzG first began the discussions that led to the creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Guidelines need to be established here because if we continue on this same path, the results may very well contribute to creating a homogenized encyclopedia that threatens the very foundation our great project was built on. My first thoughts are that we stop using prior RSN discussions in the general sense and use only the diffs from those discussions that support the position of unreliable, reliable, propaganda, fake news, etc. My concerns are that sources are being determined unreliable for publishing opinion journalism or conspiracy theories - the latter of which we should not dismiss entirely because all conspiracies begin with a theory. I also believe that we should limit whole source discussions to not more than 3 sources/week to allow more editors to participate, but continue allowing editors to seek consensus regarding the question of Is source A a good source for [describe material in question], or is source A good for [this material] but not [this material], and basically the questions that this noticeboard was designed to answer. RSN is a limited venue, and I'm thinking that we need to notify the projects that are involved in articles where the material was included/excluded so they too can participate in reviewing the diffs that support the claims. Does that make sense? I am of the mind that it is inappropriate for the same group of editors to be involved in making what sometimes appears to be POV decisions based on generalizations that may inadvertently negatively affect the encyclopedia with such far-reaching scope. Masem, Rosguill, Vanamonde93 - I would very much appreciate your thoughts on what I'm proposing. Perhaps my proposal should go to VP, and if not, we should at least notify the relevant projects involved in the respective articles where the sources have been cited to assure diversity. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC) ^{add underlined text 21:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)}

I'm not sure how this relates to ethnicity. We've just completed a 2.5-month RfC at WP:RSNRFC that closed with consensus to increase the number of RfCs on this noticeboard while decreasing their duration. Limiting discussions and requiring the tracking of diffs would increase the maintenance burden of the perennial sources list by an order of magnitude and introduce a large amount of bureaucracy, and I am not seeing the benefits that would result from the extra requirements. I don't think the publication of conspiracy theories would get much sympathy anywhere on Wikipedia. The Notifier script can speed up the process of notifying related WikiProjects about discussions and RfCs on this page, but the notifications are usually only helpful for regional or specialized sources. — Newslinger talk 13:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I move this to a new section, please? I did not intend for this one topic to consume my proposal. It is much bigger than that, and needs serious review. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsmse: I'd support an effort to publicize these RfCs more, but with respect to the rest, I disagree, actually. We have, over the years, used an enormous number of crap sources on Wikipedia. I find myself purging them on a regular basis. Many of them are obvious enough that we don't need discussions here, but many are not. We need these RfCs, and we need them to happen at a rate that is commensurate with the number of bad sources, and we need their outcomes to be clear cut, because a "can be used for X content but not Y content" generally does not solve the issue of unnecessarily tying up editor time and effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I think that the discussion about RfCs and discussions about sources is a separate topic from the original question and would suggest that we move this discussion to another section, or at least a subsection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New section created. You are reading it now. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We just did this. The consensus is reflected in the instructions above. Sources proposed for deprecation or classification as "generally unreliable" require a project RfC, held here. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx, Guy - I understand but I would very much appreciate wider community input because it does affect NPP, AfC, GA/FA and getting articles right, so I'm of the mind that before we continue rating entire sources, deprecating and blacklisting, we involve more than just this noticeboard in our RfCs. If relevant projects and reviewers are being advised of these discussions, then that's wonderful, but if not they need to be because of the scope of what's being done and the articles affected, especially on a historic level. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Eh? No it doesn't. WP:RS has been there as long as I have. The RfC that just closed increases the bar to declaring future sources unreliable. If you don't think it goes far enough, start another RfC. Guy (help!) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this is interesting because I was just thinking "some of the activity I've been seeing on this noticeboard with regards to rating, deprecating and blacklisting raises some valid questions” but it was about Atsme voting Option 1 or 2 on the Media Research Center RfC and then going on a rant about left leaning sources... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop personalizing me in your comments and trying to paint me with a political brush. It doesn't exist. My concerns are strictly RS, and our access to quotes and verifiable material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you dont want your comments to be taken as political statement perhaps avoid making statements that don’t appear directly related to the topic at hand like "Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them.” I’m sorry if you’re offended but statements like that are going to undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. You’re questioning "how we approach the reliability of entire sources” but I genuinely dont think that you and I have the same understanding of what reliability means if you consider MRC to be generally reliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, your comment was inappropriate. You might disagree with the concern but that doesn't mean you should belittle the concerns of another editor. Atsme isn't the only editor to raise similar concerns and contrary to what you have said, her comments were relevant. The way you have addressed may undermine other editor's estimation of your reasonableness. Springee (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this overlap somewhat with the July 2019 thread RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Peter Gulutzan but my concerns are focused on RfC's that are called for the purpose of rating, deprecating, blacklisting an entire source that is based primarily on opinions or what one might determine to be WP:OR that contains insufficient evidence and personal judgment about a conspiracy "theory" that may be tainted with one's own political bias when involving news sources. I think we need to approach this issue with more caution, and take it a bit slower. I do not want to limit RfCs in general - we need to continue having RfCs and discussions to determine whether or not material for inclusion/deletion in an article is sourced properly to source X or if source X is reliable for a certain type of material but not for other types. Hope that clarifies it somewhat. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Is Catholic News Service a reliable source?

The Catholic News Service was established in 1920 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It remains sponsored by the bishops. However, they are "editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining" department of the bishops' conference (link is to their website but Google seems to think this is true). Their mission is to be "a leading agency for religious news. Our mission is to report fully, fairly and freely on the involvement of the church in the world today. CNS staff members and stringers are professional journalists who adhere to ethical practices and standards of the trade." They are "used by about 240 newspapers, broadcasters and other news outlets in over 35 countries."

They are established, editorially independent, financially self-sustaining, and trusted around the world. They are also an arm of the United States bishops. So, is CNS a reliable source on Catholic/religious topics? On other topics? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PS-As a corollary, is a CNS article reliable when published in another publication (assuming it has a reputation for fact checking, etc) as opposed to when it is published on its own website? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say that you should provide:

"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"."

The reliability of any source depends on context. Which article? Which statement? Almost every source, even the worst, is reliable for the name of its senior editor or the address of its office. But neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are reliable for medical claims (See WP:MEDRS) or the details of advanced nuclear physics research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I deliberately left it vague to try and get thoughts along the lines of what Hippeus and Johnbod provided. I didn't want to have to come back each time I wanted to use it as a source. By way of background, though, my question was prompted by AF's removal of content related to the Vatican's efforts to improve HIV and AIDS care in the developing world. So, to pick out the first claim sourced to a CNS source, would they be reliable as a source to say Church officials lobbied privately for years in an effort to get drug makers and governments to increase provision of antiretroviral medicines to children in poor nations infected with HIV.? I can see it being, as Hippeus said, PR for the church. I could also make an argument, as Johnbod said, as it being the official position of the church. I'm conflicted. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

A couple points to make when judging the source. First, the quotes that Slugger has added have all been from catholic news itself and not from independent sources. Second, The Conference of Catholics Bishops still own the trademark on CNS articles which can be seen at the bottom of the pages. Third the editor-in-chief moved from "Our Sunday Vistor", which is exactly what you think it is :) , to the CNS after working on a Vatican plan to revamp catholic media communications. And finally 240 newspapers sounds like a lot until you realize catholic diosece can have their own "newspapers". As far as I can tell CNS is reliable for whatever the views of Catholic bishops are and for direct quotes. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for the views of the church, clergy appointments, and similar. In my view this is close to PR or media relations for a company.--Hippeus (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for the official position of the CC on church-related matters. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• yes per Johnbod, generally reliable. LoosingIt (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

LoosingIt, so I understand you (and Johnbod) clearly, what would you think about the example above? Would it be a reliable source to report that the church lobbied pharmaceutical companies and governments to increase their efforts in the global south in the area of HIV treatment? --12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugger O'Toole (talk • contribs)

• Without regard for the specifics in this case, I think we need to be very careful in deciding on reliability by looking at things like "who's name is in the copyright field" and "who owns it" or "how is it funded" or things like that. We have numerous, scrupulously reliable sources that share similar categories with other scrupulously reliable sources, and the categorical connections are not a good judge of whether or not some body is or is not a reliable source of information. The fundamental difference between the BBC and Russia Today is not that one is privately owned and the other state owned, it's that the BBC has established a reputation for and a clear desire for, truthfulness and independence, whereas RT has not. Similarly, being connected to a religious organization is not, of its own accord, a sign of reliability or unreliability. The Christian Science Monitor is a highly respected journalism source, frequently cited by other sources, and has won numerous national and international awards for its reporting. Again, these should be our measures of whether or not a source is reliable. The fact that it appears many people are judging whether or not the source is reliable or not because it has "Catholic" in the title is missing the point. It may very well be unreliable, but that isn't because of any connection to the Catholic church, that would be for the same reasons why we would judge any source reliable or not: journalistic integrity, acclaim, and reputation by other reliable sources. That sort of thing. --Jayron32 13:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

An excellent point, Jayron32. That all being said, would you care to opine on the specifics of this source? Do you think it has met the criteria you laid out, or not? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I did a few minutes of research, and I would say the source is generally reliable. Other reliable sources cite their reporting: Politico, WaPo, New York Times, Poynter, etc. --Jayron32 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Echoing Hippeus, I am satisfied that this would generally be a reliable source on matters related to the church, its views, and activities. On other matters, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of its reporting, though one would assume that alternative sources are also available to use as corroboration.

With respect to private lobbying efforts for the provision of antiretroviral, this is the sort of privileged information that probably would not be reported by the BBC—not because it is unreliable or cannot be verified, but simply because it is rather arcane. So use it, I say, and note the source in line if you want.

As a further aside, whether or not something is good PR for the church is irrelevant to determining whether it is true. Facts can be stated simply, and there's no need for spin.TheBlueCanoe

• Generally reliable cited and used in multiple reliable sources, no evidence presented of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated scrubbing, sanitizing, and censorship of Falun Gong

• Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Epoch Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shen Yun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Falun Gong outside mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Any reader familiar with Falun Gong extensions The Epoch Times and Shen Yun will be aware of the new religious movement's aggressive internet campaigns (if you're not, certainly read this, this, or this). These tactics certainly appear to extend to the editorial presence at English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article. It appears that adherents closely police what makes it into this article, removing anything that doesn't parrot the new religious movement's narrative about itself—the thousands of academics and experts who write about these topics be damned.

Here's an example. What do you know, all academic sources gone referring to the group as a new religious movement gone. Note that this editor (@Clara Branch:), who has cheerleaded The Epoch Times and related propaganda outlets throughout their brief history on the site, popped up after another editor who focuses almost on entirely related topics—including hot topics for The Epoch Times—hit the three revert mark on the article (@TheBlueCanoe:).

This seems like a straightforward attempt at sanitizing the article. So far it's working. And this is despite overwhelming academic consensus, as the numerous first-rate sources I've provide illustrated. The talk page for the article is also full of extensive lawyering to maintain this sanitized, free-of-those-pesky-academics-describing-us-as-a-new-religious-movement-version of the article, often with creative angles that just so happen to align with the new religious group's talking points: Discuss organ harvesting, do not discuss unpalatable aspects of the movement to the general public, mention that we're just too complicated for people to understand for this or that reason. And certainly provide nothing but glowing mentions of The Epoch Times, if you mention them at all.

So, frankly: Should (apparent) adherents be able to remove dozens of high-quality, academic articles from the article—and when challenged, say, call in yet more (apparent) adherents to continue the sanitizing and censoring? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Answering the question as it’s literally worded: of course not. But the real question is whether that’s the actual motivation, and what the actual underlying content dispute is. I’ve asked at the talk page discussion for the reasons underlying the content dispute (since the initial reason seemed to just be discussion is required before major new edits). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be a lot more appropriate on the NPOV Noticeboard, but I'll leave a comment anyway. My impression of the Talk page was that a few users were bristling at the mention of being an NRM in the lead and the extent of FLG's affiliation with The Epoch Times. The former seems a reasonably defensible position if they can produce neutral sources explicitly arguing that they are not an NRM AND the abundance and quality of those sources is high enough to reflect significant academic disagreement. But the way some users are also downplaying the relationship with The Epoch Times, which has pretty concrete evidence of being an FLG media arm, is concerning to me and I'd like to see how a well-sourced, duly-proportioned treatment of FLG's media involvement fares. I'm guessing Falun Gong followers try to distance their movement from the newspaper, at least in the eyes of the MSM, since the views pushed by The Epoch Times reflect a pretty abhorrent ideology that can't be explained away as "CCP propagandizing". That said, we should also be watchful for any overly-negative representation (in article edits and RS) that could point to actual interference by, e.g., the CCP. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Like many new religious movements, adherents object to their belief system being referred to as a new religious movement. It happens that this a particularly online organization, with quite a digital presence, and so maintaining a narrative of 'we're an ancient belief system'—among other aspects—seems to be the driving force here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, don’t call other editors adherents, as that seems unfounded here (and veers towards being an ad hominem anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to interpret edit histories such as these as anything other than an indicator of that, but I understand where you're coming from. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cuban ancestry material at the Mariah Carey article

We need more thoughts on this. I started a centralized discussion on it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cuban ancestry material at the Mariah Carey article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Headlines

Should the list of perennial sources contain an entry on headlines? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We should have something on headlines, as well as book, chapter and section titles. I have come across many cases where an editor tries to support a claim based on an article title, even when the article itself does not support the claim. Titles are not statements, are often not even written by the journalist, and cannot be used to support anything. TFD (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this fits the format of WP:RSP, but I recommend an RfC at either WT:RS or WP:VPP to have any proposed guidance on headlines written into the reliable sources guideline. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unsure as the real issue is users who insist on "you can only use a source that has that exact phrase", so you are forced to look, for that phrase. Thus it has to say "It is a..." not "...including it" or "it is studied by...".Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure we had something somewhere that headlines are never reliable, and I don't know if we need an RFC for it because I know this has been subject of consensus discussion before. --Masem (t) 13:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... I too was sure that WP:RS already had language that said that headlines are not considered reliable... but having checked, I can not find it (perhaps the guideline used to talk about it, but the provision was inadvertently removed during a rewrite?) In any case, I would support making such guidance explicit. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems pretty straight forward. I cannot see a case where you would want to use something that is only supported by the headline and not the body of the article. I was also fairly sure that it was written somewhere but I cannot find it either. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is unless the headline itself becomes notable (as was the case for Dewey Defeats Truman) I don’t see a reason they should even be mentioned in the first place.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree that newspaper headlines are generally unreliable, especially for claims that a certain terms like "China virus", are widely used, as the wording in newspaper headlines can be misleading or not convey intended meaning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes ^{12:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)} - Perhaps we need a brief paragraph about headlines in WP:RS? Let's say the article includes mention of a headline in so-and-so news publication, then yes, it should be cited to that publication, but if the headline is being used as a means to include controversial material, or to satisfy WP:V, then no. It would be noncompliant. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Headlines of newspaper articles are commonly written by sub-editors, not by the journalist who wrote the article. In addition to that problem, the sub-editor is very constrained by space and has motives in addition to accuracy, such as the need for the headline to be eye-catching (and sometimes cute, depending on the topic). So headlines can't be taken as reliable even if the journalist who wrote the body of the article is reliable. Zero^talk 01:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I just wish that WP:HEADLINE brought up a policy section saying exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • ...And now there is a page at WP:HEADLINE. Can everybody please take a look, improve it, and possible turn the result into an explanatory supplement page? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, the section on this page below #100 most powerful drag queens... is exactly where headline guidance is needed. --Masem (t) 05:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• In 2014 in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources the discussion Add something about never using headlines as sources? was closed after there was no agreement for specific wording. A later RfC failed. This 15 May 2020 post by PackMecEng points to some past WP:RSN discussions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's time we made it clear that they shouldn't be used. If it's not discussed in the body of the newspaper article there's no excuse for us using it. Hell, I used to write headlines for the Miami Herald and I was never a journalist. I was only about 20 and PA for the city desk editor, answering his calls and telling the state governor he was busy but I could talk to him. :-) Doug Weller talk 09:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Just piling on. Couple months back I was arguing against using text in a headline as a source and looked in vain for a guideline to refer to. As per Guy, we really do need a WP:HEADLINE. O3000 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I’ve boldly started WP:HEADLINE, please edit it as needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Question for participants of this discussion: Consensus here sounds clear that no headline can be used to source a claim or the veracity thereof. Gleeanon409 and I are participants in a discussion over at WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race where there have been proposals for a sentence of the form "[publication] included [person] on a list called '[list name]', which is [description of list contents from article body]." Just to clarify, if [list name] is a headline (because the whole article in question is the list), is there an issue with including the name just to say "This is the name of the list"? Thanks for your input! Armadillopteryx^talk 22:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If you’re using ”Most Powerful Drag Queens”, which appears nowhere in the source itself, only the headline, then you are indeed missing the point and you’re using the title as content which violates WP:Verifiability. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This isn't the question, not here, nor on the discussion page. You keep mixing up unrelated things. Please let others comment. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The answer is the same, don’t use headlines as content, even if you think it’s an award or title of a list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
        • No one is using a headline as content (nor to source any claim), and now you need to let others answer the question. Thanks. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
          • In your latest proposed sentence seen here you’re using the title of the article, a word for word quote, as content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
            • Sigh. Let's just paste the sentence here. At the project page, two different editors have suggested three variants of the following:

In June 2019, New York magazine included [name] in a ranked list of 100 RuPaul's Drag Race contestants called "The Most Powerful Drag Queens in America".

Gleeanon's interpretation of the above discussion is that we cannot include the name of the list because it happens to be the name of the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 00:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Supercars.net

I'm starting this again after the previous discussion ended with no discussion at all. This website seems more like a personal blog run by someone named Nick D. It doesn't have any editorial control, just a one man show running things. One also doesn't know where the info on this website comes from with majority of the content posted by a person named Richard Owen. The reliability of this website has been questioned a few times ago on some of the automotive articles where this is used as a source. A decision should be made in this regard as we can't have a website circulating around on here which goes against the WP:RS rules.U¹ _quattro TALK 23:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I do agree that it's not 100% reliable. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would you say somewhere like Pistonheads or other automotive news sites are more "reliable"? Redstoneprime (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I...ummmm... was sort of asked to come here, Personally I'm in agreement with U1Quattro that this is a blog and shouldn't be used here unless you really have too (IE there's nothing better on the web) but even then I'd prefer not to use it still. –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ybsone: seems to be canvasing about this discussion, the talkpage postings seem very non neutral. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the canvassing, and left a neutral notice at WT:CARS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thinking back to when i've used them, i've had some mixed results with the accuracy of their information, and I would say if a more reliable source exists it should override them, however, I would definitely be against an outright ban on supercars.net as they have an enormous backlog of articles providing, in my experience, mostly accurate information on a range of cars that other online sources don't cover. Whether they fall under the good or bad graces of WP:RS, I don't know, but I would much rather have them cited than the litany of other smaller websites providing information on these more obscure cars. TKOIII (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Disclaimer, I was also asked to participate in this discussion by Ybsone in a now-reverted message on my talkpage. Please note this is my first time participating in a Reliable Source discussion so I am not overly familiar with the details of this consensus process. I view supercars.net as a self-published tertiary source that is often quite sloppy in not citing the secondary sources it is based on. For example, compare [19] and [20]. I choose these examples because I am familiar with the topic and many secondary sources about it from editing Ferrari 250 GTO. The first page ("Ferrari 250 GTO") cites a few secondary sources. I can vouch for the reliability of those sources (I have three of them on my shelf and have cited them in wikipedia). However there's not enough inline citations to clearly cover the many statements made in the article text so it's difficult to verify the supercars.net article's reliability as a tertiary source. I would say that this article could have limited use in accordance with wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources, but I would never cite it unless i had no access to the secondary sources it cites and even then would be careful to only cite those statements that in turn have citations to those secondary sources. In contrast, the second link ("1964 Ferrari 250 GTO ’64") has no sources and nothing to indicate whether this is article is primary, secondary or tertiary research. This latter example seems to be the norm on supercars.net. Also, during some quick and casual clicking around, I also found a page here [21] that seems to just crib text from a Lamborghini press release without citing it (see press release text reproduced here: [22]). A wikipedia editor could find this page and cite it without knowing they are citing a plagiarized press release (primary source) posing as a secondary source. Finally, in my own experience I have edited quite a few wikipedia articles that have cited supercars.net and have frequently found more reliable (IMO) sources that can be cited in lieu of supercars.net, albeit often in print sources or otherwise difficult to find online. Its tempting to use supercars.net as especially with older cars there's not a lot of material online outside of large compendiums like supercars.net, but ultimately I believe it is too sloppy to employ except as a tertiary source in certain cases (maybe only when they cite their sources?). Prova MO (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think they are great, the submit a car thing seems odd. I don't think they are generally unreliable though, they are not my first choice but I can see times where they can be used. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with TKOIII and Prova et al: no strong reason to block this site. Not a fantastic source, but if this is blocked then so should two thirds of the internet as a whole. As a side note, the cited entry doesn't even state that there ever was a Maserati Tipo 154 (at least not the version I read).  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that supercars.net is a very reliable source; it should be avoided, if possible. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The reliability of this source has been questioned many times in the past so I'd say its not reliable. A one man show with no editorial control and content submitted only by someone named Richard Owen seems enough for me to avoid this source. Redstoneprime piston heads seems more reliable as it has multiple editors and atleast gives us an idea where they are getting their info from. I have made improvements to articles on classic Maserati racing cars and there were many instances that I found sources better than this one. This source is used extensively on Maserati Tipo 61 while describing the Tipo 64 and 65. It got me confused as to where this site was getting the info from, obviously Richard Owen alone cannot get this info published from top of his head.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at it, it does have multiple of authors publishing blogs on there and seem a nice website run by passionate writers. I'm looking at the Tipo references and the blogs do have references themselves leading to sources such as publications of books done by known authors specialising in Maserati race cars [23]. If the sources in the blog are from physical publication, including what seem to be reputable books dating decades back, I don't see why this can't be used as a reliable source. However, the Tipo 164 article is one of bad parts of this website as it has no source at all and even looking up the car on the serach engine, will lead to nothing relevant, in other words, the car doesn't exist or simply a miscaptioned Tipo 161. --Vauxford (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Vauxford can you be clear about these multiple authors? The only two people I see on the site are Richard Owen along with Nick D who describes himself as a "self diagnosed car nut" which strengthens the view point that this is a fan run blog rather than a reliable source. That being said, I did find the books they used to make the article and keeping that into consideration, we should cite those books as sources rather than the website.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro I can only find 5 active authors. Simon Bertram, Wade Thiel, Nick D, Terence W and Scott Kolecki. Also I'm looking deeper in the blogs they wrote [24], one was about the "greatest rally cars" and spot the use of weasel words like "According to some sources, the Mini Cooper brought home no less than 153 racing wins in 1962 alone." and not provide the source stating that fact. --Vauxford (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed. The use of such self made promotional content makes the reliability of this site questionable. There maybe four authors but the site is run and maintained by Nick D, making this site a one man show.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at the About us section: "Supercars.net was started by Richard Owen and Daniel Guillamot in 1996. Together they put one of the first automotive pages on what was, at the time, a very spacious world wide web. In late 2015, a small team of dedicated “car nuts” took over and will hopefully continue to grow the community.

Since its inception, Supercars.net has offered complete coverage of international sports cars, from classic cars, unique car concepts that wowed us, hypercars that made us dream and to everything in between. The mission is to deliver this automotive information in a concise, organized and engaging manner at no cost to users.

Supercars.net is built for the automotive enthusiast and sports car fan in mind. Obsessively covering the auto industry with the latest news, new car reviews, videos, high-quality photography and all other amazing things car-related. Supercars.net is your source for all things automotive." It strengthens the belief that this is a fan run site which can contain biased and inaccurate information as pointed out by Vauxford.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been no concensus on what should be done. This shouldn't go without a decision this time.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mais Qandell

I don’t know under what reading of WP:RS (certainly not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which it passes with flying colours), the excision of the following book was made.

Mais Qandeel, Enforcing Human Rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory,] Carl Grossmann Verlag, 2018 ISBN 978-3-941-15931-0

Though published very recently it has already been cited in four academic works. Scroll back from the link and the high quality of documentation, sourcing etc. is self-evident. She is a resident research fellow at the Center for United Nations Constitutional Research and and senior lecturer at Örebro University in Sweden.

This is the publication of a Phd thesis supervised by Prof Eva Maria Belser,Chair for Constitutional and Administrative Law and UNESCO Chair in Human Rights and Democracy and completed at the Faculty of Law of the University of Fribourg. It was published as Vol.4 in the series Sui Generis edited by two cademics Daniel Hürlimann, professor of law at theUniversity of St. Gallen and Marc André Thommen (professor of criminal law at the University of Zürich)

The fact that a book was originally a Phd doctoral thesis does not invalidate its status as an academic publication. A huge number of our high bar RS books started out as doctoral theses. The firm is a noted publisher of academic monographs. The only objection I can think of that might warrant suspicion is that the author is a Palestinian.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think approval here just be a formality, but nonetheless I would appreciate input from neutral RS hands.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to comment on all aspects of that book, but Carl Grossmann Verlag (Q94659996) is a pay-to-publish open access publisher. At a glance, it doesn't seem much better than self-published. Daask (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The publisher offers an optional peer review process.[25]. It's not clear to me how to determine if a paper went through this process. Daask (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is fairly clear on this point.

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

This being a completed doctoral dissertation that has been cited in other scholarly works makes it a reliable source. Agree the publisher doesn't add to that at all as being open-access (but for the record the author did not have it published here, rather the Swiss National Science Foundation did), but a completed thesis is reliable, especially given that it has been cited elsewhere. nableezy - 23:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• PhD theses are generally treated as reliable even if they are not published at all. It doesn't make sense for a reliable source to suddenly become unreliable when it is published, based on the nature of the publisher. This is an important observation because it is very common in Europe for PhD students to publish their theses in this manner and that must not be used as an excuse to consider them more harshly than other PhD theses. The fact that this one was selected by an editorial board to appear in an established book series is an additional point in its favor, but it isn't necessary. Zero^talk 01:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The source use the same Btzelem apparently used in the article so I don't understand why this source is needed at all. I also agree with Daask additionally WP:SCHOLARSHIP quite clearly says that theses is a primary source so WP:PRIMARY should apply --Shrike (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it says that parts of a thesis may be primary. nableezy - 15:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike you have been round here long enough to know that that type of work is not a primary, so much as a secondary source, which in case you didn't read further than primary, runs in the contrastive paragraph beneath it.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[e] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[f] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review

The work is question, like all scholarly books in that genre, is a technical evaluation in terms of international law of the issues of Israel's occupation, drawing on a large number of primary sources.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Starting as a phd thesis does not make a book les reliable. Most people's first booksin the humanities are based on them, they are appointed as Assistant Professors on the strength of the manuscripts, and there will usually be a statement in the publication to that effect. Theiri mportance depends asfor any academic book on the quality of the publisher. (there are three special exceptions-- (1) in Germany, Scandinavia, and some other European countries, all PhD theses at various times were printed in 100 or so copies, at the expense of the person receiving the theses. These can usually be distinguished by not being from a regular publisher, by their short size, usually about 100 pages, and because they are often marked as "thesis" in World Cat, and the relevant national biographies. (2) in the opposite direction: In the 19th century and continuing into the early 20th century at least in the UK, some veryimportant theses in the humanities were never published, and could not even be read without permission of the author, but were referred to as part of the scholarly literature by those who had access to them.(I can advise on prticular examples if necessary.) DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisting thereligionofpeace.com

thereligionofpeace.com  

Hi, I am proposing blacklisting of this anti-Muslim website that is being added to multiple articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this an ongoing problem? I see it listed as an external link on one article which is inappropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be clear though that listing grievances against a religion in and of itself is not good reason to blacklist a site. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely not a reliable source, even if you ignore the bias. There are no listed authors (only one "Editor"), and the about page does little but state the site's goals with some extra ranting. The site itself looks like something from the mid-2000s, and most "articles" are just links to other sites with editorial standards ranging from those of Forbes to YouTube. At least there is contact information (an e-mail address). Glades12 (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is an ongoing problem. I said in the OP that it "is being added to multiple articles" e.g [26] was added 2 months ago and was removed only 19 days ago. Here as well [27] was added 2 months and was removed 10 days ago. There is also other examples like it is used in Christianity in Iraq, Assyrians in Iraq, Abomination (Judaism), Criticism of hadith etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

[28]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of the main page, and it shows that it is not WP:NPOV and is basically a collection of blog pieces about what a bad influence Islam is in the world. It easily fails WP:RS and should be removed if used a source. An outright ban is a matter for the team at the spam blacklist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just removed it from the Religion of peace article. God knows how long it has been there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• It's obviously unreliable (basically a hate blog) but is it being added systematically? Guy (help!) 14:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• It obviously fails rs, but blacklisting seems a bit extreme since it is used as a source in only 4 articles. Just remove the cites and remove the text too if it makes doubtful claims. TFD (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

www.mythresults.com

I am wondering whether www.mythresults.com would be considered a WP:RS for Vesna Vulović (a Featured Article). The source would be used to cite the following claim: The TV series Mythbusters recreated Vulović's fall and concluded that surviving such a plunge was plausible. I've tried to dig up a better source describing the outcome of the experiment but haven't been able to find one. I'm looking forward to any and all constructive comments. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. After taking a look, this is an ad-supported fan site with no information about the individual or individuals behind it. In its place is an "About Mythbusters" page likely to confuse readers into thinking it to be official. Personally, I see no reasonable utility for this site on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Norway Heritage

This is the second time I've posted this. The first was archived with no replies. So, doing some research for new wiki pages, I came across a website that I've seen several times, but wondered if it was reliable. It is www.norwayheritage.com. I haven't started it yet, but the article I am going to use it for is S S Graf Waldersee, a ship owned by the Hamburg-America line. The website has all kinds of ships from the 19th and 20th centuries. It looks a little iffy, but has a lot of great information, pictures and articles on genealogy. For example, it has the weight and years of service of the ships. I have seen it used as a reference a few times on other ships. Thanks for the help, Ghinga7 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that is is a http site, not https. Nothing wrong with that, but https gives you an error.

It looks like a one-person blog that accepts user submissions. See [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/ships/address.htm ], which says

"The Norway Heritage web site and Project was started in 1997 by Sue and Gery Swiggum, Trond Austheim, and me. Since 2011 I have been runing[sic] the site alone.,,, If you have pictures, voyage accounts, or other material to share, and you would like to submit it to the site, please find my contact information below:"

He also runs the Norway Heritage Forum. at [ http://www.norwayheritage.com/snitz/ ].

In my opinion, it should be treated like IMDB. (See WP:RSP entry). Sometimes there is a thread in the forum which will point you to a source you didn't know about before (Example: [29]), but that source needs to be evaluated in the usual way. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy!

On a slightly unrelated note, do you think it would be okay for me to upload ship images from the website onto commons? They are under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, meaning that we just have to attribute it, but they have watermarks of the website on them.

Also, any other comments on this are welcome. Ghinga7 (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about commons policies to give you a good answer. Anyone? Anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If Gerry Swiggum was involved, then it is likely the information is reliable. He was a notable historian in the field of shipping. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots Hmm. I've never heard of him, and a google search doesn't yield anything. You think you could link to a book he's written on google books or something similar?

The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license is not permitted on Commons. CC licenses must be free of NC (non-commercial) as well as ND (no derivatives) restrictions, but may or may not have an SA (ShareAlike) restriction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @King of Hearts for the quick response! I am glad that this post has gotten as many responses as it has. Too recap our discussion so far:

Guy Macon: probably not reliable

Mjroots: probably reliable, co-established by notable historian

King of Hearts: can't upload to commons

Me: not sure, leaning towards support.

Any others want to comment before it's archived? Ghinga7 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source question

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fayetteville, North Carolina#Fayettenam . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If you'd like a response, you're more likely to get one if you can summarize, as neutrally as possible, what the question is. What source, what content. TheBlueCanoe 20:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources § Business Insider

 – ​​​— Newslinger talk 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Business Insider, or at least the South African edition here, a reliable source for interview quotations attributed to Errol Musk, father of Elon Musk? There is currently a discussion, centring on this piece, at Talk:Elon Musk#The Mine of Musk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, would Errol Musk, estranged father of billionaire Elon Musk, be a reliable source on the Musk family's history, if this BI interview is genuine? (See also the conversation at Talk:Elon Musk.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not a question for WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Look at what you are doing my friend. All this hinges on one article from a source we have to ask questions about the reliability of. Just wait for the facts to come out and then write it up in the article. His dad may have had half a stake in a Zambian emerald mine for six years in the mid-1980s. Let's wait for robust sources to make that claim instead of leaning on de Wet as the authority on Musk family affairs. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at what I'm doing? I'm asking for some views on the reliability of the South African edition of Business Insider. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: If you have to ask about the reliability of this article, why use it as the primary support for the claims about the lavish lifestyle of teenage Elon Musk? Why not find a source that is a known quantity? With this level of evidence, at best you could add something clumsy about claims about Zambian emerald mines to the article, but I think you would agree you'd need a "better source needed" tag after it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The clumsiness or otherwise of any proposed addition is probably best discussed at Talk:Elon Musk. I'm interested to get views on Business Insider generally, as I had, until now, assumed it was reliable, and I'm pretty sure it's used in many other articles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, BI is one of case-by-case by its edition. I have no experience with its South African version so I can't speak to it. --Masem (t) 15:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that that article you linked seems to be summarizing a Forbes article, this one, which fortunately is written by Forbes staff and not Forbes contributors. That Forbes article is definitely reliable as to what Eroll's quotes are, in terms of what he was interviewed above. (note the editor's notes to explain the story's origins). That said, to the point Martinevans' raised and as noted by the Forbes editor here ... that Elon and his father Errol had a difficult relationship. This seems to be rather well-known, meaning that anything contentious stated about Elon by Eroll probably should be predicated by attribution, eg "Eroll stated that Elon..." --Masem (t) 13:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, although in this case Errol seems to be just recounting events in his own life. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Which would be fine. I just caught that editor's note at the bottom and the question here related to Elon, just putting the two together. If the interview was really only on Eroll, and only touching on Elon, then should be no problem. --Masem (t) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it would be reliable in this context, in general I think BI is reliable however as has been raised in previous discussions we need to make a slight distinction between BI content and syndicated content (a concern that is in no way unique to BI or a major barrier to reliability). To answer Geographyinitiative’s of whether the dad is a good source for the family history I would say he’s slightly better than Elon, although that isn't saying much as both appear to be ummm, Il just be forward and say habitual liars (especially when it comes to their own lives) because thats the most honest answer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

But we can safely assume that Business Insider will reliably report the lies. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Awkward, though. One wouldn't want to be branded as an advocate of posting lies, even if they are carefully balanced, and are neatly enclosed between quotation marks, would one? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sentence check (Snopes)

• Page: Piers Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Perennial sources entry for Snopes

---

Here is the source: [30]

The sentence is the following:

Piers Robinson was part of what snopes.com called, "a panel of conspiracy theorists".

You tell me whether this adheres to WP:V.

I am not interested in debating whether snopes.com is reliable or not, nor will I take any consensus (or lack thereof) here as a license to add/subtract this particular sentence from any article. I merely want to know whether this is a verifiable sentence and as there is not "verifiability noticeboard", this is the best I can do. The user, User:PackMecEng, who thinks that this is not verifiable, in my estimation, is being extremely tendentious in the discussion. She claims that headlines are not reliable, but cannot cite any WP:PAG to that effect.

jps (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• For clarification they are trying to use the headline to label someone as a conspiracy theorist. There is debate if the headline can be used and if the body of the article supports it. See discussion here. Additionally here are some discussions and mentions at RSN about the use of headlines as a source from the talk page.[31][32][33][34] PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be best to let fresh face have a go.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering I haven't seen any PAG that says headlines are reliable we can't go by just what's in the PAG's. Next would be past discussions, from those listed so far headlines are considered not reliable. To me this would put the baseline for headlines as not reliable, and would require those who want to rely on a headline for sourcing to demonstrate acceptance of reliability. So per WP: ONUS it currently fails WP: V. I would also note that since this is material about a living person the minimum sourcing requirement is not just verifiable, but verifiable from high quality sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Verifiable and reliable. Snopes (RSP entry) is a high-quality reliable source. It's one of the oldest and most well-established fact-checkers on the Internet, and it was certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) when the article in question was published.

  The subheadline in question, "A panel of conspiracy theorists plan to gather to discuss whether war reporters should be considered terrorists", is consistent with the content in the article body. According to the article, the panel included a writer for the conspiracy theory website InfoWars (RSP entry), editors of a Holocaust denial website, conspiracy theorist David Icke, conspiracy theory promoter Vanessa Beeley, and someone who claimed that the chemical attack depicted in BBC (RSP entry) documentary Saving Syria's Children was staged. People in the panel have also advanced 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, a reptilian flavor of the New World Order conspiracy theory, and more. The phrase "panel of conspiracy theorists" is appropriate here. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the sentence can be considered reliable, but if included should also include people who he was on the panel with, Piers is only mentioned once in the article and isn't singled out for any criticsm individually. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, it's getting pretty uncomfortable on the articles talk page, as Piers himself has turned up to defend himself against claims by an article in The Times that he spread coronavirus conspiracy theories., suggesting that the article was payback by a millitary officer after questioning Syrian chemical weapons attacks (I think specifically Douma, which Piers is well known for questioning, alongside the Skripal poisionings). As somebody who hasn't followed the Syrian Civil War particularly closely, is there any reason to take claims denying chemical weapon attacks by Assad and/or a coverup by the OPCW at all seriously? There's also uncontroversial evidence that he is at the least very sympathetic with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Giving a positive review to 9/11 Unmasked by David Ray Griffin Given that he's a relatively minor figure in comparison to someone like Alex Jones or Icke, meaning that fewer sources exist on him and that many arguments on the talk page regarding inclusion of these are based on differing opinions on the reliability of sources. As someone who is obviously familiar with much of the disinformation surrounding these topics, your input would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a subject disagrees with a source does not make the source less reliable. Journalism includes positive and negative coverage, and it is unsurprising when subjects of negative coverage take issue with that coverage. The Times (RSP entry) is considered generally reliable, and in Talk:Piers Robinson § COVID-19, it looks like Robinson's main argument against The Times is that he dislikes their coverage of him. That's not strong enough of an argument to discredit The Times. HuffPost (RSP entry) staff articles can be used to augment other articles, including those of The Times.

You might want to ask WikiProject Military History for clarification on the Syrian Civil War. The most prominent international media backer of the Syrian government's false flag allegations regarding the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is the Russian propaganda outlet RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), which was fined £200,000 by Ofcom for partisan coverage of events including "the Syrian conflict", and received a negative ruling from Ofcom for its unsubstantiated allegations against the documentary mentioned in the Snopes article. RT is also widely panned on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

As shown with past discussions, regardless of source, we do not use headlines as sources and this is why. In this situation it is misleading on who is getting the conspiracy theorist label given they do not actually address it in the body of the article. It comes down to, in wiki terms, the lead is not supported by the body. PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Another problem with headlines is that many publications that recycle a story from, say, the NYT or AP will add a new headline. I remember a while back seeing the exact same word-for-word identical story in two news sources, credited to AP. One had a headline "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal would allow hunting of endangered wolves". The other headline was "Success story: rising wolf populations lead to calls to remove them from the endangered species list".

In addition to the headline problem saying someone was part of a panel of conspiracy theorists does not establish that they are a conspiracy theorist. Many times you will see a panel with a bunch of liberals and a token conservative, a bunch of alt-med advocates and a token skeptic, a bunch of death penalty opponents and one advocate, etc. No matter which side I agree with, it is always sad sad to see one side of an issue shouted down. To imply that someone is a conspiracy theorist on Wikipedia, you need sources that say that specifically. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Can being described as a 9/11 truther (as Piers has been described as, see above ref) be sufficient? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Re the general question "does 9/11 truther equal conspiracy theorist?" the answer is yes. Re the specific question "does the Huffington post (outside of the headline, which we don't use as a source) describe him as a 9/11 truther?"[35] Pretty much, yes. Re: "is the huffington post a reliable source for this WP:BLPRS claim? Per WP:RSP the answer is no. Can you find a better source? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Simple solution - headlines are typically clickbait - don't use them. If a passage in the article itself is verifiable and can be corroborated, use in-text attribution to a couple of RS. I'm hard-pressed to believe the BBC could be considered conspiracy theorists unless there is substantial evidence that points to a conspiracy that is plausible, notable and verifiable, aka PNV. Again - intext attribution - but consider whether or not it is compliant with DUE, RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG and REDFLAG. If it is, follow procedures and avoid saying it in Wikivoice - happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, "conspiracy theorist" is a serious charge, as it's used to denigrate a person as having fringe viewpoints and possible mental issues. That said, Snopes is very much WP:V, and the text explicitly credited the claim to Snopes, so I have to support it. I think opponents of the inclusion of this text would be better pressed to go for a 'noteworthiness' or excessive focus argument instead. I'm not sure they'd fly, but they make more sense than this argument. Rei (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rei: Would you say that the sentence from the headline is supported in the body of the source for calling Piers Robinson a conspiracy theorist? PackMecEng (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not acceptable, though not necessarily due to WP:V. Headlines should not be used as sources because it is unclear who wrote them. They are often written by different authors than the associated articles. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a reputable publication to have clickbait or misleading headlines. Thus, I do not regard reliable sources to have reliable headlines. If it is notable and reliable, it will be in the article body. I know of no policy for this, but I would support one.
  In this case, there is a secondary question, which is about guilt by association. It's inappropriate to say about any person that they participated in a panel with conspiracy theorists. It would be appropriate to say they participated in a panel of conspiracy theorists if we have a reliable source specifying that was the criteria by which the panel was selected. The proposed statement above implies Piers Robinson has some relationship with the category "conspiracy theorists" without actually having a reliable source provide a claim about such a relationship. Daask (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, As long as Snopes.com is deemed a reliable source, which in my opinion it is, it should be fine to mention this as the opinion of Snopes.com. We don't need to say that it's an undisputed fact, but it's clear that Snopes.com describes it as a fact. Saying that Snopes.com holds this viewpoint is clearly acceptable here.Naomi.piquette (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not acceptable — For two reasons: 1) the 'headline' issue noted by PackMecEng here, seconded by Kyohyi here, Guy Macon here (2nd sentence re a Huff Po headline), Atsme here (1st sentence), and most thoroughly by Daask here or 2) the -lack- of specific identification of Piers Robinson by Snopes as a 'conspiracy theorist' as noted by PackMecEng here, and Guy Macon here (2nd para). I see that none of the 'yes' votes address either of these two issues. Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

HuffPost for quotations

There is currently a dispute at the Piers Robinson article about the reliability of an article in the HuffPost, which describes him as a 9/11 truther, based on a positive book review he gave to 9/11 Unmasked by well known 9/11 truther David Ray Griffin. He is not currently described as a 9/11 truther in the article. While I think that the HuffPost is not reliable enough to be used to describe him as a 9/11 truther in the article, a contentious claim in a BLP, I am wondering about how reliable it can considered to be for direct quotations in the article that he gave in an email to the outlet to defend himself. These are

My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect.

It is no longer tenable for academics and journalists to avoid asking probing questions about the possible involvement of state actors in the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 requires further analysis and investigation and this is a position I share with many other academics.

As far as I am aware HuffPost does not have a reputation for fabricating quotes. While the HuffPost cannot be considered reliable for contentious BLP claims, can it be considered reliable as a source of direct quotations? Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting Piers has now stated that the quotes are accurate and that he has nothing further to add, but I think a broader discussion about the reliability of the HuffPost is warranted, as the current entry at the Perennial sources list at WP:HUFFPOST is vauge and does not give a clear idea around use cases like BLP or otherwise.

• There's no reason to believe HuffPost is altering or fabricating quotes like the Daily Mail, nor have I seen claimed to that extent. So I would agree that it is reliable for attributed quotes to named third-parties. --Masem (t) 17:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would prefer a better source. That said, I googled this and it is clearly the case that he amplified Truther claims. The meat of his problem seems to be that he claims (thus far successfully at least on WP) that by "just asking quesitons" he is not actually promting this bullshit. Guy (help!) 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say this is not an RS issue, the Huff post is generally regarded as reliable (and I see no reason to assume they are not in this case), more a weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Global Times

Here, I have this article from the Global Times news site related to COVID-19 pandemic. Here, this article shows the vaccine is ramping up production. [36] --TheMuscovian (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheMuscovian: That's not what it says. It says there is a demand for ramping up production and there are calls to ramp up production, not that production is being ramped up. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I second Ian.thomson’s point. However to answer your question the Global Times is generally unreliable, especially for topics related to Chinese politics or government. I also note that their page has sourced allegations of being involved in spreading COVID-19 related misinformation so I would say double no on being used for COVID-19 related information (once for being political and once for the demonstrated misinformation operation in that category). They should probably be deprecated but that hasn’t been discussed yet. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. As a general point, the Global Times is a Chinese state-run news agency, and that mandate does not translate into the kinds of journalistic practices that would make it a reliable source. But while it is generally unreliable as a source for neutral and unbiased facts, there are circumstances where it could be used to illustrate Chinese government positions (essentially, treat it more as you would a primary than a secondary source). TheBlueCanoe 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Using Google Drive as a source

See Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan) discussion

An editor is claiming that it is OK to copy a photograph out of a copyrighted magazine, put the photo on her Google Drive, and then cite the Google Drive as the source for a reference. When pressed, she provided the name of the magazine and the date of publication, but the magazine is no longer available online. She is correct in saying that it would be available in a library, but while that would be sufficient if the magazine was being directly used as the source, I don't think it is when the issue is not only the existence of the picture in the magazine, but the authenticity of her copy on her Google Drive and what the magazine said about the image. It seems to me that both WP:V and WP:RS are being stretched to the limit by her claim.

Let me stress that she is not attempting to have the photo appear in the article, simply to use it as a reference to show the final approved state of a building project. Without the surrounding text from the magazine, we have no way of knowing from the photograph itself -- which is indeed an architectural model of the building project -- what the image is purported to show -- i.e. the "final approved" state, an earlier state, a proposal -- we only have her say-so. That makes her the source of the information, which I cannot believe is allowable.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Copyright violation. Since the editor presumably does not have the rights to the photo, the copy of the photo on Google Drive is a copyright violation. Per WP:COPYLINK, we should not link to copyright violations in Wikipedia articles. It's okay to cite offline sources without providing a link, but citing a photo of a boulevard by itself (as in Special:Diff/958008846) to make a claim about the contents of the photo would be original research. — Newslinger talk 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Newslinger here, clear WP:COPYLINK violation, if she wants to cite it, should use a text citation to the magazine article Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comment on original research was based on the assumption that the image was not accompanied by relevant text in the magazine. If the magazine contained statements that support the claim that it's being cited for, then it can be cited as a source (without the Google Drive link). — Newslinger talk 02:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Use of a single external photo to support a point is not a copyright violation; it qualifies as fair use IMO. However, paraphrasing the contents of an image using text can be considered original research in some cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Wanted to add: We regularly link to archive.org which makes copies of copyrighted websites on a massive scale. That said, an online link to the source is not a requirement. So it's really up to the person with the magazine to tell the truth about whether the text in the magazine actually supports the assertion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that use of a photograph from an article in an educational setting, such as Wikipedia, is fair use. And if the text that accompanies the photograph paraphrases the text in the article, it is not original research. Pamela Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Miller (talk • contribs) 16:39, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

• And what about copyright violation? Do you own the rights to the photograph? If not, then copying it to your Google Drive is technically copyright violation, and we don't link to copyright violations. Per WP:COPYLINK: [I]f you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• If a valid fair use rationale exists then that image should be uploaded here, not to a personal google drive. I disagree about the user being the source of information however, we generally accept in good faith that what a person says a source says it says, and verifiable does not mean easily accessible. If the person simply cited the magazine issue and page number with no link at all I cant see how that would be a problem. nableezy - 16:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Isn't she doing the same thing as the Wayback Machine? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is she the Internet Archive, with a widespread general reputation for accurate reproduction of past incarnations of the the Internet, or is she simply a person copying a copyrighted photograph to her Google Drive? Selfstudier (below) is right, if this is allowed, it's a backdoor to allowing copyvios into Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• If the door is opened to this type of thing, be ready for a lot of it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with both BMK and Nableezy. No, we can't cite the Google Drive. However, we can cite the magazine even if it is not online. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I will resolve this issue by removing the footnote and adding a picture that is already on the commons. Pamela Miller (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we be using this Falun Gong media outfit as a source for BLPs, politics, China, etc?

New Tang Dynasty Television is founded by Falun Gong members. We use it quite a bit[37] on articles where we shouldn't. This came to my attention as there's been an upsurge of Falun Gong adherents editing articles here, possibly taking advantage of Covid-19 to push anti-Chinese government attempts as well as their own articles. Discretionary sanctions apply to all pages related to FG, broadly interpreted. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. New Tang Dynasty Television (NTD) is the sister outlet of The Epoch Times (RSP entry), which is deprecated. NTD is owned and operated by Epoch Media Group, the parent company of The Epoch Times. Epoch Media has advanced the same conspiracy theories under a fleet of brands, including "The BL" and 89 different Facebook pages. Under the "Edge of Wonder" brand, NTD has published videos promoting the deep state conspiracy theory, the QAnon conspiracy theory, George Soros conspiracy theories, and 9/11 conspiracy theories. NTD is essentially just The Epoch Times under a different name, and shares the same problems. This also applies to any other brand linked to Epoch Media. — Newslinger talk 18:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, and would vote to deprecate if ever made an RfC, articles where we shouldn't be using it are all articles besides perhaps its own. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Never reliable. As other editors highlight, this is a propaganda arm of an organization well-known to promote a vast variety of conspiracies, the Falun Gong. The Epoch Times, NTDT, Shen Yun, and the various other arms of the new religious movement are quite quite active politically in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. Under no circumstance should this source be used—it is neither reliable about itself, nor about anything else it reports on. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the same reasons as above, Epoch Times is known to push conspiracy theories, absolutely not an acceptable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable as far as I can tell. Nothing I've seen suggests that we can trust it for anything. Guy (help!) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable While there is legitimate criticism of China, this group promotes conspiracy theories and false information. TFD (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, a deprecation candidate with the rest - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Hell naw. I hate the phrase "both sides" but citing anything by a Falun Gong run source about China is like citing Chinese state sources on Falun Gong in articles. Outside of that, since Epoch Times pushes misinformation about Covid-19 under the official banner of the FG movement (even if not doctrine), I'd be inclined to distrust anything published by FG members beyond their official positions on their own doctrines. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source, same as The Epoch Times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Weather Underground

Is this FBI source[38] which does not use the word "classified" or any form it is sufficient to say "The FBI classified the WUO as a domestic terrorist group" rather than "The FBI described the WUO as a domestic terrorist group". The same wording change was made to a BLP article on Bill Ayers, but as that's a BLP and there's a wider problem I've to to WP:BLPN to discuss his article. I'll notify the IP making the change. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn't solely a question of that one FBI source. There is a second article at FBI.gov on the Weatherman group also using "domestic terrorist group"; 13 of the Weathermen were indicted for "conspiracy to commit terrorism" according to Days of Rage, a principal source cited at the Weather Underground page; the FBI has a "domestic terrorism" category for investigations; the FBI has a "domestic terrorism" section of its Most Wanted list, which still includes some members of Weatherman splinter groups.

It was absolutely routine for authorities and media reports to refer to Weatherman as "terrorist" in the 1970's, the FBI treated (i.e., classified and investigated) them as such, and they were a domestic group. European-style Armed Struggle domestic terrorism, with bombings, kidnappings and murders was relatively new to the United States at the time so that the term "domestic terrorism" (as opposed to undisputed terrorist groups who happened to be domestic) did not become common until the early 1980's. So the FBI.gov pages are retrospectively using the more current term to categorize their approach to the Weathermen back in the day. But there is no functional difference between FBI classifying Weatherman Underground as a "terrorist" group in 1970's and what we now call "domestic terrorists"; it is semantic whitewashing to insist on a distinction. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the edit to Bill Ayers was made for consistency with the Weathermen article. However the FBI's position is ultimately worded in Weather Underground, the same wording should be used in the articles on Ayers, Dohrn and the other Weathermen with biography pages. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

An FBI article written for the public refers to the Weather Underground as a "domestic terrorist group." I don't see any significance in that and it is misleading to say that the FBI described or classified them that way. "Classified as" is misleading because the U.S. government uses formal classifications for terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda, although they have no classification for domestic terrorists. "Described as" is problematic because they probably did not use the description at the time. Since the FBI article is not a formal document, we can't read any significance into its wording. They are trying to explain history using terms that are familiar to a modern reader, not making an official pronouncement. TFD (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This FBI article is more enlightening about the FBI's history of counter-terrorism activities. The sub-sections of "Countering Domestic Terror (1908-1982)" titled "Legislative Action" and "FBI Initiatives" are perhaps of most interest, in particular sentences such as In the decades leading up to the 1980s, the FBI had not yet begun to structure its resources in terrorism-specific terms. FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The term terrorism was not used in 1908. In any case, the source is not an official FBI statement, merely an article written for the general public. TFD (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You've missed my point. I was agreeing with you, and providing evidence to support your assertion that the FBI probably weren't using the description at the time. FDW777 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would use direct, deliberate, attribution, such as "More recent articles written by the FBI have described them as..." to make it clear what the sources are, and what they say. Don't lead the reader down the garden path towards a conclusion that isn't evident in the sources (that the FBI, when the group was active, placed them on some sort of domestic terrorism list, let's say), but instead exactly explains what the source means in this case, so the reader understands the perspective of it. --Jayron32 14:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The garden-path conclusion is the correct one, though some more sources can be added to pin that down unequivocally. Authorities and media at the time routinely described the Weatherman organization as terrorists and their acts as terrorism. The counterterrorism departments and task forces of the FBI were created as a direct outgrowth of the Weatherman case, which was the Bureau's first nationwide counterterrorism investigation, and by the time some of the Weathermen were captured in the late 1970's, the investigation was assigned to an anti-terrorism task force (now known as the Joint Terrorism Task Force). This is "classification", not mere description, of Weathermen as terrorists by the FBI. The only thing that changed over time is that the numerous prefixes like "revolutionary", "radical", "political", "leftist" and "urban" terrorism converged to "domestic" terrorism as that became a common term. But this is a linguistic difference, that does not pertain to the more substantial issue of investigative and administrative classification (with legal consequences including greater surveillance and law enforcement power compared to a regular criminal investigation) as "terrorist" by the FBI. The FBI has classified the Weathermen as terrorists from the beginning, and in later years began using the term "domestic terrorist group" to summarize this classification which predated the term. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You can make as many unreferenced assertions as you like, they are likely to be completely ignored. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming for purposes of discussion that the references (which I have) exist, are reliable, and can be added to the article, would that satisfy you regarding "classified"? There is no point providing more sources if the goalposts keep moving so as to keep that word out of the article. e.g., if as of 1978 or so the Weathermen were being tracked by a counterterrorism office at the FBI does that count, and if not, why not? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not, and I doubt anyone else will either, provide any comment on any references until details about the references and what they actually say has been provided. Insisting on any pre-conditions before even supplying the information necessary is absurd. FDW777 (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's nice. I did not ask for any comment on provided or unprovided references. The question is about the definition of the word "classified" for purposes of editing the article. I am also informing you, in connection with that question, that there happen to exist references to document the assertions made above about the history of FBI and Weathermen. Certainly you can believe that or not until the references are actually posted, but given the amount of time and effort involved in transcribing and uploading that material here and in the many articles potentially affected by it (Weatherman, Ayers, Dohrn, etc), and the likely talk page eruptions and edit warring, I think it's a fair question to try and understand what would satisfy the OP or others on this point. Doug Weller's position seems to be that anything other than the exact word "classified" next to "Weathermen" and "domestic terrorist group" will not do, which is a recipe for distorting the record, and others in the discussion are determined to remove such information even if it were to appear in the exact words in an FBI source. So this seems like an essential question to resolve. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked me to state that references would satisfy me regarding "classified" without providing any information as to what the references are or what they say, as previously stated I am unwilling, and indeed unable, to comment on things I have no knowledge of due to your failure to provide the necessary information. If you had read the discussion, this reference already posted should have leapt out at you. FDW777 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Going back to Doug Weller's original question, I think it would be safer to use "describe" rather than "classify" unless the FBI source specifically uses "classify" in some form. I say that on the assumption that there may be a difference in bureaucratic eyes between a "description and a "classification" due to legal ramifications. I don't know that for certain, but I still think it's safer to go with the less specific verb unless the more specific one is used by the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Pelling (Cipher Mysteries)

I would like to argue that Nick (Nicholas) Pelling, the author of the blog Cipher Mysteries is a reliable source in the field of cryptology, most notably unsolved ciphers. For this, I would like to give the following examples:

• He has regularly updated his popular blog since November 2007.
  • It's e.g. mentioned as "informative website" (page 8) on the topic of Voynich manuscript theories by Stephen Bax, professor in applied linguistics at the University of Bedfordshire.
  • In "History of Cryptography and Cryptanalysis", published by Springer Science+Business Media, author John F. Dooley says: "Three of the best online resources for Voynich information are Nick Pelling's web site Cipher Mysteries..."
• He wrote a book about the Voynich manuscript, "The Curse of the Voynich". It was e.g. positively reviewed as "interesting and illustrative book" in the journal "Cryptologia" (Volume 31, 2007 - Issue 4).
• He is cited in this Wall Street Journal article regarding a Voynich manuscript decipherment theory.
• de:Klaus Schmeh calls hims a "British crypto mystery expert" in this article. Klaus Schmeh has written multiple books about crypography, e.g. "Nicht zu knacken" published by Carl Hanser Verlag and "Cryptography and Public Key Infrastructure on the Internet" published by Wiley (publisher). I found several more mentions of Pelling by Schmeh apart from this article.
• Craig P. Bauer, associate professor of mathematics at York College of Pennsylvania, refernces him on the pages 62, 63, 78, 87, 146, 228, 286 and 492 in his book "Unsolved!" publised by Princeton University Press. On page 62, he calls him a "researcher", on page 228 he mentions Pelling's research result regarding the Zodiac cipher, on page 286 he mentions Pelling's research result regarding the Somerton man.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Famousscientists.org

Famousscientists.org came to my attention via the Lise Meitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I commented on it in the edit history and here. I see that it is used for a number of Wikipedia articles.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable Famous Scientists describes itself as "the web’s largest educational resource focusing on the lives and achievements of the most famous scientists and inventors in history. We provide a useful list of the names of famous scientists and their biographies." Its only byline is "Since mid-2014 our lead writer has been Doug Stewart (The Doc), a Ph.D. qualified scientist. Doug has been writing about science on the web for over a decade. He also writes for chemicool.com." I've seen this website before, it reeks of a self published source, as it has only one named author has no bibliography or any other sources to verify the information. I would remove it when you see it, especially on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Hemiauchenia. And I agree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Capital Research Center / InfluenceWatch / Dangerous Documentaries

• Capital Research Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• InfluenceWatch[39]
• Dangerous Documentaries[40]

In the "Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article?" section above, CRC was mentioned as a source.

The only previous RSNB mention for CRC I could find was this:[41].

It looks like an unreliable source to me, but I wanted to open a discussion here so the next person searching the RSNB archives will find the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• CRC appears to me to be pretty upfront about its political and social agenda, and therefore should not be considered to be a reliable source. It can be quoted for its views, but not used as for factual information without citing the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable: InfluenceWatch is the conservative version of SourceWatch. More of an advocacy/activist orientation in both cases. I can't see such sites covering something that isn't covered better somewhere else, so we really shouldn't ever need to use them. Marquardtika (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable, per discussion here and the above discussion regarding its defense of The Epoch Times. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, not surprised it hasn’t made it here before... Would be a wonder for such a discussion to get off a talk page given that it doesnt take more than a quick google to establish their unreliability beyond a shadow of a doubt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AFP

I spotted the following on an AfD:

all the coverage [...] seems to originate from the AFP news agency (and then reproduced on BBC and Yahoo) which has an "on-demand" service that will "tell the stories that bring your message to life" for "dedicate a team of journalists to the production of tailor-made content" to "ensure reactivity, quality and top-of-the-range SEO". This service "creates the original content you need: videos and photos; text reports".

I thought AFP was a legitimate news agency, is there any way of distinguishing independent form paid content? If not, we probably have some cleanup onm aisle 6... Guy (help!) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the case studies (Special Olympics, Mission: Volleyball, and The 23rd Central American and Caribbean Games), AFP Services appears to be a team that provides content (according to them: videos, photos, and editorials) for other publications. For example, local newspapers would be able to license content about a major sporting event from AFP Services even though they don't have the resources to send journalists to the actual event. I don't think AFP Services is being paid to publish anything through AFP itself. And just for the record, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is a generally reliable news agency with a similar reputation to the Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, AFP is a generally reliable. It is a news agency, whose content is licensed by local papers, broadcasters, etc. That's the "paid service" reference.TheBlueCanoe 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Generally reliable"? Agence France-Presse is, or at least used to be, one of the top news agencies in the world, on a par with Reuters, AP, BBC, and so on. Did something happen I'm not aware of? Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Generally reliable" is a positive descriptor derived from the WP:NEWSORG guideline ("News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"). — Newslinger talk 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Even Associated Press has a division that does this kind of thing: "AP Content Services is the content marketing service of The Associated Press. We craft custom storytelling projects and distribute them globally via our media distribution and advertising channels." Here's a blog from the director of that division which lays out the services they can provide. You hire them to bring a crew and write up the story you want shared (with text, photos, video, etc) and have that content integrated into AP's distribution. Its a sick industry. -- Netoholic @ 10:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Reuters has "Reuters Plus" which does the same thing- "Partner with us to create content that enhances the stature and significance of your brand". Need an original story from CNN for a "chance to associate your brand with CNN editorial, designed to lead customers to your brand without overtly advertising"? CNNIC has you covered. -- Netoholic @ 10:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues here. The Associated Press clearly labels all of its sponsored content. For example, the Global Green Growth Institute case study showcases this sponsored article, which is clearly labeled with the line "Paid for by Global Green Growth Institute". Reuters also labels its sponsored content. The Singapore Grand Prix case study includes a scaled-down screenshot of this sponsored article, which is clearly marked with "Sponsored" and "Brought to you by Singapore Grand Prix". AFP, the Associated Press, and Reuters have stellar reputations because their coverage is high-quality and widely syndicated, and because their sponsored content is clearly distinguished from their standard content. AFP's sponsored content should not be used per WP:SPONSORED, but its normal coverage is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Why are sources being deleted and crimes in Battle of Vukovar being hidden? Please return to write the truth. This is the source that was deleted https://web.archive.org/web/20110106010123/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VIII-10.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.116.206 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the right place to bring up your issues, since you are involved in a content dispute with another editor, you should probably take it up over at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, some users from Serbia want the crime to be hidden like Amanuensis Balkanicus, and other users help them because they have an account, and others do not ,so they delete the reliable source and explanation next to it. Please return to the trusted source article that was before.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.116.206 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the sources are reliable I hope this is the site for that question? If they are, then someone should go back and not let the truth not be written on wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.116.206 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@IP editor, such accusations (based on alleged citizenship and the like) are not acceptable!

If you are here to wage a crusade for your POV/holy truth, you are 100% on the wrong project. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadko by reviewing your edits on Wikipedia, I see that you are not writing the truth, so your comment is rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.220.220 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Commission of Experts

Hi, i would ask someone to answer if this is a reliable source. https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024215/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/anx/III-A.htm ,we have a conversation on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Vukovar Thanks

Ish, it might be usable with attribution. But then wp:undue rears its ugly head.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Real Estate Forum?

This rather spammy bio includes loads of material from the magazine Real Estate Forum. I'm looking through it now and forming my own [rather skeptical] opinion, but figured I'd drop it here, too. See the article for plentiful specific citations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Man that is a spammy bio, for reference Real Estate Forum is published by ALM (company) which is highly regarded. I have no direct experience with Real Estate Forum so I will refrain from voting but their ownership suggests (but does not guarantee) reliability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of what Real Estate Forum is being used for is supposed "awards" from Real Estate Forum, for which of course they are a reliable source (whether they're a demonstrator of significance is a different question.) However, it's a little bit hard to say that being on a list of 30 of "Chicago's Business Icons" is an "award", and being that it has that sub-national range of selection, even if it is an award, it may not be one worth noting.... and it certainly shouldn't be included as just "Business Icon" without noting the local context.

The only thing in the article sourced to Forum that isn't on the list of "awards" is describing him as a "one of the most influential executives ... in the real estate industry", but the source has him on the list of "influencers in net lease" - i.e., one portion of the real estate industry, not the whole, and the list is not described as "the most influential" but "some of the many individuals and organizations who have made an indelible impact". So even if it is a generally reliable source, it's obviously not a reliable source for the statement being supported, as it does not support that statement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)