Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398

Archive 395

Archive 396

Archive 397

Archive 398

Archive 399

Archive 400

→

Archive 405

Quoting from an unreliable source, when the unreliable source is cited by multiple reliable sources.

In the article Killing of Brianna Ghey, we have a sentence that originally read The Independent reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime.", citing this article. It's gone through a couple of revisions since then and currently reads According to the Independent, MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime.", cited to the same article. The relevant paragraphs in the citation are the three paragraphs beginning from Damian Harry, who said his 15-year-old daughter, with the later two paragraphs being direct quotations from Harry that appear in a MailOnline article.

This was objected to on the article's talk page, as the original source of the quotation from Damien Harry is the MailOnline, and that Wikipedia should not be using any info sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly. Is this the case? Are we unable to indirectly cite interview comments that first appeared in a deprecated source, when the same comments are re-reported in other reliable sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Think there is a policy/guideline/essay somewhere that says this but wouldn't it be the same as NYPost in Hunter Biden laptop controversy and Twitter Files with SUBSTACK/Twitter? The parts that are referenced by reliable sources can be used as they are placing their editorial integrity on the line. A similar policy here is restoring a banned editors edits, which the restoring editor then takes responsibility for. Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this has been addressed somewhere before, possibly somewhat recently on this noticeboard, I'll just be damned if I can find it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

For my part, it is my understanding that other considerations aside, so long as we are not directly citing the deprecated source and that the quotation has appeared in other reliable sources, we are allowed to include that content. I'm almost certain a similar issue to this was discussed on this noticeboard at some point in the not so recent past, however my search-fu of the archives has so far been unable to find that discussion. And because we are anonymously quoting, summarising and attributing this to a parent of a friend of Brianna's, we are not putting anything into Wikivoice as a fact.

While I wasn't able to find the past discussion from this noticeboard, I did discover two other examples (Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie) where we are indirectly citing the MailOnline through other reliable sources.

Finally, I'm aware that neither the current nor original sentences are ideal. If there is a consensus that we can indirectly cite the MailOnline, then that sentence will be rephrased into one that's more natural to read. However because of this current issue that could result in the removal of the sentence, we've not spent any time yet on writing a replacement. So it's safe to assume that once this question has been answered, the sentence will either be removed or rephrased as required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, performing research on sources we would consider unreliable and using their fact-checking (backed by their reputation) to produce reliable reporting out of it is part of the point of a WP:RS; obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all. The one caveat is that it's important to rely on what the proximate (actually reliable) source says - sometimes there are situations where someone first writes something using a non-WP:RS, then it gets replaced with a RS quoting that non-RS, but the original text is never rewritten to reflect what the RS itself says. If the WP:RS cites a non-RS in a way that is clearly skeptical or cautious, we have to be careful to reflect that in our wording; likewise, if they cite it in a way that balances out different viewpoints we have to be careful to reflect that balance overall and not pull one part out in an undue manner. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  In this specific circumstance, neither the Mail nor Independent have made commentary on what Damian Harry said. Both sources just quote his words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all. This is interesting, there's a trio of related articles (related to each other, not the article that spawned this discussion) that I may need to bring here after this, where an editor has been excluding content from reliable sources because they are reporting factually on something that first appeared in an non-RS. In that circumstance, the proximate sources state something as factual, that we're currently reporting on with far more scepticism than any of the reliable sources on the topic report it on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that our article expressing skepticism under that circumstance would be appropriate at all. Second-guessing the methodology and fact-checking of a source (including by saying eg. "they shouldn't have trusted X, and they obviously just copy-pasted from there with no fact-checking) is inappropriate WP:OR. Of course I'd have to see the source, the text in question, etc. and so on, but generally-speaking I don't think we're supposed to second-guess the sources used by sources, and that discussing them generally veers into WP:OR (no differently than questioning a paper's methodology.) If people believe skepticism exists they should find sources expressing that skepticism, rather than making the argument themselves in talk and then inserting that into the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That was my thinking on this as well. I'll drop you a message on your talk page when I make another RSN discussion for it later. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources regularly cite things Wikipedia considers to be unreliable sources all the time; it's a basic way that journalism operates. Journalists work with primary sources that we would not consider reliable for facts—one-on-one interviews with witnesses to a crime committed by a living person, public databases, archives of blogposts, ISIS propaganda, OSINT twitter accounts, press releases, etc.—and use them to construct an article that is consistent with their newsroom's standards. Think of how news organizations handle coverage of civil legal disputes: if there are two sides of a legal dispute, for example, the written statements of a plaintiff (such as a motion for summary judgement) is not WP:RS for whether or not those charges are based in fact, and neither would be a defense attorney's writings in court patently denying all of the plaintiff's allegations. Typically, news organizations will describe what each side is arguing, quoting from each side in a dispute and providing each side some weight, and the news article might also provide additional context on its own regarding the facts in the case. It seems pretty straightforward how we'd deal with that in an article.

WP:RS/QUOTE notes that To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If a reliable secondary source is reporting on a quote from a primary source document, then we should look to verify the quote in the primary source and we should cite both. If we have access only to the secondary source, we have to state where we actually got the quote from, and we obviously can't cite the primary source. To continue with the example above, if we have access to the writings of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, and the news organization made an obvious error in quoting one of them, then we should use common sense (for example, if the newsorg accidentally introduces a typo like "we are seeking to expedite the trial" to "we are seeking to expedite the trail", then we can just cite both the newsorg and the original document and use the correct quote).

In any case, I think that a similar logic would apply to when reputable news organizations publish articles contain quotes from text written in the voice of tabloids or other news agencies that we would not consider to be reliable; the news organization has chosen to give the quote some weight, and we should faithfully represent that. The logic becomes a bit more stretched when we're dealing with a reliable news group quoting an unreliable tabloid who is quoting a parent who themselves a 15 year-old who new the victim and is making specific criminal allegations against living people, albeit two people whose identities are probably sub judice so the BLP considerations are probably lower than they would otherwise be. I'd be inclined to think this is more of a WP:DUE issue; is the specific quote from the 15 year-old something that's give a bunch of weight in sources? I would generally tend towards exclusion on the quote in favor of prose description (something like A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime.... Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime. might work better based off of a general reading of the article in The Independent) but again that's more of a weight/style question on the specific words.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the quotation as it originally appeared and subsequently reused in other sources is from the father of one of Brianna's friends, not from the friend. While DUE issues are a bit out of scope for this noticeboard, two RS have included the same "Let's be frank" comments that originally appeared in the MailOnline: The Independent and LGBTQ Nation. Other quotations from the same father have appeared in various RS over the last few days, and he has appeared on camera on Sky News and I believe both BBC and Channel 4, though clips of the later two are not easy to search for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

National First Ladies' Library biographies

Link: National First Ladies' Library – First Ladies Research

These online biography pages are used in several articles for United States first ladies, and I've used them a few times myself. It seems to be a legitimate organization, but I've stopped using it lately because I'm having trouble finding information about how the biographies were written. It would be really helpful if a few other editors could weigh in on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

These are tertiary sources, and probably fairly credible (on par with a museum or public library article), but should be used sparingly as citations, and not used as the sole source for any particularly surprising or controversial facts. Simplified tertiary sources like these are very good for evaluating due weight to give various aspects of a biography. Presumably every fact in them can be found in greater detail in academic sources: when possible we should find and cite those instead. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Lipstick Lesbian Pride Flag controversy

This sourcing issue affects five articles, Lesbian flags, Pride flag, Biphobia, History of lesbianism in the United States, but has been discussed in most detail on Talk:Lesbian flags.

Back in 2010, a blogger named Natalie McCray designed the Lipstick lesbian pride flag. This flag has had a bit of a controversial reception within the LGBT+ community, some felt the flag was not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others pointed out controversial comments made by the designer on her former blog.

At present, Lesbian flags states that Some lesbians have argued that the lipstick flag is butch-phobic, while others oppose its use due to controversial comments allegedly made by the flag's designer on her blog. Pride flag and Lipstick lesbian state that However, it has not been widely adopted; some lesbians have not adopted the flag because it is not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others have accused McCray of writing allegedly biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments on her blog. Biphobia states that some lesbians are against it because McCray’s blog had biphobic (and racist and transphobic) comments, and because it does not include butch lesbians. And History of lesbianism in the United States states Note that the lipstick lesbian flag has not been widely adopted; some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.

All variations of the text cite the same sources: a 2015 After Ellen article, and Refinery 29, with the After Ellen cited for the flag's lack of widescale use, and Refinery 29 for the controversial comments by the flag's creator. Of the controversy, Refinery 29 states Some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because McCray's blog includes racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments, and because the pink colours and "lipstick lesbian" terminology don't include butch lesbians. however three of the articles state this in more uncertain terms.

The discrepancy between the cited source, and the article text was previously raised on the lesbian flag talk page, where several other reliable sources were discussed and excluded because those sources cited sources we consider unreliable (various social media, and Medium blogs). This included exclusion of a 2019 Cosmopolitan article (later updated in 2021), and a Yahoo!Sports rehosting of a June 2021 Women's Health article (which was updated in June 2022).

Two questions. Should the Cosmopolitan and Women's Health articles have been excluded because their ultimate source for information, after traversing through the levels, was a series Tumblr and Medium blog posts? Is the Refinery29 article strong enough that we should be less sceptical in our content across all five articles that include mention of the Lipstick flag? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are some other sources that would have been pre-emptively excluded on this particular controversial flag

• Nonchalant Magazine, which said McCray has also been known to write some pretty controversial stuff on her blog, including what others have deemed as racist, transphobic, and biphobic comments.
• Symbolsage which said Furthermore, designer McCray was said to have posted racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments in her now-deleted blog.
• EqualLOVE which said Some lesbians also oppose use of any flag revised from the lipstick original because its designer Natalie McCray reportedly wrote racist, biphobic and transphobic comments on a her blog. And some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because the pink colors and “lipstick lesbian” terminology don’t include butch lesbians.
• POP!, a subpublication of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (a Philippine newspaper of record) which said This design was further forgotten when the creator of this in 2010, Natalie McCray was known to have transphobic and racist ideologies.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine for publications to link to social media sources for discussion of something. I don't think it's a reason to exclude reliable sources discussing a topic, particularly when the topic was formed through things involving social media and personal websites. And the sources all seem to concur on the lack of support for the 2010 lipstick lesbian flag within the community both for its exclusion of certain groups and the community's distaste for the creator. There seems to be no alternative views in RS' on this subject. If anything, just saying "Some lesbians" might be too reductive, since the sources appear to indicate a much stronger community repudiation of the flag. Silverseren^C 02:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• The question seems to miss an essential point and fundamental question about reliable sources. What is the text for which the source being cited as a reference? If I understand the foregoing wall of text, these reliable sources are cited to support the proposition that a "lipstick lesbian" flag was proposed on a blog, that it has not been widely adopted, and some people object to it as insufficiency inclusive. These sources are unquestionably reliable for those propositions. That the sources link to the original blog or to other SPSs is irrelevant, as are allegations of bias about the original blogger. We do not censor or "preemptively" exclude content on Wikipedia because of bias, real or imagined. Banks Irk (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  There's three versions of the text, across the five articles, listed in the second paragraph of the "wall of text". Ideally I'd want to unify this into a single version for all five articles, to something like the version that appears on History of lesbianism in the United States and currently reads some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.

  However given the pre-existing issues on exclusion of reliable sources, and that the current version of the text in three articles was made more sceptically phrased citing WP:LIBEL (changed here before propagating to other articles) than the source being used to support it, I've not wanted to draft or propose a replacement issue until the sourcing problem has been resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Smarthistory

This is a somewhat unusual (though I hope not unwarranted) RS thread on Smarthistory (www.smarthistory.org), as the source has not been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, I think it merits its own discussion to offer WP:CONSENSUS precedent moving forward in case doubts appear. It has recently grown into one of the most extensive and accessible sources for art history, architectural history, and global visual cultures; I myself have used this source multiple times in various articles due to its reliability and peer-review process. However, I am also aware that the format and visual layout of the page, along with its admittedly blog-like name, can at first appear unreliable and possibly discourage potential new editors from relying on it as a resource for WP:VISUALARTS. There is already a dearth of high quality art historical content on many global subjects (despite, of course, some excellent GAs and FAs, most of which focus on Western art history). I am looking forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Thanks so much. Ppt91 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their "Our Mission", "Content editors and contributors", and the page on how to contribute an essay, leaves in little doubt that this is a reliable source. They also run a blog site that should probably be handled with a little more care, but would be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks. That is what I always assumed, which is why I have been on the fence whether to even open this noticeboard thread at all. So, I am happy to see the first vote being unequivocal in its support. Ppt91 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check

What is the reliability of Media Bias/Fact Check? The Cite Unseen says its unreliable. An IP editor claims it is credible Special:Diff/1139970652 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We even have a nice little shortcut for that one: WP:MBFC. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah of course. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You could have checked the main article on this website, which points out that it an an "amateur attempt at categorizing media bias". And that the website's owner has stated that "his methods are not rigorously objective." Basically, Media Bias reflects his subjective views. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Unlike the Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes, they don't have any formal training, a large team, or repeated and careful measurements, analysis, and statistics. That's why it's strange that the Ad Fontes chart isn't rated better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Ad Fontes chart continues to not be good either. It promotes a false equivalency between MSNBC and CNN, that are generally reliable, versus the mostly unreliable Fox, NY Post, and Daily Mail. Andre🚐 03:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media is mostly a centrist political organization with its own biases. As pointed in the main article: It "promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias, and reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes 'news' in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn't already hold a comparable view of the media landscape." Dimadick (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look at the chart and it separates CNN and FOX into web and TV and on that basis it isn't too bad in is assessment, though I think the latest revelation in the Dominion case indicate FOX should be lower and more to the right. I think the basic problem is that Trump has shifted the middle to the right a bit if you count the middle by just taking averages rather than as any sort of fixed standard. The news media tend to censor or bias a lot of the news anyway so they don't offend their readers or sponsors. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Techdirt

In editing an article on The Washington Post, I found the website TechDirt used as a source. Upon investigating TechDirt, I found it to be nothing more than a large-scale, multi-user blog.

Quoting from the "About Us" section of the website, it is clear that the website is an opinion blog and not at all a reliable source for information:

"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies' ability to innovate and grow.

The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 74,000+ posts''."

Based upon the fact that TechDirt is a blog, I propose that it be included on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. I eagerly await your participation in this discussion. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's a blog then WP:BLOG applies and it should be handled as any other self published source, but there's no need to deprecate it. Looking at a few authors/posts I'd say it's generally unreliable, but it could be if the author was otherwise recognised as a subject matter expert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Functionally, yes, it's a group blog. Mostly Masnick, some other authors including Glyn Moody, who's a respectable freelance journalist. Funding from a pile of venture capitalists. I wouldn't use it for controversial stuff, but you'd need more than "it's a blog!" to swing deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I would think hard before using it on Wikipedia, but I have been a reader, and found it accurate in tech areas where I have training. Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't be more pleased to have received the input of other editors in considering this source. ActivelyDisinterested is correct in concluding that WP:BLOG applies here. That policy states that "...group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources." However, I also acknowledge the value in the opinions of David Gerard and Elinruby. My opinion remains that it should be deprecated, but I acknowledge that as a retired journalist and editor of 40+ years, I am a purist where that kind of thing is concerned with more of a "black or white" approach. In the spirit of collaboration and consensus, and based upon the opinions of the editors who have responded, I propose that, instead of labeling TechDirt as "deprecated," that it be included on this list as a "generally unreliable" (WP:GUNREL) source. That label supports all of the opinions posted herein and leaves the door open for use if someone such as a respected journalist posts in the blog. Can we reach a consensus on that? Thank you and all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarydaleEd (talk • contribs)

Techdirt doesn't meet our sourcing policies, but it is not egregiously bad - certainly no worse than many other blogs that we don't bother to put on the Perennial sources list. It doesn't require any special handing, so I see no reason to single them out in this way. - MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, MrOllie. I think TechDirt should be included because it is becoming a well-known blog and even in my small area of influence I hear it referenced as a source of information. ("I read in TechDirt yesterday that blah, blah, blah.) I don't run in particularly tech-heavy circles, which is why I see that website's influence rising. Since I don't know whether you were previously aware of the website, I will take into consideration the other editors (including me) who have responded here, and of the four, two of us know their site. A small number, I grant you, but that is 50 percent. I respect your point of view and am happy to acquiesce if that is the consensus. As for me, I believe we should get in front of such trends instead of lagging behind them. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a well known blog, I've read it and I think even cited it at some occasons. Bu yes, it is a blog (a fact I don't think I realized until now). I think I would second what ActivelyDisinterested said. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd put it a category similar to Snopes. See discussion of that source here. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Is unrevealedfiles.com an RS for astronomy?

Specifically [1] as used in Heliocentrism#Rishi Yajnavalkya. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not an RS, it's a one-person blog, and thus WP:SPS, and not an expert SPS. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s also my opinion. I’ll revert. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Predatory

Is this journal reliable? [2] a few google searches call it predatory. Thanks. Magherbin (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

See Longdom. I.e., a big fat no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Magherbin (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ratings Ryan

Is Ratings Ryan a reliable source for episode viewership ratings?

I first stumbled across the site while visiting the article South Park (season 1), after realising that the list was making a contradiction about the viewership ratings of the first episode (0.89 million) comparing to the number given by the article on that episode (0.98 million). While the latter cites a book, the list cites this page from the Ratings Ryan blog. This was before I noticed that all the pages from season 1 to season 10 also cited that exact page, affecting the list of South Park episodes (check reference 20 (permalink)). Concerned over the reliability of the blog, I started a discussion on the talk page of the list, pinging the editor that added them (diffs:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10), before searching the blog name in Wikipedia (in quotation marks) and realising that other episode lists cited it too: Futurama; Breaking Bad; Big Brother (1 2); Jimmy Neutron; Yes, Dear; 8 Simple Rules; Monk; Friday Night Lights; Murder, She Wrote and the list goes on (I haven't checked whether this editor added references to the blog in these other lists).

I first considered posting this in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but the fact that this source is being cited in so many pages and the apparent extensive information present in the blog makes me think whether this is a special case (where the blog is reputable or written by a subject-matter expert for instance). However, I can't find any evidence of this. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, there aren't many past Wikipedia discussions mentioning it (1 2). ObserveOwl (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOG and [3], not a WP-good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I've started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removal of references to a blog to try to remove these citations. Thank you. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree we're looking at a blog. Nothing which should be considered reliable. When cleaning it out, please note if any particular users have been introducing the source, and don't be shy about calling on me if you notice anything fishy. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have to ask - I'm not a TV editor, but what would the replacement be? While I would certainly hesitate to use a SPS, my limited understanding is that Nielsen does not publish ratings openly. --Rschen7754 01:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Collider.com a credible source?

I am wondering BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to clear a minimum hurdle, but reliability is always in a context that includes publication, author, and claim. Sennalen (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

BananaBreadPie12: It has an editorial team and editorial policies, and it appears to be a well-respected entertainment news outlet. You should be fine using it to source things about entertainment. With that said, it might not be good enough for the sentence you added to Shrek 2. The Collider article is just the opinion of one writer, and it doesn't prove that anything is "widely regarded" or that "many people" think something. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the layout, this seems to be a Valnet source. Note that other sources of this company such as Screen Rant and Game Rant are situational sources (marginally reliable). — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia editors used as a source

OP is LTA sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wasn't sure whether to post this here, at NPOV, fringe, or elsewhere, as it seems to be violating every policy. I noticed here an editor claiming that Arthur Jensen, one of the most accomplished individuals in psychology, is a fringe source.[4] Following the reference, we find a survey of Wikipedia editors on the question of whether the view that any component of race and intelligence differences is genetic is fringe. [5] The vast majority of editors there effectively simply write "yes" with no attempt to survey the field. The few that do survey the field engage in rather obvious cherry picking. I would also note that it seems odd to declare an individual fringe because one of their views is considered fringe, by Wikipedia editors or experts. Jensen's contributions to the field went well beyond race and intelligence. Here we have a survey of experts in the field, rather than Wikipedia editors, which produces a quite different result. [6] Which survey should take precedence according to the reliable sources policy? Dretynit (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC) which produces a quite different result This is not surprising, since is was answering a different question: not race and intelligence differences, but intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Anarchist Federation website as a source for facts on BLP article Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

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

---

Hello. I'm concerned regarding the use of This source on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The source is from anarchistfederation.net, which self-describes as an automated news aggregator run by the Online Anarchist Federation. I recently removed content sourced to this website, as it appears to be a self-published press release of an organization with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Newimpartial decided to restore the source.

I think that the source has no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I have been told by Newimpartial that I am clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability and that the source carries at least the standing of a blog entry by someone who is known and who has a track record of self-publication on related issues over time.

Is this a reliable source for content in that BLP article? I'd like to say it's not reliable, but I figure I'd prefer the community weigh in on this specific use case given that this disagreement cannot be swiftly resolved on the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the text sourced to the anarchist SPS is not content about an identifiable living person, nor is it stated in Wikivoice. The text in question reads as follows:

The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.

This is not sensitive BLP content, and adds detail to discussion of an event that is already included in the article based on independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be contentious content in a BLP, and I really do not think this is the sort of source that should be used for contentious claims anywhere on Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted below, 'anarchistfederation.net' is not the source, the Anarchist Federation (Britain) is. We should not be debating the reliability of the former since it's immaterial.

Recommendation for best practice: editors should not cite them directly, but cite the original source the organization re-published from, based on how well that meets WP:RS standards, just like any other news aggregator TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLP leads you to interpret this account as "contentious BLP content"? I am perplexed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you not understand how this is contentious material? I'm frankly quite confused here if you don't. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can see a contentious statement in that article text that concerns a specific living person, I'd be very interested to know what that is. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Linking a living person to Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. is clearly controversial, and requires strong, secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand your argument here. I'm not implying that Keen's supporters are zombies or ultraterrestrials, but WP:BLP doesn't apply to such groups. The event in question is documented in RS here; it isn't something the anarchists simply claim to have bappened. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is about a BLP, if the content is not about the BLP, then it runs against WP: OR and is still a BLP issue. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't OR when the relationship between the subject and the event is established in WP:RS, which is true in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Except you have to cite a reliable source this is directly related to the subject of the article. The subject of the article in this case is a living person. So BLP applies to determining whether the source is reliable. Either it's not related and OR, or is related and subject to BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the source that currently establishes that connection, in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That you can provide a hook for a coatrack doesn't meant it's not OR. Either the content that the source is being used for is related to the BLP, which makes BLP apply, or it doesn't and it's OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable Unusually clear case of a source not being reliable, surprised it comes up to discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you unfamiliar with WP:USESPS? Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I am very well familiar with it. Are you familiar with WP:BLUDGEON? Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

      No. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This a non-neutral way to raise the issue and not even relevant.

For a start, as you note, anarchistfederation.net is a news aggregator. They republish material from other publications, so assessing the inclusion of such articles should be based on where it's republished from, not the anarchistfederation itself.

The source in question is the Anarchist Federation (Britain), who protested an event of Keen's, and the material sourced to them is an attributed statement as to 1) how they would characterize Keen/why they're protesting and 2) who were the other groups in attendance/that they collaborated with. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it's a primary, self-published source. Shouldn't be used in a BLP, and even in a non-BLP it wouldn't have any weight without secondary coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to specific statements about living people, not to BLP articles. I'm tired of seeing experienced editors make that mistake. Newimpartial (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In the very lead of WP:BLP, it says Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. I'm really not understanding where the confusion is on your end. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't material challenged or likely to be challenged. This is material you removed on grounds of WP:CRYBLP, although it doesn't require BLP sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP applies to everything about biographies of living people. Unbalancing an article by using bad sources is most definitely a BLP violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't require that non-BLP claims be sourced to BLP-compliant sources. I get that balance needs to be based on the balance of coverage in independent, reliable sources, but that isn't the question raised by RTH's filing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm in two minds here. And while I realise BLPN is that way, and that this is overall a discussion on whether or not a source is reliable, given the assertions on BLP I think it important to discuss or at least address this.

On the one hand I think I can see Newimpartial's point. This particular quotation is about a group of people, which would be excluded from BLP requirements by WP:BLPGROUP, depending on its size and editorial consensus determined on a case-by-case basis. I can also see their point about how the BLP policy applies to all content about living people, and is not specifically tied to biographies. This can be summed up as: any article can contain content about one or more living people without becoming a biography, and biographies about living people can contain non-biographical content.

On the other, I can also see the points by Red-tailed hawk, ScottishFinnishRadish and Animalparty, the article is unquestionably a biography of a living person and so should by inference and common sense be covered by the BLP policy, as that is the policy that covers content on living people.

The reason why I'm in two minds is that I can't see an obvious way to reconcile either of these two interpretations of the policy. There does not seem to be any direct or explicit guidance in the text of WP:BLP that covers the applicability of the BLP policy on (potentially) non-BLP content that appears in a biographical article of a living person. Looking at I'm not even sure if we have an essay on how the BLP policy interacts with non-BLP content in a biography. And assuming I'm not missing something obvious or not so obvious in my reading of the policy, and related essays, maybe this is something that we need to discuss in general terms at BLPN?

However, in general editorial practice, we do generally write our biographies conservatively as there are all sorts of risks whenever we get biographical content wrong. As such I would err on the side of caution and tentatively agree with the points raised by RTH, SFR, and AP that this content can be objected to on good faith BLP grounds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My explanation of the principle was made at the article Talk page:

We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.

[7] Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the type of content in that example is generally (but not always) less controversial than the content we're discussing here on KJKM's followers at a protest. It's kinda an apples to oranges comparison you're making there I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The point of the example is to show the absurdity of "only BLP-compliant sources in BLP articles regardless of the specific content to be sourced". My intention was not to draw a precise parallel to the article text in question. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This is an extremely questionable source. Where is the evidence AF has a reputation for accurately reporting news, and/or is taken seriously by others (outside of AF)? It is simply self-published, user-generated content. It can't be a self-published subject matter expert, since we don't even know the name of the author. and yes, anarchistfederation.net is a 'news aggregator', in this case they aggregated this article from, guess who, Anarchist Federation (Bristol chapter). It really carries no more weight or reliability than a random guy walking by, taking notes, and posting his experience on Facebook. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it simply doesn't come from a reliable source. This is how rumors and falsehoods spread. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is the account by an anarchist collective concerning an event its members attended. It doesn't need to be an independent source so long as the content is correctly attributed in arrticle text, which it definitely is. A collective has a track record over time and a reputation at stake as a random guy walking by, taking notes does not, so your parallel fails in the respects that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please provide the secondary reliable sources that demonstrate that inclusion is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is the source used in the current article version. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're using the source that says This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course. To shoe-horn in a primary sps painting the article subject in a negative light, rather than summarizing the secondary source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  In my view the report from the anarchists adds balance to that one-sided summary. I don't see any reason in policy not to include such accounts, not in Wikivoice, where they do not raise actual BLP concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is pure OR, since it's your view, and not that of a secondary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not proposing any article content that includes WP:OR or SYNTH. There is nothing wrong with holding my own critical opinions about media sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Facebook is a different example than an organization publishing a statement on something it was involved in. I'm not convinced on its reliability either way, but I think the best thing to do is re-scrutinize relevant policy and trawl the archives for past discussions on whether it's acceptable to use an attributed self-published statement from an organization involved in a notable protest. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not a useable source. What we're looking at is a primary (written by a party to the event), self-published, and obviously biased source. This source wouldn't be usable in any article, and certainly falls far below the bar for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  • That isn't true, given that RS already document that the event occurred, and given that the anarchist collective can be reliably counted on to give its own view of what happened. WP:USESPS doesn't really speak effectively about collective authorship, but the same reputational factors apply that would in the case of an individual reporting events in the course of many years. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    The secondary source that says This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course. or a different one? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Please see my reply above; I'm trying to minimize BLUDGEON here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable for the reasons SFR notes. Also, the notion that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground is not contentious BLP content beggars belief. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  In what sense is this a claim about a living person? Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Keen and her supporters are living people. Levivich (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is no statement there about Keen, and anonymous human beings are not covered by WP:BLP. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  If there is 'no statement about Keen', what is it doing in the Keen biography? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  The connection of the event to the subject is established in this RS. I get that the level of detail to include about the event can be questioned, but that isn't the question RTH asked. Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe stick to what the reliable secondary sources say, rather than not using the secondary source for anything but trying to open the door for bad sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any basis in policy for your interpretation; it looks from here like a rationalization you had made before reading either of the relevant sources or the versions of article text concerned. Of course, I may be wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Andy identifies the weakness in this argument. Tbh, I would support TBANing from BLPs anyone who makes this kind of argument. Seriously, if an editor is arguing that in an article about Keen, a statement about "Keen's supporters" doing horrible things is not a statement about Keen, then the editor lacks the necessary competence to edit sensitive BLP content like this. More likely, the editor is just willing to make an overly-pedantic argument that they know is nonsense in order to win a content dispute, but that also doesn't bode well for editing in sensitive topic areas like this. I urge everybody to get into the spirit of BLP rather than trying to wikilawyer BLP. Same thing about getting into the spirit of WP:RS, and abandon wikilawyering arguments about collective authorship. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  If your issue is with the characterization of those hurling abuse as "Keen's supporters", I am fine to take that out of the article. What matters to me is describing what happened at the event to the extent we can, given the sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  The source concerned doesn't meet WP:RS. Not remotely. Not for anything. It cannot be used as a source for 'what happened at the event', in any Wikipedia article, BLP or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't being used for what happened at the event it is describing what happened at the event according to some (anarchist) participants. It is unquestionably reliable for that.

  Levivich, I made this edit to respond to your concern expressed here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not base article content on random assertions from unidentified individuals as reported in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to under the misapprehension that anarchist collectives are unidentified individuals who make random asseertions. And you sound grumpy about it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  The only misapprehension here seems to be yours - that you stand the slightest chance of winning this argument through relentless bludgeoning of the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  That has not been my assumption. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also, Andy, this retributive revert does not seem healthy and looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not concern any contentious material, it removes stable article content, and it does not reflect any consensus about the source. The publisher in question has effective editorial oversight and has been in operation for more than a century - I suggest that you self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you can't seriously be arguing that this source is a proper RS, especially for BLP content. Levivich (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Why not? The publisher has been around for a very long time; it has a good reputation and effective editorial oversight. What do you have against anarchists? Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Because https://freedomnews.org.uk/2019/05/18/some-thoughts-on-bristol-university-disciplinary-action-against-trans-student/ is an opinion piece. How did you miss that? Levivich (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't think it was, since the portion I restored wasn't opinion coverage. But now I see Comment. Interestingly, nobody had raised that issue until now (that I'd seen). It is WP:RSOPINION, and so not usable for facts: you were right for the wrong reason. :p Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  When the headline is "Some thoughts on...", that typically indicates an op-ed :-P Levivich (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  We're expected to read headlines, now? Merde. I always go right to the publication's masthead, then the article text supporting the arricle content. Oof. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not even remotely reliable. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has ever read WP:RS should even need to ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Obviously not reliable. About as obvious as it gets—remove on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• I removed the section from the article in question based on the very clear consensus here that the Anarchist Federation is not a reliable source for anything in the article in question. Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Unclear The website used in the citation, anarchistfederation.net is an auto-aggregator of "daily news" from multiple worldwide anarchist collectives. They have a tech team who keep the site working, and they don't seem to publish their own content directly. The original non-aggregated source appears to be an article by Anarchist Federation (UK). I do see a basic editorial policy on the AFUK site, which states that submissions are accepted on a “trust first and correct the mistakes” basis and which implies that while they don't fact-check prior to publication ("trust first"), they do accept and make corrections ("correct the mistakes"). The only reason why I'm unclear is that I've not seen any editor demonstrate use by others, nor that AFUK have a reputation for accurately reporting UK anarchist related news. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Ignoring anarchistfederation.net, which has no reliability as it's just an aggregator, the original source is a self published source. It's AFUK talking about AFUK. The quote from WP:SPS is Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. The details being reported aren't about the living person, so it can be used but would have to be attributed as it's a primary source. However it's obviously trying to pass guilt by association, and is likely undue in the article about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. That though is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, all statements made from this source in former article versions were fully attributed to the source. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable, especially since the content cited to it is deliberately drawing a deeply negative connection to a BLP. I'm surprised anyone would defend it. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  The final version of text drew no such connection:

  The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that demonstrators had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.

  That said, no text based on this source is in the article, any longer. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

...Surely you aren't claiming the BLPVIO is neutralized simply by removing Keen's name from a recap of a demonstration that was tied to her enough to be DUE in her biography? The extent of your idiosyncratic interpretations of P&Gs is becoming deeply troubling. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The demonstration is tied to her by The New Statesman, as noted above. How is additional information, attributed to the source, giving one group's account of the demonstration a potential BLPVIO? This seems bizarre to me - no source suggests that the clash didn't happen, an independent source says it did, and this non-independent source is used for information that does not characterize the BLP subject in any way. It seems that editors are used to CRYBLPing to discount sources that they don't want to include, even when these sources are used for policy-compliant inclusions. Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

So summarizing a Focus on the Family blogpost to describe a drag show performance is totally fine in the performer's bio if it's attributed, right? Come TF on. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, but a blog post about anti-drag show demonstrations could certainly be used, with attribution, to add detail to article coverage of such an event. Newimpartial (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What you are arguing is that such a blog post could be used in a BLP, despite it containing material that casts the BLP in a very negative light. This is outrageously non-compliant with policy. JoelleJay (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a description of what others did at an event can cast a living person in a negative light, unless their actions are attributed to that person in some way.

That said, of course I will respect the consensus that this content be excluded. Since last night, I have just being rebutting WP:CRYBLP arguments that mis-state the P&G. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is indisputably at odds with consensus. Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground absolutely falls under biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. How is a description of demonstrators' behaviors at a Keen rally DUE here if it's not intended to provide context on Keen? Do you believe readers get a neutral or positive impression of Keen from that statement? If not, how can you claim it isn't material challenged or likely to be challenged, or that it doesn't have the possibility of harm? Policy says to beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and states "See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; the above content is exactly the type of insinuation addressed here and unless an editor has severe competence issues it should be clear implications of contentious association are not acceptable elsewhere in the article either. The same goes for the use of shitty sources in BLPs in general: if Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, where they obviously are not attached to info directly covering the subject, why would they be acceptable when cited inline? JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The above content isn't what I reverted in after the BLP issue was raised; it was this text, and no, I don't see any possibility of harm to a BLP subject. The passage in question is an attributed account by a reputable organization that neither casts insinuations about the BLP subject nor was its relevance to the article questioned by any editor at the time it was discussed. The objection to the adjusted passage was purely to the sourcing, by an editor who was misapplying the requirements of BLP to material that is not contentious material about a living person. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That content is in the diff you link. Your stunning inability to recognize that that passage is biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and ... poorly sourced is grounds for a CIR/TENDENTIOUS block. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I was attempting a two-edit diff and failed. I removed the objectionable bit once I understood the objection minutes later. [User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You are still bludgeoning. It may be wise to drop the stick. It seems you are willfully ignoring the WP:PAG against sources you want to include. You want to add/retain the primary source accounts of an organization with no established reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial discretion, seemingly merely because they were there and happened to have blogged about it, and you presume that the anarchists who attended are inherently reliable and/or significant. A self-published primary account carries virtually zero weight, especially when it's not a recognized journalistic outlet. It doesn't matter much what they said: a self-published account saying "everybody had a grand time and ate strawberry ice cream" would carry equally negligible significance. WP:NPOV is based not on listing what every conceivable source has published, but in conservatively summarizing what reliable sources have said, in proportion to the prominence of these views. You've not provided any evidence that the AF source is reliable or has been given weight by secondary sources, nor that it is a WP:RSOPINION, merely asserted (repeatedly!) that their content should be added. To give undue wight to unreliable/minority views is not what an encyclopedia is for. The only case I could possibly see using this source (with due caution) is a hypothetical article about the Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation to document non-contentious statements about itself (not other people or groups) per WP:SELFSOURCE. If you wish to write an original composition outside of Wikipedia, elevating unheard voices and primary sources that you think deserve more focus, then by all means pen an article for Anarchist Studies or your local newspaper, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As I noted on the Talk page, I believe you are not paying attention to the relevant questions, which are (1) does the text referencing this Anarchist source contain contentious material about a living person? (it does not), and (2) are the statements of this particular anarchist group reputed to be good sources for the events they attend? (I believe they are). This isn't an RSOPINION, but it would have been sheerest optimism on my part to expect you to confine yourself to WP:PAG that are actually relevant to the case under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

1) Even if this wasn't a BLP, the self-published primary accounts (WP:PRIMARY), have not been demonstrated to be significant views, e.g. mentioned by other sources. 2) You believe they are. That's fine! It doesn't mean they warrant mention. If I find an unpublished diary by a World War I soldier, or a published newspaper letter by a spouse of a soldier, that might be very interesting to add to tack onto some article on a WWI battle, but it's still a primary source, and primary sources need to be used with care, if at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the legitimate uses of non-independent sources is to add additional perspectives on events whose inclusion is justified by independent RS accounts. We can use such sources, for example, to give founders' perspectives on when and why a group was established, without of course endorsing their view in Wikivoice. Your claim that such sources never are and never should be used in enwiki is prima facie absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Three editors above have cautioned you about bludgeoning this discussion, and I would kindly ask you to please stop bludgeoning by volume and sheer repetition as well. The arbitration committee notes that Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. In this discussion, you have made no fewer than thirty-five comments, many of which have been extremely repetitive to previous points. Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you make this comment in a thread of back and forth where I have said less and repeated less than my interlocutor, but I respect your viewpoint. Newimpartial (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable solely as an attributed notable SPS Which is what it appears to be used as in the section already. I would change "reported" to "claimed", as it is a claim being made by the group in question of what occurred at the event. But they are a notable group whose opinion seems fine to include for an event that already has other reliable secondary coverage as an event that occurred regarding the BLP subject. Silverseren^C 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, we can't use an WP:SPS to describe what occurred at the event, because that would be using an SPS for claims about a third-party. This is WP:SPS and WP:BLP 101, and like many other editors, I'm starting to get very alarmed by what some editors in this topic area have been writing when it comes to interpreting our very clear, very well established policies about this sort of thing. A "notable group's opinion" is not "fine to include for an event" when the "event" consists of other people's actions. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  So you are saying that WP cant give an attributed statement by the Anarchists mentioning the other groups that accompanied them at the counter-demonstration, because they are referring to people other than themselves? I don’t believe that to be what WP:SPS means by claims about third parties. If someone says, "I'm suing Elon Musk" on a blog, I think we can say "so-and-so said they were suing Elon Musk" using the SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  "I'm suing Elon Musk" is an WP:ABOUTSELF statement. "[Other person] is suing Elon Musk" can't be cited to an SPS. "[Other people] [did things at a demonstration]" can't be cited to an SPS. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't the part of the sourced content to which I referred. It was the "we were there with ABC"-type content. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I think "I saw my friend across the room" or even "I spoke to my friends" are covered by ABOUTSELF, though clearly I may be in the minority on that. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable Nothing at Wikipedia should be cited to such sources. --Jayron32 13:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• The question is whether to include material from an activist organization in a biography. It's about WP:DUE more than RS, and the default answer is no, especially if it's a controversial claim and especially if it's a BLP issue (the idea that it's not a BLP concern to include claims about what their supporters did in a biography about the person is very unconvincing). There are exceptions for certain high-profile organizations whose opinions routinely receive coverage by the press, but even then it's helpful to see the extent to which reliable sources cover the claim being made. It's there that the reliability of the site in the header is relevant: does it lend weight to the claim's inclusion. I don't think it does -- at least not sufficiently. Find some other sources which cite the claim or make a similar claim and there's a better case for weight. Regardless, as others have pointed out already, this is a NPOV issue first and RS question second. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, and want to note some additional considerations

  While AFUK was verifiably present, only WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:BREITBART explicitly noted that, and are not WP:RS. Had RS explicitly named them as being present, there would be more of a debate over WP:DUE, and if reliable sources had explicitly mentioned their statement, there would be a much stronger case for it being DUE (though hopefully, the RS would have noted their statement themselves so we didn't need to turn to the primary source).

  But as it stands, sadly the RS don't lend weight to its inclusion and it is WP:UNDUE in the article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable Unreliable news aggregators, nor self-published material, should be used freely about living persons in an article. If the content is fit for inclusion, find the reliable secondary source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is a political advocacy group, that gives a disclaimer that it doesn't do up-front fact checking, making self-serving claims, to go in the biography of a living person they regard as their enemy. It does not get less reliable than that. It concerns me that experienced editors would even entertain the idea of using this, much less writing apologia for it.

Sennalen (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• For the record, I have filed a report at WP:ANI given Newimpartial's extreme bludgeoning here (more than 40 different comments in 24 hours) and WP:COMPETENCE concerns raised regarding their pushing of such an obviously unsuitable source. Anyone can make mistakes, but doubbling down on one's mistake over 40 times is too much. Jeppiz (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not reliable No evidence presented of a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. No evidence of editorial control that I could see. Advocacy organization. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

The Oklahoman / Accuracy in Media

1. Source. Irvine, Reed; Goulden, Joseph C. (June 1, 1997). "New Wave of Attacks Targets Aldrich". The Oklahoman. Retrieved February 17, 2023.

2. Article. Gary Aldrich.

3. Content. "George Stephanopoulos, serving as White House communications director under the Clintons, was able to exert pressure on the media to ignore the book, and it received little attention from mainstream outlets despite the sensational contents and its popularity with the reading public."

I noticed that this content was cited without the authors to an article in The Oklahoman, however, clicking the link indicates that they may have re-published something originally published in Accuracy in Media by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden. (For another take on why Gary Aldrich's book may have not been given the publicity some think it deserved, see Margaret Carlson's take in TIME.) At the very least, I think this is a statement that needs attribution. Thoughts? -Location (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a BLP issue as it's an allegation against Stephanopoulos? If the only source is a tabloid shouldn't the text be removed, per WP:BLPSOURCES? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I'm not sure. This doesn't look like a typical tabloid, but it does appear to violate WP:REDFLAG if it is considered an "exceptional claim". -Location (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's an exceptional claim, using public office to suppress an unfavorable work is implying corruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be treated as an opinion piece by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden, for me that means it can't be used at Gary Aldrich. When Aldrich dies that "can't" gets downgraded to a "shouldn't" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the feedback. I removed the sentence and citation as it does seem to violate a few different aspects of WP:BLP. -Location (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

History Channel case-by-case basis

I'd like to suggest that we revisit the History Channel (History.com) notability reliability, to consider it on a case-by-case basis. While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable, I see no reason why we can't use the "Food that Built America", "Tools that Built America" and "Toys that Built America" and similar programs in this same "that Built America" theme as reliable sources. They've had a history of companies, toys, tools, foods and other items that are part of America's industrial and commercial heritage. Each program seems well-researched, having company representatives, university scholars and other individuals present the history of each item involved. The History Channel comes and goes as far as overall notability reliability is concerned, but I've noticed that they've attempted to get some serious content on the air lately. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable" Who says they lack notability? Their reliability is questionable, not their notability. Dimadick (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

corrected as above. Oaktree b (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Meh… even the “best” programs on the history channel are over-simplified and frequently get basic facts wrong. Sure, they do get a lot right but, before I cited something from them, I would want to double check it by looking at an actual history book… and as long as we are doing that, we might as well cite that history book. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Literally everything you can learn through a History Channel program that's worth covering in Wikipedia is better covered through a more reliable source. --Jayron32 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's true, but the fact that a more reliable source exists doesn't make a source unreliable. If it did, we'd never cite a newspaper for any topics covered in an academic book. I'd like for that to be our rule, but it isn't. Levivich (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not true that everything covered by newspapers is also in academic books. --Jayron32 13:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say that. I said "we'd never cite a newspaper for any topics covered in an academic book", I didn't say everything in a newspaper is covered in an academic book. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be possible to find more academic or preferred RS for anything on the History Channel? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, at least for its website. For example, Mohawk "Skywalkers" [8] (that article was cited in this paper (PDF) from Catholic Theological Society of America), Murder Castle [9], and Buffalo wing [10] are topics where I'm having a hard time finding academic or preferred RS. In other topics, like history of surveillance aircraft [11], or the Native American perspective of Mount Rushmore [12], there are academic RS about the various aspects, but the History.com articles provide helpful broad overviews, and also do it in easier-to-understand English than academic sources, with no paywall. I get the sense there are articles where History.com can be a helpful source. My hesitation is that I'm unsure about the accuracy of these articles, and I have my doubts considering the publisher is known for publishing sensationalist history TV shows. Levivich (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

At best there are better sources, at worst it is junk. No we Should not use it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• No and just FYI the "_____ that Built America" series are just as unreliable as Ancient Aliens etc. Often they tell the corporate marketing narrative for a product and not the actual history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• I think it's worth separating the TV shows from History.com. I'm not sure that anything at http://www.history.com/topics or http://www.history.com/news is any more or less reliable than what you'd find in mainstream media, like http://www.cnn.com, but then I've never read an analysis of it. I suspect judging the website articles by the TV shows (Ancient Aliens, Built America, etc.) is inaccurate. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• These programs often have field experts, professors, and the like; literally just find the experts' publications on the matter and cite them. Curbon7 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Easy to say, but can you do it? I listed a few History.com articles above: Mohawk Skywalkers, Murder Castle, Buffalo wings. Can you find the experts' publications on the matters to cite? I tried and couldn't. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think History.com should ever be considered reliable for citations on Wikipedia due to the extremely low quality of its content, nor should History Channel shows be considered reliable. The blanket ban has worked wonders towards improving history articles and reducing talk page wars. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources reliability?

Hi, want to know, can the following sites be considered reliable:

HIP in Pakistan

Fuchsia Magazine

Parhlo

Thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Public Works Department of Rajasthan

How are the sources given by me in this article? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"

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

---

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [13][14] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. Silverseren^C 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.

On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.

I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read this article from The Verge, which corroborates Futurism's report. Very concerning, but it would seem only their Money-related articles are affected. At this stage, I wouldn't suggest they be blacklisted, but this scandal should be noted at RSP and editors should be warned against citing Money-related articles published since November 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, WP:RSP currently has no link to or mention of this discussion, or the brief one from spring last year. The last linked discussion was back in 2015. This may be a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137a (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564311/cnet-pausing-ai-articles-bot-red-ventures InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a (talk • edits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe post a warning, Cnet has generally been good for tech/computer news. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Since it appears their use of AI is disclosed and easily identifiable, a specific warning for articles that are "written by CNet Money" and have an AI disclosure would be most appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Red Ventures's portfolio

Following this, I think it's time to downgrade CNet's reliability. That's just outrageous. Given the reports, it's probably time to check and see if there's anything else we need to do about Red Ventures's huge portfolio, which seem to also employed the same tools and processes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would them stopping a limited section run of AI generated articles be a reason to downgrade them? If they had expanded the articles to any section, then sure. But the article you're responding to is them doing the exact opposite. Silverseren^C 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here. CNET generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some 'corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it ("Some writers — I won’t call them reporters ... "). According to the reporting we've seen so far, they've evidently implemented these tools and approaches throughout their portfolio but won't say exactly where or how.

And why should we believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been remotely transparent about any of this—the company could at best be described as deceitful—and the company runs a big stable of SEO-focused content mills across its ecosystem just like what we're seeing on post-acquisiton CNET, including Healthline and an EDU-focused branch (!). It's worth looking into how we're using properties that they own as sources—that is, those that aren't already listed as extremely dubious (Red Ventures owns, as you'll notice, the notorious The Points Guy).

I expect we'll probably hear a lot more about this in the future, as Red Ventures seems to have to date been largely passed over by investigative journalists, but in the meantime we should be tacking stock of what this company is pumping out and where it's appearing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Then we should consider splitting CNET into pre-September 2020 and post-September 2020 (when they were acquired by Red Ventures), in a similar fashion to Newsweek and Forbes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Would oppose this pretty strongly (for now), given that the relevant articles have all apparently received corrections, and that CNET is suspending this dubious "experiment". Source downgrades are meant to address general reliability problems, not to be punitive. The other properties owned by Red Ventures are not relevant, since the WP:RSP entry is specifically about CNET; and we don't judge one property's reliability based any other media properties that share the same owner. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Further on this from Futurism: CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism: CNET's AI-written articles aren't just riddled with errors. They also appear to be substantially plagiarized - the hazard of AI text generators where they spit the source back out. It's possible that this will give Red Ventures pause ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Another piece from Futurism out today on AI-generated problem content from Bankrate, another Red Ventures property. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And another one, this time covering Red Ventures EDU, which appears to be producing many AI articles steering visitors to schools like Liberty University and the University of Phoenix. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Buzzfeed also said it will use AI to generate some content ("interactive" content, not clear if this includes news). Perhaps we should consider listing ChatGPT or AI as its own line at WP:RSP (whether or not individual sources that use it are also listed individually)...? -sche (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Interactive content by definition does not include traditional news articles. In the context of Buzzfeed interactive content means their famously stupid quizzes [15]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

CNET "editorial firewalls have been repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers

Given this new Verge report out about "the guardrails that keep editorial content independent [have been] repeatedly breached" to benefit advertisers, I would support downgrading post-Red Venture sale CNET to "use with caution". (November 2022 and after.) This is related to but separate from the AI stuff above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support and downgrade to generally unreliable leaning toward future deprecation. If this report is true—and there seems to be every reason to believe it—this is absolutely unacceptable. I think "use with caution" is letting these bad actors off the hook quite lightly and I think we now have every reason to suspect post-acquisition CNET and other organizations under the Red Ventures portfolio as outright unreliable—where's the line between a CNET ad and a CNET article now? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support, we took the wait and see approach before and now we can see its bad... Agree with bloodofox that "use with caution" is a minimum, our response is probably going to have to be more reasonable and proportionate than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note Red Ventures has owned CNET since October 2020. I would Support downgrading to "use with caution" post-sale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Reading the Verge report, I have a hard time trusting that they wouldn't modify older articles from before Nov 2022 or the Red Ventures acquisition in 2020. RV is a private equity firm out for a quick buck and is willing to burn every bit of CNET's accumulated reputation to get it. We cannot trust them to provide reliable coverage going forward. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support for post-sale articles (post-2020); older ones should still be fine, though, especially archived pages from archive.org. CNET was a good source for computer/tech news in its heyday. Phediuk (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm putting my thoughts on the whole situation here to avoid breaking it into multiple comments:

Generally reliable for articles produced before the Red Ventures acquisition in October 2020.

Situationally reliable for articles produced post-October 2020, per above. Articles on subjects mentioned specifically in The Verge's report, as well as review based on a review copy or version of a product, should be treated as unreliable or require inline attribution.

Generally unreliable for articles written by artificial intelligence. The use of AI as seen in CNET articles borders on WP:USERG as well. DecafPotato (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

forgot to mention but I'm very against deprecation – per my thoughts above. DecafPotato (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Phediuk. Timur9008 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Schierbecker (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Downgrade to generally unreliable post-Red Ventures. I already wrote somewhere that CNET should be downgraded owing to their claim that their AI-generated articles would be reviewed by a human editorial board, yet articles were still published with serious and obvious factual errors. That suggests either that their editorial board is incompetent, or that they're not reviewing at all. With the report that they're deliberately sacrificing editorial control for the benefit of advertisers, that makes them unreliable for any information by our standards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would also support a blanket prohibition on the use of any source written by AI, from any publication. At this stage of the technology, AI is repeatedly shown to be unsuitable for academic work, and there's also a pretty significant risk of contributory copyright infringement from AIs that are just regurgitating other works. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'll cosign that blanket prohibition. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with the note that these companies often manipulate old stories as well... We might be restricted to internet archive and similar only at some point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" for post-Red Ventures content. There is no need to pause at some wishy-washy "use with attribution" status; including advertisements as attributed opinion would be an insult to the idea of expert opinion. I also don't see the merit in a "use with caution" half-measure. The adequate amount of caution is not to use it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to generally unreliable. It's hard to believe an editorial team that does not review AI-generated articles or topics advertisers want is exerting sufficient editorial control to make CNET better than a blog.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not see anything in the Verge article suggesting that Red Ventures is changing old/previously published articles — the references to “changing articles” seem to be about things currently being written. Without actual proof that the company is modifying old articles, speculating on their doing so is unhelpful at best and conspiratorial at worst. I support downgrading to use-with-caution post-acquisition, as the Verge article suggests the journalists there seem to still value rigor (despite their bosses’ best efforts), and the Verge piece seems to primarily implicate opinion pieces/reviews. AI-generated articles should be banned entirely per common sense. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Downgrade to "generally unreliable" for post-Red Ventures content because CNET is no longer journalism. Levivich (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet more AI content farm magazine filler

Futurism's got this story by the throat. "Magazine Publishes Serious Errors in First AI-Generated Health Article: The owners of Sports Illustrated and Men’s Journal promised to be virtuous with AI. Then they bungled their very first AI story — and issued huge corrections when we caught them." [16]

The publisher in question is the Arena Group. Here's a list of their brands.

It's pretty obvious that anything by a text generator isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia. We need to work out suitable and proportionate ways to deal with this issue in general, though - archive articles, bad publishers, etc - because it's going to keep coming up - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right. We definitely need a policy on AI-generated content. Wikipedia should be furthering the SEO aims of these AI-generated content farms. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Close

Can someone close this? This was automatically archived; I just unarchived it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Herald Weekly

Special:LinkSearch/https://www.heraldweekly.com

This site brands itself as "Breaking Entertainment News and Gossips". I find it sometimes in the "sponsored content" section of some news sites with clickbait-y titles. These are definitely red flags. However, this source has quite a new citations in article space right now. Is that something to be concerned about? 137a (talk • edits) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Blue Police in Poland

the following reference is given at Collaboration with the Axis Powers for the statement that the "Blue Police", a Nazi police auxiliary made up of Polish policemen, were recruited "under threat of death". I don't care if it is reliable or it isn't, personally; I will just remove it if it is determined that it is not. I don't speak Polish and the book does not seem to be available online. The link goes to a publisher's page.

Hempel, Adam (1987). Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa: 1939-1945 (in Polish). Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Związków Zawodowych. p. 83.

I am looking for another source for the statement, but would be glad to hear from any subject matter experts, anyone who owns the book, or anyone who can suggest a different good source. Thanks all Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing it referenced twice on Google Scholar; once is to an article (English translation) in The Police Review, while the other is to this article in Polish that is available on WP:TWL but which I cannot read for lack of Polish language skills. It's also cited in page 170 of this English book, which is OUP-published but doesn't appear on Google Scholar, in a chapter on the Polish Blue Police, and on Page 264 of this German book published by a Brill imprint. Out of the two English sources, only the one from The Police Review says something similar (something about the death penalty if the members of the Blue Police did not enforce laws or carry out German orders, which is also stated in this thesis), but that's different than recruiting new policemen under threat of death. Do you have access to the original Polish text from that page? There's a chance it's a translation error making its way into the Wikipedia article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Would German (here) be easier to understand Elinruby?

GizzyCatBella🍁 06:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

well, that's not going to be a source. And although my German is so rusty that I don't really claim to speak it, I *think* that that says that all Polish policemen must without exception report for duty or face strict penalties. Not seeing death mentioned there. But maybe you can answer Red-tailed hawk, who seems to have taken an article interest in the question, because the Polish article ours links to is "collaboration" and doesn't mention Blue police. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not speak German. My Polish is so rusty that I cannot really claim to speak it; the full extent of my Polish-language knowledge is basic greetings and how to say "I love you", so I'm not going to be able to do original research on primary sources. But also, we're explicitly not supposed to do that when writing articles, so I'm not really sure what I'm being asked to answer here, Elinruby. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

apparently I was unclear. 1) I tagged you in particular since you were interested enough in the question to do a non-trivial amount of googling. I am, to be clear, not asking you to do anything more or spend anymore time on this than you want to. I am a little baffled as to what I might have said that sounded like a request for OR, and would appreciate a note at my talk page about that, so that I can avoid confusing other people. Since I don't think this is an OR question, allow me to rephrase. I saw an article that is very inadequately sourced and had problems of due weight in my eyes. I am still struggling with the latter but as part of my attempt to remedy the referencing, I noted a statement that I found a little surprising, although I don't actually doubt it. I would however like to verify this reference as part of my edit of the article. Is this not best practice?

The reference is in a language that I don't speak, and is not online, where Google Translate might help with that. So what I was hoping when I came here was either a) someone would come by who owns the book or b) someone with some topic knowledge would be able to suggest a better reference. Alternately, since you can't verify it and neither can I, perhaps I should rewrite the sentence to match the sources you found. That part is a question. "Blue Police" gives a LOT of false positives. That part is a comment. If you are tired of this question then I am ok with that too, but that is what the question was, not whatever misimpression I managed to give you somehow. Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, I think I misunderstood the ping in the comment above to mean that the question was directed at me. Sorry for my confusion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. It would have been better to address someone by name and not change topics mid-post. Just glad it's cleared up. Making note to self.Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually... the exact wording in the article is "who were forced, under penalty of death, to work for the German occupation authorities." Maybe the intended meaning here is that they worked under the threat of death, not that they were forced to join under the threat of death. Perhaps I should reword that to clarify (assuming this reading is correct). The sourcing question remains though. Those cite numbers sound low. Should we just go with Red-tailed hawk's sources? Or is there a better one that can be found if we aren't trying to source "recruited on pain of death", which seems to be the wrong reading? The thesis RTH mentions cites the call up to something that looked like it could be another copy of what GCB is showing us... it scrolled away when I tried to copy the footnote. Thank you for any brainpower than anyone applies to this. <g> Elinruby (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby - translated Polish--> najsurowsze kary = English --> the severest punishments. What were the severest punishments back in 1939? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I take your point. And yet, this is not what the poster says, exactly. So you think this would mean death if you don't join, then I take it? I'd still rather find a source that says that exactly. Surely there is one. Maybe even this one. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What you are seeing is an official document issued in 1939 by Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger ordering pre-war Polish policemen to appear for service or face severest penalties:

All Polish police officials and also Polish police officers who were on duty on September 1, 1939, should report by November 10, 1939, regardless of their previous place of service at the nearest German police office. Officials who do not comply with this request face the severest penalties. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger -

Do you still have doubts what that source says? If you do have doubts that severest penalty meant death during the German occupation of Poland, then maybe someone has access to that book, I also want to see it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That says severest penalties not severest penalty. You changed the meaning by making it singular instead of plural. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur with HEB that we should be wary of equating najsurowsze kary / strengste Strafe (severest penalties) with the death penalty. It may be that that is what was intended, it may be that that is what was understood; but it is a act of original research for us to make that connection. WP:NOR requires that the source directly support the material (emphasis in the original); which this primary document does not. - Rotary Engine ^talk 23:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Was "severest penalties" specifically a euphemism for the death penalty in Poland of that time period (the same way that "ultimate penalty" might be in English today), and can that be sourced? Alternatively, does the book itself interpret this as describing the death penalty, rather than only providing a quotation from a primary document as in the translated snippet? If either of those is true, then I would say that WP:V is met and the issue becomes entirely about the reliability of the specific book; otherwise, I would agree that we should not be describing it in this way. Either way, this seems like the sort of thing that should be reported in multiple high-quality sources if true, so if it isn't then that could call into question the reliability of the single source that does. With regards to the article, one intermediate option might be to provide the translated quote directly in the article instead. Sunrise (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur that either of the two cases mentioned would be better; but the first case, involving a combination of two separate sources, impacts poorly with WP:SYNTH. - Rotary Engine ^talk 03:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Guys, I think most of the above, i.e. the content issue itself about whether Polish policeman faced death penalty under the Nazi regime, is not really related to reliability (and I suggest this discusison is copied/movied to Talk:Blue Police or like). With regards to the source named by the OP (Hempel, Adam (1987), Policja granatowa...). I can't find much about the author, whom I would qualify now as an "independent historian" (i.e. not affiliated with any institution). Google tells me he was born in 1955, got a PhD from University of Warsaw (I can't find out in what field) and published several books and articles dealing with history of Polish security organizations (police and like). Regarding publisher of this particular book, it had more than one, USHMM states Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, which is a major Polish publishing house. His work is cited by a number of other scholars, which is a positive sign. I can't a dedicated review of it, however; the best I have so far is this: in this Polish-language academic article [17] published in pl:Studia Podlaskie in 2008 by pl:Robert Litwiński (historian at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University), Litwiński writes positively about the book in one paragraph (in Polish, translated by me): However, the most comprehensive and basic study on the Polish Police in the years 1939–1944 are the works of Adam Hempel (Policja granatowa w okupacyjnym systemie administracyjnym Generalnego Gubernatorstwa 1939–1945, Warszawa 1987; Pogrobowcy klęski. Rzecz o policji „granatowej” w Generalnych Gubernatorstwie 1939–1945, Warszawa 1990). The author comprehensively presented the origins and formation of the Polish police service under German occupation, discussed the organization of Polish police authorities in the General Government, their role in the implementation of German occupation policy, cooperation with the resistance movement, and relations with Polish society. so from what I see so far it seems reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

*This source [18] says "under threat of penalty", not death. Adam Hempel, if the book even says what is claimed, is not reliable as the book was published under a communist regime in Poland in 1987. During the communist era critical research was impossible and all books were supervised by censors. JoeZ451 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the death penalty is a sort of penalty, so I think it's a bit dubious to use a source saying under threat of penalty necessarily excludes the death penalty being that penalty. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. It doesn't necessarily exclude it; but it also doesn't verify it. And then if we have one source (to which we don't have access) ostensibly suggesting "death penalty", and other sources, which we can access, suggesting an unspecified penalty, we want to think about how any article text aligns with WP:DUE. - Rotary Engine ^talk 03:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Guys. I just spent one hour digging through sources, and writing an analysis, only to loose it to a browser memory crash... sigh. TL;DR: None of the sources I found says anything about this (as in, no source I found discusses the issue of penalties for refusal to re-enlist in 1939; some sources do mention death penalty but for disobeying orders in general, presumably after re-enlisting). And while it would be good to verify what is written in Hempel, p.83 I am leaning towards this being an error (I don't want to say hoax) introduced by an anon in 2008: [19]. I've tagged the current claim the article with but frankly, I think we can just be bold and either restore the original wording (arrest, not death penalty) or change it to "severest punishments'" per discussion above. (Pl wiki, I'll note, does not state death penalty either, it just uses the "severest punishments" language and references the very poster we have above, which is a bit ORish, if arguably factually correct). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Elinruby and Piotrus: I would say remove this claim. The source is obscure and dated. Especially given that Grabowski & Klein refute it:

‘Shortly after the German Invasion of Poland,’ says the [Wiki] article’s section on Poland, ‘the Nazi authorities ordered the mobilization of prewar Polish officials and the Polish police (the Blue Police), who were forced, under penalty of death, to work for the German occupation authorities.’ The Germans did indeed impose severe punishments on those refusing to serve in the new police force, but not the death penalty, and no documented case exists of a Polish officer being executed for such refusal.

References

This is a controversial, if not a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, which needs better sources than a 1990 publication and a poster that does not mention death penalty. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman Agreed. The only question is do we restore the original wording ("arrest") or go with "severe/severest(?) punishments" instead? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say go with "severe"; better to avoid bombastic language in Wiki prose. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman Done, feel free to tweak further. I'll also note that anon's edit violated WP:TSI, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I deleted "under pain of death" for now. I did not see the change Piotrus is talking about. Maybe he got distracted or maybe I overwrote him, come to think of it. If so it was by accident (many windows open). I have no emotional investment in the particular wording that remains; this just seemed like the fastest way to make the article less wrong, as this is far from the only issue with it. (Eyes welcome). I am extremely fine with anyone who wants to do so changing the wording. Alternately, since some editors seem to not want to edit the article, and I'm probably already going to wikihell anyway, I will change wording on request, preferably for multiple editors agreeing. Oh and the reference remains. It probably supports "forced to join"? LMK Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Which article did you edit? The one I edited is Blue Police, diff above, and you haven't edit that one... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah that explains that. Collaboration with the Axis powers is the one I edited. Elinruby (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source really just means "reliably published source". That is, someone can verify it was published, not that its contents are true. The real question most people want to answer is "can it go in the article", and that's more a matter of due weight, which falls under NPOV. Include Hempel alongside Grabowski's contradiction of it without trying to anoint a winner. Sennalen (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen I don't think there is any contradiction. Hempel was used for "arrest", initially, then anon changed it to "death penalty". As I said above, this seems like anon's violated WP:TSI, it's not certain by any means Hempel's discusses "death penalty" in this context (sadly, his work is hard to access outside physical copies in libraries in Poland). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen: I would not oppose the text about death being restored in Blue Police, if we could verify it. But I'm trying to verify sourcing in Collaboration with the Axis powers, which has world-wide scope and is part of Grabowski's dispute over our historiography. I'm trying to find room for Japanese forced labor practices and probably will need to do a split to manage that, let alone parse the degree of compulsion the Polish police were under. You are correct in saying that sources do not need to be online, but they are vastly preferred for contested assertions about the details of contentious topics. If somebody thinks I am wrong about weight here, I'm listening, but for weight in *this* article I see Piotrus making a good-faith attempt to find another source and not succeeding, and K.E.Coffman advising us not to die on this hill. Elinruby (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

And, seriously, guys, this is probably an error introduced by an IP editor. WP:DUCK, move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion that all a reliable source is is that someone can verify it was published. That is true of WP:PUBLISHED sources, but there are various published sources that are not reliable (such as supermarket tabloid National Enquirer and satire magazine The Onion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the point of this discussion is to determine whether the source is reliable to support the facts it is cited in support of, not to determine if the source has been published. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

someone can verify it was published, not that its contents are true Yeah, I would say it's the exact opposite of that statement. A reliable source is reliable because we can rely on its contents being true. That's why an op-ed is not a reliable source, nor a source that has no fact checking, doesn't issue corrections, have editorial oversight, or a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and so forth. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Player.One and GameCrate (defunct) reliable?

These sources are used in Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator, and I want to make sure if I can use them or not before proceding to develop the article. Player.One doesn't have a conclusive discussion on WP:VG/RS, and I'm not sure about the GameCrate review, a defunct situational outlet, but it is used because it is more detailed than other reviews. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion of Player.One is here, for those wondering. Seems like it's still linked to IBT Media.

Before working for GameCrate, the writer of the GameCrate piece worked for two unreliable publications (per WP:VG/RS), Cheat Code Central and Shoryuken, and one "situational" source, Escapist Mag (between 2015 and 2016; was it "situational" back then?). It's true that the review is better than any other I've found, so I hope others can find redeeming factors to it. DFlhb (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Theta_Muscae_and_the_Universe_Guide

There's an ongoing discussion at WT:ASTRO about the website https://universeguide.com, which is currently used in 40 articles related to astronomical objects. The discussion started with a dubious statement found at List of most luminous stars about the star Theta Muscae, which was cited to this source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blog who pages are "researched on the internet". It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Colorado Times Recorder, Passage, and Idavox as sources in the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article

There is currently an ongoing debate at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism about whether the sources listed above are reliable. I have tried to argue they are through relevant details and wikipolicy, and those opposed have tended to just say the sources are "activist" without further elaboration (or reliable sources for their claim) and have in some cases resorted to personal attacks and insinuations about me as an editor. Having tried without much success to have a good faith discussion there, I'm raising the issue here for comment on their use generally and in this particular article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

The Colorado Times Recorder

(https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/, source in question)

The text that was removed sourced to the CTR is The Colorado Times Recorder listed it as a "conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group" and stated "FAIR’s Board of Advisors consists of a host of disgraced academics and journalists, many of whom have been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, and homophobia transphobia." in the Reception section.

This source most obviously meets all the requirements for a WP:RS. They have a named editorial board of distinguished journalists and a clear policy for factually reviewing and verifying information before publishing, in addition to a clear retraction/correction policy. They have been cited, named, and praised extensively in well-established WP:RS and have a clear separation between opinion and analysis articles. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Can you link to the editorial board? Because I see a listing of staffers (not all with a journalism background and many with political orientations described)[20], but not an editorial board? Additionally, the site has an explicit political orientation. Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Link is here. Three writers state they are progressive, only one does not reference past journalistic work. The paper describes itself as nonpartisan, with a progressive orientation. Per WP:BIASED, this does not mean they can't be used. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the self-plagiarism: Even a generally reliable source may not be reliable in all context. This article obliquely labels a handful of advisory members (over 50 people per the FAIR website) as "disgraced" including Robert P. George, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer due to accusations of bad stuff (and the author also cites her own op-ed to justify one of the "has been accused"). Does that seem like something that should be accepted at face value, even if attributed? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The source primarily investigates FAIR's connections with CPAN. The figures noted are the most prominent, and other sources have often used the same ones as examples of a conservative-stacked board. That they have been accused of those things is public knowledge, most are sourced to reliable secondary coverage of the accusations or primary sources directly backing up that they were accused of those things (such as an open letter signed by hundreds or GLAAD painting a fairly damning factual picture of Robert George being homophobic and transphobic). The op-ed she cites does not suddenly mean the whole source shouldn't be used or quote not included. More to the point, her op-ed is not the source for the accusations, it is an op-ed describing accusations and providing some context. Two different things. A prominent quote to that effect is It caused controversy when Target announced it would be pulled from its shelves Nov. 12, following outcry from the trans community, which points to the fact she alone is not calling Shrier transphobic. That they criticized the organization and members of the board is WP:DUE, especially attributed, and to keep it out is to WP:WHITEWASH their reception. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not just the local sources that acknowledge the site's partisanship; Axios provides it as being among Democrats and liberal organizations that began producing partisan content years ago in Colorado, but this information is plainly available on the about page of the website, so I'm not sure that the website being left-leaning is contested anywhere. Moreover, the entire editorial board of the website is one person; any articles by him are going to have to be presumed to be self-published, as there does not appear to be any other editors who would review his work. That the extent of editorial review is a single person is also not the sort of robust sort of review process that inspires strong confidence in editorial control and editorial independence.

Among local journalists, the Times Recorder's reputation appears to be mixed. A column written by local investigative reporter Jimmy Sengenberger and published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the paper of record for the Colorado Springs area, labels the website as a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman. The publication's news site has previously merely labeled the website as liberal or as progressively bent. Not all of the articles published in the Gazette have been as critical (some have cited it), but my general sense reading through how others use the website is that it has a mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; WP:MREL probably describes it well. As such, it might not exactly be the sort of thing that we want to use to cite contentious claims alone for reasons of its reputation for fact-checking, and I would question the extent to which items reported on solely by the Colorado Times Recorder warrant inclusion in the article—even with attribution. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where you pulled WP:MREL or mixed reputation for fact-checking and accuracy out of. A much larger number of more established WP:RS have lauded it's coverage and reliability. Additionally, the article in question was not written by the editor, so while that consideration may apply for articles he himself writes, it does not apply to this one.

You only linked to 1 source that criticizes their coverage instead of just noting they have a left-wing bias, which nobody disagrees with. The Gazette does not criticize their accuracy, they criticize their description of CPAN as extremist: twice in December, the Colorado Times Recorder — a mock news site run by left-wing activist Jason Salzman — attempted to paint CPAN as a right-wing extremist group working to undermine public education and harm the LGBTQ community. The site grouped CPAN with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Advocates for D20 Kids, and the longstanding Independence Institute. None of these organizations are extremist. The author discloses CPAN has awarded him, so it's hardly independent. Notably, this is a strawman, as the article does not once call them extremist, they call them a conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group. They provide more than ample evidence for each facet of that description. As you noted, the Gazzete has found them reliable and cited them before, so one article calling them a "mock news site" and attacking a strawman without pointing out any inaccuracies by a person with a clear COI is not damning. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say they should be considered generally reliable, particular as other reliable source cite them. Bias does not mean unreliable, but I would suggest they are always attributed. No comment on due issues, that's for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable The editorial board have great credentials, and the about page implies they even fact check opinion pieces, which seems like a rarity these days (looking at you, NYT). I wish every news site had as clear an about page as they do. This is an excellent source. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• The outlet as a whole is probably marginally reliable to generally reliable, given it's been around since 2016, has an established editor (albeit with an explicitly partisan stance),[21] and is periodically used by other, more established outlets like CNN and ABC. It operates as a nonprofit[22][23] that does not disclose donors.[24] (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it raises transparency issues). Axios has stated "Progressive outlets posing as news sources is not new locally, where the Colorado Times Recorder and others publish Democratic-aligned content.", but since the website openly displays its progressive slant, this is not exactly obscure. Since it seems a rather small outlet (less than 5 k Twitter followers and 9K Facebook followers), even if considered generally reliable per WP:GREL It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Attribution/identification as a progressive source should probably be included for most political matters. In specific context, in regards to FAIR, I think this particular article is more reliable and 'weighty' for factual statements, and less 'weighty' for statements of opinions (e.g. what the author calls a "host of disgraced academics" is open to debate), but these are issues to clarify on the article's Talk page. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• This is a great example of why the "GREL" system is unsatisfactory. It's not the New York Times, or even CNN; it meets, if barely, the requirements for an RS. It shouldn't be given much weight. It's a WP:TIER3 source (and this is why the tier system is better than grel). Levivich (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Passage

(https://readpassage.com/, source in question)

The text that is most directly sourced to this in the article is a paragraph on their activities and collaborations in Canada.

This source from the start seems to meet most of the requirements for a WP:RS. They have an editorial team, with a well-respected and published managing editor and many distinguished journalists working for them as well. They have a clear verification/corrections policy and their corrections seem to be mostly date mix-ups. They distinguish between opinion and news. The only question is how it's been covered in established WP:RS. Any help with the google-fu necessary to find how they've been covered is appreciated, as "passage" unsurprisingly turns up a lot of hits. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

• Not reliable; this is an opinion piece written by a freelance writer, and the website itself notes that Please note that we only publish opinion and analysis. We do not accept news articles, pieces with original reporting, interviews or articles that have been published elsewhere.. The claim that they distinguish between opinion and news is true inasmuch as they publish exactly zero news pieces; this is in no way, shape, nor form a WP:NEWSORG. I see nothing particualar about the freelance writer that would indicate that they are an WP:SME, so I see no reasonable reason to see this as reliable except for the author's opinion (which is not WP:DUE absent coverage from secondary sources).— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  @TheTranarchist: What did you mean by [t]hey distinguish between opinion and news? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  My mistake sorry, I paraphrased "analysis" as "news" and on double-checking I mixed up their and the CTR's differentiation on analysis and opinion since I was drafting all 3 arguments for sources at once and got a little mixed up. Thankfully Springee brought up the example of the Atlantic's analysis pieces being considered a reliable source, as "analysis" does not mean can't be used. Additionally, this source is not used for their opinion, but factual statements about FAIR's activities and partnerships which are cited in their article and easily verifiable. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  With respect to the Atlantic's analysis pieces being considered a reliable source... no, it's ideas section is opinion and is treated as WP:RSOPINION. Sometimes they are given WP:WEIGHT (such as when other organizations report about them), but they aren't RS on their own. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Then here the question becomes how to differentiate between Passage's opinion and analysis. Given that the source is being used for factual and verifiable statements about their activities, situated in an article analyzing groups influencing school boards in Canada, it seems to fall under the latter. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  This !vote by RTH seems to confuse opinion with analysis, and to ignore the fact that Passage exercises editorial oversight over the analysis it publishes. I therefore see no reason to treat the piece in question as if it were RSOPINION or an SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not confusing opinion writing with analysis; I am saying that the two tend to have the same issues with fact-checking and editorial oversight, and that RSOPINION generally applies to analysis pieces as they are merely opinion pieces by another name. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable; the paper has a left-wing bias no question, but its factual reporting of Canadian subjects is on the same level as Generally Reliable American sources like Jacobin, and their reporters break verifiable original investigational stories. I recommend we approve this source with the same caveats we give to the Jacobin. Namely with the same disclaimer: There is a consensus that Passage is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Passage as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others. Spudst3r (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable for analysis; The fact that this site makes it clear they only publish opinion and commentary makes it hard to see how we could generally use it for Wikipedia articles. The source isn't notable for their analysis thus why would their analysis be given weight? This isn't a site like The Atlantic where their analysis or commentary is generally well respected. I don't see that it's clear when an article is opinion vs commentary so the level of fact checking isn't clear if we want to use the source for basic facts. This seems more like a Quillette source than anything. Interesting to ponder but not useful for a factual encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If they are only publishing analysis and opinion, then the author of the work is more useful for determining the reliability of any particular piece than the site itself. The site doesn't appear to have notability I can find, it may be useful to revisit it in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable per Red-tailed hawk's arguments above. I'll also add that the Passage website prominently features a "courses" section (https://readpassage.com/courses/) geared toward political advocacy. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• No evidence they should be considered reliable yet: they may have important stories and perspectives, but so far they don't seem to have made a dent in the wider world yet in terms of establishing themselves as reliable (see WP:REPUTABLE). Formed in 2020, their current editorial team appears consist of one editor and one part-time marketer (which is down from 2021's three editorial staffers, and on par with 2020's one editor. I've not yet found evidence that other established outlets commonly treat it as a reliable source, or even a noteworthy opinion platform, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. And while the editor of Passage has been published elsewhere, I can't find a track record of writing by the freelancer of the article in question. Just as it's often too soon for a Wikipedia article on promising subject, it currently appears too soon to treat this source as reliable, regardless of its editorial stance. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  I had the time to do some digging for mentions in various sources, helped by running across this tool, so here's what I found:

  • Ricochet uses an article and data therein published by passage and Mastracci about the real estate holding of various MP's.
  • The Breach used it cite that the MP's moonlight as landlords
  • Vice speaks of Nora Loreto's article in Passage on the connections between white supremacy and the anti-lockdown movement and gets a statement from her on their article on the same topic.
  • The Conversation refers to a Passage article to cite their statement on Canada's history of deregulation.
  • Jacobin cites a Passage article to refer to the underfunding and privatization of the Canadian public health system.
  • Mondoweiss cites them on how CanWest, a media conglomerate, has twisted facts in their reporting and how Reuters chose to break with them for it.
  • Canadian Dimension refers to research Mastracci did and published in Passage on UPA flags at Ukrainian solidarity rallies in Canada
  • The NB Media Co-op used them to cite its statement that mainstream Canadian media has failed to scrutinize the military.

  This is non-exhaustive but a start, I'll try and revise the list further tomorrow. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  News sources comment on or mention opinion pieces published in other publications. That doesn't suddenly render the opinion piece not an opinion piece, and it's extremely clear that—by the website's own editorial standards—they do not publish news reports from freelancers. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• The piece you link to is written by a "freelance writer" and contributor, rather than credentialed, full-time employed journalists. By definition, it is a self-published source, whose reliability matches WP:FORBESCON.

As for the reliability of the outlet in general: as far as I can see, their managing editor has published opinion pieces in mainstream news outlets, but has not had an established career as a journalist working full-time for a reliable source. I wouldn't qualify that as "well-respected and published", as such a career would be required for this outlet to be considered more reliable than a group blog. So, not reliable. DFlhb (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Freelance writer" means a professional writer that's paid on a per-article or per-project basis. Every major news organization makes use of freelance reporters. By definition, it's not self published. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This !vote seems to confuse freelance status with self-publishing and a analysis with opinion; it would therefore be best to ignore it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and ignoring it would be a mistake. The comment notes correctly that this is a freelance writer, and, in light of the explicit editorial guidelines they have about freelance writers, it makes it obvious that this is analysis/opinion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

More newsletter than news. This site has editorial oversight, but seems to be more of a tertiary source, as a newsletter. The specific source in question appears to be well-written, sourced and edited. However, I think the website as a whole is difficult to classify, and there's probably better sources that can be used. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not an RS because it is, by its own admission, as pointed out above, an opinion magazine. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional Considerations

Pinging @Red-tailed hawk:, @Newimpartial:, @Spudst3r:, @Springee:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @Jweiss11:, @Animalparty:, @DFlhb:, @Sativa Inflorescence:, @Levivich:.

This threads not been active for a while, but since then I have demonstrated Passage's WP:USEBYOTHERS above. Additionally, I'd like to note that the following WP:RS cites them directly about FAIR's activities: While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates[25]

I'm pinging everyone involved to ask, in light of the more recent information, your opinion on (1) their general reliability and (2) their reliability specifically as a source in the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

• Generally Reliable like Jacobin; DUE in FAIR article per Spudst3r and their article's citation in other RS for statements about FAIR. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I agree with RTH's comment at 15:36, 18 February 2023 above, which is that use by others doesn't matter, because it's an opinion piece. Levivich (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure why I was pinged, given that replied directly to the edit you are referring to about a week ago, but I have nothing more to add since 1 week ago. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk I didn't want to be accused of selective pinging (which some pinged have accused me of in past). Additionally, I hadn't raised the fact that a RS cites them for a factual claim about FAIR when you last responded, which doesn't necessarily speak to their general reliability but does affect whether it's WP:DUE in this article specifically, which is more what I wanted to here your thoughts on. I believe it's also important to note they are a WP:SECONDARY source that gives FAIR WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV and all their statements about FAIR's activities in the article are cited and verifiable. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Idavox

(https://idavox.com/, source in question)

The text removed is In August 2021, Idavox reported that IRS Form 990's were not available since the organization is less than one year old, and speculated that due to the high number of Koch-connected people on the board, the Koch brothers are the source of some funding. Text removed, disputed, and modified on the talk page but not re-introduced is Idavox described FAIR as "Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing" and said "it's not a civil-rights organization". They stated that their analysis of FAIR's board of advisors revealed a large number of Koch employees, Quillete contributors, and transphobes in Reception.

Idavox, the One People's Project, and Daryle Lamont Jenkins are well known and respected for their research on the organized right and far-right. A detailed analysis of how established WP:RS reference and use Idavox (the search would be even more supportive if extended to OPP and Jenkins) is here. A summary is that reliable sources have directly used with and without explicit attribution Idavox's articles, used their footage and videos as reliable sources, praised their coverage on researching the far-right, and refer to them as "Independent news". Idavox delineates between news and opinion and not a single reliable source has ever questioned or called into doubt their reporting. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Not reliable. This is extremely clearly WP:SPS, and a bad SPS at that. I frankly cannot believe that this is a question. Among the issues with the source are that there is:

1. No author identified;
2. No listed editorial staff on the website;
3. No apparent editorial standards for the website's content;
4. No apparent corrections policy or place to submit corrections;
5. Nothing else that even hints at this having anything like a reliable source.

To find any information about editorial oversight, I had to start trying to piece things together, and I had to go to an external website to find literally any information on who runs "Idavox". This is basically the pet project of literally a single person, and reading through the website does not give any confidence as to the site's reliability. The website is obviously reliable for the content that the website says, but it carries no WP:WEIGHT because it's not an RS when it comes to its coverage; merely slapping on attribution does not improve the article nor our coverage more broadly. For similar reasons, we don't cite She's A Homerecker for the information it says and then slap on attribution as if it's some sort of band-aid. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, using this self-published source for its self-proclaimed speculations about the activities of living people (i.e. Charles Koch and David Koch) is so flagrantly in violation of WP:BLPSPS that I cannot even understand why one would so much as attempt to use this in an article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response as you were the first to actually raise some wiki-policy. Given your arguments I can't help but agree it shouldn't be used, though I do want to note that when publishing on armed and organized white supremacists, being published anonymously is not a clear de-merit and more of a safety concern, though in conjunction with the lack of transparency on editorial oversight and corrections policy it is questionable. I'd also forgot that one of the Koch's was somehow still alive and kicking.

For future reference, if a reliable source mentions or cite it's coverage of a particular group/event, could we refer to the site itself with attribution? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If a reliable source says "Idavox said X", then that source is reliable for the claim that Idavox said X. Whether it's WP:DUE is going to be a question of proportionality to the overall topic's coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This appear to be the weakest of the bunch, I don't believe it should be considered generally reliable nor used in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable per Red-tailed hawk's comprehensive arguments above. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

not reliable. No byline and no editorial board. Which is unfortunate, since I don't think there's anything factually inaccurate in the linked source. But without a byline and without clear editorial oversight, it shouldn't be used. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not even close per above. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on all three sources

Without commenting on the potential reliability of any of these sources, I really don't think it's wise to use sources for potentially contentious statements when these sources aren't listed at WP:RSP. DFlhb (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The absence of a source from the list at WP:RSP doesn't necessarily affect reliability, per WP:RSPMISSING. It just means a source hasn't been the subject of repeated, perennial discussion. Lots of clearly reliable sources like major newspapers aren't on it, likewise nor are countless low quality unreliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, absence from RSP is irrelevant. However, I also agree with DF's point that none of these three sources are even close to reliable enough (two aren't RSes at all) to be used for BLP content or extraordinary statements. Typically, RSN is (or should be) reserved for edge cases; these are not edge cases. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Broadway World

I'm currently writing an article on a music album and I encountered this piece on Broadway World. The piece is bylined to someone labeled as "Senior Editor and daily contributor" to Broadway World (though she appears to have stopped contributing in 2020). There isn't anything that looks terrible at first glance, but all of the text in the piece is taken verbatim from this press release, down to the all-caps GRAMMY in both pieces.

We cite Broadway World in about 10K articles. I'm wondering if this is a one-off, or if anyone else has noticed this sort of thing from them when writing other articles. My initial impression of BroadwarWorld was that it was a fairly standard trade publication, but I'm now concerned that the source may be laundering press releases without exercising adequate editorial oversight. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It's all crap: it's churnalism, or advertising masquerading as journalism. Besides the 2016 press-release-plagiarism you linked to above, which amazingly appears under the byline "Caryn Robbins", who has an author page...

• Here's another article supposedly by Caryn Robbins but the text (e.g. "...his legendary Christmas tale is now beautifully and dramatically presented afresh by using music to enhance...") is taken verbatim from Amazon.com editorial review; same text on label's website (note (c) 2017 Mighty Village at Amazon music page), and here, here under a different byline, lol, and here and here. But wait, there's more!
• Here is a story by Vicki Trask, author bio page, but the text is taken from theater company's website ("The father of a prominent family is dead...")
  • Another one bylined to Trask, but the text is from theater company's website ("Frankenstein presents the tragedy of an outcast creature...")
  • Another one by Trask, theater company website ("...exploration of regret, disaster, and accountability from the perspective of a self-sacrificing Jewish mother who initiates a marriage explosion...") But wait, there's more!
• This article supposedly by Aliya Al-Hassan (bio) lifts "...shining a light on this delicate relationship between a young man and his father who adored his garden and hated visitors..." from theater's website (also appears here). But wait, there-- ok you get the idea.
• Stephi Wild is listed as the Managing Editor for BroadwayWorld...
  • "Set against the backdrop of 1950's Pittsburgh..." from theater company's website
  • "...well-known comedian, actor and producer, is best known for the hit TV shows..." from event website
  • In this article dated 2022, the description of Sara Bareilles ("Sara composed the music and lyrics for Waitress...Sara first achieved mainstream critical praise in 2007 with her widely successful hit...") seems to be lifted straight from this 2018 bio.

I'm sure some of what they write is actually their own writing, but this is junk. Should be yellow, if not red, on RSP, for consistently failing to distinguish press release from original copy, and plagiarizing under multiple bylines. Pretty insidious stuff, if you ask me. Levivich (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that this appears to be a junk churnalism source. I suppose the question is, was it always like this or is older (pre 2017 material) any better? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the piece that spurred me to come here is from 2016, so problems appear to have begun prior to 2017. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  FYI previous RSN threads from 2016, Jan 2022, and last month. Its reliability was also discussed at AFDs in 2008 and 2019. Levivich (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like RSP should be updated to include this source, in light of the prior discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to go one step further here and say that this probably shouldn't be used at all in BLPs if it's essentially all self-published content and the author is obscured. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Added. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• At the very least, a caution seems warranted immediately. There is clearly enough for that based on what is presented in this thread alone. BD2412 T 01:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

credibility of the source

How useful and reliable is this source for Draft:Alan Singh Chanda? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see Alan Singh mentioned anywhere in that source? Levivich (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Watch now. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, now I can see Alan Singh mentioned in the source. I'm not sure how reliable it is. I believe it is a self-published source, and I am not sure if the author/publisher, Lord Cultural Resources, is considered an expert in the subject-matter. Levivich (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

retroreversing.com and pc.net reliability?

Does anyone know the reliability of retroreversing.com and pc.net? I was notified of these sources at this RFD and I wanted to check the reliability of these sources here since I’m not good at identifying at which sources are reliable or not. Here are some specific pages that the user brought up here and here. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 00:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

pc.net is a self published source, and I can't find anyone else using the creator as subject matter expert. So it's not a reliable source. I'm not sure what to make of retroreversing.com, they supply sources but those sources include reddit and sites which are user generated content. So they're sources wouldn't be considered reliable, so I don't believe they should be considered reliable either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Are Daily Magzines, The American Mail, and Vents Magazine reliable?

I would like to ask this question regarding the following sources cited in Leo Liu.

• alvinajennifer (2023-02-03). "A 14-Year-Old Addresses Conflicts Between Generations in His Book". Daily Magzines. Retrieved 2023-02-06.
• "Meet Leo Liu, a 14-year-old Who Owns an AAU Basketball Club, Among Other Things". The American Mail. 2023-02-03. Retrieved 2023-02-06.
• Ali, Farhan (2023-02-04). "This Teenage TEDx Speaker is 'Building Connections Between Generations'". Vents Magazine. Retrieved 2023-02-06.

There is previous discussion about Vents Magazine at WP:RSN/Archive_203#Vents_Magazine and it does have a few other uses (Special:LinkSearch/https://ventsmagazine.com), but I think the other two are just in that Wikipedia article and there seems to be no previous RSN discussion.

My concern is that, it seems unusual for reliable sources to have a broken contact page https://theamericanmail.com/contact/ (with "[email protected]" as email, and lorum ipsum floating around). And I don't think I have seen any reliable source that would have

My name is Farhan. I am an author on Ventsmagazine. For any business query contact me & also I sell paid guest posts on my high quality websites you can contact me at: [email protected] http://technewsbusiness.com

as the author profile right after the end of an article (from this Vents Magazine article) . Some other observations were listed in the closed discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu. I am therefore doubtful of these sources and would like to ask for your opinions. ——HTinC23 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Magzines link redirects to porn, so I’m going to vote against that one. John M Baker (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That's very strange. I can confirm it has become a redirect (to some site that throws ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR). Two weeks ago the article was there, archived. Definitely a red flag.——HTinC23 (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• None of these are reliable sources. The American Mail is just a year old, all of the attributed article are by the same, probably fictional person, and the about us page basically admits that it's a blog. The contact us page is a red flag. Daily Magazines has no indication of authors or editors, no about us page, and the contact us page links an anonymous Gmail account. Vents is a music and entertainment website previously discussed as suspect. Whatever marginal reliability it may have wouldn't extend beyond that narrow field. As an aside, I am baffled by the "Keep" closure of the AFD at the referenced BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to this analysis, none are reliable sources. As for the "keep" closure, yet another example of how AFD is a broken joke of a vote. After the unreliable sources are removed, someone should renominate that article, pointing out not only are they not GNG sources, they're not even RS. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and done exactly that at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leo_Liu_(2nd_nomination) Banks Irk (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wow I didn't expect such drama at the ANI... Sorry to get everyone (especially Banks Irk) into this. I do think of revisiting the AFD (either DRV or renominate after the usual cooldown, not sure of the procedures), but it seems that the speedy renom is rather justified this time. Thank you!——HTinC23 (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• No problem. The 2nd AFD was closed as "Speedy Delete", and the ANI appears in retrospect to have been a case study in the Streisand effect, given that it promoted wide and unanimous comment for deletion at the new AFD. Banks Irk (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of Salon for pseudoscience article (List of cryptids)

Over at list of cryptids, we currently have a grab-bag of sources that make up this list of what proponents of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology considers to be a "cryptid" (what the rest of us call a monster or an extinct animal, depending on the case). One source that is propping up a good chunk of list of cryptids is a 2013 article from Salon called "the world's greatest imaginary animals".

This article, which is more precisely from GlobalPost via Salon, nowhere mentions the well-established reality that cryptozoology is and was widely considered a pseudoscience on par with Young Earth creationism by the academic community (Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience). Instead, it says:

Whatever they are, the experts who study them call them "cryptids." And the experts who study cryptids call themselves "cryptozoologists." For a while there was a thing called the International Society of Cryptozoology, which was a professional organization based in Washington, DC and active between 1982 and 1998. They published a journal called Cryptozoology. They had conferences. They were an all-around repository of knowledge about unverified and possibly imaginary animals.

While the society is gone, the cryptids still roam the globe. Here is GlobalPost's guide to the world's best unverified animals.

This sort of uncritical parroting from a media listicle is exactly the sort of thing that scholars—actual experts—who have studied cryptozoologists have long noted. We discuss this a little on our our cryptozoology article (Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Should we be using this article for anything? It seems quite WP:PROFRINGE to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's reliable in as much as it's a good source to describe something as a cryptid, which is the exact opposite of a source that can be used to establish that Big Foot is real and wants to steal your sugar crisps. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we have no shortage of peer-reviewed, fully WP:RS-compliant sources that discuss the crytozoologist affinity of labeling critters from the folklore record as "cryptids", like Loxton's coverage.

These clearly describe the subculture/pseudoscience as what it is, rather than promote cryptozoologists as "experts".

However, the subculture/pseudoscience has traditionally fixated on a handful of beings from the record, and there seems to have been a desire in particular by cryptozoology proponents to maximize the entries on this list by using material like the aforementioned Salon article.

Finally, this article's sources? A grab-bag of cryptozoology websites combined with English Wikipedia entries and the Daily Mail. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you do original reporting about nonsense, you'll have to use nonsense sources. What are you expecting here? A salon-article based on Nature and Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington citations? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Like other pseudosciences, we've got plenty of scholarshipn on this topic. In my opinion, this is a poor quality source that falls within WP:PROFRINGE and should be removed. By posting this here, I'm looking for community input. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The salon piece is hardly pro-fringe. They clearly label these as imaginary animals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the article's body says:

They might be imaginary. Or they might be real. Either way, they are awesome.

Now, consider of this was an article about how cool Flat Earther theories are and it said:

Earth might be flat. Or it might not be. Either way, Flat Earth theory is awesome.

Would you then be OK with that source being used extensively—or at all—on one of our articles about Flat Earthers, especially when we have no shortage of peer-erveiwed material about this topic? Because that's exactly what is happening here.

Besides that, the description of cryptozoologists as "experts" (!) and the lack of mention of pseudoscience at all indicates pretty strongly tom me that this is a junk source. It'd be the same if this was an article about Young Earth creationism, Flat Earthers, your choice of Satanic Panic/QAnon topics, or any of the other fringe topics we deal with on a regular basis on Wikipedia. How is it that we're still putting up with it in this corner of the fringe-o-sphere? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In this context, "awesome" pretty clearly means "entertaining". They're inspiration for horror-movie creatures, or creatures best known for his hairiness, blurriness, and all-around swag. It's not the genre of writing that calls things "pseudoscience", but rather the kind of piece that snarkily asks for blurry pictures in the comments. Neither the best nor the worst as far as sources go; probably replaceable with something better, but hardly the most severe crime against science we'll find lurking on Wikipedia this week. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter, they clearly are covering this from a pop culture angle rather than a pro-fringe angle. Cryptids do exist, but as pop culture phenomena not as living organisms. Also Flat Earth Theory is in fact awesome, see Discworld for example. A literature review of Dinotopia, Journey to the Center of the Earth or Hollow World Campaign Set isn't fringe if they fail to condemn the hollow earth conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that cryptid is an emic term used by cryptozoologists—they invented it a few decades ago as a "science-y" alternative to terms the rest of us use, like monster or extinct animal. The use of the term alone is an indication of a fringe perspective or the influence of a fringe perspective. Additionally, referring to cryptozoologists as experts is also an indication of fringe. Folks, this is a pro-fringe source. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cryptid, cryptid, cryptid. Nope, not feeling a fringe perspective or the influence of a fringe perspective. You've come full circle and are now propagating your own conspiracy theory about fringe influences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No need for conspiracy when it's a fact: The term was indeed coined and propagated by cryptozoologists to avoid words like 'monster'. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand thats how the term originated, but you're going miles beyond that to "The use of the term alone is an indication of a fringe perspective or the influence of a fringe perspective." which is just silly. Personally I don't use the term monster because I don't like the way its historically associated with racism and religious fanaticism, does using it indicate a fringe perspective on race or the influence of a fringe perspective on race? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The term monster is in common use. The term cryptid isn't. It's not used in academic literature on folklore topics, like monsters and other assorted entities from the folklore record, which scholars discussing cryptozoology go in-depth about. If you think that's 'silly', then you might have a bone to pick in general with the scholastic reception and discussion of cryptozoology and its influence on some sectors of pop culture. See emic and etic. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The term cryptid is widely used in American society, among those under 30 I'd actually say its predominant. That applies to both people who believe in Bigfoot and people who don't. If I call it an angel and not a monster (remember angels are a type of monster and a very scary one too as described in the Bible) that doesn't make me a Catholic, saying Seraphim instead of celestial monster doesn't make me religious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the notion of "the term cryptid is widely used in American society, among those under 30 I'd actually say its predominant" is nonsense (monster, cryptid—cryptid remains obscure in general use), as is your comment about the word angel (yikes). You've provided no data and you'd benefit from getting familiar with this topic, the pseudoscience/subculture, and folklore topics more broadly (which are studied by scholars—folklorists). And spare me the inevitable essay about how cryptozoologists really are "experts" that comes next, oof. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk, there is no "inevitable essay about how cryptozoologists really are "experts"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a little confused here. Is the idea here supposed to be that the Salon article is... claiming that these creatures exist? Are people citing it to make the actual claim that these creatures exist and are real? The article is obviously written for the purposes of entertainment/culture. There are headings like "Tall Hairy Dudes" with lines in them like "These cryptids are possibly just one very well traveled, tall, hairy dude". Do you think this is serious? jp×g 06:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's being used to support a bunch of listings on list of cryptids as examples of what cryptozoologists consider to be "cryptids". However, its sources are, for example, random pulls from the Daily Mail and old versions of English Wikipedia articles rather than any kind of study, peer-reviewed or otherwise. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is just one more reason why we shouldn't allow tabloid or tabloid-adjacent sources like Salon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable for several reasons:
  • The number of Wikipedia links and Commons images in this source is concerning. Of course these could have been added later by the publisher, but several of these articles were deleted due to lack of notability [26], lack of coverage even among fringe sources [27] and possibly a Wikihoax [28]. This begs the question of how the author came across these obscure "cryptids" if not by scrolling through the Wikipedia list and picking the ones that seemed the most entertaining.
  • Of the non-Wiki links that still work, many fail to support the "of interest to cryptozoologists" definition of "cryptid". Instead we have young-earth creationists promoting a "living dinosaur" agenda [29], local legends [30], some guy who saw something [31], and a man-eating plant that was actually rejected by "cryptobotanists" [32].
  • Even if we accept cryptozoology as a legitimate scientific field (which it isn't), the source's entire premise that these purported creatures have been studied and labelled by "experts" in the field does not hold up to scrutiny. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  The fact the article references Wikipedia articles does make this look like a case of citogenesis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with ActivelyDisinterested here. Tabloid journalistic fluff, written for entertainment. And I'd note that, regarding citing Wikipedia, the writer of the piece has done the same thing in other Salon articles. Entirely unsuitable as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• It should be treated as a low-tier tertiary source. Good enough to indicate the cryptids it lists have been identified and mentioned by others (i.e. not made up entirely by 4chan jokesters), but not a quality source for commenting on the cryptids. About on par with a preschool picture book about barnyard animals. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with XOR'easter and Horse Eye's Back that it's not pro-fringe. I'll note that it's relatively common on Wikipedia to use actual pro-fringe sources (the ones that spread disinformation) as attributed sources for what these groups claim; and it's always nicer to have secondary sources. We also have no provision in our policies that punishes sources for being too frivolous, or too "pop-culture" oriented. But also agree that the article seems poorly researched, per dlthewave, and is not reliable as a source. We want our list of cryptids to mention relatively noteworthy legends, not "fringe-within-fringe" stuff. DFlhb (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC); edited 10:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• I originally ignored concerns about the source being poorly-researched since I thought I'd found a good source for the Ayia Napa monster that predated the creation of the Wikipedia article; but it turns out that source was misdated, and I failed to double-check. Now can't help but agree with dlthewave that it's unreliable, as are all sources that commit citogenesis. I'll be more careful to check things thoroughly in the future. DFlhb (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Pro-fringe? No, a five second reading of the article will disabuse any notion of that. It's entirely tongue-in-cheek pop-culture silliness, not meant to be serious journalism. That said, not a suitable source per WP:CIRCULAR; the author is clearly using Wikipedia as a reference for writing the piece. So, it's gotta go. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Seems fine for what it is, a non-serious casual read. It's definitely not pushing fringe points. ("If you spot one, be sure to post a blurry photo in the comments.") Replace it with a better source sure, but I don't think this is RS/N material. CMD (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• As long as we do not use it to claim its real, why not. Ctyptids are a pop culture thing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, for starters, this article's 'sources' include the Daily Mail and old versions of Wikipedia entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Un-reliable humor. Re: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch. He's the Loch Ness Monster of tall hairy dudes. He lives in North America's Pacific Northwest region and is best known for his hairiness, blurriness, and all-around swag." Everyone knows Bigfoot/Sasquatch also lives in other remote areas in North America, including eastern USA; however, it's possible the video and photo "evidence" originates in the Northwest. LOL -- Yae4 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not an RS, it's humor, a type of contributed op-ed. I don't really believe it's pro-fringe either, because it's tongue-in-cheek humor, but it's not an RS. Shouldn't be cited as a reference in a Wikipedia article for anything. (And that's without getting into the poor sourcing/citogenesis issues.) Levivich (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust

Is this source reliable for this statement? Note that I do not question whether it is generally reliable, for example for the Polish prime minister's statement, only whther it substantiates this sweeping statement. Though Germany was trying to kill all Jews in the Holocaust, a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the Germans Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I scanned the article, I would have thought the historic material (did they, didn't they, how, why) should be cited to scholarly sources rather than a newsorg (apart from this observation, the author appears to freelance for various publications, I would be inclined to treat this as an opinion piece).Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't substantiate the statement, and wouldn't regardless of the validity of the source. What does 'a minority' even mean? 0.1%? 1%? 10%?. Vague wording, unsupported by anything of substance. And 'chose to collaborate'? The source makes it absolutely clear that those who collaborated were themselves under threat of death. The source absolutely cannot be misused in this manner, to support a statement entirely contrary to the very argument it presents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No for the claim made here. It could be reliable to report on what the different politicians cited in it have said, but not to make the claim OP cites. Jeppiz (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence in green also fails to present a proper logical contrast or contradiction, which it teases with the word "Though". Separately from the question of whether it's supported by that source (it's not). And if I may nitpick, the first part of that sentence, while true, reads more like an "age-appropriate" book for (junior) high school than an encyclopaedic statement. Scholarly sources, which we should follow, wouldn't emphasise what "Germany" was "trying" to do, but what specific leaders (i.e. Hitler and other top-rankers) announced, and what plans they devised (which we could wikilink). DFlhb (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• The claim as phrased is strange. The phrase "a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the Germans" seems to suggest that no Jews were German (clearly false). I suppose what is meant is something like "a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the perpetrators of the Holocaust". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

An academic source would be much preferable to a newspaper one. At minimum, I'd tag this with {{better source needed}}. Unless we are talking about current events, we really need to move beyond newspaper sources (articles in popular outlets written by historians are a grey zone, but I don't think this is the case here?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, although the issue is not a WP:RS one but more general misuse of the source. (Well, it's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim about history that would be better-suited to higher quality sources than a news source about tangentially-related events, but that's not even the main issue here.) This is the part of the source that I assume is being used to try and support the text in question:

What Morawiecki said is technically accurate, but historically unfair in light of the specific nature of the Nazi persecution of Jews, according to scholars who have studied the dozens of indictments brought forward in Israel against Nazi collaborators.

Until 1972, dozens of indictments led to trials in Israel of alleged Jewish collaborators with the Nazis, said Rivka Brot, a fellow at Bar-Ilan University’s Center for Jewish and Democratic Law. Brot wrote her doctoral thesis on the prosecution of Jewish collaborators by Jewish tribunals in transit camps in Europe after World War II, and later in the State of Israel.

There are multiple serious problems with the proposed paraphrase. First of all, and most obviously, taking a source that says "X is technically accurate, but..." and using it to cite a statement of "X is true" with no mention of the context after the but is egregious misuse; we would obviously have to make it clear (as the source does) that they were "collaborating" under the threat of death. Second, "a minority of..." is vague in a way that suggests to the reader that it could be referring to, like, 20%-40% of the population, whereas the source implies dozens of individuals were prosecuted (and more probably existed, but clearly much smaller than the vague implications of "a minority.") A more precise statement would probably require a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion - Since May 9, 2021, the Times of Israel is not a reliable source for this topic area anymore. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• No/comment As the article says, Jewish "collaborators" were nothing like collaborators of other groups. Furthermore, the current wording makes it sound like the Kapos knew the Nazi's were killing all Jews and they were happy to help. In reality most joined because they thought they could improve the lot of their fellow Jews or could do something help or were desperate to save friends and family. The current suggested wording lacks context and is not supported by the article. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment To those saying that this is not really a reliable source issue, I think it falls under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in that the source is not directly about this but about how, in their opinion -- I agree that this is an opinion -- the Polish prime minister is wrong about this. Given the vehemence with which people are saying no, I'd like to mention that I am not asking because I want to keep it, but because I have already tried to remove it. Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  This may be reliable for attributing an opinion to PM, but the point is, PM is not a reliable source for history, particuarly given WP:APLRS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• One out of 10 million is a minority, its a stupid sentence even if a better source could be found to substantiate it. nableezy - 06:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Grand Comics Database

Can the Grand Comics Database be considered a reliable source for just the bibliographies of comics creators (for example, Bernie Wrightson#Bibliography)? The database has been praised by Comic Book Resources as the "greatest site on the internet for [...] creator credits of comic books".[33] It also has a complex verification process, so it's not really something that anyone can edit. For citing paragraphs, I think it's better to use other, non-database sources instead if just to give a greater variety of citations (though I don't think a few GCDB citations are too bad if nothing else can be found and it's solely for credits). But for lists of comic issues and bibliographies, which can often number in the hundreds and even thousands, using GCDB should be one of the best options. It does not seem realistic to find an individual citation dedicated to every single issue a comics creator ever worked on, some being very obscure.

There was a past discussion for GCDB being an overall reliable source that had no real consensus. This post is primarily for GCDB being a reliable source for bibliography credits, which Thebiguglyalien advised me to create. FlairTale (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) "

• I'm afraid that it's just a wiki or group blog, since any member can contribute and the verification process really doesn't seem that robust. A little like cameraobscura.com, which also has a lot of great content contributed by paying members, and is really useful...but not really a reliable source because of SPS. I'm not persuaded that CBR.com's endorsement takes it over the finish line. Banks Irk (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• While I'm a fan of (and very occasional contributor to) the Database, we're getting into an iffy area if we rely on it for bibliographies. It's probably solid if we are talking about Berni(e) Wrightson, because his work basically was all produced during the period when comics generally included creator credits, which is what will get worked into the database. Things get iffier, however, when we talk about, say, Golden Age writers, where some credits are sourced to some out-of-the-comic source (perhaps corporate records, perhaps a reprint from the crediting era), but others are sheer (if informed) speculation. So while the Database makes for a good External Link, I'm not sure that it has the due reliability, and it probably isn't compatible enough with WP:BLPSPS to be used for any living creators (despite the fact that the living are more likely to be from the era when it's most accurate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• On the subject of that, does this mean that the issues themselves could be considered the source in bibliography lists as long as the creator is named in the credits of the comic (which as you pointed out, is done in most comics from the early 1960s onwards)? --FlairTale (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely. It would be nice if we had some accepted format for saying that which simpler than The Factor #5 {{cite|title=The Factor|issue 5}}, and there are in comics history exception to the accuracy of the credits, but no more than the scale of errors we expect in reliable sources. We generally expect sources to be reliable about themselves for non-grandiose claims. (There may be an odd technical official problem with a self-published comic listing, say, a guest cover artist who is still alive, under WP:BLPSPS, though.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Psychology Today blog citation on Dissociative identity disorder

A blog on Psychology Today is newly cited on Dissociative identity disorder#Controversy (added here), but I'm wary as per RSN history for Psychology Today and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#40 of use of Psychology Today blogs authored by a single author that make sweeping generalisations, especially when the subject matter may be subject to WP:MEDRS. To its credit, the article does say that it has been reviewed by the editor in chief of Psychology Today, Kaja Perina, whose background is journalism, but not psychology or medicine. Unless there's evidence that it's appeared in a print edition of Psychology Today, this raises some questions for me as to whether it should be used for a "controversies" contentious section. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No blogs unless by recognized expert in the field and even then attributed. Selfstudier (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

To his credit, the author is a child and adolescent psychiatrist as per bio on Psychology Today (but not necessarily a DID specialist); he's an Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics, and his peer-reviewed journal articles are cited elsewhere on Wikipedia with no problems eg Avoidant personality disorder. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine as WP:EXPERTSPS but instead of "According to Psychology Today", it should be "According to pediatric psychiatrist David Rettew". I want to be clear that I think it's an expert RS, which does not mean I think Rettew's opinion about the TikTok DID surge is WP:DUE for inclusion in that article (I don't, if Rettew is the only one writing about it). Levivich (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense to me. I'll edit the attribution accordingly regarding EXPERTSPS, and then defer the discussion about DUE to the talk page. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I may be in the minority, but I find EXPERTSPS to be deeply flawed, and the result of well-meaning users not entirely familiar with academic publishing. Why would we even need it? Generally speaking, I dare bet less than 1% of actual research articles in good journals are cited on WP, so it's not like there's an absence of good references. With that in mind, I am very wary of blogs, regardless of topic, even when the author is an expert. On WP, we see far far too much of that. Speaking as an academic, I know first-hand that it is a lot easier to make bold claims in blogs or even books chapters than in articles. Yes, there is notional peer-review, but nothing even close to the peer-reviews of good academic journals. Now, it's much easier making bold claims if we don't need to provide in-depth proof, obviously. So the reason we see so many claims deferred to EXPERTSPS is that, to be honest, the most eye-catching are often the least supported. Any academic would prefer to publish in a good journal, but that requires actually being able to back up the claims. So to be a bit provocative: EXPERTSPS is mainly needed when "we" want to insert a claim "we" like but cannot find a sufficiently good reference for it, and the very reason the source makes that bold claim in a blog or book chapter is that it would not stand up to academic scrutiny. (Of course exceptions can be found - but as a rule of thumb, the above should hold quite well). Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. EXPERTSPS is needed because Wikipedia is such a broad encyclopedia, that it covers topics where there is sometimes almost no RS available, and EXPERTSPS is the best you can find. This is particularly true of all sorts of obscure scientific topics, where there are lots of experts but not really wide interest from the public, so you have experts publishing on their blogs about these niche topics rather than in journals, and forget about newspapers or magazines or full length books about it. Dissociative identity disorder is not an example of such a topic, but things like... specific species of insects or some obscure culture studied by anthropologists. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. It feels to me like WP:MEDRS preempts WP:EXPERTSPS. Lizthegrey (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, that's a good point, I guess epidemiology is WP:BMI so it would be out per MEDRS anyway. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sort of yes, but counterexample. We now have multiple secondary sources on the Tik Tok Tics at Tourette syndrome, but when the issue first surfaced, we had five journal-published, non-MEDRS sources from four countries (UK, US, Canada, Germany) and five different groups of recognized, published TS experts. With all on the same page. So we came to consensus to go ahead and add it even though we did not yet have MEDRS sources. In this case we have one: not a topic expert, not journal-published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS specifically says work in the relevant field. In this case, I don't believe that means any old psychiatrist, rather one whose field is DID. See for example how the Tik Tok Tics are handled at Tourette syndrome; all of those folks are people who are acknowledge published experts on TS-- not just psychiatrists. And having a blog for psychology today isn't particularly impressive. I'd leave it out until real sources pick it up, at least a DID psychiatrist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it is a child psychiatrist speaking about psychiatric issues affecting children, but it's moot given the WP:DUE concerns raised and thus the deletion of the line. Lizthegrey (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Same. Psychiatry is a big field. Child psychiatry is a big field. Not a specialist in DID. But agree with deletion per DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm being pedantic but I think DID is a "specialty" and not a "field". My interpretation of "field" is academic field, as in something you can get a degree in, so like "psychiatry" or "child psychiatry" but not a specific psychiatric disorder. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

To compare it to other situations I recall from memory, we accepted an SPS topic expert on Gilbert and Sullivan not because the individual was an expert in music or theatre, but an expert specifically in G&S music and theatre. And we accept Barbara Schmidt on Mark Twain not because she's a literary or history scholar, rather a scholar specializing in Twain. We should apply such strict standards to medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Maybe we should change SPS to say "specialty", because fields are broad, and we probably mean "specialty". Levivich (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect such a vigorous discussion from my question but glad to see it's had a constructive outcome around clarifying sourcing reliability and associated policy. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, I don't have the energy for it; still working on that thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fuchsia Magazine

Hi,

Is this source Fuchsia Magazine reliable to cite on Wikipedia? Insight 3 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately it looks like many other celebrity / entertainment magazines, generally unreliable and definitely unreliable for anything controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• You know what's a dead giveaway that this is not a reliable site? Giving a fictional telephone number and address:

Contact Us

555.555.5555

1234 Block Blvd.

San Francisco, CA 94120 - Banks Irk (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)