Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

www.human.gov.az

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: Could not find previous discussions on that source.
• Source: [1].
• Article: Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh.

• Content:

  According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village. Diff

  .
• Comment: This source is not generally viewed as reliable because it is not a third party and represents one of the conflicting parties. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that an official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Do we have any examples of official government websites not being regarded as reliable for the attributed position of that government agency? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. First of all thanks for spending your time on this case. I am not sure if there is any case like that, but I came here because my edit was reverted by one of the editors[2] with following comments: not a neutral reliable source Abrvagl (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine for the governments position for the edit in question. We're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice or claiming that the entire world believes this, but we clearly state it's according to the government. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable, needs to be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for reply. Do you think above provided statement(content) is correctly attributed or you think that it should be reworded? Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Very biased. For example, it calls almost all Armenian forces terrorists. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fist of all, nowhere in the article all Armenian forces called as terrorists. Article says that ASALA is a terrorist organisation, and ASALA is indeed an international terrorist organization[3]. Calling things by their names does not mean being biased. Second, the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons, and actually the only source which can reflect that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  We're not accepting, or portraying, it as truth, we're accepting and portraying it as their position. This is the only reliable way to do so and as a result primary sources are aceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Canterbury Tail Still I wonder if any kind of source can be used as long as we say it's attributed, even if gov position? The source accuses Republic of Armenia having "terrorists units" and "terror activities", it's definitely not just ASALA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, just not usable on its own... If we're being honest its ahistorical nationalist nonsense which is of no use in building an encyclopedia. WP:RS are more than sufficient for providing the view of the AZ government, there is no need to stoop to this level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here: According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village.. Abrvagl (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  If they're the only source then WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies even if they're reliable. That means that if what you just said is true even if this discussion is closed as reliable you're not going to be able to use it where you want to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood me. What I said it that only governmental body can give governmental statistics on the missing persons. It does not fall under EXTRAORDINARY category, nowhere close to that. We're not expressing it in Wikipedia's voice, nor are we suggesting that everyone should believe it, but we clearly attribute it to the governmental body. That is how encyclopedia works. Abrvagl (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable, Voting as the creator of the RSN. The governmental body of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is reliable to reflect governmental position about the missing persons if reflected with proper attribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs)
• Unreliable I agree with Horse Eye's Back, this source shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia even with attribution. It's just a piece of hot garbanzo, simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I reviewed the sources in this article. Nobody cares, nobody on the outside's monitoring the situation. You will have the bulk of your sources be either Armenian or Azerbaijani, and both will be biased on a scale from somewhat-very to extremely-very. Make the best of what you got: attribute in-line, balance, and use with caution. And in the end even the most nationalist governments do have to have some level of accountability to the global community and to a baseline awareness of their people. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

bworldonline.com

• Source*[4]

• Content:

  Yet, despite the turbulent landscape, BusinessWorld, the Philippines’ oldest business newspaper founded on July 27, 1987 by the late respected journalist Raul L. Locsin, has further cemented its position as the most trusted source of news, analysis, and insights by the country’s business community.The newspaper has mostly achieved this by holding true to its purpose of serving its readers with reliable, accurate coverage of the news and issues relevant to the Philippine business landscape. - Miguel Belmonte President and chieft executive officer of BusinessWorld

Business World has been viewed as a #1 source for business and news, the credibility and reliability of the source is very well talked through the Internet.

@Moonlight Entm: I am unsure on what's the issue for this discussion? Per the RSN guideline, Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. If you would like an assessment on Business World, that's all right, but I am unsure on what this line meant Business World has been viewed as a #1 source for business and news, the credibility and reliability of the source is very well talked through the Internet? Many thanks!

Note: Pinging the creator of this discussion per this diff. VickKiang (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence

There are ongoing discussions on the talk pages of Paul Mason and The Grayzone about whether to mention a recent leak of documents. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit at the UK Foreign Office discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone. There has been some reluctance to include this on both pages based on the sources being put forward. The sources are as follows:

- The Hill's Rising discussed the leaks in an 11 minute segment. The discussion is hosted by Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. Their guest is Katie Halper.

- Private Eye magazine published a non-satirical article on the leak in Issue 1575, 17 - 30 June 2022 under the title "Grayzone Layer".

- The WSWS covered the story.

- In Defence of Marxism also covered the story.

Regarding these sources, The Hill is a green tick source and the three participants in the discussion are well-known journalists and/or commentators. Wikipedia contains over 300 references to articles on the website In Defence of Marxism, although there appears to have been no prior discussion about its reliability. Wikipedia contains 140 links to articles in Private Eye but the only discussion about reliability was in 2011. The Private Eye piece seems to be from the print edition. The World Socialist Web Site is listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard.

What do editors think about the strength of these sources in regards to mentioning the leak at Paul Mason and Grayzone? Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Private Eye might be ok, but the other 3 are definitely not reliable. The Rising segment is covered under WP:RSOPINION as an opinion piece (how other cable talk shows are handled); the WSWS and IDOM sources are obviously unreliable as they clearly take a side and thus must be treated as opinion pieces, and that is not even taking into consideration whether or not the outlets are reliable or not (which they aren't). Curbon7 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are quite a few journalists beyond these who have talked about the leak in informal contexts, but it looks like most respectable media doesn't want to give "newspaper of record" treatment to a story that only exists because of hacking that may have the backing of the Russian state. It is not true that we can't use a source that takes sides: generally we recognise a class of sources that are partisan but are conscientious in getting their facts right. I'd put Declassified UK in this camp, who were mentioned in the leak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Belated postscript - I had meant to conclude the above by saying I don't think we currently have the sourcing to treat this story, but my feeling is that in time we will see sufficient coverage in RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll basically repeat what I said at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. These aren't reliable sources for facts. As Curbon7 alluded to, Rising is an opinion talk show and doesn't have the same level of factual reliability as The Hill. @Mhawk10 was kind enough to send me a copy of the Private Eye article and...I'm not exactly sure how it gives credibility to the story. Most of article is criticizing Blumenthal and Kit Klarenberg. Since we're allegedly dealing with leaked documents from a living person, we would need some extremely high-quality sources confirming the authenticity of the leaks. WP:BLPGOSSIP comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Rising 's Wiki page describes it as "an American daily news and opinion web series". It describes itself as "the premier source for policy and political news " and a "daily news show ". The format is similar to that of Democracy Now!. In the linked episode, the hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave spend the first 1.5 minutes detailing the content of the Grayzone story including:

- that Mason created a "Putin-influence map", and "tried to get the Grayzone deplatformed"

- "The emails show [Mason] allegedly plotting with Andy Pryce of the UK Foreign Office Counter-disinformation and Media Unit”.

- "Mason also called for suspending UK libel law to smear targets".

- Soave mentions the removal by YouTube of a video posted by Blumenthal in which he and Aaron Mate discussed the leaked emails.

This part of the show is a factual recounting of the content of the Grayzone ’s story. The hosts then call in Katie Halper to discuss the revelations in more detail. This part of the show does contain some factual content such as Halper’s description of Amil Khan as "the founder of Valent Projects which is funded by USAID and its goal is to investigate disinformation". It also contains some opinion such as Halper’s statement that Khan and Mason decided to avoid confronting Grayzone on substance and instead "resort to these smear tactics".

The article in Private Eye does provided sufficient coverage of the leaked documents. For example it states:

- Last week Paul Mason announced that someone had tried to hack his encrypted email account. ... [O]n 8 June the spoils of the hack surfaced on The Grayzone.

- From "anonymously leaked emails and documents" [The Grayzone] learned that Mason wanted a "relentless deplatforming" of the Grayzone and "a kind of permanent rebuttal operation" to discredit it.

As mentioned by Charles, biased sources are still usable and there are many listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard. Some examples are The Daily Beast (which is used six times in The Grayzone ’s Wikipage) and green tick sources such as The Intercept, Jacobin, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Reason and SPLC.

The point about Declasiffied UK is a good one. Its investigations are detailed and meticulous so it may take longer for it to publish.

My intention is to use the sources for a basic and brief statement of facts, not opinion. An example of the intended text is:

The Grayzone was given access to documents and emails hacked from Paul Mason. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the UK Foreign Office's Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit allegedly discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone.

Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't basic facts. Too many BLP issues and we should not be saying this in WP:WIKIVOICE to begin with. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably not a discussion for this page. The exact wording can be discussed on Paul Mason and Grayzone 's talk page. All four sources state that Grayzone had access to documents and emails leaked from Paul Mason. All four sources state that the discussion between Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce was about deplatforming Grayzone (among other things). The word allegedly has been used in the suggested text but this could be changed to "according to ... " if editors prefer. However, best to transfer that part of the discussion to the talk pages of the two articles. Concerns about BLP issues can be discussed at the BLP noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• The article in Grayzone has been reprinted in the Monthly Review, which is definitely RS . I would say there is no BLP problem whatsoever reporting the story in the article, though not in wikivoice, especially as Mason does not deny it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Monthly Review reprinting the Grayzone, which is a deprecated source, does not make it "RS." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of that statement. Are you saying that the Monthly Review isn't a reliable source? Or that anything that has been published in a deprecated source can never become reliable, even if reprinted by a reliable source?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The latter (although I am not totally sure of the general reliability of Monthly Review for factual claims). How does reprinting a deprecated source suddenly make that source reliable? Did the other source, in this case Monthly Review, fact-check the claims made in the deprecated source? Obviously not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The monthly review has been discussed here before and the consensus was that it was reliable. If a reliable publication reprints something from a non-reliable publication, then they are putting it through their own editorial processes which we deem to be acceptable. There is no basis in our processes for saying that everything published in a deprecated publication must be untrue. Once it is taken up by a trusted source, we can use it. Of course, there are the same considerations we use for every other article, in this case it is solved by attribution. The factual basis of this story is not disputed by anyone, not even Mason. It is just a question of WP:DUE at this point. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to a recent discussion finding MR reliable? I can only see a very old discussion of the journal, not a discussion of the website which very different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a reliable source analyzing and examining an article found in another source and a source simply hosting another source's article. In this case, Monthly Review is simply republishing/hosting an article straight from the Grayzone. They are not endorsing the reliability of the article. There is even a disclaimer at the bottom stating: Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source publishes views, it confers those views with notability. By republishing the article, they take equal legal responsibility for any factual inaccuracy, and that disclaimer does not disavow responsibility for factual inaccuracy. Now, nobody is arguing for language stating that Mason did the things he is accused of, though there is near unanimity that he did, and he doesn't even deny it himself, but an attributed statement detailing his activities is warranted. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Such a website would most likely be protected by Section 230. Per Bollinger et. al.,: Section 230(c)(1) is a barrier to liability for hosting, republishing, and disseminating content furnished by third parties. Specifically, it provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."[5]. Please also read WP:SYNDICATED: A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats...Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source. All claims of reliability and due weight, in this case, rests with The Grayzone--not Monthly Review. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps they don't have legal liability under US law. However, they have chosen to repeat it, without any disclaimer regarding facts, which means they lend it their own credibility. WP:SYNDICATED is not relevant here, I am not claiming that two sources exist. It is one source, but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review, I do not think there are two sources, one reliable and one not.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review. Sorry, this opinion is not backed up by any known policy or guideline. The WP:GRAYZONE consensus still applies which found that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't see your view that once something has been published in a non-reliable source, it can never become reliable as being valid or in any way logical. You are arguing that the first place something is published defines its status forever, and that is plainly not correct.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So if InfoWars decided to pay CNN to republish one of its articles in full, does that make the InfoWars article a reliable source now? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If a news source accepts paid content without distinguishing it from its own content it is not reliable, so no. However, if CNN looked at an infowars article and decided it was worthy of publishing due to its value and importance as a piece of news, then, theoretically, yes. Your argument would state that if a blog piece was picked up by the New York Times and put on its front page, then it would not be a reliable source or notable. That is not the way it works here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here. If, say, a New York Times journalist wrote an original story saying: "Grayzone reported X about Paul Mason. We, at the New York Times, are able to confirm the accuracy of that account," then Grayzone's story would be verified and we are able to include it in WP, citing the New York Times. But if for some reason the New York Times simply decided to republish the Grayzone article with a disclaimer "The New York Times does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at NYTIMES.com" then the reliability rests with the original publisher. This is fairly routine. Just check some entries on WP:RSP, e.g., WP:WND: WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. Also see: Web syndication. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What you write here is a little straw-clutchy. Nothing on WP:RSP or WP:WND seems applicable to this case, and the specific case of WorldNetDaily is not applicable beyond that individual publication. It is the opposite of the situation we are discussing, where a the reprinter is MORE reliable than the initial publisher. I don't think there is much to be said here, I think republishing by a better source can render a source reliable, you don't.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Where was there a consensus attained that Monthly Review is WP:GREL? I've looked through the archives and I can't find a discussion that clearly agrees with that. Meanwhile there are multiple WP:GREL sources that have pointed out its promotion of Xinjiang denialism through the republication of Qiao Collective trash. Why would we trust that stories republished by them are reliable? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is a consensus in this discussion, the OP initially double its reliability, many voices state it is reliable, the OP then changes their mind.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That thread is from 14 years ago and I don't think the participants reached a clear consensus about the reliability of Monthly Review. They were mostly arguing if "extremist" sources are permissible or not. Also, about half of those participants are indefed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To echo Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, an informal noticeboard discussion that took place over fourteen years ago on the publication's reliability does not constitute present consensus. The WP:RS guideline has changed a bit during that time and a source's reliability for facts can be different now than it was a decade ago (see WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Especially since Monthly Review has had substantial and more recent problems with its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in media it republishes, the 2008 discussion does not establish current consensus that the publication is WP:GREL. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Note: This has been previously discussed at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Also that discussion (and presumably all references to this thread about reliability) refer to the monthly publication (hence the name), while the particular article in question is from MROnline (About MR), which has open submissions and unknown review standards (Do they fact-check? They simply say "Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful."). The one thing that's for certain is that Blumenthal himself submitted/adapted the Grayzone article for MROnline.

And the notion that the green check mark suddenly grants an aura of quality to all the crap that a publication associates with is nonsense, notably if they do not make their editorial practices known. Standards vary, as does scrutiny – there is some gray area in say NYT commentary/guest submissions where they have been known to fail to fact-check despite claiming they do – which is why at minimum in-line attribution is necessary, to the original source. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest MR provides notability for attributing a view, I don't see any evidence of unreliability, except that it published one opinion article that specialists in a field strongly disagreed with. I personally consider it reliable, and so did the users the last time it was discussed. One contested article is not enough to render a source unreliable. The Times is considered reliable despite regularly being castigated by regulators for publishing false information. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of this pertains to WP:N. If you're saying that their online blog is reliable, even though it more or less provides the same disclaimer that an op-ed section would have, I don't really know what say except that op-eds and guest blog posts are rarely reliable for statements of fact owing to a lack of fact-checking in that area. That MRO published it as a guest blog post doesn't allow us to do anything except to make our weighting decision based on the reliability of The Grayzone itself, which is truly subpar. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable for BLP information and absolutely not in Wikivoice None of the sources given seem to be what would be considered reliable sources for inclusion of details in Wikivoice. If due weight considerations and discussions determine that the sources are important enough to include, then they should be included with attribution due to them being opinion pieces. But I would find due weight hard to support in this regard without higher quality sources covering the subject, particularly for the BLP article. Silverseren^C 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I'll summarise the discussion by saying that the sources mentioned are strong enough to support mentioning the leaked emails and the Grayzone 's view on their significance. Most editors agree that Wikivoice should not be used based on these sources, so any opinions should be attributed appropriately. In a few days I'll start RfC's on the pages for Paul Mason and the Grayzone. Burrobert (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that summary. The consensus is clear that these are very weak sources at best and certainly to weak for contentious BLP material. My own view is that the Rising talk show cannot be used as a source for facts or in determining due weight for opinion; an MRonline report of a piece in a deprecated blog is straightforwardly unreliable; that WSWS is not reliable and certainly not for this sort of content; and that In Defence of Marxism might be reliable for facts to do with Trotskyist sectarians or Leninist theory but not for content relating to the topics involved here. Therefore Private Eye is the only potentially usable source, which doesn’t leave much to say, particularly about Mason. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to the participants in the RfC's then. They can make up their own minds about this discussion. The reliability will of course depend on the nature of the proposed text. All sources support including the uncontroversial points that

- Mason's email account was hacked.

- the contents surfaced on the Grayzone

- the contents included a discussion about deplatforming the Grayzone which involved Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce (we could discuss whether this point should be attributed to the Grayzone).

Some points from the Grayzone articles have not yet been well covered by other sources. Some of this is probably due to the threat of legal action. For example Emma Briant's role in the discussion has not been well covered so it would be best not to mention her in any proposed text. Mason's idea of astroturfing black and Asian voices to push back on black and brown critics of the Ukraine proxy war may have been mentioned in Rising but probably should also be left out. I can't find a link to the BBC's assault on Stop The War Coalition in which Mason apparently appears. We may be able to include that item once the programme is published and generates coverage. In short, any proposal should be limited to the three uncontroversial items above. Burrobert (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

"I'll summarise the discussion by saying that the sources mentioned are strong enough to support mentioning the leaked emails and the Grayzone 's view on their significance". Come on, that's a poor summary of the consensus. If you count Bob now, 6 editors in this thread agree the sources are extremely weak. Only one editor, besides the OP, agrees the sources are good enough. We are dealing with a BLP here. We need explicit consensus and robust sourcing. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this but the hacked contents of a living person's email will never be an "uncontroversial" point (even if we have super strong sources). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any BLP policy related to leaked or hacked documents. There are many well-known examples of such documents being subject to reporting and then finding their way into Wikipedia articles. It would be worth raising the issue at the BLP Noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Such private, personal matters would be covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY. I'm not saying it's forbidden for such instances finding their way into WP articles. It's just that the quality of sources would need to be pretty high and proper WP:WEIGHT and neutrality would need to be maintained. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally somewhat hesitant to apply WP:BLPPRIVACY here if it is the case that RS report in a similar manner to the way that The Grayzone did. We're not really talking about personal information here and the risk of identity theft from any of the allegedly hacked materials seems to be low. I also don't see any policy-based difference for excluding coverage based solely on the fact that materials were hacked by a hostile agent and then leaked to a blog; I don't see a clear policy-based reason to differentiate this between an insider having downloaded his emails without his permission and then handed them over to that same blog. The biggest issue (in my view) here is that no generally reliable news sources seem to have touched this story in any way that can be seen as giving it credibility. If this were actually an event with lasting significance, surely something reliable would have picked it up by now. I don't buy the arguments about legal concerns being able to explain the lack of reporting here; the United States dominates anglophone media and there are no legal means of a court exercising prior restraint on a newspaper's reporting on a foreign government's alleged contact with a left-leaning figure. The only other legal concern I can think of would be libel, but that would be evidence against including this on Wikipedia. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Trans Safety Network

Source: [6]

Articles: Stella O'Malley and Genspect

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

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

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

Agree. BTW Incredible strikeout, thank you for your service. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

They are notable enough to be treated by other reliable sources as worthy of comment, and are a registered non-profit devoted to this issue. Mallory has been cited for her statements as a researcher by various other reputable news orgs. The claims present are all backed with sources in the article and easily verifiable. Namely, that is how TSN described SEGM, most of the donations are > $10,000, and those members are on the board of both teams. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The group does not appear to be a well-established news outlet nor does the report appear to be WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If I were to make an investigative report on a subject about which I am an expert and post it on my own blog, I don't think anybody would reasonably be able to cite it on Wikipedia for contentious facts about living people even if my analysis is wholly correct. And, that a source is a "registered non-profit" that news organizations find worthy of comment does not make their website reliable within its area of focus; by that logic, the website of Moms for Liberty would satisfy the qualifications to be a reliable source for public education in the United States. While there are some nonprofits that are WP:GREL, this doesn't exactly have the longstanding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy coupled with strong editorial review processes that something like Amnesty International or Pew Research Center does.

On top of that, the text of the report doesn't quite support the sentence as-written; the only way to conclude that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars would be to conclude that the GoFundMe accounted for over two-thirds of the group's funding at the time the report was written. The report itself doesn't allege this, but instead says that they can't find tax return data on the group despite efforts to search online. So, in that sense, no the source is not reliable for the claim that They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. The bigger question is whether or not the source is WP:DUE for the remainder of the content. If there aren't any established NEWSORGs or scholarly works that have provided weight to the particular parts of this report, then the answer is that it's almost certainly WP:UNDUE. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean Subject-matter expert when you linked to WP:SME?? SVTCobra 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did; thank you for pointing this out. I've struck the erroneous link and inserted one to the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say that Trans Safety Network are reliable. Articles published by TSN have been cited in scholarly research as authoritative; [7], [8], [9], as well as in reliable media; [10], [11], [12].

Mallory herself has been quoted in media sources as a researcher; [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] as well as in scholarly research; [18], [19], and by at least one legal scholar [20]. As such I believe she qualifies as a subject matter expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe related Draft:Trans Safety Network (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Trans Safety Network|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --SVTCobra 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

The ordinary rules of RSOPINION ([s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact already apply here. In general, a piece in which X author wrote Q opinion is a reliable primary source for the fact that X author wrote Q opinion, even if it's a self-published blog (see: WP:ABOUTSELF). Problems can occur when that opinion involves contentious claims about other living people and is self-published (WP:BLPSPS), when the opinion advocates fringe theories (WP:PSCI), or when basically no other sources talk about that particular opinion (WP:WEIGHT/WP:BALASP).

On a separate note, the fact that google news indexes a website is not a good measure of that website's reliability. Google news also produces results for site:infowars.com, and InfoWars is quite a bad source. Looking through the WP:DEPREC publications, it also indexes basically all of them: RT, The Grayzone, Veterans Today, Global Times, ANNA-news, Baidu Baike, CGTN, CrunchBase, The Daily Caller, The Daily Mail, The Daily Star, The Epoch Times, Frontpage Magazine, The Gateway Pundit, HispanTV, Jihad Watch, Last FM, LifeSiteNews, MintPress News, National Enquirer, New Eastern Outlook, NewsBlaze, Newsmax, Notable Names Database, Occupy Democrats, One America News, Press TV, Rate Your Music, Republic TV, Sputnik News, The Sun, Taki's Magazine, TeleSur, The Unz Review, VDARE, Voltaire Network, WorldNetDaily, Zerohedge, Breitbart, and Lenta. In fact, aside from self-published peerage websites, the only deprecated publications that don't appear to be indexed by Google News were BestGore, NewsBreak, News of the World. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003)

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

Source

"c't 3003: Ent-googletes Android dank Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla" [c't 3003: Un-googled Android thanks to Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla]. heise online (in German). 15 April 2022. Archived from the original on 15 April 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2022.

Article

GrapheneOS

Content

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

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

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

Do not use the particular source (without comment on heise.de reliability in general), as it is contrary to WP:RSPYT.

• Correction Re: "The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video)"

The cited heise.de source does not include a transcript. It, in essence, is entirely a transcript.

• As stated in the Talk[21], the more concise issue is: a transcription of a Youtube video is just as contrary to WP:RSPYT as the video itself. This is trying to use a Youtube videos as a source, by "laundering" it through an (maybe) otherwise usually reliable source, for articles within editorial oversight, if any. This particular source is outside any editorial oversight, as stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of the transcript of the youtube video. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• It is? As I understand RS if a source reports something and it is an RS it does not matter if the origin is "some bloke down the pub" as we would source it to the rs. And to accuse an RS (assuming of course it is) of "laundering" smacks of wp:or.

As to the question, a publisher is not an RS, it is only a publisher. What they publish maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don´t think this disclaimer is meant in that way (no editorial oversight), my understanding is the channel provides content not available in the magazine. Author of said video/transcription is an editor of the ct magazine, the channel is sanctioned by the magazine ("c't 3003 ist der YouTube-Channel von c't") and the transcription is on the magazine website (well, heise.de is the site of several tech related media of the Heinz Heise publishing house). From my humble POV, this source is reliable (as a source for the above paragraph), certainly not "a self-published group blog". Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the videos were "endorsed" by, and given editorial oversight by heise.de (or c't subsidiary or whatever), then the disclaimer would say something like that. Instead, they use words like "standalone content" and "independent of the articles". If they were given oversight, they might avoid obvious errors. An example of obvious (to me) erroneous content in this particular YouTube video: They say, at about 3:38 in the video, which includes English subtitles, ""The five custom ROMs that I tested together with my colleagues from c't are all based on Google's AOSP, but of course do not have Google's closed-source software integrated. Instead of Google Maps, for example, Magic Earth is preinstalled on /e/, Organic Maps on Calyx, and OSMAnd on Volla." This is an obvious error to me, because I am familiar with Magic Earth being not open source; rather, being a closed source, proprietary app, included with /e/.[22] A suggestion: They say the video is based on previous testing done for the c't magazine. That may be a better source. I could not get beyond the paywall to see that article, but if available at least a written article, clearly endorsed, would not be contrary to WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Google's closed-source software. It's not to be taken out of context or interpreted to mean something it doesn't say (WP:OR / WP:SYNTHESIS); the statement also does not say the other software is all open-source (rightfully so). There's no Google in Magic Earth (publisher General Magic), at least according to the external link you've posted. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary "Yae4 taking things out of context for his benefit (again))" is a personal attack, and false. I don't think they meant to say instead of Google's closed source software, you get someone else's closed source software. In context of all they say about "open source" throughout the transcript, I think they made a mistake. The other two Maps apps they listed - Organic Maps and OsmAnd - are indeed open source. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Even reliable sources can be sometimes wrong (don't know if this is the case). However, we have here regular magazine staff, posting video on a regular channel of the same magazine with a transcription on the magazine website. I really don't see any reason, why this transcription shouldn't be useable as a reliable source for the above paragraph. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: heise online is referenced by other (at least marginal) publications. Some examples (English translations of foreign source titles have been machine translated):

• Sattelberg, Will (5 September 2021). "Germany wants to extend your smartphone's lifespan with seven years of security patches". Android Police. Valnet Inc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Mehrotra, Pranob (6 September 2021). "Germany wants smartphone makers to offer 7 years of software updates". XDA Developers. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Hardwick, Tim (6 September 2021). "Germany Urges EU to Require 7 Years of Updates and Repairs for iOS Devices". MacRumors. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Stich, Simon (27 June 2022). "Microsoft fliegt raus: Erstes Bundesland zieht die Reißleine" [Microsoft flies out: First state pulls the ripcord]. GIGA (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Geuß, Martin (28 June 2022). "Microsoft Teams soll auch in Rheinland-Pfalz von den Schulen verbannt werden" [Microsoft Teams to be banned from schools in Rhineland-Palatinate as well]. MSN (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Carnevale, Robert (13 January 2022). "Linux replaces Windows in one German state's bid for software independence". Windows Central. Future plc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Sen, Sayan (23 November 2021). "25,000 German state computers will bid goodbye to Windows and say Hello to Linux". Neowin. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Farivar, Cyrus (16 December 2006). "BMW getting supercomputer; iDrive still sucks, though". Engadget. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• "Apple arbeitet wohl an Mac Mini mit M2-Chip". Swiss IT Magazine. 12 April 2022. Retrieved 30 June 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Android Police. Valnet Inc. rang a bell. Previous comments on Valnet et all at RSN have not been favorable.[23][24][25] This suggests I should not have added Android Police sources, and we should remove them. Stopping here, assuming you listed the strongest first. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In no order of preference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Heise Online is an umbrella website for several Heinz Heise magazines/publications - content quality may vary (there may be even "sponsored content"). The transcription in question is under ct magazine heading, so reliability of the ct magazine (and its web content) should be judged here. Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP#Engadget has referenced the c't magazine on several occasions. I've added more references are below. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: c't magazine is used as a source by other independent publications. Some examples:

• Fingas, Jon (4 September 2021). "Germany wants phone makers to offer 7 years of security updates". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Shah, Saqib (20 December 2018). "Amazon sent private Alexa audio recordings to a random person". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Brown, Jennings (20 December 2018). "The Amazon Alexa Eavesdropping Nightmare Came True". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Brien, Jörn (29 May 2022). "Apple-Übersetzer: KI wandelt harmlose Sätze in Pornotitel um" [Apple translator: AI converts harmless sentences into porn titles]. t3n (in German). yeebase media GmbH. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Bauer, Manuel (30 May 2022). "Pikant: Apples Übersetzungs-Tool hat ein Porno-Problem" [Spicy: Apple's translation tool has a porn problem]. Computer Bild (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• "'Next generation' flaws found on computer processors: magazine". Reuters. 3 May 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine."

You continue sidestepping and giving distractions from the main issue and the disclaimer, regarding the stand-alone, independent YouTube video (transcript) you wish to cite. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The editor of c't 3003 web videos also appears as an editor or co-editor for the paper c't magazine in their work (several examples):

• Janssen, Jan-Keno (August 2018). "Deep/Fakes". c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. p. 100. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Janssen, Jan-Keno; Wirtgen, Jörg (January 2022). "Desktop-Handy". c't (in German). No. 1/2022. Heinz Heise. p. 148. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Janssen, Jan-Keno (January 2019). "Wolkig mit Aussicht auf Gaming" [Cloudy with a view of gaming]. c't (in German). No. 1/2019. Heinz Heise. p. 46. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

His opinionated personal experience news report has been published in heise online (not c't):

• Janssen, Jan-Keno (22 January 2014). "Uneasy Rider: Radfahren in Las Vegas" [Uneasy Rider: Cycling in Las Vegas]. heise online (in German). Heinz Heise. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment:

• "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. August 2018. p. 201. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 15/2022. Heinz Heise. 2022. p. 193. Retrieved 1 July 2022. See managing directors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Jan-Keno Janssen was listed for "Cover story coordination in this issue" (Titelthemenkoordination in dieser Ausgabe) and "Managing Editors" in "Mobile, Entertainment & Gadgets Department" (Ressort Mobiles, Entertainment & Gadgets, Leitende Redakteure) in an issue in 2018. Today, I cannot find their name on the current Impressum. I'll grant you the videos are entertaining, but I could only watch the one you want to cite for less than 4 minutes before seeing misleading info' and feeling they were careless with details. Their written articles are more likely to receive independent oversight by other editors (and not be tagged with a disclaimer), but that is not what you are citing. You are citing a YouTube video (transcript) which is "stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine." -- Yae4 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alle Redakteure. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Direct link: [26]. Independent of the articles in the magazine (in sense of new content), but certainly not independent of ct (their staff member, their channel, their webpage...). Pavlor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The blurb "Jan-Keno Janssen lives in virtual reality, but sometimes still likes to go into the uncomfortable real world. The full-blooded nerd only learned to distinguish oaks from beeches as an adult, but was able to use Emacs as an 8-year-old. Since 2007 at c't." does not make a case for expertise, if that's your point? -- Yae4 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I really don't understand your point. The text you quoted highlights his IT experience (in a humorous way). I fear we are runing in circles and wasting our time. This source is reliable (for the stated purpose). Too bad I'm the only one yet writing my opinion here - beside you two (heise.de is no FOX news...). May I ask, is there some other reason I'm not aware of why we should so carefully examinate this source (eg. something like AmigaOS4/MorphOS rivalry and associated fanboyism/canvassing)? Pavlor (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like this to be turned into an RfC with options 1-4 for the reliability in general. I do have an opinion on the reliability of stated source and why this rehearsing happens, but I'm not going to express it now. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Are any of these sources reliable?

While looking for a good source on the fact that about-to-be-Prime-Minister of Israel, Yair Lapid, is color blind (at that time I ended up using a Hebrew source, today I upgraded to an English-language one), I found a more interesting claim - that Bill Clinton is. Can any of the following sources be used for this? And can the same source also be used for the other listed people?

1. https://www.ranker.com/list/color-blind-celebrities/celebrity-lists
2. https://www.improveeyesighthq.com/famous-color-blind-people.html
3. https://healthresearchfunding.org/famous-people-color-blindness
4. https://embracebio.wixsite.com/education/single-post/2017/09/06/colour-blindness-awareness-day

Animal lover |666| 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ranker is a low quality content farm (e.g. the blurb for each entry is scraped from Wikipedia). Improveeyesighthq is a self-published blog (see their about page). There is no information about healthresearchfunding whatsoever, but the nature of their articles suggests that they are also a content farm. Anybody can create a personal page on wixsite and there is no information on who is behind the content on embracebio.wixsite.com. In summary: None of these sources can be used for anything, let alone BLPs. 87.115.237.229 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

For Clinton and others, you could use: Sun-Sentinel & San Diego Union Tribune. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC:Unfortunately, I was told on this noticeboard (the thread is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject) that any off-topic claim made by an article can't be used. This means that a proper source for such a claim must come either from a list of people with color blindness, an article about the person in question, or an article about a specific event/action/product/situation where this specific person's color blindness is relevant. Animal lover |666| 09:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=v0oL8xDJ0VEC&pg=PA43 Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

While I understand the basis of that, the guideline says should find sources that focus on it where possible. Either way the section from the book above should work. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this source is any better. It's also aggregating without citing a source. It seems likely to me that someone misinterpreted a joke about his poor fashion sense or his racial outlook at some point, because if he really was it'd be in an RS. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems better (pg. 95) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Encyclopedia_of_Genetic_Disorders_an.html?id=kXaMjwItP0oC GordonGlottal (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary source with similar language: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZolYAAAAYAAJ Unfortunately I don't have access to the full book to see if they cite anything. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Rosenthal and Phillips is on iArchive for rent, and they talk about the debate on p. 156, with a little bit more detail on the citation: According to Jim Lehrer of PBS, who was chosen as moderator of the debates because of his reputation for fairness and distaste for sensationalism, a system of three lights was used. Nothing is cited inline and there's no mention of Lehrer or a presidential debate in the bibliography from my search (remember, editors, that proper citations must include the citation within a citation, something like "primary, as cited in secondary"). But at that level of attribution (living people can be called right now at any time for confirmation) I think you use Rosenthal and Phillips, including the Lehrer attribution quote in the footnote, and maybe another editor will eventually be able to find the original citation one day. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider news reporting

Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).

Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

-- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be neutrally worded, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))

  @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
  1. Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
  2. The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
  3. I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the poster child for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.

In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The problem is that the term "clickbait" is extremely subjective and arguably can be found at the NYT or elsewhere easily. Have you run into serious clickbait or (verifiably) false stories in their news section coverage in recent history? The concerns I have seen in past RfCs don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications (and even Insider) that sections can be individually assessed.

As an interesting aside, I just realized and double-checked (CTRL + F searched through the winners of years) and Politico and Insider are now tied in Pulitzer wins at once a piece. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If my only objection were that the headlines are inaccurate and sensationalist, (which BI statistically engages in quite often, I would agree that this is no issue in light of WP:HEADLINE. But the long-standing concern here is not merely that the headlines are at times akin to those published by content farms—it is the churnalism that this news organization’s editorial structure actively has encouraged both before and after acquisition by Axel Springer. That the reputation of the firm remained that way—even in January 2022—cannot be reduced to merely its decision to frequently use sensationalist headlines. It reflects something much more substantial about the quality of its article content, which is ultimately what we care about when evaluating this publication’s reliability for news. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Clickbait reflects a practice of "dramatization" that seems contrary to reliability. Of course, it's only one criteria in the catalog that we use — which is why it has little importance for an outlet like the New York Times but can have a lot of weight for i-promise-this-is-reliable.net. JBchrch talk 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 No numerical vote yet per withinNo point being a jerk, even though I was a jerk before it got all commercialized.: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding the actual previous RfC then, I guess my understanding of journalism is far more limited than I imagined because I had no idea what was going on there. I don't remember the last time I've read a "culture" story and I didn't recognize who half the people in those linked articles were. Apparently the kids all want to watch "my tube" now? I don't see why they can't just watch their own. Regarding the color rating system, I posted a comment on RSP about contradictory criteria and seeming misuse of the term "opinion". And of course the green check mark is portrayed by some users as if the veracity of a source is now intrinsic with the fabric of the universe. So I'm not really comfortable with the system as it stands. "Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting" would accurately summarize my opinion of BI from what I've assessed here, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is where the phrase "generally reliable" comes in; all outlets make mistakes, what matters is whether they correct them and the frequency of issues. If I understand correctly, by the logic in your comment, we'd deem every RS source to not be RS and call everything unreliable. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's corporate backed? You're darn right not to trust it. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 Insider would probably get similar treatment here to HuffPost, Politico, etc. if it wasn't "business" Insider. Most of the objections here are old and could also be leveled at all media companies at some point. Insider is allowed to improve their standards over the year just like BuzzFeed (News). And look, they just won a Pulitzer. Editors need to look past their unwarranted icky feelings about this site. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Basically a tabloid. Clickbait, informal style, speculation, hype, and this kind of vibe where you're very much aware of the fact that you're not reading something on the level of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Do headlines such as "We got an exclusive look at the 24-slide LP deck European climate fund Climentum Capital used to close the first batch of its $156 million fund" and "Toast's CEO talks how his company will dominate the $55 billion restaurant-tech space even as its stock is slammed post-IPO by market headwinds" make you trust this outlet unconditionally? Me neither. I am aware that this is a superficial argument that doesn't reach the strength of Mhawk10's analysis but sometimes... you know it when you see it. About that Pulitzer, I will just note that it's in the Illustrated Reporting and Commentary...For a distinguished portfolio of editorial cartoons or other illustrated work (still, animated, or both) characterized by political insight, editorial effectiveness, or public service value. I fully appreciate the level of talent and the amount of work needed to achieve something like that but I'm not sure that it's that relevant to assess reliability in the context of Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 17:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: I will just note that none of the referenced premium stories are from the news section, which is predominately free reading, and therefore not exactly relevant to the question being asked. Have you seen any particular problems with the news section? The question here isn't evaluating the whole publication; this is asking specifically about their news section coverage. The average headline and story content for the news section seems rather newsy. e.g. "A long-lost letter from Alexander Hamilton about the war with the British has been returned and is now on display in Boston", "Highland Park shooting suspect charged with 7 counts of first-degree murder with 'dozens more' to be pursued, state attorney says", "China refutes NASA chief's claim that the country is looking to take over the moon", "The Highland Park shooting suspect confessed to carrying out the massacre during police interview, prosecutors say" etc. Normal, routine news coverage you would expect of a publication. BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, for example, are treated differently and we've already previously established that different Insider sections can be assessed differently (Insider's culture section is considered RS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that point, which I had indeed missed. However, I'm not sure it makes a difference. The way I understand how insider.com works is that it publishes individual stories which it categorizes with various tags. So for instance How a 'Minions' meme craze among teens may have boosted the new movie's box office is a "Media" story which can be also found in the "News" section. So, contrary to Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News, which are two different websites, Insider is one single website, which I think should be assessed as a whole. (Perhaps that makes me a dissenter to Insider Culture RfC.) This is confirmed by the fact that even if you are in the News section of the website, if you click on "Latest", it shows you the latest stores published in all the sections of the website, including I'm a professional baker who tried making Martha Stewart's signature yellow cake. Here are 2 ways I'd improve her recipe., an article in the Food section. JBchrch talk 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (BI)

• Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious publishers

Are books published by religious publishing companies (see Category:Religious publishing companies and its subcategories) WP:RS for biblical scholarship? In the event of variation or conflict, how should religious-publisher sources be weighed as compared with non-religious academic publishers (see Category:Academic publishing companies and its subcategories)?

Prior RSN discussions in Jun 2010, Sep 2010, Nov 2010, Jan 2011, Jul 2011, Apr 2015, Nov 2018, and Feb 2021 were inconclusive (I'd sum them up in the words of the last comment in the most-recent discussion: "depends on the topic").

This is a broad question that would affect many articles, but here are some examples of articles and some of the religious publishers they cite (in addition to non-religious academic publishers):

• Bible#Development and history, in its discussion of "variants" (how much do various copies of the books of the Bible vary from one another, and do those variations matter), cites sources published by Baker Publishing Group and InterVarsity Press
• Biblical criticism#Textual criticism: Westminster John Knox Press
• Textual criticism#New Testament: Kregel Publications
• Textual criticism of the New Testament: Far Eastern Bible College
• Textual variants in the New Testament (which actually lists the textual variants themselves): Tyndale House Publishers (which was discussed in the Feb 2021 RSN thread linked above, and should not be confused with the Oxford University house of the same name, this is an American evangelical publisher)

Does it matter that a publisher is religious or not, for "stuff about the Bible" (for lack of a better way to phrase it)? If it does matter, how does it matter--how should editors treat such sources? Thanks in advance, Levivich^[block] 02:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Way too broad. There are stellar sources within that category and its subcategory (Ave Maria Press is an imprint that University of Notre Dame Press at times will use for religious studies texts), and some non-reputable ones (BJU Press is historically affiliated with Bob Jones University and doesn't really publish the sort of stuff we should be citing). Merely because a press is religious does not disqualify it as a publisher; as such, the particular publisher should be examined for its general reputation within the field.

The thing that you will encounter a lot of these religious presses is that there will be academic-level books, but also some that are written for a lower level or more popular audience. Within Ave Maria Press, for example, there are undergraduate textbook-level books written by world-class Notre Dame faculty but there are also high school textbooks and popular press books. It's similar to MacMillan in this respect, where the publisher is reputable and undergraduate-targeted works published by them are generally tertiary pieces of scholarship, but their high school textbooks and popular press books shouldn't be treated as if they were academic sources. WP:SOURCEDEF provides guidance here inasmuch as the piece of work itself (i.e. things particular to the specific book) and the author of the work are going to affect reliability; examining a book's target audience (undergrad/grad students vs high schoolers or the general public) and its author's credentials (i.e. are they a rando or are they a well-respected professor in the field) is going to be necessary, as reliable nonfiction publishers might well treat books with different target audiences with different editorial review rigor. But that goes for all non-fiction publishers that publish both popular press books and academic works, not just religious ones. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you tell the difference between a reputable religious publisher and an unreputable one? For example, the publishers I listed above, how would I determine if they are good/bad? Assume for the sake of this thread the author is bona fide and writing for an academic audience, and the book is well-footnoted, etc. The only "variable" is the publisher. Levivich^[block] 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's much in the same way that you'd determine a reputable secular publisher vs an unreputable secular publisher. Does the publisher have a reputation for a strong editorial review process and do they have strong editorial controls? Are they affiliated with a reputable academic or scholarly institution (such as the relationship between Ave Maria Press and the University of Notre Dame)? Do well-respected authors in the relevant field frequently choose to publish scholarly works with them? And do their scholarly publications tend to get cited in other scholarship as a source for facts?

If the answer to these is all of the above is "yes", then it's likely that you have a reputable publisher within the relevant field. If the answer to all of them is "no", then it's rather unlikely that you have a reputable publisher in that field. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So basically evaluate it like any other source, it doesn't matter if it's religious or not? Levivich^[block] 05:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Merely having (or not having) a religious affiliation doesn't move the needle towards being more reliable or less reliable, ceteris paribus. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's all about the area of discussion. Similar to reliable mainstream press being considered unreliable for medical topics. Some religious press may be reliable for religious topics but not secular, or the opposite. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: a good test for any of these publishers attached to Bible colleges or schools is to check their accreditation. Generally, if they're not accredited (such as Hyles-Anderson College), or accredited only through a Christian accreditation agency (such as Pensecola Christian College), I wouldn't consider them reliable, and I doubt others would, either.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable always depends on what you're writing in the article. You might need to write something like "Most scholars say X, but this group says Y", in which case someone from 'this group', published by a school that is part of 'this group' is a good source. I agree with Mhawk10: it's basically the same as any other subject: There is no such thing as a source that is "always reliable" or "never reliable"; you can only determine whether a source is reliable by comparing it to the material that the source is meant to support. There are multiple factors that you evaluate for any source, and it's not necessary for every source to be perfect on every score.

As usual, it helps to know something about the subject and what the high-quality sources say. It might be nice to have gold-plated scholarly sources for every word, but you don't really need perfect sources when the content is ordinary, expected, mainstream views. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit is not really an improvement over Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Readers only click on the refs in 3 out of 1,000 page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian Telegraph Agency

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

This seems to be the main propaganda organ of the Belarusian state. A cursory look at the English site shows most articles are direct quotes of officials and especially Lukashenko w/o editorial commentary. In general, BELTA seems to stick closely to the concept of a wire service and the vast majority of its articles are long quotes. However, the opinion section and esp. articles relating to the invasion of Ukraine take a much more clearly misleading position that does not appear substantially different from Russian state media. Furthermore, in 2012 the EU imposed sanctions on Dmitry Zhuk, then director of BELTA for "relaying state propaganda in the media, which has supported and justified the repression of the democratic opposition and of civil society on 19 December 2010 using falsified information." [27] As far as I can tell, it seems like a great source for who is claiming what, but the claims themselves are nearly all worthless. Should BELTA be used for information beyond ascertaining that an individual made certain claims? Hussierhussier1 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

treat it like any other propaganda outfit, it is useable to say "BELTA claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

japanese-wiki-corpus.org

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

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

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

I would say, yes it is a mirror. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What are the merits of https://metanumbers.com/ as an external link source for mathematics number articles?

I am curious to know whether https://metanumbers.com/ can be used as an external link for mathematics number articles? I use it fairly often on my own when looking for values such as total divisor count, aliquot sums, sums of divisors, arithmetic mean and geometric mean of n divisors, as well as euler totient values, for any given number up to 9223372036854775807 (that is the largest number stored/computed). Here is an example for the number 138: https://metanumbers.com/138. It also provides some extra base conversions (for bases 4, 5, 6, 10, 20 and 36, aside from the ones we provide on the info-box) for a given number, basic calculations (multiplications, divisions, exponentiation and nth roots), as well as basic geometric values (such as areas, surface areas, volumes, heights, diagonals, and circumferences) in elementary shapes like the circle, sphere, equilateral triangle, square, and cube. It also includes some cryptographic Hash functions for a number in question. I think it could be a nice addendum on some number page's external links, the only number that it provides that is not exact is the relative position of a number vis-a-vis its nearest prime number (even if the number inputted is prime). It has a very straightforward website layout that is well organized, and its color scheme is pleasant, in my opinion. It's a relatively new site, it went online in 2019. Thoughts? Radlrb (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As a source, I would never use it. As an external link... not either. Anyone who needs to know properties of a given number may use a calculator or, if it's a complicated property, use the OEIS. If the property is basic enough, like primality, the guideline that we do not need to show rudimentary calculations applies. Although it's a nice website, MetaNumbers isn't in the spirit of how Wikipedia covers number articles; it's a bit too indiscriminate and is essentially just linking to a specialized calculator. Ovinus (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. My only issue is that there are many regular individuals who are not mathematicians that do not know what OEIS is, and might appreciate a simple tool like this website to find other properties we wouldn't list on our numbers page. Still, maybe in the future once the website is more clear about how they calculate their information, and who exactly is the developper of the website, then we'd maybe use a website like this as an external link. Radlrb (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost everything on that site seems to be a pretty basic calculation, and every computer algebra program including the free SymPy can do it for the big numbers (but typically now they just pull from tables). OEIS doesn't always give long tables for everything (but they often link to them, though not always, grr), so calculation can be necessary, and verifiability for the largest numbers sometimes requires going beyond Numerical Recipes, which last time I used it was limited to int precision (32 bits at the time). For more complex stuff, or vandalism, or if people insist, the CRC would be the basic "source" for math tables I would use, though I'm not sure how much number theory it has (my copy is in a box right now as I've relied on computer algebra software and the internet for years far more than I should). I don't know – if an editor challenges you for a source for a basic calculation or table lookup then a stupid site like metanumbers is probably fine if it makes them happy. But since their site has no history like the CRC and is completely opaque about their methods – did they calculate it themselves, pull from free tables, Wolfram Alpha, etc. (any of which would be fine) – then I wouldn't cite it inline. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's a "stupid site," (you probably mean simple site I imagine :) ) since there are real people behind efforts to help others see properties in numbers, I think there are better options as external links. Just wondering what some editors think about this website. Indeed, it is a bit too obscure. Also, many curious people seeking properties of numbers might not know about better programs, or even OEIS to find basic information on numbers. Thank you for your input. Radlrb (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Cryptome a reliable source for September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories?

How can we be sure the content is genuine? Doug Weller talk 11:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the specific link is this. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Cryptome does not look like a good source. Alex-h (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Only checked the 4 part fox news but archive.org does retain copies (and video likely exists as well somwhere). So, while Cryptome is not a good source,it may lead to good sources. Though without further corroboration unnamed sources may be too little to meet WP:DUE. Slywriter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

User:RickinBaltimore has reverted its use. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say that Cryptome would not be a valid source. It's a aggregator of sites, and in the cause of the article here, all of the sources listed were not reliable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

DOB

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

Per [28] I'd say this is WP:USERG, so no WP:DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yea looking at that page I'd make you right. Thanks very muchly. – ².O.^Boxing 15:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

johnmenadue.com

The website is a public affairs site with independent contributors ran by former Australian diplomat John Menadue, but User:Horse Eye's Back said it's unreliable and removed all mentions of it. But I cannot find anything here that suggests it's actually unreliable. The source in question is [29] by journalist Marcus Rubenstein, formerly of Seven and SBS News. Any takes? 49.180.197.4 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that they describe themselves (possibly in a tongue in cheek fashion) as an "influential public policy journal"[30] not a "public affairs site" which often leads to them being cited as a journal... It's Menadue's personal fiefdom and they are open and honest about what they publish which is blog content not journalism or scholarship "We publish informed analysis and commentary on issues that matter to Australians, with a focus on politics, public policy, foreign policy and world affairs, defence and security, the economy, media, the arts and religion."[31] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian describes it as his blog, "Since 2013 he has published his blog ‘Pearls & Irritations’ at johnmenadue.com/blog."[32] Menadue himself refers to it as "my blog"[33] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It is obviously a bit more than the average blog, but I did find that they accept user articles. I failed at finding information about editorial oversight or fact-checking. --SVTCobra 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Editorial oversight and fact-checking appear to consist of Mr Menadue reviewing the submission, although it should be noted that the most prolific contributors (among the hundreds of single submission authors)[34] are Mr Menadue's friends so there may be more of an informal social group oversight dynamic for those. They do accept notes but its through their general contact us page and is deeply burried on the About Pearls and Irritations page "To alert us to a factual error or make a complaint, please use the contact us form." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Their about page seems to indicate that (1) this started as a simple blog and (2) that they say that they edit user submissions for style, clarity and accuracy. I'm not really sure about the accuracy of that claim; another page tells a prospective contributor that we have very limited resources to edit your post. A particular article is literally a blogger referencing a "paper" that they've published on their own website with lots of language to try to promote their website's credibility. It's more of an advertisement than a news/analysis piece. And looking in a bit more, the author of that piece (Jaq James) appears to be quite sus (though Chinese state media consider her to be an academic researcher and a "Western Propaganda Analyst"). She's written four articles with them, all of which went up after The Australian reported on how her organization managed to mysteriously get information that had been stolen by Chinese government hackers. This is a bit of a red flag for me; we... don't exactly want to be citing this sort of thing as if it were somehow reliable.

The odd case of Jaq James aside, the articles generally read less like news reporting and more like an opinion and analysis than news reporting; I would hesitate to call it a WP:NEWSORG, and if it is one then (1) I'm skeptical of its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and (2) it doesn't make a habit of labeling its opinion/analysis pieces as being distinct from news pieces. It's certainly not an academic journal. It appears to be something something like a CounterPunch, where there is minimal editorial oversight (if any) over submissions despite claiming to provide it, though the content issues I can identify for this website are less substantial than the issues with CounterPunch itself. I'm not really sure where we'd need to cite it, though I'm fine with WP:ABOUTSELF if it helps to build up a biography's section on someone's political positions or something of that sort. But I don't think that this can be read as anything other than pure WP:SPS. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your clarification Horse Eye. Can the site still be used for the opinions of some of its contributors, for instance [35] to state that that this is sole the personal views of former Australian diplomat Bruce Haigh? Also it's worth noting that Haigh has repeated his views on his personal website [36], and did not appear in the Chinese propaganda video at all. The other cited diplomats also made them independently of the video.--115.64.98.205 (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I would think that WP:SELFPUB would apply for this blog. So, in other words, only use extremely cautiously, probably with in-text attribution and never as a source about living people. I would probably just try to find another source to support a statement unless it is an attributed opinion from a recognised expert in the field. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In that specific case I would think that Haigh's own blog would be the preferred source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG applies: analysis and commentary in any publication can only be considered reliable if written by an expert. In this case an expert would be someone who had published articles on the topic they were writing about in academic journals. But in that case weight would also apply, so it would only make sense to use this as a source for relatively obscure topics that receive little attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central, deprecate?

I was just looking at Royal Central and I noticed that this page seems to directly copy from our Queen of Rhodesia article (and it doesn't even make sense in context with the cut and paste job). I was wondering, would something like this indicate that Royal Central is not a WP:RS that we can use? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear-cut example of copying from Wikipedia. The website article's text:

In 1967, the Whaley Commission was set up by the Rhodesian government to review the constitution and come up with recommendations for alterations. After Her Majesty’s pardon was ignored, the government announced the country would no longer consider The Queen’s Official Birthday a public holiday. Instead, they would only fire a 21-gun salute on her actual birthday.

closely paraphrases the Wikipedia article's text:

The Whaley Commission had been set up by the Rhodesian government in 1967 to review the constitution and recommendations for alterations. After Queen Elizabeth II's pardon was ignored, the Rhodesian government announced that the Queen's Official Birthday would no longer be a public holiday and they would only fire a 21-gun salute on her actual birthday.

The website of course does not credit Wikipedia for this information, and the inclusion of language relating to the pardon (which is described in a different section of the Wikipedia article but not at all in the Royal Central piece) indicates that the website indeed borrowed from Wikipedia. Based off of this edit, you may be the copyright holder for the text that was closely paraphrased by that website without credit. If you believe that this constitutes a violation of your copyright, WP:SLVL may be of interest to you.

I'm unsure if this particular piece closely paraphrases other Wikipedia articles without providing credit, but I would not be surprised. It might be worth looking into that as well before asking for a retraction/re-licensing of the piece. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And, without fail, a quick look through the lead of Rhodesia shows quite a bit of close paraphrasing, so close that Earwig lights up red. I'm interested if there are additional issues with other articles/authors on the website or if this is an incident that is isolated to one article/author. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@The C of E: Milestones of a Monarch: The Rhodesia crisis (EARWIG 1, EARWIG 2) seemed to be enough to arouse suspicion in me to see if this was something that was a pattern with this journalist. I've done some more digging and it appears that the particular has repeatedly engaged in close paraphrasing from Wikipedia without attribution in her reporting on that website. I went through and checked articles written by the author against the version of the Wikipedia article that was live before the publication of her pieces. Below are a quick list of some other articles that closely paraphrase Wikipedia without attribution (with WP:EARWIG for convenience) and have been published in the past three months:

• William at 40: The early years of a future king (EARWIG)
• The ruler who has just been overtaken by The Queen (EARWIG)
• Milestones of a Monarch: The visit of Pope John Paul II (EARWIG)
• The murder of Lord Mountbatten (EARWIG)
• Why Michael Fagan didn’t face criminal charges when he broke into Buckingham Palace (EARWIG)
• The history of Royal Maundy Services (EARWIG)

This above list is in no way complete, since to create it I had to manually try and guess Wikipedia articles that the journalist may have copied from. I'm almost certain that I did not capture them all, since I'm not exactly an expert on the monarchy of the UK. But the fact that more might exist doesn't matter; there appears to be an ongoing editorial problem at this publication with respect to allowing close paraphrasing from Wikipedia to be published. And, as such, this publication may have a greater likelihood for citogenesis that a typical newspaper would. The publication is cited 301 times on Wikipedia, and that the author of the pieces identified above has been cited on Wikipedia for her reporting on the Royal family. I don't immediately have the time to go through 301 articles and check each for if citogenesis has occurred, but it seems like we should probably vet every single time the source has been used to see if we're currently being WP:CIRCULAR with this source. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The article in question should not be used in Wikipedia because while journalism is a reliable source for what happened yesterday, the article is describing events that occurred decades ago. This article would probably come under analysis, which is not considered reliable wherever it is published because of the lack of the same fact-checking etc. one would expect for news stories. You would find lots of problems if you fact-checked all the articles on the Wall Street Journal editorial page or MSNBC's talk shows, but that does not make their news reporting unreliable. TFD (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Opinion pages of the WSJ or MSNBC talk shows aside, do the instances of apparent close paraphrasing and copying from Wikipedia not concern you with respect to the risk of citogenesis? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really, because we would never use this or similar articles as sources, unless they were written by experts. I think what this shows though is why Wikipedia policy never considers analysis written by non-experts to be reliable. The recommendation in this discussion page is to deprecate, which would mean that articles by experts would be excluded. TFD (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand why deprecating a publication for one author's plagiarism would be a bit of an overstep, but I do think that it might be an issue more broadly if the website were to (for example) not remove the articles after plagiarism is discovered. @The C of E: do you happen to have reached out to their editorial staff about this issue? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I just did using the contact form on their website, but I didn't use their email for media requests. We'll see what happens. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Christianheadlines.com

Is christianheadlines.com a reliable source? Thoughts? It's widely used throughout our encyclopedia. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is it? I only see it on 54 pages. That said, it looks like a personal website with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so I'd say it doesn't pass WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• It's not a personal website (it's part of a Christian media conglomerate), but it is a self-described blog. I don't really see evidence of strong editorial controls. It might be reliable for the viewpoints of the folks who write for it (in an WP:ABOUTSELF way), but it looks like this should be treated as a self-published source unless evidence of editorial review can be established. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We Got This Covered revisited

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

Reliability of The Dicebreaker (News)

Note: I am pinging active editors who discussed in the previous RSN on Dicebreaker, and several participants from the discussion of sources in BTG Wikiproject. Many thanks!

@NeverTry4Me: @Jayron32: @Sam Walton: @Piotrus: Recently, I moved this article from draftspace to mainspace, after (I believed) that it had some improvements. Unfortunately, I haven't moved a draft to mainspace before, it was also submitted for AfC, so unfortunately it displayed as an error. Apologies for this mistake and possible inconvenience. Still, as per the AfC instructions, as The draft was moved to the Article space without being formally reviewed (i.e. a manual move), and I felt that it was all right at Remove the template because the article was moved into article space by a non-reviewer, but should be in article space (i.e. it is an acceptable page). Several other editors did some ref fixing, but another editor commented that it was "not ready for mainspace", and there was a dispute on whether refs are RS (see my user page's last discussion. Per the WikiProject, Dicebreaker is reliable, IGN is also reliable according to RSP. A previous discussion had consensus that it's generally reliable, but the other editor also made insightful points, including that the news article was sourced from primary sources from the publisher, and said that it was "a commercial source" and "advertisement".

IMO the article could remain at mainspace, with four reliable refs (1, 4, 5, 6), but could you please comment if the first source is reliable? Also, the sixth ref is a magazine that hasn't be discussed before, so does it count towards GNG. Therefore, should the article be kept, or should it be draftified instead (if the latter is so, apologies for my incorrect move)? Many thanks for your time and help, and thanks for NeverTry4Me for the time and insight on improving this article! VickKiang (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Mostly not reliable: Most online media use subscription, disclosed advertisement, and AdSense or other ads for revenue. But dicebreaker.com, owned by Gamer Network Limited, neither have a subscription nor has any disclosed advertisement or any AdSense or other ads for revenue which raises the question, "How the staff are paid for their work?" To maintain a website/portal, and online media, the owner company or individual owner needs revenue generation to pay the staff as not staff works for free. So their contents are in doubt of "undisclosed promotional". _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Could you explain why you believe that companies without a subscription is mostly not reliable? The editorial policies are located and are clear IMO. There are loads of sites without subscription, so do you believe all of them are unreliable? I also think that you haven't read this disclosure before forming the conclusion:

Dicebreaker’s editorial and advertising are handled by separate teams. Dicebreaker’s website and video content will never be influenced or impacted by commercial considerations. Any sponsored content will be clearly labelled as such, and produced in a way that preserves the editorial integrity of the team and other Dicebreaker content. We sometimes link to retailers such as Amazon using affiliate links, from which we may receive some money. When present in content, these links will be expressed using impartial language. Affiliate links have no influence on editorial content or coverage. All content that appears on the Dicebreaker website and on the Dicebreaker YouTube channel is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and strives to uphold the standards set out above. If you feel that any of our content has failed to uphold these standards, please contact the Editor-in-Chief. That they gain their income from links is a normal method in lots of websites, please read this. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Generally reliable I agree with the previous discussion, it's generally reliable for reviews and news, and count towards GNG, but should, like all sources, not be the only one used. The source has a credible editorial team, the editor in chief worked in other reliable sources. I also strongly disagree with the previous comment that a company should be considered as "undisclosed promotional" without a subscription, it's at best a speculation, see my comments above. That said, it's a good, not the best, ref, and its Features and Opinions section are subjective (and maybe marginally reliable), but otherwise it's an RS IMO. VickKiang (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the previous discussion I agree that Dicebreaker is generally reliable, given the clear editorial policies. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Reliable sources does it state that websites need to have a clear revenue stream to be considered reliable. Regardless, the website is clearly ad supported, so I'm not sure where NeverTry4Me is coming from. With my adblocker turned off I currently see a big advert for Sonic Origins on the front page, individual articles note that they contain affiliate links, and are broken up by further advertisements. Sam Walton (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I too agree with your view, I think the policies are fairly clear, and it's generally an RS. I think that NeverTry4Me had insightful ideas, but I don't personally agree with that point. VickKiang (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd call it generally or situationally reliable. I do agree there may be biased towards positive reviews, and it is not unlikely they are paid for them, although I think they imply in half legalese they don't do shady things like this (have you seen https://www.dicebreaker.com/editorial-policy?). I'd therefore be a bit cautious when it comes to citing 'paise' from them, although even that is fine as long as it is clearly attributed. I'd be fine for using them in other contexts, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: IMO I agree with Piotrus's argument. Citing "praise" or positive reviews requires probably at least three positive reviews, and The Dicebreaker isn't the best source- it has Features[37] section which is middling at best, and its editor in chief is fairly qualified, and worked in Tabletop Magazine, but there are also contributor opinion pieces, which are subjective. They also focus much on best of lists, but it's good enough for its news to be reliable, reviews are all right with attribution, and I think it is generally reliable except for Opinion pieces (see here), which are marginally reliable. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup

Is the following source considered reliable for factual reporting in context?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Source

MobileSyrup (mobilesyrup.com  )

Article

GrapheneOS

Content

1. In 2022, Jonathan Lamont of MobileSyrup, in a review of GrapheneOS installed on a Pixel 3, after a week of use opined GrapheneOS demonstrated Android's reliance on Google. He called GrapheneOS install process "straightforward" and concluded to like GrapheneOS overall, but criticized the post-install as "often not a seamless experience like using an unmodified Pixel or an iPhone", attributing his experience to his "over-reliance on Google apps" and the absence of some "smart" features in GrapheneOS default keyboard and camera apps, in comparison to software from Google. In his initial impressions post a week prior, Lamont said after an easy install there were issues with permissions for Google's Messages app, and difficulty importing contacts; Lamont then concluded, "Anyone looking for a straightforward experience may want to avoid GrapheneOS or other privacy-oriented Android experiences since the privacy gains often come at the expense of convenience and ease of use."
2. GrapheneOS is an Android-based, open-source, privacy and security-focused mobile operating system for selected Google Pixel smartphones.

(Legal attribution: Statement from the GrapheneOS article, see its page history for attributions. CC BY-SA 3.0.)

84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Per my review at Talk:GrapheneOS#Jonathan Lamont's review at MobileSyrup, Lamont's news reporting at MobileSyrup has been cited in at least one independent, generally reliable publication (Engadget) previously. Searching with DuckDuckGo web search engine, I found several other Engadget and VentureBeat articles citing MobileSyrup as a source. Additional considerations apply to factual reporting due to this source being WP:BIASED, but can be used for attributed opinions without a concern. MobileSyrup's other publications may contain promotional or sponsored "news", which editors should be wary of. The site has an editorial team, but no apparent editorial policy. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. MobileSyrup looks like another "advert infested click bait" group blog site. The particular articles being cited also rely heavily on copying information from the website of the posts' subject. In the author's own words, these are "posts". (The Times of India and Origo sources are also very weak sources at best). -- Yae4 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 has a staff page here that shows editors with journalist experience and training. Even the best sources such as CNN are infested with clickbait adverts. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Option 2 for reviews and news from editors, Option 3 for other content. It has a list of staff editors, so I want to say it's marginally reliable, but there's (strangely) no editorial policy. Though, editors usually have qualifications or appear in other RS, I don't see any for Lamont, but his news articles are... not terrible (see 1), most reviews aren't that bad. But others just feel like blatant ads, or poorly written blogs (1, 2, 3). The third ref feels to me like a blog without editorial control (Scrolling through Tik Tok lately, I’ve been seeing several videos of young men dressed in suits walking around movie theatres to watch Minions: The Rise of Gru.), and the article was published partly by scrolling Tik Tok and a much better Variety article? Other news articles are poor, compare theirs on Google Pixel 6a to several ones from TechRadar 1, 2, which is generally reliable, I think this site's quality seems poor. For a news article, it doesn't seem neutral and is positive (biased?), such as this line As far as phone colours go, I’d say it’s pretty unique and the Hazel 7 Pro is easily the best Pixel colour this year. The Features are equally unreliable (see this) and are probably skewed positively. Overall, I think Option 2 for reviews and editorial news are okay, Option 3 otherwise as the site is poor. VickKiang (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Op-eds as sources for factual statements

There is a discussion at Talk:List_of_fallacies#"Kakfatrapping" about whether three op-eds can be treated as reliable sources. The venues of publication are The Daily Bell, the Financial Post, and the (South Africa) Daily Maverick. The relevance of the authors' qualifications is also under discussion. We could do with input from RS/N denizens, especially any who are familiar with those publications. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Are videos by "professional" YouTubers reliable sources?

I'm referring to someone who edited the reception section on the RWBY page, saying "the video is by a professional YouTuber who is well known and verified". Here is the video link for reference. As is my understanding, YouTube videos are not, generally, reliable sources. The summary on WP:RSPSOURCES says that most videos on YouTube are "anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all" but says that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability" and notes that "however, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia."

Personally, I would not consider Hbomberguy to be a "news organization" and would argue his reviews fall under what TheAmazingPeanuts said in 2020, that YouTube videos are "self-published website and self-published websites are not reliable sources per WP:SPS" and in line with what was said about Wikitubia YouTube videos earlier this year. But, I've also read some people on here saying that YouTube is the media and doesn't have an influence on reliability (or unreliability) of a source.

Anyway, I'd like to hear from you all before proceeding with editing that section. Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good question. Historyday01. YouTube is indeed the medium over which the video is transmitted, but does give me pause as a whole, save for the carve-outs you've already outlined. I guess there could be a philosophical argument to be had, though, that everything is self-published in some way...but YouTube has a lot of low quality content on it. I guess, depending on the subject and how the organization uploading etc falls into RS categories, it could be acceptable on a case-by-case basis? This is a tough one to answer. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Striking as I just ended up quoting WP:SPS. That is probably the safest thing to fall back on. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's my thinking too. What's annoying is that there ARE other criticisms of RWBY which are in more reliable sources. I mean, even this article (which is by an ANN reviewer) could be seen as more reliable, or even this CBR article, perhaps. Otherwise, when you do searches like "criticism of RWBY" or "problems with RWBY" a bunch of self-published stuff comes up, nothing that would be considered reliable on here, from what I've observed from a search tonight. Historyday01 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the revert, nor consider Hbomberguy reliable. He is high-profile, and per the WP page received awards, but that doesn't mean that the account should be considered as a reliable "news organisation" nor is there any editorial control for it to be "verified" on YouTube, which is a self-published source. I think another point is probably WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources; I agree with this edit, as the previous version Conversely, RWBY's reception has since been grown from generally positive to overwhelmingly negative based on two reviews (one probably not reliable), seems to me a POV by Historyday01. This (YouTube is indeed the medium over which the video is transmitted, but does give me pause as a whole, save for the carve-outs you've already outlined. I guess there could be a philosophical argument to be had, though, that everything is self-published in some way...but YouTube has a lot of low quality content on it) is an excellent point, but even if Hbomberguy has a website instead of a channel, would it be considered an RS? IMO probably not.

I have some concerns for the other refs. I find CBR's listicles poor and superficial, and IMO this one is no exception, but it's probably marginally reliable and IMO is better than the current provided ref. This is probably an piece], per Q-taku is a column by Rose where she discusses anime, manga and other parts of associated pop culture and its fandom, and her take on it all as a queer feminist viewer, though the author has expertise in ANN, but even opinion columns by journalists or experts in NY Times and The Guardian are considered by RSP to need additional considerations, so to me it's also maginally reliable. So IMO the rm of the Hbomberguy mention should be done, and potentially replace with these two refs, but as they are marginally reliable at best, I think that I agree with Historyday01's edits, and that "it received generally positive reviews but also critcism for..." would be okay for now. VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Just like there isn't any editorial control for someone to be verified on Twitter, I wouldn't think there is any for YouTube either. Google says they verify channels which are "authentic" and "complete" but there is nothing about editorial control, from what I've provided.

It looks like ANN only has reviewed the manga, but not the web series, as no review is listed here. They have reviewed RWBY: Ice Queendom but that's a separate series. I'm not completely sure about those links I provided anyhow an you make good points about reliability, but I'll see if I can find something else. In the meantime, I'll remove that Hbomberguy entry. I also imagine that this discussion will be useful for anyone to refer to if someone tries to add a video from YouTube and claims that it is reliable because the YouTuber is a "professional", whatever that means. Historyday01 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed overall. The video being used as a reference is a video essay, and thus at best an WP:RSOPINION, and only if it's considered WP:DUE for the topic. And as far as the (arguably non-NPOV) statement of Conversely, RWBY's reception has since been grown from generally positive to overwhelmingly negative. I think using YouTube video essays to make such a statement of fact is always going to be a major issue. You'll almost always be able to find a YouTube video essay that makes the point you want, and viewer count doesn't equate to reliability. If used, it needs to be DUE and attributed as opinion, at least in a case like this where it's "popular YouTuber's opinion is...". This isn't a self-published piece by a credentialed subject matter expert, which might make for a different case for use under WP:RS/SPS. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say in general, no, these are not, but it is possible in isolated cases that a person gains enough of a reputation within the community (and if that community is based on commercially-generated content, with the creators of that content), then yes, they can be considered weak reliable sources but shouldn't used for "significant" claims, like anything political. But when that happens needs to be established by the editing community for that topic area. --Masem (t) 01:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

+1, an example being Anthony Fantano. JBchrch talk 13:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If they are a professional in the fieled it is bieng used as a source for, yes (per wp:sps) if they are not, then no. Just being a "proffesional Youtuber" is not enough to establish expertise about anything. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ross Shafer - university newsletter, own website

Done as much redaction as I could in a short time on this article. However, even what remains seems to heavily draw from a university newsletter as a source - not exactly RS and quite possibly biased and published without much fact-checking. The second major source is the subject's own webpage. Even now, the article remains highly self-promotional, so I additionally flagged it as an advert. I suspect if all dubious material were removed, the article text would shrink down to three paragraphs. I've checked only a sample of the bibliograpy - the books seem to exist, but the enthusiasm for them moderate. Executive summary: Much depends on what you make of the now-unavailable university newsletter. 2003:F7:1F0E:4100:98CD:167A:DD68:F0E4 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Denisova's declarations on child rape

The question is whether former Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyudmyla Denisova's interviews and statements reporting sexual crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine qualify as reliable source in the context of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some background information is needed. Since March 2022 Denisova has released interviews and statements about rapes committed by Russian troops against infants, children, young women and men, elderly people. We have already had a discussion at RS/N on this, following which we dropped from the article on War crimes the more gruesome, shocking details and we're now saying that Denisova reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. We are also reporting that according to her about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were locked in a basement and raped for almost a month in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (as reported, but not verified, by New York Times, BBC and other outlets). However, in the article Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine her declarations are still published in detail, although we are not reporting her statement about a 6-month-old girl raped by a Russian solider with a teaspoon.

Since that first discussion at RS/N, 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists have signed an open letter asking Denisova, among other things, to Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication (here the letter in Ukrainian [38], here an account in English [39]). On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). At the end of June, Ukrainska Pravda published a report on Denisova (in Ukrainian) which was summarised in English by Meduza (here). The report says that Denisova was circulating information gathered by her daughter, who was working for a psychological helpline service Denisova had set up; it says that Denisova's office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement agencies; finally, it says that Denisova explained to the Ukrainian prosecutor office that she "told these horrific stories because she wants Ukraine to be victorious".

Based on this essay on interviews, I think that Denisova's statements qualify as a secondary source on war crimes in Ukraine; based on the information I've just shared, I believe that they don't qualify as reliable sources on conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. We had a couple of discussions on this in the talk page of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: #Denisova's dismissal and #25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant. We didn't reach a consensus. I hope that a discussion at RS/N could help us move forwards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

trip-suggest.com

Given the about page shows this a single person's website who is using public sourcing, which I believe includes Wikipedia for a bonus of WP:CIRCULAR, this should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. Right?

A search shows 97 pages (can't get this to work as a wikilink, sorry) currently using the source.

If others agree and have AWB or other semi-automated tool to remove the link that would be appreciated, otherwise I will have to do one by one on mobile. Doable, but time consuming. Slywriter (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Uanfala (talk · contribs) insists on restoring content sourced to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, because according to them, they aren't predatory and that removing bad sources is 'disruptive'.

I contend that CSP is a vanity press by every meaningful definition of the term. Anyone can publish with them, at no charge, and they do not meaningfully review the submissions. See also previous discussions on CSP and CSP sources

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Linguist's_history
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Vanity press (where CSP is mentionned)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Cambridge_Scholars
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#Sources_regarding_Tsamiko_and_Osman_Taka_dances._Do_they_meet_Wikipedia_criteria_for_reliability_?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#Citogenesis incident
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Da_Vinci_Globe

So I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers Cambridge Scholars Publishing to be a reliable publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

• I'm pretty sure it's well established by consensus here and reliable sources that it is in fact predatory. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Very obviously unreliable That's not to say we can't ever cite them, but short of a review praising certain works, we shouldn't be citing them. Especially when other sources are already present supporting the material in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• unequivocally useless and unreliable per this discussion and the dozens of others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• I wish Headbomb had started this discussion before using AWB to remove several hundred references and then proceeding to edit-war with several people who have reverted him. Now, CSP are not a predatory publisher, that's not their model (as anyone would immediately notice if they bothered to read anything written about them). Are they a publisher of reliable sources on par with established academic presses like CUP or OUP? Of course they're not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything there is rubbish. We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, academia.edu drafts, or actual vanity presses. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

And there is no disruption, I've removed and reviewed about 300 citations to CSP, which is obviously a predatory/vanity publisher (which loads of prior discussions all agreeing in the same direction). In all cases, the material was supported by other citations, and CSP is not needed and can be summarily removed. We should not be citing unreliable sources, and your restoration of them, knowing full well they are unreliable, is textbook WP:POINTY behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's been pointy to revert two bold semi-automated edits that were justified by the plainly wrong assertion that CSP was predatory. And to repeat and clarify what I wrote on the Kashmiri language talk page, you're proceeding from an incorrect presumption about how references normally relate to article text. If an article paragraph has two refs at its end, this doesn't necessarily mean that either one of those two refs would be enough to support the entirety of that paragraph. More often than not, parts of the text would be supported by one ref, and parts of it by the other. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from an outside perspective, I think both sides have a point here. It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable, but, as Uanfala has pointed out, the citations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than removed en mass by automation. If a particular source was written by a subject matter expert (which seems to occur occasionally at this publisher), it could still be used. If sources are removed, the relevant content should be examined and new sources found (if possible) or the content should be removed. Simply removing hundreds of sources and leaving someone else to clean up the mess is one way to do things, but in my opinion not the most responsible way. Toadspike (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is already a reliable citation for the entirety of this content. That's why it was removed. There remains over 3000 citations to this garbage publisher across Wikipedia. This was not a blanket removal, but a targeted one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  What was the criteria for your targeting of these cases? Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  a) It's CSP, which is prima facie unreliable b) Other sources support the content, which makes removal warranted without replacing it with a {{cn}} tag or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You said "this was not a blanket removal but a targeted one" which I took to mean you had employed some discretion. What does "targeted" in this sentence refer to? Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable fwiw ... I really don't think it does? Where is this consensus demonstrated? Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers I don't have a real horse in this race, but -- as mentioned above -- this seems like a question one should ask before using AWB to mass remove hundreds of citations attributed to this press. Initiating what is essentially a policy decision on your own and then retroactively seeking support for it when people push back does not to me feel like an excessively good faith action. As for what to do with CSP, it seems like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. I became aware of this issue when I saw Headbomb remove a citation from Apaturia (Greek mythology). In context, the reference there was one of three works (one published by a more reputable academic publisher, Palgrave) citing a particular statement, all of which generally in reference to a primary source (Pausanias). The work in this context was a corroborating citation, in a work published by an ancient history Ph.D., and its removal in this instance does not truly cause harm, but also seems an overly aggressive exercise of policy where no policy actually exists. If this had been the only citation in the article, for whatever reason, I think this specific article would be poorer without it. If we want to have a blanket reliability policy against all works published by CSP, that seems extreme to me given the circumstances, but I think is also a reasonable decision for the community to make. I don't think it's reasonable to unilaterally implement a de facto policy that CSP references are banned unless some editor wants to make their case (see OP's talk page) to the single editor who decided this ought to be policy. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you read the above linked discussions, there is clear consensus that it's unreliable and given the fact that it is established fact that it is predatory, policy dictates that it is in fact unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  iiuc this discussion is the measurement of consensus for WP:RSDEPRECATED, so I'm not sure how you can say this has already been decided. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because it has been discussed endlessly here as linked above and the outcome is always the same. There is no point in having these discussions if we're going to rehash them every time someone wants to whine about it's non-use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it had already been decided, I would expect this to be present on WP:DEPRECATED, and it is not. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...many sources which are deprecated don't appear there but it doesn't change the fact that for example, Fandom can't be used to source anything that isn't about Fandom isn't on there - but it is never allowed because it is defacto unreliable. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If there is no canonical source of truth for a policy I would submit that no policy in fact exists. If you're asking me to believe a final decision has been made about a thing, show me that evidence. This isn't rocket science. Looking at the conversations above, most of them contain only fairly glancing reference to the publisher we're discussing here, and the only direct one is six years old. And since the it seems like some relevant things have changed (addition of credited editorial boards, publishers rating in Norwegian Scientific Index upgraded). As I said elsewhere, I don't have any particular stake in this publisher's fate within the Wikipedia project, however I don't think I've seen a single genuine argument advanced here as to why exactly this particular journal ought to be wholesale denylisted from the project. Just a lot of people repeating "vanity press / bad editorial" like a mantra, without any explanation for how these standards are judged. Ford MF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are just being repetitive and missing the point. We have standards that are based in policy surrounding reliability and that does not require an RFC every time a subject is brought up. Of course, you're welcome to make the argument that everything is reliable unless proven otherwise, but you'd be wrong and quickly reverted anywhere you would add such sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which standards are you referring to that CSP violates? Ford MF (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, should be prohibited "Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Vanispamcruft. Unreliable predatory publisher. Kudos to Headbomb for taking on the unpleasant task of removing references to that predatory garbage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable- predatory junk publisher that calls itself Cambridge Scholars so that people will think it's affiliated with Cambridge University. Deceit and trickery, and I would expect very little of anything "published" by them. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [40] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [41] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to make a case for the reliability for this or that book published by them, go ahead. But the default position for a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight should be against inclusion. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  As someone new to the discourse on this particular publisher, I see a lot of assertions that they *are* "a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight", and relatively little to back that up, other than a seeming implicit conviction that this is self-evident. Ford MF (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  So...a publisher that solicits non-qualified "academics" for publication and then charges them for publication is what, exactly? Also please feel free to identify their editorial board. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.cambridgescholars.com/pages/meet-our-editorial-advisors. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, where is the source for your assertion that its portfolio consists of unqualified writers? And why is academics in quotation marks? Ford MF (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the sources linked in the article about CSP? It's pretty adequately covered there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, if there is any source about the claim that CSP charge authors for publication, then please provide it. I don't see that in any of the sources I've checked. – Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have! As far as I can tell there are only two references in the entire article that support the "predatory" label. One is the beallslist.net reference, and the other is the guy who runs Flaky Academic Journals dot blogspot dot com. The Flaky Academic Journals guy ... I mean, okay. Some guy with a blogspot made one post about this five years ago. The beallslist thing is interesting to me! But 1) it looks like the list itself is not without detractors, and CSP was anonymously added to it as an addendum after the original list was abandoned by Jeffrey Beall, *and* even if Jeffrey Beall did think CSP sucked, there is no evidence he thought those titles should not be carried as part of a reputable academic collection. And in fact, as demonstrated above, very reputable and notable academic librarians *do* believe that a non-trivial number of CSP publications belong in their collection. Ford MF (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, if you want to make a case for the reliability of some individual book, go ahead. It is, however, not possible to say, "It's in CSP therefore it is reliable". The default position should be that it is questionable at best. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)