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

More on the reliability of BtVA

The Anime and Manga Wikiproject does not consider Behind the Voice Actors to be a reliable source. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, From March, 2022 concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen somewhere and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --Jayron32 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 1 and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and also per WP:TIMETRAVELISN'TPOSSIBLEASFARASWEKNOW, an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Wikipedia cannot override an existing consensus which was established later. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one is a red link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC)

Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. jp×g 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC)

It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that WP Anime does consider Behind the Voice Actors to be reliable in most circumstances. You would see this if you actually read the entry at WP:ANIME/ORS#Situational. Link20XX (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It actually says "Roles and lists that are not check-marked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used", which means that BtVA is unreliable, since the only thing it is considered reliable for is providing screenshots of the primary source that is a show's credits.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

StatMuse

StatMuse is the eponymous interactive AI (Chatbot) of the StatMuse company (basically a ChatGPT with a sports focus). Is its use on articles such as List of National Football League players with multiple 1,000-yard receiving seasons appropriate? It appears that someone asked the AI "Which Wide Receiver Has The Most 1000 Yard Receiving Seasons" and we're now using that answer as the only source on the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS... Probably needs to be formally deprecated or blacklisted. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"lmao" is all I'll say about that last sentence. The things we see! DFlhb (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also note that the details in the table doesn't even match the reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Which may be because the source is dynamically generated and therefore can be expected to keep changing. Another reason to avoid these sites. DFlhb (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, a nonstable source can not be verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any copyright concern over republishing tables generated by StatMuse, or would they be to generic as they are just statistics? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Which of the following best describes the StatMuse chatbot?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure RFCs on individual chatbots are the right approach here. WP:LLM (a draft) declares them all unreliable in one fell swoop, which seems more appropriate, since I doubt there are any specifics that would make one chatbot more reliable than another. DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing use on well over 500 pages, to me that means there really does have to be a formal centralized discussion. If it was under 100 I would do it myself but I'm just not comfortable being *that* bold. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A search "only" yielded 211 pages for me, hence my reply. But yes, in that case, Deprecate or at the least GUNREL. DFlhb (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you add in the variants like "stat muse"? Search on wiki is not my strong suit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I searched insource:"url=https://www.statmuse.com" so it only picks up the URL parameter of {{cite web}}. Otherwise you get articles like Terry Crews that contain the words "stat" and "muse" but no citation to that site.

Can also do that in PetScan, "Other Sources" tab, "Search query" field, and it gives a nice list. DFlhb (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok so the cleanest search I can find is insource:"www.statmuse.com" which returns two eighty something without any apparent errors. The more specific search misses lazy cites like the one at Tom Van Arsdale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's necessary to have the RFC and not just declare all such sources unusable for referencing purposes, then Deprecate. The other problem these seem to raise is of OR, take this for example. It's currently in use and uses a complex set of criteria, those criteria are being set by the editor. No other sources is publishing the specific details, it brings to mind a discussion above were an editor has written code to prove a particular algorithm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the OR question is inherent in the category of incredibly niche lists and the Chatbots just allow it to be smoother, see List of college football coaches with 150 NCAA Division I FCS wins for example. If we check the edit history we find that it was not made because there was coverage of the topic in WP:RS or anything else which would indicate notability but because they "Decided to create a list I've wanted to add for a couple of years." and worked backwards from there... Thats a problem whether you piece it together from databases yourself or use a chatbot to piece it together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

At least on those cases someone has actually published the statistics, I wouldn't count them towards notability though. In this case the editor is creating the reference to meet the content they want to add, that's extremely problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but that "someone" is primarily a defunct SPS now available only in archive form, example [1]. Almost everything down this hole is problematic, chatbots are just the new lowest level of hell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Those chatbot prompts are particularly deadly. AI chatbots give you whatever answer you're looking for. I just asked ChatGPT which US President had a chihuahua. It said "none". I told it: "I thought Eisenhower had one." And it said: You are correct! President Dwight D. Eisenhower did have a Chihuahua named Heidi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. But all Eisenhower had was a Weimaraner. Chatbots are like a child being asked leading questions by a policeman.

Any super-specific question, like the one you link, is extremely like to lead to confabulation. How long until one of these bots claims it was abused by Satanists? DFlhb (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's clear to me that this discussion is based on my actions. I did not start the article, but I noticed the page was inaccurate and I figured that StatMuse was better than no source. I'm not going to argue one way or another for StatMuse but I do have a couple of questions. What makes this site a "chatbot"? It's a self-proclaimed artificial intelligence company, but it doesn't communicate with you. It fetches information from a sports database based on queries that you enter. Also, why was this listed Media, the arts, and architecture instead of Society, sports, and culture? I think it's important that the sports group be involved in the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the "artificial intelligence" part, many instances of which have been shown to make up facts as a way to answer questions. If this was just a way of cross referencing details in a database it wouldn't be so probelmatic. StatMuse are obviously not going to say exactly how their chatbot works, so caution is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at regarding the AI part. Though I will say again, I don't believe this fits the definition of a chatbot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It interprets your language via AI, builds what it's believes you mean into a database search, and returns I'm the results back via AI into language. It's a chatbot. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I could understand not classifying StatMuse as a reliable source, but I'm hung up on the phrasing of a chatbot here. I view it as a searchable database whereas I guess I look at a chatbot as something that's trying to carry on a conversation. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A chatbot is defined by it's interaction with users using natural language, which is what is happening here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also the question of OR / undue. If no-one else has published these statistics before you ask the question then you are creating a reference to support the article text, and that sounds extremely problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I did have concerns about OR when using StatMuse as a reference, but I believed that it was better than nothing (again, I didn't create the article, just was trying to improve it). I can absolutely understand how this could be problematic. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It's is definitely better to have nothing that to have text supported by an unreliable source. Instead of adding OR, the text should be removed if it can't be supported by a previously published reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right, and I'm going to go ahead and blame the lingering brain fog I have from COVID. I should have nominated that article for deletion when I stumbled upon it instead of trying to salvage it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing negative about trying to save an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You ask it a question in natural language (in this example "which player has the most 1000 yard receiving seasons"), it provides an answer in natural language (in this case "Jerry Rice played the most seasons with 1,000+ receiving yards, with 14 seasons."). How is that not communicating with you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Chatbot mentions communication back and forth, but StatMuse does not converse with you. It fetches information based on a query, much like a search engine does. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

It replies "Jerry Rice played the most seasons with 1,000+ receiving yards, with 14 seasons." in response to your question (the very definition of back and forth) isn't communication what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm hung up on the conversational aspect of it. For the query (found here) it doesn't just list Jerry Rice, as your comment might imply. It brings up a list and creates a table out of them. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You ask it a question in natural language, it answers in natural language (in addition to other things as you said), you and the chatbot just had a conversation. It doesn't have to be lengthy to be a conversation, not all chatbots are set up like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is one I'll need to mull over and let bounce around in my head for a bit. On the one hand, it's an ask and answer back and forth (in a way via searching). On the other hand, it adds a lot of "extras" which is likely why I'm having a tough time looking at is as a chatbot. Never the less, I do understand why you're referring to is as such after this back and forth and my view of what is and isn't a chatbot may change after giving some more thought. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Its not a very advanced one, its much more 2017 than 2023 but thats what it is. Note that is also meant to be used with voice not text, one of the key features is that it talks to you in the voice of various NFL player. In the intended use case it is much more conversational. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware of that feature. Guess I may have been using it in a way that's not the norm. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on your replies, it seems that StatMuse ought to be compared to Google’s Answer Box than to ChatGPT. The Google Answer Box takes info from one of the search results, and displays it in natural language (and is sometimes inaccurate, taken from an inaccurate site).

The key question, therefore, is: is StatMuse’s database accurate? What’s their WP:UBO? DFlhb (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2: Additional considerations apply Treat them as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. If a stat was important enough, then it generally should have been mentioned by WP:SECONDARYSOURCEs. We don't want to provide WP:UNDUE weight to random stats.—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 4: Deprecate It's not transparent where they get their information from. Human-made sources have at least the advantage that humans normally shy away from publishing things that others might see as ridiculous. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Here it states they get information from a company named SportRadar. On the company's website it shows various partners, including several major sports leagues (such as NBA, NHL, MLB). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI Sportradar is primarily a service provider to the gambling industry, they're not generally what we would consider a WP:RS. This makes the question of where the data actually comes from murkier, not clearer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's murky since we aren't able to audit the information ourselves. I do think we can infer that the information provided by Sportradar is likely accurate given its use in the gambling industry (FanDuel & DraftKings). Though I understand that inference may not be enough to establish reliability. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• 4: Deprecate. For the obvious reasons of reliability, accuracy, and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Given that the website is primarily based around sports statistics, I still believe this should be listed at Society, sports, and culture instead of Media, the arts, and architecture. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Bagumba. I'm generally sceptical of LLMs because of their tendency to fabricate facts or pull from unreliable sources. However, this use case with a closed data source seems fairly low risk and more akin to the search/analysis tools that are already built into many databases. This is a primary source that doesn't contribute to notability or weight. It might be useful for citing standard statistics for infoboxes etc (although surely there are better sources for these), but we certainly shouldn't be using it to add trivia like this or this. I'm struggling to think of a use case where there aren't better sources that are readily available. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh

• Hersh, Seymour (February 8, 2023). "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Retrieved February 8, 2023.

1. Can this source be linked in a list of works at Seymour Hersh?
2. Can this source be cited with attribution at Seymour Hersh?
3. Can this source be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think the answer to #1 is "yes", because it's not being "used as a source" (WP:SPS), it's a significant work by the subject of the article, and including a link to it is helpful to the reader. We're not using it to source any content in the body of any article, under #1. For #2 and #3, I'm not as sure, I think it comes down to WP:ABOUTSELF #3, which is "it does not involve claims about third parties", and the source does involve claims about third parties (governments of US and Norway), and we wouldn't use the source in either article as a source about Hersh, we'd be using it as a source about the sabotage and who Hersh alleges is responsible. So for that reason I lean 'no'. On other hand, since we're already including this content in both articles sourced to other reliable sources (The Times, Reuters), it seems like what's the harm of including a citation to the original piece for the convenience of our reader? So for that reason, I lean 'yes'. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My gut reaction is quite similar to yours -- sure to #1, and okay to #2, given that the information already exists elsewhere. I would personally say no to #3, basically because I would see that as implicitly giving the work Wikipedia's imprimatur of reliability, and I don't think that's warranted. As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be on board with that Solomonic decision. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Same, unless we are revaluating substack and independent publishing as a whole, Hersh decided to publish without editorial oversight and by our policies is of limited use. It's also investigative journalism, which is usually Primary anyway. That said, we should strive to provide readers with Primary materials that aid their own reading and understanding of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

We routinely source, say, Donald Trump's views to his Twitter account in his article. How's that different from sourcing Hersh's opinions to his blog? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we? Take another look at Donald Trump... There is only one use of a twitter account as a source and it isn't Trump's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage article there is literally a paragraph section about a tweet, with the tweet used as a citation, that goes on longer than the section about Hersh. Spudst3r (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

They didn't say 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, they said Donald Trump. There is no reason for that page to be using tweets either, they're entirely redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all three.

Hersh is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who broke multiple truthful stories using anonymous sources, including the May Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the secret bombings of Cambodia. All of this reporting came with smears against his reputation and gaslighting that he was lying that was latter proved wrong, irrefutably. Meanwhile, later stories like his coverage of the Bin Laden story and Syria are more disputed and the historical fact is not so clear on his side.

With this substack story both the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries are relying on it to demand that the U.S. provide explanations. If a substack successfully triggers a diplomatic incident like that, and receives news coverage the way this story has, then it's worthy for inclusion for the reader. Omitting it is weird -- like an attempt to censor the reader from the core sources driving the valid encyclopedic entry. Spudst3r (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Levivich: I started drafting a similar question here, too. You were first :)

As a background, Hersh is a Pulitzer-winning American investigative journalist who first uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib torture, and a few other scandals involving the US administration. He mostly published in The New York Times. Recently, he switched to self-publishing for reasons explained by him here[2] and so, his newest piece of investigative journalism appeared on a personal publishing platform.

In my view, this situation is governed by WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We are therefore free to consider this a reliable source within the scope of its author's expertise. Also, denials/criticism of Hersh's investigations coming from the US administration, even if reported by big titles, should in my view not influence our decision. So:

• Yes to #1
• Yes to #2 if the actual authorship is not in doubt
• Yes to #3 for reasons explained above (WP:SPS).

(That said, I don't think it was wise to publish this investigation now, before the war is over.)

— kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this situation is governed by SPS, however SPS seems to explicitly forbid the use of this source... It can only be used as long as "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;" which this one does, its only claims about events not directly related to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing the sections. The quote you refer to is under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" and with an important note: they can be used without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field. This policy mostly allows us to source a company's financials to their investors report, or someone's place of birth to their personal blog. This does not refer to expert views published by experts themselves. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What part of "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." doesn't fit Hersh's blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please show us evidence that any of the three applies to that particular piece of journalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hersh has a poor reputation for checking the facts, as the WP:RS which covered this story noted (hence the "disgraced" in "disgraced investigative journalist"). By everyone's agreement there is no meaningful editorial oversight here, I don't believe that's disputed. According to WP:RS the entire article is based on a single anonymous source whose claims WP:RS have not been able to substantiate, thereby "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:EXPERTSPS v. non-expert WP:SPS. I'm not sure that Hersh is an expert within the meaning of EXPERTSPS. What is he an expert in, and what are his credentials? I wouldn't call Woodward and Bernstein experts, either, but maybe I'm wrong. Are investigative journalists experts? Levivich (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Woodward and Bernstein would be experts on journalistic practices, and Woodward also on the larger business side of that since he's been an editor at a paper-of-record for some time. Long careers at the top of their field do imho give them acknowledged expertise in that field. But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, you wrote "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" but that's exactly what this is about. This is about whether or not use Hersh's blog post at Substack as source for his unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations within the wiki article. Notice: This topic's question states: "Hersh, Seymour, "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Can this source [Substack] be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?". And the answer is No. Substack is a social media blog so should not be used as a source per WP:SPS. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Substack is a publishing platform (i.e., an IT system), not a publisher (company). Just like Wikimedia Commons is an image distribution platform and not a publisher on its own. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

He mostly published in The New York Times. He left the NYT in the late 70s or early 80s. His Abu Ghraib reporting was published in The New Yorker, not the NYT. The concern here is that his more recent work has come under increased criticism over its sourcing, with the New Yorker eventually declining to publish him anymore given concerns about it. Clearly, if he had published this in the NYT or the New Yorker, it could absolutely be included as a source. We need to assess, though, how to interpret the fact that he DIDN'T publish this in an RS, and what that means about the content. As such, I'm inclined to agree with the discussion above and say yes to 1 and 2, no to 3. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Since the White House responded and the response was noted in reliable sources, a sentence or two is acceptable. Linking to the (unreliable) source is not, since it lends too much credibility to it--as does the whole "investigative journalist" appellation. That was true decades ago. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the question being asked here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1 and 2, no to 3, Hersh should be attributed for any controversial statement and his self-published journalism is still self-published. Andre🚐 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, no to 2 and 3: A "source with direct knowledge of the operational planning" is insufficient attribution for a credible SPS, even from a reputable journalist. The anonymous source is quoted over a dozen times, but not once is their position, authority, or reason for requesting anonymity characterized. That doesn't meet current standards for the use of anonymous sources, which I'm sure Hersch understands. Δπ (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Sock strike Levivich (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." [3] Hersh posted his blog post in a social media blog named Substack. WP:SPS says "social media postings are largely not acceptable, as sources. Also Substack is WP:NOTRS, WP:QS whereby Substack does not fact check their blogger’s works and has no editorial oversight.

For #1, Yes under certain conditions. RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." Therefore, under the condition that it's under the correct Subheading "Blog Post on Social Media Blog" I'd be a yes & agree with Levivich and Dumuzid on #1; otherwise, I'd be a no.

For #2, No due to WP:UNDUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTWEBHOST and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL According to RS, the "subject matter" in Hersh's blog post includes unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and others [4]. And because RS report that Hersh's subject matter about the living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated [5] [6], I am concerned we'd run into WP:LIVING issues.

For #3, No due to WP:NOTRS, WP:QS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL, and for reasons Levivich & Dumuzid stated. In fact, because of the reason I just stated, I feel the current paragraph on this is too lengthy & should reduced to just a few sentences at most, and possibly removed completelty.

Thanks for posting this Levivich! :) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, 2 and 3: The way this has blown up: obviously, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: here is a balanced WP:SCMP article covering Hersch's article and the official U.S. response. Δπ (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem so reliable to me: "The September explosions were blamed by Western countries on Russia", "Western fingers have continued to point at Russia" – these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article (because the statements are a fiction). "The decision was made in secret by US President Joe Biden to cut off Moscow’s ability to earn billions of dollars from natural gas sales to Europe" is another fiction – Hersh, just like Western governments, stresses energy dependence, not money. It's perhaps an unbiased article, but it's so poorly written that I wouldn't use it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that the story is an Agence France-Presse wire, are you saying that the AFP is publishing poorly written fiction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Learn the difference between an existential and a universal quantifier. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Learn how to identify a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not fiction that the West largely blamed Russia; Poland and Ukraine all but officially blamed Russia, while US officials and other officials from EU countries were mostly just saying that it seemed very likely that Russia was to blame. Regarding these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article -- there's a reason AFP journalists are AFP journalists and not Wikipedia editors. Endwise (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise:, You're spot on! the AFP article is not fiction. See my comment below to Kashmiri where I give RS links showing wiki's RS concurred with the AFP article. Best wishes~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, wiki's RS do say 'the West blamed Russia' and that the 'West pointed fingers at Russia.' Here, "Russia shrugged off Western accusations of its complicity in mysterious explosions at the Nord Stream pipelines in Europe this week” [7], here "World leaders quickly blamed Russia for explosions along the Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipelines." [8], here "Western governments have stopped short of pointing the finger directly at Russia" [9], here "Western officials were quick to stress on Tuesday that the explosions appeared to have affected Russian-owned assets.[10]. Plenty more RSes say the same thing. And, those quotes from RS should be included in the wiki article & I've often wondered why they're not. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We do not use headlines as sources.

US News beyond the headline: Though Western officials have so far withheld blaming Russia directly, some have hinted at complicity from Moscow – it says that the West did not blame Russia.

Elsewhere, no report of any named Western government official publicly blaming Russia. There were a few (very few) hints, insinuations, anonymous (!) "officials" sharing a "widespread belief" (in the WaPo piece; the anonymity of their sources is even more annoying than with Hersh's), but there was nothing official. Nothing especially coming from the "collective West" as the AFP piece suggests. The Guardian piece sums it up best: [T]he idea that Moscow would dare to step up by targeting western undersea pipelines and cables in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere remains hard to believe. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of the AFP all you have to do is open a new discussion under this one. You can't dispute that in this conversation as we have a clear consensus on their reliability, you would need to change that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm questioning the factual accuracy of this particular news piece, and you want me to challenge the reliability of the entire AFP? Idiotic manipulation at its best. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Then open a discussion for the factual accuracy of this particular AFP piece... See if other people agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all three. It seems like there is some disagreement about the third question, but I think there shouldn't be any considering that it has been covered by plenty of reputable sources Der Spiegel, RFI, South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia. Hersh satisfies the WP:SPS criteria as his work has been published by multiple sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis: The third question is whether or not the blog post published on a social media blog should be used as the source cited in the article about Nord Stream. So, since the content has been "covered by plenty of reputable sources" why not just use those reputable sources, as opposed to using the blog? Especially since blogs are not RS. Best regards ~

BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison Substack is NOT social media, please. Read this: Substack. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Yes, Substack IS a social media blog where anyone can write whatever they want with no editorial oversight and with no fact-checking control. Substack does not ensure the veracity of what any of their bloggers write and does not monitor its own content. That means Substack bloggers can post any false content, conspiracy theories, or propaganda they choose to post. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri may be correct that “social media” may not be technically the correct term for Substack, but BettyRMadison is certainly correct in describing it as a blogging platform. At any rate there is no doubt that a Substack post falls within the SPS category in the same way as a Wordpress or Facebook post or a newsletter in the old-fashioned sense does. There is no editorial oversight of any kind. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I think this gets a bit theoretical. We would write the same thing ("Seymour Hersh wrote that US blew up the NS pipeline based on an anonymous source") whether we cite his substack or any of the RS which reported on it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis:, I agree and disagree, here's what I mean: Yes, I agree we would write about what Hersh alleges if RS report on it. No, we would not write about Hersh's allegations if the only source is his blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, if his blog were the only place to say it would be undue to mention it in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, it is not true that blogs are always not RS. WP:V says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Hersh is a subject-matter expert in the Nord Stream sabotage, or Nord Stream, or sabotage, or the Russia/Ukraine war, or the Biden administration, or the CIA, or the Norwegian government, or anything else even remotely relevant. Arguably he might be an SME in My Lai or Abu Ghraib, but not in this. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One could argue that he *is* a subject matter expert in various covert operations of varying nefariousness. Alaexis_¿question? 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One could, at the risk of sounding quite foolish. For one thing, neither My Lai nor Abu Ghraib were covert operations. But let's assume they were. A journalist who breaks two stories--35 years apart--about two covert ops does not thereby become a subject matter expert in covert ops. (The same holds true if you substitute anything else for "covert ops"). A subject matter expert in covert ops (or any other subject) would have (a) a PhD, or (b) a decades-long career in covert ops (or in that subject), like a retired CIA operative. Hersh is no more an SME in covert ops than Woodward or Bernstein, or any other journalist who ever broke a govt scandal. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis: That is not true either. Hersh is not in expert in "covert operations." Hersh had never planned, organized, facilitated in, or participated in a "covert operation" so he is not an expert on that. As someone wrote above: Woodward and Bernstein may be experts in journalistic practises, "But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career." Same goes for Hersh, he may be an expert in journalism, but he's not expert in covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  Are you implying that no journalist can ever break a story revealing anything about covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines? Sounds like the death of any investigative reporting on wikipedia, no? Spudst3r (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis:, You are mistaken. Hersh is not a "subject matter expert" on Nord Stream, on underwater gas pipe explosions, or even on gas pipes for that matter. And, Hersh has done no previous work in "the relevant field" of Nord Stream, underwater gas pipe explosions, or gas pipes. Therefore, the portion you quoted does not apply to Hersh or Hersh's blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that Hersh could be considered a SME on this topic. It’s a highly technical topic and he has zero qualifications to authorise his reporting on these technicalities. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not 3: I think we can let RS do the donkey work in that case (and I imagine plenty of them will be doing it).Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not 3: Per WP:FRINGE. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: #3 is essentially about sourcing Wikipedia articles to self-published content on Substack (because evaluating Hersh's individual blog entry is outside of RSN scope I believe). It's worth noting that editors commonly source content to Substack – almost 1,000 occurrences – and this has not been questioned to-date. It's unclear why Hersh's post should be an exception. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How in the world is evaluating the reliability of a source in a specific context outside of the scope of RSN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all 3 as per Alaexis answer.--Mhorg (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not 3. This is a self-published source without editorial oversight. Hersh is not a subject-matter export on this topic; being an investigative journalist does not make you an expert on anything that you are investigating. I think there was a point in his career when you could consider Hersh an expert on national-security matters; a review of his record (and how reliable sources write about him) over the last decade suggests that this is not the case now. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, No to 2 and 3. There is just no way around the fact that our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy explicitly forbids using questionable sources in those ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, iffy on 2, no on three. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to apply, and that seems to only clearly cover case 1. As others have noted, 3 is not needed as other sources that don't need special exceptions already exist. 2 is not the worst, since it is on his own article, but I have questions about WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia doesn't need to list every self-published blog post, and I'm not sure a case has been made that this one bears special mentioning in even his own article. --Jayron32 14:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Of course the pipes were blown by Russian saboteurs, but this is hardly relevant. Can a primary self-published source for a conspiracy theory be linked if the theory was also covered in a number of valid secondary RS (as in this case)? I would say "yes", why not, simply for a convenience of a reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @My very best wishes:, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you feel Hersh's blog post should be used as a cited source "for convenience" to a reader? If that is what you're saying, then I disagree and here's why. 1) Hersh's blog is WP:NOTRS & WP:QS so should not be added. 2) Hersh posted his blog on Substack which is also NOTRS & QS. 3) I don't feel "convience" for the reader is a reason to violate WPNOTRS & WP:QS. 4) Wiki is WP:NOTWEBHOST so, if a reader is curious to see Hersh's blog, then they can 'google it.' Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can be used by making an additional link in content about his theory that should be described using other secondary RS that are not self-published. I do not think it would harm to make such link. If we had only the self-published article and no secondary RS that discuss it, I would say "no". My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose it could go as an external link, if convenience is all that's wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  It does not fit any of the WP:ELYES criteria for the relevant articles. I think what mvbw is saying is that we shouldn’t use it as a source for facts but secondary coverage suggests it’s mildly noteworthy, and it doesn’t hurt to include the primary source for ease as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." would cover it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: I disagree and here's why - the "information (details) about the subject" of Hersh's blog are not corroborated and not verified by any "knowledgeable sources." In other words, other than just 3 RS writing, Hersh wrote a blog post, there is not a single RS that I'm aware of who has verified the "information about the subject" from any "knowledgeable sources." In fact, one of the RS used in the wiki piece on Hersh's blog debunks Hersh's allegations about the "subject." [11] For those reasons & reasons @Bobfrombrockley: stated, I don't that WP:ELYES applies here. Best Regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, I meant that Hersh himself is a "knowledgeable source", that doesn't mean he is an expert, if he was, I'd say cite him directly with attribution. It's just an external link, no biggy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Sorta no to all 3 but with conditions. My views are somewhat similar to My very best wishes except that I have not analysed the secondary source situation enough to comment on whether there is reason to include. In other words, while I don't think the blog post can be used by itself, if secondary source coverage of the blog post means it is mentioned in some article, I don't see any harm in including a link to the blog post. I've fairly sure we do this all the time in fact, it's no significantly different from the way we may include a link to a tweet or Facebook post when these are covered in reliable secondary sources even though there are generally not RS by themselves. However to be clear, I have no view on whether secondary source coverage is enough to warrant mention in any article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, this means the link should only be for context, further reading and convenience. Since it's not an RS, it still cannot be used as the sole source for any detail which is not covered in secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all 3, given that his accusations have been met with denials and been covered in third party secondary sources. With that, including the initial accusation by a notable and noteworthy commentator is fine. nableezy - 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• 1-Yes and source it to WP:RS not his blog 2,3-NO as per WP:SPS he is not an expert on nordstream or explosions --Shrike (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to all 3: His reporting has prompted a response from the White House, making it extremely notable for the subject of question #3 especially. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The White House has also previously made statements to deny the existence of UFOs, so that means people who say UFOs exist are reliable sources? FOARP (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The question being asked is about reliability not notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is right, we know it's noteworthy because of secondary sources, so why not cite the secondary sources instead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not 3 - Self published blog, per WP:SPS. Hersh also obviously not a reliable source nowadays generally, since he has previously authored highly unreliable pieces (e.g., his account for the Bin Laden raid, which is denied by all involved, and does not match with any of the evidence). FOARP (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 (provided it is under subheading clarifying that it is a blog post self-published). No to 2 and 3 per WP:SPS, WP:QS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to #1 under certain conditions. Absolutely not for #2 and #3, per comments by BetsyRMadison at 22:41, 10 February 2023 and Location at 16:28, 21 February 2023.

It's not a blog, but same difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS. So reexamine how it's used and clean-up/delete improper usage.

Someone elsewhere wrote about him: "Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging." That's utter BS. It's no better. If an author, even a renowned, non-fringe journalist, wants Wikipedia to use them as a source, let them publish their views at an independent RS. Then we'd be happy to do so. Substack is a platform for independent authors. There is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking, so treat it like a blogging diary. Use what Hersh writes there only at his biography article here, and only about himself, not others, especially not his conspiracy theory BS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion - What if we allow it to be cited/linked but only alongside an RS that supports the content, e.g. no using it on its own for anything? This gives the reader the convenience of access to the primary source without Wikipedia using it to support any content. "Piggyback required". Levivich (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Frontiers Media

Which of the following best describes Frontiers Media?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

RFC Before Previous Discussion 1 Previous discussion 2 Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey (Frontiers)

• Option 3, generally unreliable Unlike established academic publishers (Elsevier, Emerald, Springer, Sage, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, etc.), Frontiers is pay for publishing. Most respected academic publishers also offer the option to pay for open access but, crucially, that has no impact on the peer reviewing nor on the editorial decision, and authors are bot required to pay. Not so for Frontiers, where payment is compulsory and the peer-review is "fast and easy". It does not mean all research published in Frontiers is wrong (much may be correct) but it does mean that it is payment, rather than the result on the peer-review process, that decide the outcome. As such, it is generally unreliable in academia. Jeppiz (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Payment is compulsory for essentially all gold OA journals, including very respectable journals. One could easily make the same critique of Scientific Reports, which is also full of both junk and excellent research, but no one seems to be clamouring to make it generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Open the discussion on Scientific Reports then, now that you've pointed out that its not generally reliable there will be some sort of clamor... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most people who cite SciRep are well aware of its mixed reputation. It's also published by Springer Nature, which is a generally reliable publisher, which makes the case for classifying it as "generally unreliable" more difficult. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 i.e. Status quo (WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media). There is excellent research in frontiers journals. There's also garbage research. It's a mixed enough bag that you can't summarily rule it out as a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• If it is “pay to publish”, then I would not call it generally reliable. It might qualify as specifically reliable (context is important)… but, even then, I would treat anything they publish as SPS by the author. In-text attribution would be important, and WP:DUE would come into play. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• #3, generally unreliable. With regret, because they have published some valuable articles, too. But my limited experience has taught me that utter crap is also found in Frontiers journals, published either for payment or because you're friends with the journal's chief editor and no serious journal will publish you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per HB. HB really knows what he's talking about when it comes to academic journals, and he regularly removes actual predatory journals. I don't cite frontiers very often, but I occasionally do so if the authors are subject matter experts (which means that the work is standing up on the reputation of the author rather than the journal). If it is judged generally unreliable, then there will be no room for nuance regarding these cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, generally unreliable. The poor reputation at RSN discussions has persisted for years. Where is the evidence they have done anything to improve their editorial process? Bad reports continue to come out,[12] and they are now being disregarded by some universities.[13]. In most RSN dicussions, the consistent advice I am seeing is that they shouldn't be cited for biomedical stuff[14] and other "important" stuff, yet that's the majority of their output. It's difficult to see why they should not be deprecated. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 I tend towards Headbomb's logic. Some Frontier journals are highly respected (e.g. Frontiers in Immunology which acts as the journal of the International Union of Immunological Societies), some are not. I wouldn't want a situation where use of very good, solid, peer-reviewed review articles in Frontier in Immunology can't be used. Red Fiona (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• 3 or 4 - Yes, sometimes garbage journals publish good work. Sometimes they publish useful work frequently enough to be tempting to us as Wikipedia editors. Is the defense here that because its a convenient journal, despite its problems, we should be citing them anyway? It's an extraordinary and supremely rare rare situations where we absolutely need to be on the cutting edge of research, and therefor need to cite a primary source from a predatory journal where no better sources exist. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: The status quo of 'use with caution' is the most practical approach. Frontiers has dozens of journals, and the case for any given journal, in any given subject area, is going to be different. The assessment of that should remain case-by-case, and be performed by editors willing to put in the legwork of scrutinizing the quality of individuals papers, their authors and the reviewers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 is the most sensible option, per Headbomb. Papers should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. WP:MREL, with the footnote being highlighted by Headbomb's unreliable.js tool, should be enough to drive people to discuss these on the talk page and determine whether a paper should or shouldn't be used. DFlhb (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 The CiteWatch entry above does not seem to be invalid; no evidence has been presented that the situation has changed positively or negatively. Problematic, but not a "never use" option. --Jayron32 14:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• 2. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Open Access journals where the content is free-as-in-libre content for all don't jive with funding methods relying on paying to access content and so other funding options have to be explored and is at least philosophically different then pay to play. I would not hold that against them to the full extent of a predatory/pay to play journal. That said for some of them the intentionally wide net they allow does merit caution. The current situation seems to take that into account. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree with Headbomb. Every publisher publishes some garbage. I have read perfectly good review articles in Frontiers journals. I would be more concerned about the original research published there, which we shouldn't be using much anyway. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Headbomb. GretLomborg (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Frontiers)

I understood that one still can cite as SPS/subject matter expert even if the publisher is WP:GUNREL, is that wrong? Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's a generally reliable publisher, it isn't self-published. If the source is challenged in the talk page, you could certainly point out that the publisher is generally reliable and the author is a subject matter expert. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault, using these dratted abbreviations, GR meaning WP:GUNREL as opposed to WP:GREL. Fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, Hemiauchenia, Selfstudier - like Selfstudier says, option 3 would not exclude ever citing articles in Frontiers. However, option 2 (and 1) makes it a free for all. Perhaps our fields are different, but for me, if there is "excellent and garbage research" (as I agree there can be), I don't think we should say it's all fine. If a restaurant served some dishes that were delicious and some that were poisoned, I would not eat there. A hallmark of virtually all good academic publishers is that they don't publish garbage. I would still keep an open mind to cite experts who had published in Frontiers - but strongly caution against the status quo that anyone can cite anything from Frontiers and shrug it off by saying "it's unclear". Selfstudier, Falk was a serious researcher and whatever the outcome of this discussion, I would not use it to disqualify Falk. Jeppiz (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

All publishers at least on occasion publish garbage research. Is Elsevier generally unreliable because it once published a paper that suggested that octopus were space aliens? [15] and which one malacologist described as pseudoscience and nonsense [16].? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also publishers have better and worse journals, and bad research gets published. Again, we are in very different fields, but in my field no good journal (none of the top 200) requires payment, and all have proper review process. That is not true for Frontiers. It doesn't mean everything in Frontiers is bad or anything in Elsevier good, but it does mean they are different kinds of publishers. For Elsevier, the research has to be good (and payment for open access is optional); for Frontiers, the payment has to be made (and research quality is optional). That is not comparable. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Pay-for-publishing Gold OA is standard for many major publishers used in paleontology, like PLOS One and PeerJ, both of which have reasonable peer review standards. The idea that a source should be looked down on because it is pay for OA, regardless of peer review standards, is not tenable across the whole of academic publishing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

To add to Hemiauchenia's point, lots of funding bodies are moving towards "you have to publish in open access". Red Fiona (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"And be sure to include that in your budget proposal because we'll pay for it as part of your funding." (I'm not setting aside the impact this move toward pay-for-publishing has on self-funded researchers, graduate students, independent scholars, etc. - just noting that including this as part of your budget request for research grants has quickly become the norm in those disciplines where this is occurring.) ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

As someone who works in an adjacent field, all I get is scientists complaining :) Red Fiona (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Here is a discussion on researchgate about Frontiers, originally shared by @Zero. It's quite interesting, with posters reporting a range of experiences with Frontiers, including many reporting experiencing a long and thorough review process with very serious reviewers. Also at least one poster who had a paper rejected (one out of four), and other interesting details about Frontiers apparently waving costs or offering cost discounts - much of which squares poorly with it being a slapdash, cash-for-publication outlet. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, an actual participant in the review of a Frontiers study has given a different perspective.[17] - Hunan201p (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted at the talk page, that is not at all persuasive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Question/Suggestion

Given that pretty much everyone agrees that Frontiers is problematic, but some users point out that some of its journals are decent enough, surely the best option would be to make that distinction? If we all agree that several journals are "garbage", it should be an easy decision to decide that they are not RS, while still keeping an open mind on the Frontiers journals identified as reliable. Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not even journal by journal thing (though some journal are worse than others), it's a paper by paper thing. Nearly every Frontiers journal lands in a 'sort of ish I guess maybe?' grey area. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Headbomb's comment about these journals landing in a grey area. My only addition is that the amount of fringe in a given Frontiers journal is often directly proportional to the amount of fringe in a field, if its a wacky field it might get pretty wild. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

How is this different from what is already written at WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media --Jayron32 12:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb and Horse Eye's Back: In reality this seldom happens. Mostly, the bad science just keeps piling up, and the good editors exhaust themselves trying to fix the articles while the socks and the IPs wear them out. From my experience, most genetics articles on European and Asian ethnicities have sat littered with outdated pre-prints and garbage interpretations of poor sources for years. People know where the really bad citations are, but don't have the time or the energy to explain why and remove them. The idea that a website like Wikipedia with thousands of high-volume research articles (but only a handful of competent and unoccupied editors) is going to "sort everything out on a case by case basis" is extremely unrealistic and impractical. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's more a problem that would need a WP:GENRS akin to WP:MEDRS to solve than it is a problem requiring a ban on Frontiers journals being cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Either route is unlikely to succeed though, as long as people favor a "grey zone" approach to source reliability. Nobody wants to compromise and set standards for the other sciences, lest that we lose the privilege of citing that one magic paper that stood out from the rest. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This exactly matches my observation as well. I've guessing every experienced editor has had to explain why they removed bad sources. Imagine how much more tedious it is when a source is in a supposed "grey area". Nobody has that kind of time.

Human genetics articles have a specific problem where they include undue details that shouldn't be included even when supported by the best primary sources from the best journals in the field.

Being generous, I think a lot of editors just want to share their own enthusiasm for their field and lose sight of the big picture. Anyone who edits in this area knows that there is also a more sinister problem of cherry-picking to support ideological conclusions. There is no clean way to differentiate between these two motivations, but getting rid of predatory journals seems like a reasonable starting point. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The Colorado Times Recorder

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

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

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

Can you link to the editorial board? Because I see a listing of staffers (not all with a journalism background and many with political orientations described)[18], but not an editorial board? Additionally, the site has an explicit political orientation. Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The outlet as a whole is probably marginally reliable to generally reliable, given it's been around since 2016, has an established editor (albeit with an explicitly partisan stance),[19] and is periodically used by other, more established outlets like CNN and ABC. It operates as a nonprofit[20][21] that does not disclose donors.[22] (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it raises transparency issues). Axios has stated "Progressive outlets posing as news sources is not new locally, where the Colorado Times Recorder and others publish Democratic-aligned content.", but since the website openly displays its progressive slant, this is not exactly obscure. Since it seems a rather small outlet (less than 5 k Twitter followers and 9K Facebook followers), even if considered generally reliable per WP:GREL It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Attribution/identification as a progressive source should probably be included for most political matters. In specific context, in regards to FAIR, I think this particular article is more reliable and 'weighty' for factual statements, and less 'weighty' for statements of opinions (e.g. what the author calls a "host of disgraced academics" is open to debate), but these are issues to clarify on the article's Talk page. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• This is a great example of why the "GREL" system is unsatisfactory. It's not the New York Times, or even CNN; it meets, if barely, the requirements for an RS. It shouldn't be given much weight. It's a WP:TIER3 source (and this is why the tier system is better than grel). Levivich (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Passage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Considerations

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

This threads not been active for a while, but since then I have demonstrated Passage's WP:USEBYOTHERS above. Additionally, I'd like to note that the following WP:RS cites them directly about FAIR's activities: While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates[23]

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

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

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

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

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

Idavox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenting on all three sources

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

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

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

RFC: Scientific Reports

Which of the following best describes Scientific Reports?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Previous discussions: [24].Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 2 Whether or not a paper from SciRep should be used is very field and author dependent. While undoubtedly a lot of good and valid research is published there, so is a lot of dubious stuff, more so than other journals in the SpringerNature portfolio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: many scholarly articles should be given little weight on Wikipedia anyways, regardless of publisher or reliability, as primary sources (WP:PSTS). A primary article that describes a new species, like this one, is reliable enough to show the species has been validly published, even if subsequent taxonomists disagree or reclassify it. But a research paper in the same journal that seeks to upend an existing classification scheme of a family or phylum based on a newly sequenced blip of RNA should be weighted accordingly with other sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, though some things published there may be usable via WP:SELFPUB. It is reasonably clear from its history that it exerts practically no editorial controls whatsoever; therefore it is a textbook non-WP:RS and publication there will never lend any iota of reliability. I can understand people stating that this is 2 (because sometimes highly-regarded experts do publish things through it, which can be used via WP:SELFPUB) but my concern is that our ratings are generally considered to be for the source itself - SELFPUB is a separate consideration that allows certain things to be used regardless of the reliability of the venue they were published in, not something that changes the fundamental unreliability of a journal with essentially no editorial controls. And the fairly rigid structure WP:RSP has evolved into could mean that a "yellow" rating there would lead to people arguing that publication there sometimes lends reputability, or that it is disputed whether it lends inherent reliability. It never does, not ever, which means that option 3 is the best choice with the caveat that things by established experts can be used as normal via SELFPUB (true in general for things published in non-RSes) - essentially, anyone who wants to use a paper from there has to start from the presumption that it is unreliable and construct a SELFPUB argument otherwise on a case-by-case basis. --Aquillion (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Should be assessed on an article-by-article basis. Some may be useful as primary sources alongside secondary sources that themselves reference material published there, but for the most part we should not be using scientific papers without a supporting secondary source that puts the primary research into context. It's probably fine for linking in cases where we reference the material in conjunction with its discussion in secondary sources, but like ALL scientific journals, per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." --Jayron32 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Misusing primary sources is already rampant on wikipedia. The journal has a checkered history, so I agree with Aquillion that articles should basically be treated as self published. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Primary sources like research papers should only be used with special care to begin with, and this journal fails the use-with-caution standard. Aiming for quantity indiscriminate of field is a big red flag. Peer review requires trustworthy subject-specific expert review, which is dubious when the journal as a whole disregards subject specialization. Our article Scientific Reports appears to indicate the quantity-over-quality approach bearing poor fruit. Note that this should not count against any paper published there, surely much of that work is fine. It just means publication in Scientific Reports adds little to any other publication or authority the work may otherwise have. Alsee (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose given that as of 2020 SciRep was publishing 7,500-10,000 papers every year, is looking at the raw number of controversies an appropriate metric? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Other considerations apply. (Not sure this needs a RFC -- Is there really a 'perennial' need about this source ? But in any case hers is my input.) As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and whether the source is authoritative depends largely on what content it is being used for. What the venue is should not be a universal up or down item. That said, I'm dubious about the value of citing a study to an article, it generally seeming a work in progress and typically technical item of no large note. (And I'm even more dubious about those of note or WP:WEIGHT as being suspect for sensationalism or publicising rather than scientific note.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, deprecate: there is not enough time to evaluate the merits of this publisher's studies on a case-by-case basis, and where this does happen it usually involves protracted edit wars, cliques, drama, etc. Wikipedia's quality and user experiences improve tremendously by setting higher standards for sources. What little value that might be lost will be more than compensated for by removing the big pile of bad studies, as well as the bloat of material that just isn't notable enough to be included in a tertiary source. What has been published by Scientific Reports that was truly important or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? - Hunan201p (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm not sure we have a color code for "quite frequently unreliable, but reliability can be established on a case-by-case basis in fairly standard ways". The various arguments for 2 and 3 that are currently up there seem to agree to a large extent on how the journal ought to be treated in practice; the difference is how to translate that into suitable Wikipedia jargon. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Unless Sci Rep has started publishing review articles, is this more of a "people using primary sources when they shouldn't" problem? Red Fiona (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Do Not List In RSN - this seems not usable for RSP results. Unless there are a number of past instances where this was one "whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed" then by definition it does not belong in RSP. If there *are* past discussions, then they should be described by the RFC as the reason for the discussion and not as a generic search link that returns false hits on the phrase "scientific reports". In this case the generic search seems to have 4 which actually question SR, and only one case came to a conclusion which was that particular study was just that -- a first-person report of a study which did not suit the article CONTEXT of MEDRS. In WP sense, this seems -- not an entry for RSP, and utility depends on context. But really, just stop asking about every venue there is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire (Indian Publication) and Meta Controversy

With the increasing use of The Wire as a source for citation for various articles, we should assess The Wire as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Attached are some links below to go over the controversy.

Scroll Explainer

Meta's Report SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. Is there any reason anyone on this planet should believe anything Meta says? I mean, come on.

If there's more to this, we certainly need a much better source than Meta. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there other issues with Wire that require an assessment of their use on Wikipedia? Wire-Meta seems premature for the community to discuss as even the tech community appears to be divided/confused as to what's going on, per the scroll source. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire has conceded that there was a breach of moral conduct. The printed story seemed politically motivated because it was pursued with fabricated evidence.

Hence the question that the story it publishes is reliable enough to cite as a source.

https://thewire.in/media/the-wire-editorial-to-our-readers-an-apology-and-a-promise

https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/10/27/the-wire-issues-apology-cites-deception-by-a-member-of-our-meta-investigation-team SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• We obviously can't just take the fact that Meta itself (as a primary source) disputes the Wire's coverage as evidence that there's some problem the Wire is unreliable; this, at least, is an obvious WP:MANDY situation - if the simple fact that the subject of a piece denied things was enough to render a source unreliable, no source that reports on anything controversial could be reliable. And even if there was secondary coverage saying that the Wire got this particular thing wrong (and the Scroll article - which isn't particularly impressive as a source - says no such thing, it just reports competing claims), that wouldn't necessarily impact their status as a WP:RS, because a source's reliability is based on its overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and not one particular incident. Do you have any reason to think that the Wire's overall reputation has been harmed by this, as opposed to them just saying some things that Meta disputes? --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed we cannot take Meta's statement as the truth. However, the issue is that The Wire conceded that there was a breach of conduct from one of their employees (fabricating the evidence). Reporting something wrong and fabricating something to prove a story are different things. SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just meta saying things; it's The Wire fabricating things and destroying their reputation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any indication (ideally from a reliable source) that we should consider this to be more than a deplorable, yet individual incident? Der Spiegel is by consnesus generally reliable, inspite of the mass fabrications by Claas Relotius. –Austronesier (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: See The Economist, which notes that The Wire destroyed its reputation in this whole affair. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Still reliable They did a story and took it back with a notice. There is nothing wrong with that. Capitals00 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Economist provides credible information that there was an intentional breach of journalistic morals (fabricating evidence). SpunkyGeek (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Every source screws up at least once. It's only the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior that matters, not a singular event. The Wire's response seems appropriate as to what a reliable source does when one of its employees engages in bad practices; this is a sign that they are reliable, not the other way around. --Jayron32 13:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate Generally unreliable Poorly worded opening post, which lacks any background. The issue is not that Meta disputed their report. MANDY is horribly misapplied here. The issue isn't that they made a "mistake", either, or that they were hoaxed by an employee (which happened to the most reliable outlets). The issue is that

• an employee completely fabricated evidence used in news stories that had multiple senior editors on the byline
• that this fabrication was so blatant that the most basic fact-checking mechanisms would have caught it
• that these senior editors publicly stood by the story, saying that it was based on two separate sources.
• that the outlet as a whole (not just the fired journalist) vociferously quadrupled-down on the fabricated story
• and that this "explosive" news story is exactly the kind of story that actual WP:RS would either jointly investigate with other WP:RS, or at least scrutinise very deeply. A good example is this competent joint reporting by The Guardian and other outlets.

This fiasco could never have happened at a reputable outlet. The Wire's editors admit that they never bothered to verify the sourcing, despite public claims otherwise, and despite that being journalism 101. We judge reliability based on the level of editorial scrutiny. This story shows that The Wire has none, and firing the at-fault journalist does not address this. The Economist says The Wire fell for a "massive conspiracy", and blames The Wire's partisanship. WaPo notes growing questions about The Wire’s integrity and accuracy. The Editors Guild of India, their national journalistic association which had previously stood by The Wire, now calls out their circumvention of journalistic norms and checks.

We simply cannot treat an outlet that lacks proper "journalistic norms and checks" as reliable. Let's not be lenient on this. DFlhb (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) changing from Deprecate to GUNREL, since this isn't an RFC 22:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

India has no reputable outlets left, not a single one. The irony is that even after all of this The Wire is probably still the most reliable Indian news source... If we were to move to prohibit the use of every source as reliable or less we would be prohibiting the entire Indian media industry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Only 194 to go.

More seriously, thanks to those who have clarified this is more than a simple dispute. Based on the above fact set, I would support some form of downgrading of the Wire, though not sure we are in deprecate territory yet. Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to kindly disagree. India has many reputable sources and reliable outlets like The Indian Express, The Hindu, etc.

Breach of journalistic ethics by The Wire in the above case contradicts your argument. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with most of the points presented.

Will make sure more background is provided in the future. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: For what it's worth, deprecation can only be achieved by formal RfC. I'm not sure that I would support outright deprecation (this is probably fine for run-of-the-mill facts) but I do think the question deserves discussion. Do you think that it would be wise for me to open up a standard four-option RfC below? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'll change my !vote to "generally unreliable". It's indeed pretty reasonable for outlets to be declared GUNREL before being considered deprecated, so proper scrutiny can be applied for each "downgrade". Also, I'll likely have little time to contribute over the next few weeks, except watching my watchlist, so I won't be able to do the kind of more in-depth analysis I like to do in RFCs. DFlhb (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not generally reliable. Like Jayron32 says above, the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior matters most when determining whether a news group has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But, looking at the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior here, I am struggling to draw lines between The Wire's response and that of Rolling Stone following its publication of A Rape on Campus; for various reasons including the lack of rigor in Rolling Stone's editorial standards for that topic area, we have WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. DFlhb lays out a persuasive case that The Wire no longer possesses the reputation for fact-checking that generally reliable sources do, and the reputation of The Wire seems to have taken a hit inside of even the more reliable Indian newsrooms, following both its fabricated October reporting about Meta and its fabrications relating to Tek fog:
  CNN-News18 and NewsLaundry give a decently long summary of the extent to which evidence was fabricated for the October story regading Meta:
  1. The Wire had alleged that an Indian government official more or less had the power to remove posts on Instagram. Meta denied the story.
  2. When Meta initially denied the story, The Wire posted fabricated screenshots stating that a user had "X-check" privileges. Meta responded by stating that the "X-check" privilege did not actually allow what The Wire said it did (previous reporting did not indicate that the privileges could actually be used to take down posts), and that the screenshots contained a fabricated url on a page designed to look as if it were something related to Instagram.
  3. After Meta responded saying that the url and website were deceptively fabricated and the privileges shown in the previous screenshots did not do what The Wire claimed, The Wire released a doctored video to back up its reporting that falsely claimed to show one of its journalists having access to Instagram's backend.
  4. Aside from all of this, both experts The Wire claimed it received access to an email from Meta executives, which the Meta executives denied. The Wire claimed that it had conducted checks with specific experts in cybersecurity to verify that the content of the email was legitimate, but those experts themselves say that they never talked to The Wire or that they explicitly refused to run the verification. The Economist, linked below, notes that the email was written in painfully broken English, which is not exactly expected of senior anglophone Meta executives, and this should have been a bright red flag for The Wire.
  5. Within two weeks of publication, the entire meat of the story had been publicly shown to have been a total and utter fabrication, and CNN-News18 notes that The Wire has been accused of fabricating evidence to validate its report after the fact.

After this whole fiasco, The Economist wrote that The Wire had shattered its own credibility and criticized the Indian news website's editors for their stupidity of choosing partisanship over process. If you have access to The Economist, I hope you read the whole article, as it's truly eye-opening regarding this news source. The Washington Post, in their esposé on the issue, also tore into the doubling-down and tripling-down, suggesting that basically every attempt by The Wire to provide evidence just kept raising more questions in The Wire's reporting.

Next, let's look at a summary of the (under review but not officially retracted) Tek Fog story, which India Today correctly notes is even more damaging than the Meta controversy:

1. The Wire, in January 2022, published a story alleging that a secret app, called "Tek Fog" was allegedly being used by the BJP and by the Indian government to harass female journalists.
2. The story was quickly picked up internationally, particularly in the opinion sections of Washington Post and Bloomberg, a academic blog post from London School of Economics, as well as nationally on Indian TV and among other Indian news organizations.
3. At the time, the Editors Guild of India expressed significant concerns regarding the treatment of women journalists in India.
4. After the whole Meta scandal, news organizations systematically re-evaluated the reliability of the Tek Fog reporting. In light of the battered reputation for fact-checking within The Wire's investigative reporting, the issued a statement saying that serious questions on the veracity of their reporting and called upon news groups to resist the temptation of moving fast on sensitive stories, circumventing due journalistic norms and checks. Bloomberg news even retracted(!) an opinion article on Tek Fog because it had been based on reporting from The Wire.

Both of these stories alleged extremely serious violations—and wound up being of extremely questionable factual accuracy. The response to criticism of the October investigation into Meta was simply to double- and triple-down on the fabrications that they had published. And so too was their response to Tek Fog; until the Meta story completely and utterly fell apart in front of their very eyes ten months after they published the Tek Fog piece, The Wire's editorial staff had refused to issue a correction—despite the report being extremely factually dubious. This is a sign that the organization has irresponsible oversight from editors, and the organization frankly does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in its investigative journalism. For reasons of having systemic deficiencies in editorial oversight and editors from the paper repeatedly and publicly insisting that false and fabricated content was true until the weight of criticism against them became too great to handle, and several well-respected publications more or less saying that The Wire's credibility is totally shot following this charade, this should source not be considered to be generally reliable—and I would have great concern about using this whatsoever with respect to WP:BLPs. This isn't a case where we're dealing with simple errors or misinformation; these stories well appear to be intentional political disinformation attempts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a case of intentional manipulation for political goal-scoring where it seems even the top leadership has a role. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The Wire (India)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Indian news website The Wire (direct url)?

• 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

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey: The Wire (India)

• Option 3. As I've noted in my large comment above, what we have here is a website that was exposed for creating hoaxes out of whole cloth in order to engage in political disinformation. The set of fabrications published by The Wire are of such a complex scale as to be compared to infamously fabricated Rolling Stone piece "A Rape on Campus", and many of the same deficiencies that plagued Rolling Stone at the time appear to be plaguing The Wire. When Meta contested the reporting from The Wire, the website outright accused Meta of fabrication rather than admitting its mistakes promptly. They only withdrew the story after doubling- and tripling-down on baseless allegations that were supported by fabricated evidence; rather than doing their due diligence before making extraordinary claims about Meta, The Economist correctly observes that The Wire's editorial staff undertook the stupidity of choosing partisanship over process and in the process shattered its own credibility. Responsible news organizations don't attempt to cover up their mistakes by continuing to fabricate evidence; after being asked to retract the piece, as The Washington Post notes, The Wire also published screenshots of emails it said were from independent experts vouching for its authenticity, but those emails showed incorrect dates from 2021. The images were edited to show the correct dates [(i.e. 2022)] after the story published, but not before readers caught the error. And lo and behold, those emails were indeed fabricated; everyone who The Wire claims to have sent them an email either explicitly stated that they refused to work with The Wire or stated that they had not been contacted by The Wire. This is a total failure of editorial integrity, from the reporters who initially made the incorrect reports, to the editors who knowingly allowed a doctored email to be published in an attempted cover-up rather than admit their mistake.
  It isn't just foreign observers who lack confidence in The Wire following these revelations. The Editors Guild of India has noted that issues with factual accuracy extend deeper into the website's investigative reporting, noting serious questions on the veracity of their reporting in The Wire's investigation of Tek fog, an alleged app that allegedly allowed people to send automated messages to harass female journalists, and reminding the media organization to resist the temptation of moving fast on sensitive stories, circumventing due journalistic norms and checks.
  All in all, this was a total and utter failure of fact-checking on topics that allege significant (and perhaps criminal) wrongdoing against specific parties, on multiple occasions, both on topics with explicit political relevance. This goes beyond sloppiness or misinformation—this was disinformation that appears to have been conducted and approved by both the journalists who wrote the original report as well as the editors who initially attempted to cover that very same report up. I would never want to cite this source for facts about a WP:BLP, nor for contentious facts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources accuses the editors of covering up or political disinformation nor do they mention accusations on those lines by any third party. To the contrary, the Washington Post article features a comment by the main person (the CIS co-founder) who unraveled the fabrications, where he says that the editor "maintained his personal integrity". This is pertinent because you have missed a key fact that we would not be certain that those emails were fabricated if the editor had not co-operated and disclosed the identities of the senders (they were kept anonymous).

If they really wanted to, they could have forgone accountability and easily rode on their reputation and it would have remained a debated issue among tech experts. Most of the retractions and commentary came after their own retraction. The structural conditions, i.e pressures on journalistic organisations, the need to protect sources, outstretched resources and the state of press freedom is in far severe condition in India than in the United States (read this article by NYT), so any comparison is misguided.

And saying that "foreign observers lack confidence in The Wire" (or reliable Indian ones) is inaccurate and there isn't much substantive evidence for it. It should be noted that The Economist piece is an opinion column that is making an appeal to The Wire and in general, and compares their reporting to things like Russian interference in US elections and the Cambridge Analytics scandal related to Brexit, describing them as similar mistakes, as far as I understand these are still debated over if not accepted. The full EGI statement is also a reference to the reporting on the Tek Fog app specifically; it says "Since the Wire has removed those stories as part of their internal review following serious questions on the veracity of their reporting, the Guild withdraws the references made to all those reports". It shouldn't be conflated as a judgement of The Wire general reporting. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Fabrications and deception by one of their employees (who was subsequently sacked) shouldn't be conflated with the news publisher as a whole. Both the stories whether Tek Fog or the one on Meta were retracted and an apology published. This is standard practise when journalistic misconduct does occur and is an indication of a reliable source.

They otherwise have a solid track record of investigative journalism and reputation as a high quality news publication, consistently receiving both major Indian and international awards. A lot could be written on this but I'll give one prime example that shows that they are considered authoritative and clearly demonstrate that it's a reliable source. BBC News has the most extensive coverage of any high quality international news publisher in India and they regularly, in nearly every major (and extremely contentious) story on India, use The Wire as a source for important related facts, without seeing the need for any attribution or qualification (such as describing it as a claim) and simply with hyperlinks directly to "thewire.in", some instances (note that these are hard to collect since they don't come up in searches, but are rather abundant):

1. hyperlink at "ensure that Muslims stop wearing skullcaps"
2. hyperlink at "called Muslims demons", another one at " people have been held over tweets" and another one at "held for putting up posters"
3. hyperlink at "criticism"
4. hyperlink at "a vendor was beaten up", etc etc

Other international outlets have a similar practise, using it as a source and present its reporting as facts, a few instances below.

1. this report in Columbia Journalism Review on threats to journalists during the 2020 Delhi riots, it was used as a source for facts (see "...fifty-three people, the majority of whom were Muslim, had been killed..." ("fifty-three people" is hyperlinked to a thewire.in article).
2. this piece (hyperlink at "disaffection") in the The Diplomat uses it as a source for facts on jurisprudence regarding the sedition law in India
3. this Coda Media report (hyperlinks to 4 articles at "rebuke", "had", "observed" and "maintained") uses it as a source for facts regarding migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic and inconsistencies in the government's claims
4. this piece in The Verge on net neutrality
5. this report from The Independent on the Haridwar hate speeches, and many more.

In addition, to give few examples of their reputation, as in how they are described, in the Columbia Journalism Review report on news media in India, The Wire was extensively covered and specifically described to have carried "award-winning reporting", the International Press Institute in a a report during the pandemic had stated that it "is providing some of the best coverage in the Asia-Pacific region on the impact of the coronavirus and the lock-down on disadvantaged and disempowered Indians", Foreign Policy in one of its columns described the publication as "Indian's most respected online news service", etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

All of these links are from before the controversy. DFlhb (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly Disagree. This was not journalistic misconduct. It is a case of fabrication of evidence for political goal-scoring. All the cases that you have provided where The Wire has been cited as a source is before October 2022. I highly doubt that any credible news agency has used their story after this expose. SpunkyGeek (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It demonstrates that they had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and any determination of the source as unreliable would mean one would have to discard all articles from this period.

It also doesn't appear anything has changed post—October 2022, in December 2022, they won 2 Red Ink Awards, one for their contribution in the Pegasus Project collaboration as it's Indian partner (which they still are, and it includes reputable publications from around the world) and one for their report on transgender prisoners. The BBC documentary, India: The Modi Question (which is very high stakes), released in January 2023, features the editor of The Wire in an authoritative capacity. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

India: The Modi Question documentary is a controversial documentary. The Wire has a known history of political bias against the present government in India hence much of its reporting is in that particular space. The documentary is a critique of the present Indian government's domestic policies. Most of the journalists who are currently part of The Wire have presented their critical analysis on the then Gujarat government (2002) and the present Indian government, therefore are part of the documentary. (We are not discussing the authenticity of their analysis here)

The Wire fabricating a piece of evidence to pursue a story with biased editorial oversight is a whole different case. Why I said 'biased' is because there have been no repercussions for senior editors or the board members of The Wire. SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was controversial with supporters of the present Indian government, but it was also accurate and reliable. What exactly is the issue you take with it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What issue I have with the documentary is irrelevant to the discussion. The Wire has practiced unethical journalism is the story here. SpunkyGeek (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, see my detailed reply in the pre-RFC discussion, which I won't summarise here. The Meta story was genuinely ludicrous; all the tech experts I follow on Twitter immediately questioned its veracity. Why didn't the outlet? This is far worse than A Rape on Campus, which was at least a little plausible. The Meta story had several senior editors (including a founding editor) on the byline. When Meta said sources were fabricated, these senior editors should have checked (indeed, any outlet would have done so before initial publication). Instead, they vociferously quadrupled-down, called Meta's denials "obfuscation", and wrote about Meta's denial in a shockingly combative way (alleging that Meta was trying to "goad" them into revealing their sources). The Wire's editorial failures go far beyond the fired journalist, and four months later, still haven't been addressed. They pledged "transparency", yet haven't publicly announced any changes to their editorial process. Firing a journalist doesn't solve their lack of editorial oversight. The Tek Fog story hasn't been corroborated by other outlets, relied on the now-fired journalist, allegedly has "glaring holes", and yet is still not retracted (only "removed from view"). It's on them to prove they addressed their editorial issues, not on us to assume they did.

Let's see what third-parties think:

• "Unprecedented polarization, the trumping of ideology over facts, active hate-mongering or pamphleteering, and the death of nuance — particularly in prime time television — all make up the new normal. Journalists are increasingly either chamcha ya morcha: sycophants and shameful supplicants to power, or activists dreaming of regime change." (Semafor)
• "a once-dependable news website", "sheer irresponsibility" (Slate)
• URLs shown in the report didn't actually exist (a MarketWatch reporter)
• "The Wire did not ask Meta for comment [...] ahead of publishing" (a Buzzfeed News reporter); that's egregious!

I'm not alleging that this was a deliberate hoax on The Wire's part. But I don't need to. I evaluate sources based on their editorial practices, and theirs just aren't good enough. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is easy to say in hindsight but the fact is tech experts were uncertain and divided. Even Sophie Zhang, someone who had understanding of Meta's systems was for a time convinced by the journalist's conviction despite her initial doubts. It's also inaccurate to say they have announced no changes, they did in the apology they published.

In the end there's a simple question, can you (or anyone) bring any news report of theirs or any reliable secondary coverage that questions their reporting and is not in the context of this controversy, this one journalist, or these retracted and/or withdrawn (or "removed from view" if you will) reports?

There is so much evidence that demonstrates that they have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" which is how we determine which sources are reliable, not on our own ideas of their internal workings (based on one episode that is), one should at least be able to show a pattern across the organisation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Zhang had left Facebook two years earlier, and had no understanding of Facebook's then-current systems. She also falsely claimed that the docs must have been faked by a Facebook employee, which is... understandable, given her dislike of the company, but was completely baseless. Meanwhile, independent observers and proper journalists were skeptical from the start, and were harassed by The Wire's supporters.

The fact is, trust is earned, not given. It's true that they're among the better Indian outlets, but declaring them GENREL means they can be used as sourcing in BLPs, and everywhere else. Here, "business as usual" is not tenable. The polarisation pointed out by Semafor means that it's no longer a case of outstanding independent journalists on one side, and government propagandists on the other side; sadly, the independent side is no longer fully trustworthy either. DFlhb (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, you are just showing me twitter comments and opining on them. With the evidence you have the only articles that shouldn't be used for BLPs and elsewhere are the ones that can't be used anyways because have been withdrawn/retracted. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The argument that a news outlet is printing against a government can be termed as a reliable source is meaningless in this context.

Here we have a specific case where it seems that the top leadership of The Wire has participated in the intentional fabricating of evidence. Giving them amnesty would not only set a wrong precedent but will also put a question mark on WP:RSP guidelines. SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire was also ordered to take down 14 (not 1 or 2) of its stories by the Telangana Court for reporting against Indian vaccine manufacturers (Bharat Biotech, COVAXIN). Yet no action was taken by the "internal editorial board" of The Wire.

(Such were the violations that Telangana Court also barred The Wire from further reporting)

See:Telangana Court orders The Wire to take down its stories

If you are claiming this is to be a one-time incident then I have to kindly and strongly disagree with that. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

An Indian court ordering a news source to take down a story does not mean that story is not true; indeed, given recent events, it may even be more likely that it is. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If the stories were authentic, don't you think The Wire would have gone to the higher courts?

Also, many other publications would have supported them to pursue this. SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb In fact, the very Slate article you quoted here shows them having a solid reputation even in midst of the controversy. I hope you read it in its entirety. Some full quotes from it:

1. "The Wire has done important, noble work under duress, and its best writing remains a brilliant exemplar of what Indian journalism can do best. But going forward, it’ll be so much harder to do this type of journalism."
2. "To be clear, informed analysts of the saga did not tend to believe the Wire acted maliciously in order to defame Meta. Rather, they said this was probably the result of an elaborate scheme planned by someone with a vendetta against the Wire. Or, as Stamos put it, “an extremely successful op against opposition journalism.”"
3. "Misinformation from BJP foot soldiers at all levels make it so sites like the Wire are the only way anyone outside India can get an accurate view of one of the world’s most important countries."
4. "Wire had become one of the most dynamic Indian publications of the Modi years, a singular bulwark against the flood of false and propagandistic “news” that took over so much of Indian media. Along with outlets like the Caravan, Scroll, Alt News, the Print, and Cobrapost, the Wire offered detailed, incisive reporting on the realities of modern-day Indian life and politics."
5. "The pressure is high in the subcontinent, and the Wire’s most intrepid writers doubtlessly face daily threats of the kind few American journalists are familiar with. Yet that also makes their rectitude all the more imperative."

They are treating it like a reputable publication that has made a mistake, which is exactly what we should be doing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I did read it in its entirety, and this misdirects us into the weeds. The fact that The Wire faces threats by the government, or that they weren't outright malicious, or that "their best writing" is good, has nothing to do with their editorial standards, which is what we judge here. The two Slate quotes I give earlier do address The Wire's reliability. Note that beyond publishing an apology, "promising" to vet their stories better, and retracting the Meta story, they still haven't shown any evidence of changes. They still haven't retracted or re-examined their TekFog story, and the founding editor on the Meta byline is still employed. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It has everything to do with "editorial standards" and is exactly what we should be looking at. Coverage from reliable secondary sources is how we determine their reputation and their editorial standards. It doesn't matter whether you find it trustworthy or what you imagine their editorial standards to be. The article is more or less describing their journalism as one of the best and one of the few where you can get actual news in the country, that very very clearly shows that they are considered a reliable source.

WP:REPUTABLE and WP:USEBYOTHERS are guidelines on reliable sources, and by now it's clear that they more than comply with both. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between a website's stated editorial standards and the extent to which they are put into practice. If extremely senior people are disregarding editorial standards (such as happened in "A Rape on Campus"), then that reflects much, much more broadly on the quality of the organization's editorial oversight than a mere blurb of text that the news organization claims to adhere to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I second your point @Red-tailed hawk. The leading editors in this fiasco have faced no inquiries or consequences. The same editorial board is now reviewing the misconduct. This alone should be shocking for an editor with some journalistic standards. SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Observation What would be the optics of Wikipedia declaring a news source unreliable, when that news source has been one of those recently harrassed by the Modi Government (the most recent was the BBC, whose Indian HQ was invaded by "tax inspectors") because it prints news that show the Government in a bad light? I suggest those optics would be very poor. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody here is arguing that the source unreliable because it shows the Indian government in a bad light. We're arguing that it's unreliable because of failures of editorial control and fact-checking, and that responsibility for this goes all the way up to the top. I hope that answers your question. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The irony here is that BBC itself seems to be find them reliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are we considering optics here? Whom are we trying to satisfy here? The only thing that should matter is if a news outlet has participated in journalistic malpractice that too intentionally on the highest level, then there should be repercussions for it.

Those who want to consider optics should also consider that if grave misconduct by a news outlet is gone unscathed what precedent are we setting here? SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that two (yes,two) incidents are being used to turn one of the few reasonably neutral Indian news sources into "unreliable" and put it on the same footing as actual Indian fake news sites such as Republic TV. This isn't the Daily Mail or Russia Today that we're talking about here. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

See:Telangana Court orders The Wire to take down its stories

Another violation for your reference.

Also, your argument does not provide any substance to nullify points made by @Red-tailed hawk and @DFlhb. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, on the same subject, perhaps you could give us a run down of this edit of yours, explaining why the mainstream news services there are unreliable (I am well aware that Reddit and forums are no good, it's the other sources I'm interested in). Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The context of this forum is The Wire's reliability.

However, the content written was opinion based rather than having encyclopedic language. I would be happy to work with you on that article if you have some suggestions. SpunkyGeek (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Tayi_Arajakate. They have a lot of quality content and the response to the Meta incident shows that they have editorial standards and act upon them. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's the response including take down and corrective measures that test a publication's reliability. The case where a publication themselves intentionally fabricates is where it is deemed unreliable. The Wire was deceived by one of their own thus causing a fiasco, the publication didn't intentionally fabricate. They took it down and took corrective actions. Unreliable sources don't — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think arguments made by @Red-tailed hawk and @DFlhb are spot on. There has been no accountability for the senior editors in this incident. What can be more shocking is the same team is reviewing this debacle. (Not the first time that The Wire is under severe scrutiny). An impartial inquiry is needed which seems highly doubtful here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpunkyGeek (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. The Wire has screwed up big time, but their ultimate response has been that of a reliable news organization, and the tenor of the most detailed pieces, such as the Slate article, suggest they have been hoodwinked rather than that they've engaged in intentional malpractice. If something similar happens again in the future, it might suggest that there's a systemic issue here, but otherwise it's too soon to deprecate. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Slate article is a Future Tense column. We recently discussed these sorts of columns on this very noticeboard; the pieces are characterized by Slate itself as daily commentary published on Slate, and the piece from Slate isn't exactly straight news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's quite inaccurate to charecterise Future Tense as a column (columns are personal or editorial opinion sections of particular columnists). This is a newsletter under a wide collaboration, which includes commentary (and reportage) and brings in expertise with it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 we shouldn't rush to judgement on the basis of one incident allegedly involving one rogue reporter. The wire has been painted as an anti-Mohdi publication and is therefore subject to intimidation, demonization and propoganda including from pro-Mohdi sources in the same way as many other respectable sources have been including the BBC. See these two articles from The Guardian for some context here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: for an organization that won prizes for its journalism in the past, and issues corrections when they make mistakes. Mottezen (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: The situation that led to this RFC is very bad, but it is still singular. The organization took the steps one would expect such an organization to take when the problem became known. Long-term, institutional problems have not been demonstrated beyond this event. Yes, it is not good, but it is still just one incident. --Jayron32 14:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Then how about Option 2: exercise additional caution for tech-related reporting? That’s a small minority of their stories; and the founding editor admitted that the main reason for this fuckup was a general lack of tech expertise among their staff, who would have caught it if they had better domain-knowledge. This would also allows us to keep using them for Indian politics, since it’s true that they’re one of the few independent publications left in India, and have done some good work. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a bad option and just unnecessary, it would bring into question their coverage in the Pegasus Project collaboration, for which there is no evidence that there's anything wrong with it. The rest of their other tech related news coverage is just very basic "who said what" reporting; for example this report or this report, there aren't any problems with these either.

After what happened, it's highly unlikely that they are going to try to pursue any tech related story on their own again, for the foreseeable future. And if any issue arises in the future, we can always revisit this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Wire has retracted the problematic reporting in question. You can find problems in just any source which has published thousands of articles until now. Unless there is a pattern of biased reporting I don't think we should be really discussing this. Capitals00 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - It is reliable enough for a news website. I don't see evidence to the contrary even after reading the whole discussion above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per Tayi and Atlantic306.
  Even giants like NYT (Jayson Blair) and WaPo (Janet Cooke) have fell victim to hoaxes courtesy rogue reporters but such episodes are blips in a stellar record of journalism across the years. Much has been made out of the fact that the outlet had "quadrupled down" on the story in face of adverse comments (before coming to retract it) but such a defensive response is natural when one considers the sorry state of media freedom in India — anyway, for a comparison, Cooke's story had raised quite a many red flags in the newsroom and even by external observers but her editor chose to not buy them and instead nominated it for a Pulitzer!
  On the overall, I have a hard time believing that the OP has followed any media scandal in the past couple of decades. The RfC is misguided and unless The Wire develops a track record of producing similar dubious stuff, we shan't be revisiting this. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Let us see what a domain-expert who aided in debunking the fake story says:

  I do not think that The Wire as an organisation was complicit in this, if nothing else, because their behaviour was not consistent with that assumption. For instance, The Wire provided the identities of the experts to other people to verify. If you knew that these were forged, it is unlikely you would do that—you would make up an excuse about their safety and say, “We can’t tell you who it is,” or something like that.
  — Zhang, Sophie (2022-12-01). "What the Wire-Meta saga means for the future of tech-reporting". The Caravan.

• It is blindingly obvious that the publication was taken by a reporter — who has since been documented to have highly dubious antecedents and a propensity for pathological lying — for a ride. This gullibility does reflect poorly on the organization but it was possible only because — as Zhang notes — tech journalism has not yet developed in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am also fascinated by the OP's attempt to discredit the Slate article in reply to V93 while bandying about the opinion-column in the Economist by Dominic Ziegler. Maybe they do not know about the "Banyan blog" but given their unusual confidence, I doubt it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that the piece from The Economist isn't from their newsroom? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I had been thinking that it was. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. Even the best publications like The Lancet (the Wakefield "vaccines cause autism" hoax) and The New York Times (the Jayson Blair incident) have, at some point or another, had these kind of screwups. What tells us if they are reliable is not that they never make an error, even a big one, as over enough time, they will. Rather, it is whether they own up to it, appropriately publish corrections and retractions, and generally seem to care that they made the error and commit to doing better going forward. If this becomes a pattern, we can revisit the issue, but that hasn't happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 The best of news organizations get taken in by a story that's too good to pass up (Hitler diaries and the venerable The Sunday Times and Stern (magazine) come to mind). Unless there is a pattern of misreporting and poor editorial judgement, there is no reason to downgrade an otherwise respectable source. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, but Stern doesn't belong in the league of "green" sources. I've checked WP:perennial sources with relief not finding it there. They fell for Kujau's forgeries for a reason, and would have fallen for all other Kujaus to come; they were just spared because other potential Kujaus wouldn't choose Stern because of its borderline reputation, thus being a bad venue for propagating "high-quality" hoaxes. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Tayi, TrangaBellam etc. I have asked in the pre-RfC discussion if there is "any indication (ideally from a reliable source) that we should consider this to be more than a deplorable, yet individual incident?" and since then haven't seen anything that comes even close. Instead, I see a narrative that attempts to present The Wire in an undifferentiated manner as a wilful agent of fabricating false information, when no source actually support such a claim. Yes, it was reputation-shattering event, but no-one has provided evidence of a pattern of low editorial standards in their previous or subsequent output. –Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The problems that arose were in one narrow section of technology invesigative reporting, where the editorial board lacked sufficient expertise. I judge that The Wire handled it responsibly after problems were discovered. There is nothing here to castigate the media house. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not familiar enough with the source and haven't looked through all of the links but it seems to me that nobody arguing for options 2 or 3 is basing it on any pattern pre- or post- the recent Meta reporting. Use by others up to October 2022 suggests it was widely considered reliable until then. The very upfront and prominent apology suggests that lessons have been learnt. For us to move to anything other than option 1, I'd need to see evidence outside of the Meta stories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, they had a serious issue and according to the reliable sources they adequately addressed those issues and they are not indicative of widespread issues with their other reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. It is absurd for us to be even considering deprecating an otherwise reputed and trustworthy news website as unreliable for a solitary instance of a slip-up, where they not only retracted the story and formally acknowledged the oversight, but took corrective measures to guard against future recurrence of it. That, if anything, reflects credit on thier journalistic ethos. The Wire, indeed, for long have distinguished themselves, amongst all the partisan noise, with thier elaborate reportage, critical and erudite commentary and critique, high journalistic and writing standards. It would be a travesty to downgrade this eminently reliable source of information. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per SpunkyGeek, Red-tailed hawk and DFlhb this is not a one time incident. Its reporting is very controversial it has been subject to several ongoing defamation suits by businessmen and politicians the number of cases disproportionately high for a website of its size.Here for example Bharat Biotech has filed 100 Crore ongoing suit against it here and Telangana court ordered them to take down 14 articles hereand herePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, come off it. That's such an absurd proposition and a travesty. Defamation suits by rogue "businessmen and politicians" ought not be a blemish on the The Wire's character; it is, if anything, a testament to their bold, intrepid and undaunted investigative journalism. Those are the earmarks that beckon amidst a jarring context of a conspicuous decline in press freedom in a country where an obtrusive section of docile media hobnobs with a rogue, Hindu nationalist government to bamboozle a credulous populace. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: The Wire (India)

• @SpunkyGeek, Horse Eye's Back, Jayron32, Capitals00, Austronesier, Aquillion, Slywriter, and Bloodofox: I'm pinging you to notify you about this RfC, as you have all contributed to the discussion immediately preceding it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @DFlhb: as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  If I've missed someone who participated in the preceding discussion, feel free to ping them. I tried to go from bottom to top and think I got all the users who participated in the discussion, but it doesn't hurt to check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note, I've left notices at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism regarding this discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• I never got your ping. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's odd. You're in the list above (and I think other editors got their pings?). Has this issue affected anyone else? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get mine. Wasn't an issue though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, I suspect that your ping failed for everyone. This page lists the triggers for pings to work. Because your edit began with a change to an existing line—even though you added lines later on—I'm guessing Echo skipped it. The same thing probably happened with this edit as well. Woodroar (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've learned what not to do. Thank you for the link; I'll keep it in mind the next time I try to send a mass ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the discovery process in the Dominion vs Fox case has uncovered damning info about how Fox knew Trump's "stolen election" Big lies were bogus, yet kept pushing the company's Murdoch agenda. “The messages exposed Fox News as a propaganda network.” Rupert Murdoch and his talking heads at Fox News all knew how ridiculous Rudy Giuliani sounded, and knew how wrong the big lie was, but they helped spread it.

As we have known for a long time, this is not an occasional "bug", but a "feature" of Fox News. For them, telling the uncomfortable truth in politics and science in the Trump age is only an occasional thing that gets the offender punished by their own colleagues and management. They must toe the party line.

Rupert Murdoch told Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott that they should try not to “antagonize Trump” by reporting the truth about bogus voter fraud claims and instead should focus on helping elect Republicans in the Georgia runoff elections. Fox has no written editorial guidelines. This is what distinguishes Fox News from an actual news organizations.

Hosts on Rupert Murdoch's propaganda channel Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, & Laura Ingraham, didn't believe the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election but chose to amplify the BIG LIE, according to court filings in Dominion's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit.

Here are a few sources, all properly formatted for immediate use. Do not remove the "name" function:

It's too hard to maintain this list here, so I have created a subpage. Please look there for the growing list:

Isn't it about time we actually deprecate Fox News?

1. This was not accidental, or "all networks make mistakes".
2. This is not "misinformation", but deliberate "disinformation".
3. This is, and has been for a long time, a normal "feature" of their modus operandi.
4. It's not a one-time thing, but an autopsy over long-standing behavior.
5. It reveals their "journalists" have no moral scruples. The good ones have abandoned them.

They totally fail requirements for consideration as a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To me, the most alarming thing here is that Tucker Carlson demanded that Jacqui Heinrich be fired for fact-checking him, and the fact that Kristin Fisher, who since left the company, was disciplined for fact-checking Rudy Giuliani. These are alarming because those two were supposed to be part of Fox's news side, not its talk / opinion side; and our decision to leave some parts of Fox as WP:MREL for politics rather than unreliable or fully deprecated depended entirely on the assumption that Fox maintained a divide between those two parts. These things indicate that that's not the case; if there's a general pattern of the news side being essentially run like the talk side then that's a clear reason for another RFC given that the previous one's conclusion depended on at least some editors arguing that that wasn't happening. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not clamoring for another RFC just yet, I certainly agree with Aquillion's observation and Valjean's analysis. I'd be interested to hear from some of the editors who believed that status quo was a good outcome from the prior RFC (not from the "Fox is GENREL crowd" who I assume will never change their minds no matter what happens) whether this changes their mind at all. The previous RFC found a consensus that Fox News was not reliable, but did not find a consensus to pronounce it generally unreliable. In my mind, many of the arguments hinged on the idea that many news media are also unreliable (which is not an accurate or substantive argument in my view), the closer also said that there seemed to not be a general consensus of the level of standard we hold media to (or at least, what it would take to be "generally unreliable") I'm probably paraphrasing badly, but I think any new RFC should have a close read of the prior RFC's arguments and closing, and see if any of the "status quo" crowd could be persuaded before we engage in an endeavor that will likely end in a fruitless stalemate. Andre🚐 04:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, since WP:RS is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the main thing to do is probably to wait a bit and see if these things impact Fox's. Of course, I'm already on the record as saying repeatedly that I don't think Fox as a whole meets the threshold of having that reputation; but at the very least if followup coverage shows a clear decline in its overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among top-tier sources, then people who argue that it did meet that threshold, or came close enough to it to be WP:MREL in the case of politics, should have to explain how it continues to do so - especially if there's sustained coverage emphasizing the pressure on the news side to cover things inaccurately, coupled with evidence that the network's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has been harmed as a result. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I like the wait and see approach. This story is fresh and will likely have a protracted impact as more info comes out and analysis. Andre🚐 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Another thing that comes to mind, after reading coverage a bit more: One aspect I'm seeing a lot of focus on is the idea that Fox measurably changed tactics in response to the backlash from its base after it called Arizona for Biden - that is, there was a serious, deliberate shift at the top level to reposition the news side away from straight reporting and more towards essentially backing up the things said on the opinion side, at least when it came to the election. If that proves to be a broader and longer-term shift, and coverage reflects it, it might be worth having a future RFC be for post-2020 Fox coverage of politics, since this gives us a reason to think that the aftermath of the 2020 election and the backlash to Fox's news coverage there may have lead to changes that reduced its reliability. --Aquillion (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. That also was mentioned last RFC. The 2020 Arizona call was offered as support for Fox's supposed quality reporting, which if that is the sea change point, therefore now a sign of the opposite. Andre🚐 21:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but isn't basically all this does is confirm that the late night talk show hosts are not reliable, which is already the case? There's no question that there are serious factual errors with Hannity, The Ingraham Angle, and Tucker Carlson Tonight that render the programs unfit for citing on Wikipedia... but that's currently already what we note at WP:RSP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, most of the links provided above related to the TV talk shows (Fox News Channel), not the news website. Pertinent to for our purposes is what Aquillion lays out with the interference into the operation of the actual news portion. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

First, we should be careful about using deposition testimony where claims haven't been challenged etc to decide that the news branch isn't reliable. This is especially true if the Dominion legal team is releasing this information in order to shape the public understanding before a trial or to push for a better settlement without a trial. Second, as others have noted, this seems to fit what we have already said, Fox talk shows are not reliable. I would also ask, what problem would further moves on Fox News solve? It's rarely cited as many editors treat it as if it's not reliable already. Springee (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: I think you may have meant to say Fox talk shows aren't reliable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Corrected above! Springee (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds eerily familiar: "Fox News could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and boldly and knowingly lie about everything, and it wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• We already don't use Hannity or Carlson or talking heads for factual reporting, and advise caution per Fox News political reporting per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. This doesn't seem to concern Fox's straight news coverage. Are we to believe that that Kyle Jacobs is NOT dead or Bruce Willis does NOT have dementia just because Fox News reports it? Beyond jumping on the Fox News Hate Train and venting how much we despise Tucker, what more can Wikipedia do? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's neither here nor there because it concerns entertainment. The last RFC was constrained to science and politics. We should probably constrain any hypothetical or current discussion even further to just politics. Most Fox science content already fails MEDRS. Andre🚐 04:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Most Fox science content already fails MEDRS. " This is not unique to Faux News. The current standards for MEDRS in Wikipedia requires us to avoid most popular press articles on medical topics: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care." Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's why I meant if we had an RFC to downgrade Fox we should do so only for politics, since science probably isn't much use anyway. Andre🚐 19:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Are we to believe that that Kyle Jacobs is NOT dead or Bruce Willis does NOT have dementia just because Fox News reports it?

This is a meaningless comparison, as sources that we have already deprecated also produce factual content too. That doesn't change the fact that they were deprecated for a reason, which is due to actively producing disinformation that meant they couldn't be trusted as a generality, even if they might technically produce factual content as well. Silverseren^C 05:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Has Fox News been used for anything remotely controversial since the last RfC? If the answer is no, then our process already work and there is no need to expend the time and energy necessary to further split the hair.Slywriter (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• A key word in all these reports is court filings. These are unproven claims. I know its really tempting to jump on these to use to dismiss Fox News, but we cannot use such court documents as valid source to speak of something in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Masem, the commentary from RS is about the actual evidence, the internal Fox News/Murdoch communications that reveal they knew they were pushing crazy BS. We do not need to wait for any legal judgment. We have what RS say, and they say a lot, including about how this isn't just about the talking heads we already ignore, but about how the Fox News organization operates, including the news division. They literally have no written editorial policy. They just follow Murdoch's agenda, and it has always been anti-democracy and make money by any means possible. That's the history of Murdoch and his empire.
  • Fox News threatens, punishes, and fires those employees, including in the news division, who fact-check BS pushed by the news division. Complaints between each other is kept private and separate from what is revealed to the public. Open fact-checking is discouraged and punished. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

    Its evidence in a court case. We cannot assume the evidence is true until it has passed through the court, where if they are true, it will be part of the court's decision. This is a requirement of how we handle information from any ongoing court case, so we absolutely have to wait until the court decides to then take the court's decision and stance on this evidence as true. I will stress that I personally think the evidence is all true, and the court case against Fox is very much falling against them, but from being a Wikipedia editor, I have to recognize that we don't presently have the appropriate filter (the final decision) to treat it as truth.

    Besides, as Blueboar points out, even if this all proves too, this doesn't change how Fox News would be classified at RSP; we still have to use extreme caution of using Fox News non-opinion works for politics. Masem (t) 17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any proposal to directly use court documents to write article content about Fox News in Wikivoice. We absolutely can use evidence which does not meet RS standards to evaluate a source on RSP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• No need to change anything - We already say that Fox’s coverage of politics is unreliable, and we already say that opinion journalism from the likes of Hannity and Carlson is unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, we currently list Fox's coverage of politics as yellow / WP:MREL, not unreliable. Many people, including people contributing to this discussion, have used this to argue against the removal of plainly controversial things related to politics that are cited solely to Fox, or to argue for using it in situations where it is the only source saying something. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it has come up at least a handful of times since the last RFC, such as the Twitter Files and the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. There are still those who want to use Fox News for plainly controversial political topics. Andre🚐 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• The current consensus is that Fox talking heads on cable TV != the Fox News website, and nothing here seems to contest that. While I believe that our policy on WP:PARTISAN sources is far too forgiving, this doesn't seem like it changes anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The site routinely posts primetime content without being disclosed as opinion, attributed to "Fox News Staff."[25][26][27] soibangla (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the point was, what do WE need to change in the way how we treat Fox? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News threatens, punishes, and fires those employees, including in the news division, who fact-check the news division when it pushes BS, and it does. Internal complaints are kept private and separate from what is revealed to the public. Open fact-checking is discouraged and punished. Murdoch dictates that for everyone, including the news division.

What we need to change is to make it official that Wikipedia deprecates Fox News. What we do and our policies must be in sync with each other. We need to stop giving Fox a "Trump exemption" which protects high-profile right-wing BS here. Fox is no more sacred than Trump, and we finally, after far too long, acquiesced to the overwhelming weight of RS that confirmed Trump is a pathological liar and started doing what RS did, to call him a "liar" in wikivoice. We should have, without question, right from the beginning, followed what RS said, but we didn't. Our history of giving right-wing sources a longer rope than left-wing sources is a spot on our reputation.

We need to officially stop giving them a free pass. We need to be able to point to an official position, just as we do with any other source that pushes BS. Why treat Fox differently for the same crimes as New York Post, Daily Mail, The Federalist, OAN, Drudge Report, Breitbart News, Newsmax, RedState, InfoWars, The Daily Wire, The Daily Caller, Conservative Tribune, and Townhall? There is no justification for treating Fox News differently. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you can say we give Fox a “free pass” when we explicitly state that Fox is considered unreliable for certain topics (politics being highlighted). Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Because we deprecate other sources guilty of knowingly and consistently pushing BS. Accidental or occasional misinformation happens to all RS, but a sustained pattern of real disinformation? No, that's where we draw the line, EXCEPT for Fox News. That's so wrong. Why make an exception for Fox News? They cannot be trusted.

Sure, they also report accurate news, while they deliberately ignore and refuse to report on topics that go against the Murdoch/GOP/Trump agenda. They sin by omission an awful lot. Unlike other networks, Fox is Murdoch's machine, not a real news organization. It's a propaganda network. His agenda is the editorial policy, which explains why they have no written editorial policy. Murdoch instructed them to not antagonize Trump.

Is there really no sin bad enough to get Fox News deprecated? Do they really have to "shoot someone on 5th Avenue" and we still won't deprecate them? That's what you're telling me. How long will we completely ignore our own requirements for a RS? Tell me where your red line is located in this matter. There seems to literally be no bottom, no red line, that will cause us to ever deprecate them. Please tell me that's not true. Where is your red line? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah… I see, you want to see the magic word “deprecated”. Meh… I don’t see the need. We already say Fox should not be used for politics… that restriction is effectively deprecation where it matters. Using a magic word is pointless. Blueboar (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear, the distinction is not simply semantic. Currently Fox News is considered not generally reliable and should not be used for controversial statements in politics. We haven't declared it generally unreliable and generally should not be used for any politics. In my view, a downgrade would move it from Option 2 to Option 3 for politics. That is not the same as deprecated - it would move from WP:MREL to WP:GUNREL for politics. Andre🚐 18:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's "deprecated" or just "Option 3", let's just move it down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh… I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the previous consensus (current statement) adequately restricts how and when to use Fox, and am content to leave it as is. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a time when the network's mendacity was largely limited to its primetime hours, but in more recent years it has metastasized throughout the day, from Fox&Friends in the morning to Outnumbered in the afternoon to Jesse Watters leading into primetime. It's now pervasive and the sheer volume of it can be hard to keep up with. Fortunately there are several folks on Twitter who watch all of it and post video clips throughout the day. The network "went big" on mendacity to adopt the "say anything" Trump style and is now overwhelmingly propaganda sprinkled with some "real" news here and there, but there's copious examples of even that being poisoned with lies. The entire enterprise, including its website that reflects and amplifies its programming, simply cannot be trusted on anything. That it is the 800-pound gorilla of conservative media matters not. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should trust random and likely ideologically motivated people on twitter to aid in making our choices? Isn't that like using Libs of Tiktok to define the views of those on the left? Springee (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"is now overwhelmingly propaganda sprinkled with some "real" news here and there" That much of their political content is propaganda has been rather clear for years. But I am under the impression that their crime coverage tends towards sensationalism and alarmism. I keep coming across online articles which note that the Fox news audience is convinced that there is some kind of crime epidemic. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is just court filings around talk shows which we deem unreliable already not much to see here. Again editors conflating the talk shows with the website.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it’s not just the talk shows if the talk show hosts got a news division reporter fired for fact checking their narrative. The current rating for Fox News (politics and science) is “reliability unclear”. Is it really still unclear after all the resignations, revelations, books, etc.? Also, it appears some editors believe the website is the same as the news division. But, it looks more like the talk shows with attacks against one party for years. Last time this came up, I asked for the names of the people considered in the news division and don’t think I got an answer. I can’t find this on Google as I keep getting Hanity, Carlson, etc. Who are the people that are considered green at RS/PS? O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would list Bret Baier as probably the most prominent name in their news division. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I agree. NPR wrote this:

  "On Nov. 5, 2020, just days after the election, Bret Baier, the network's chief political anchor texted a friend: "[T]here is NO evidence of fraud. None. Allegations - stories. Twitter. Bulls---."

  and we have this:

  Bret Baier and Chris Wallace Complained to Fox News Heads About Tucker Carlson Capitol Riot Special (Report)

  Good for them, but even as news anchors, they were not allowed to publicly express such views. Wallace is now at CNN. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Objective3000 asked for the name of someone in the News Division, I gave one of the more prominent ones. More to the point, Baier is someone at Fox who does not engage in the sort of crap complained about in the lawsuit. I would consider Baier’s reporting very reliable. If you think otherwise, please explain why? Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I agree. He's good. Unfortunately, he's not the only one there, and the corporation mixes the opinion and news stuff in deceptive ways ALL THE TIME, and when good people like Baier object, they get told to keep their opinions off-air or they get in trouble.

  They can tell the truth about non-GOP, non-Trump, non-COVID, non-vaccines, non-climate change, topics ad libitum, add nauseum, so that really means we have no use for them and should tell editors and the world we can't trust them to tell the truth all the time, and can't trust them to tell the truth when it's against their fringe right-wing political agenda and their anti-science agenda. There is no justification for not downgrading their status. If we don't deprecate them, we should upgrade Daily Mail and some other deprecated sites that are better than Fox News. Fox's popularity makes it a dangerous site. I don't think we should do that, so I still think we're violating our own policies and sending a horrible message to the world by not deprecating them, especially in light of all these solid revelations.

  The world looks to Wikipedia, and our quibbling here is visible and will be compared to the internal quibblings by the Fox News people, and those who refuse to deprecate will end up looking like Hannity and Carlson, who refused to tell the truth. We know that editors end up getting named in the press. I got hung out by Breitbart as a "Russiagate truther" because I still think Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. (I'll take that as a badge of honor, considering it's from Breitbart!) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Did they actually get anyone on the news side fired or did they just talk about it between a few hosts? This is one of the big issues with internal coms like this. Things said in the context of anger/frustration can be presented as carefully laid plans by an opposing party. So far it looks like the news side did what we would want it to do. It reported the facts even though it didn't align with the talk shows. Springee (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  They attempted to get her fired calling Suzanne Scott, the network’s chief executive. Instead, the post she made factchecking Trump was deleted. That is they did not report the facts that didn't align with the talk shows. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  The top story on the site right now is Ronny Jackson, a hardcore Trump supporter, alleging a coverup in Biden's health report.[28]] Is that news, or conspiracy theorizing? Anyone ever taken a look at Jackson's twitter feed? Whoo-boy. This is typical of the site. soibangla (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  [29] soibangla (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a link to a previous post of yours. How is that meant to be interpreted in context of Spy-cicle's comments? Springee (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Fox News Knew It Was A Lie". Yes. And we knew they knew. That's why they're considered unreliable for politics. Nothing changed here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting how many people claim Fox News is already considered unreliable, full stop, for politics. However, the close of the last RFC found it was marginally reliable and should not be used as a high-quality source for controversial claims. Which is one notch more reliable than generally unreliable. If we think it is generally unreliable, we should write that and reflect that. Andre🚐 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Bingo! Sadly, above I asked Blueboar:

"Is there really no sin bad enough to get Fox News deprecated? ... Tell me where your red line is located in this matter. There seems to literally be no bottom, no red line, that will cause us to ever deprecate them. Please tell me that's not true. Where is your red line?"

Still no answer. Our policy on how we define a RS should be enough, but it's being ignored when it comes to Fox News. They are Teflon. Sad. I want an answer from Blueboar: "Where is your red line, since deliberate disinformation isn't enough?" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t actually HAVE a “red line”. I have never liked the concept of “deprecation”, because I strongly believe in judging sources on a citation by citation context. And even the “worst” sources can be reliable in specific contexts… Just as the “best” sources can be unreliable in specific contexts. To judge whether a source is reliable, you need to examine the specific statement we are attempting to verify with that source, and ask whether the source is reliable in that specific context. The more extraordinary the statement, the more extraordinarily reliable the source must be.

I agree that Fox does not rate as an “extraordinary” source (and even that it is a “poor” source)… and so 100% agree with saying it should not be used for verifying extraordinary claims (and the claims about election fraud in 2020 certainly qualify as extraordinary). But then, that is a criticism I think is true for ALL media outlets. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• What this comes down to is that there is a network that calls itself a “news network” watched by hundreds of millions of people worldwide that allows, and apparently pushes, outright falsehoods to be published saying that United States elections are a fraud, Covid restrictions are a fraud, etc. – and we allow it to be used as a source. Folks, drop any biases you may have and remember that this is an encyclopedia. There are so many sources that have proved their ability to correct errors, use multiple sources, gain Pulitzers for exposing problems on both sides of any aisle. Let us use them and not bother with (and give credence to) a corporation whose management allows (at the least) lies and misinformation -- misinformation that dangers democracy and health (among other problems). What do we lose by reducing the rating of a dangerous source when there exist so many that have proved their worth over a very long time? And please, let us stop this claim that all media sources do what Fox does. There is no evidence that anything this dramatic is occurring in what we call RS.. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a Fox "News" story. What's the first thing readers see? A Jesse Watters clip.[30] And in this "news" story? Laura Ingraham[31]. And here's another "news" story entitled "Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action kicks off for thousands of U.S. schools." Sounds reasonable, right? But what do readers see first? A Tucker Carlson clip with guest Candace Owens calling BLM a scam.[32] And here's Paul Gigot and Kim Strassel et al. of the WSJ editorial board in a "news" story.[33]. And Hannity with a "news" story.[34] It just goes on and on. See how they insidiously inject their opinion programming into their "news" site? It's baked in. By contrast, at minimum MSNBC shows in their URLs that their stories are from opinion shows, and typically displays that on the page or notes it's an opinion piece. soibangla (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to consider what the website version delievers, particularly when the labeling of the video is clear it is not related to the story given by the headline. It's why when evaluating reliability we ignore everything like the headline itself, ads, etc - all that matters is the copy of the article text. They are not the only website that forces video on the reader, and while most other websites usually include video of the story that the article talks about, they have other content in that video block carosel (eg: like at CBS News [35]). BTW, Fox News absolutely does delineate opinion from news pieces in terms of what they present at text. There are other sources like the AP that does not do this.

Remember that every media source is fighting for viewers and drawing readers to their site. Some are more ethical about that, but every bit of trying to grab viewership draw rather than focusing on the news weakens the site's integrity. Masem (t) 03:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to consider what the website version delievers I don't understand, we're talking about links to the site that some editors want to use as references here

particularly when the labeling of the video is clear it is not related to the story given by the headline There is no video labeling. Readers click the story and are presented a video that is ostensibly "the news," but actually it's the view of a mendacious polemicist. Many people (particularly since 54% of American adults cannot read to a 6th grade level) will likely watch the 2-minute clip rather than read the article, and walk away thinking they got "the news." But they haven't, they've been fed partisan opinion. By contrast, when CNN includes a clip in a story, it's from a straight-up newscast that conforms with the more extensive text reporting beneath it.

all that matters is the copy of the article text Oftentimes on its front page CNN shows headlines with a little "play" icon, denoting a video news report with just a short caption, not a text story. If an editor were to write "CNN reported..." would it be impermissible to use that source because it's not text?

while most other websites usually include video of the story that the article talks about I can't think of another news site that uses clips other than a news clip to accompany the article text. Fox News commonly presents opinion clips, without disclosure.

AP that does not do this I'm not aware AP publishes opinion pieces that writers submit, but if they do I suspect those opeds would be clearly labeled as such.

Fox News absolutely does delineate opinion from news pieces in terms of what they present at text As text, perhaps. But not holistically, including their video content, as I've demonstrated, and CNN doesn't do what Fox does, where readers click a story to what might be legitimate news and instead get Tucker Carlson. This is not by accident, it's by design, and if legitimate news outlets also do it, I haven't seen it. It's a devious practice that Fox News uses to insinuate its editorial stance into everything their audience sees on the network, and its site. This might be imperceptible to some who are not paying close attention. soibangla (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Fox videos have a bolt title and a brief description immediately below the video, impossible to miss. That's the labeling.

See #opinion pieces published by the AP? for the recent determination that AP offers unlabeled opinion pieces.

And I stress that we do not focus on the embellishments in the web presentation of a prose story. Videos, ads, pictures, interactive features, etc. Not just for Fox News but for all media website.

Now I can fully accept the "by design" argument that Fox News wants to push certain content, that's obvious, but every news website is also playing the drawing of eyes to keep viewers on their pages. Maybe not to the same degree as Fox, and not to their opinion pieces, but they do the same thing of trying to distract you from wanting to leave their website. --Masem (t) 16:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by label was disclosure as opinion, not content summary. There is no disclosure.

Wow, AP published an oped, I'll be damned. How common is that?

we do not focus on the embellishments but does that mean the CNN scenario I described is impermissible?

There is a big difference between engagement/retention and systematically insinuating opinions into news. soibangla (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that some Fox News articles also have clips of opinion programming says nothing about the reliability of the underlying article, and as long as we are citing only article content, not the talking head video, then the only reason to complain about the source is moral panic about "what if viewers are exposed to bad opinions?" It's like wanting to deprecate Playboy (which is GREL) because people clicking a link to an interview might see nudity. Sources sources don't even need to be online to be reliable. We could cite a Fox News article without including a convenience link, or a rare undigitized academic library book that happens to be shelved next to a copy of Mein Kampf, without affecting reliability at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I find myself in agreement with Aquillion and Andrevan's concerns. I would not prefer an immediate RfC for total deprecation but we ought to keep a close watch at this news-cycle. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Fox News is still refusing to cover this scandal. We do need an article about it: Fox News "voter fraud" scandal. When this Dominion trial is finished, we can do this better, but there is already enough RS coverage to start the article.

The mark of a RS news agency or other news source is not that they never make mistakes, but that they immediately correct and apologize. Fox News, RIGHT NOW!!!, is refusing to do this. They would lose face too much with their Trump base. They tied their news and opinion sides together with Trump as the only guiding light, and down the rabbit hole the whole Fox News enterprise went. Now they can't admit it publicly to their viewers without it being such a major catastrophe that they fear sinking their own ship. So they are doing what they have always done, hiding the inconvenient facts from their viewers, because Trump has told them that all other sources are fake news. Those viewers will continue thinking that "all this mainstream talk about Fox News hosts thinking Trump was lying about the election" is just fake news.

In the face of all this, Wikipedia still refuses to deprecate or downgrade them, even though, on much flimsier grounds, we deprecated The Daily Mail for far less serious offenses. We should upgrade The Daily Mail (only a tiny bit) and deprecate Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Fox cover this story? They are being sued over the core of this story. One of the things any competent legal team will tell their client before a trial is make no public statements. Covering this content would be exactly that. It would totally ignore the reality of the legal issues to expect Fox to cover claims that they libeled Dominion before the trial. That is akin to saying, "if the suspect is innocent, why doesn't he take the stand and say so?" Springee (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh snap! Springee, you make a good point. What a pickle, not that they would apologize even if not being sued, but we can't know. What we know is that their listeners will continue to believe what has been reported, and even though Fox will likely not dare continue to repeat "stolen election" lies, they will not be able to correct the record. Fox viewers will continue in their delusional bubble and refuse to believe what all other sources are reporting. What a situation! That guarantees Fox News continues to remain an unreliable source that should be deprecated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The impression I had from the last RFC is that some people who actually agree Fox News is unreliable believe that it helps Wikipedia to appear as less biased to have Fox News be listed as yellow and marginally reliable. Because even though Fox News is generally unreliable for politics and most people proceed as though this is the case in almost every case, they don't want to hear the screams of the drive-by trolls lamenting Fox News' "unfairly" maligned status. Because these people are thinking with their emotions and not with logic, so we can't reason with them. So, we take the tiny tiny sliver of cases where Fox News is reporting on some information that no other source has the very same information, and they extrapolate that to the idea that the reliability of Fox News for politics is unclear, given that occasionally, Fox News does publish accurate and mundane information about politics. When in reality the reliability of Fox News for politics is listed as unclear. It's generally unreliable, a category that prohibits mundane use but there are still plenty of exceptions where use might be allowed. Andre🚐 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific examples of that? I don't recall that but I also wasn't really looking for it. Springee (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a few comments in mind but I'd rather not ping them to the discussion because I suspect it would be unwelcome. If they show up on their own later I will be happy to discuss that. Andre🚐 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As I recall there were something like 100+ respondents. If we are talking about one or two replies I'm not sure that means much compared to the larger consensus. Springee (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

NPR wrote this:

On Jan. 5, 2021, the day before Congress was to ceremonially affirm Biden's win, and an angry pro-Trump mob sacked the U.S. Capitol to prevent it, Rupert Murdoch forwarded a suggestion to Fox News CEO Scott. He recommended that the Fox prime time stars - Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham - acknowledge Trump's loss. "Would go a long way to stop the Trump myth that the election was stolen," he wrote. They did not do so. "We need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers," Scott said to a colleague.

Even Murdoch can't get them to publicly admit their failure. At that time, the "stolen election" conspiracy theory was still in somewhat of its infancy (not really...) but just think of how much Fox News has added to the size of that lie since then? Wow! Now they have added to their complicity so much more. In Japan, these people would have been called into the corporate headquarters, forced to kneel in a row, been handed knives, and committed hara-kiri. Seriously.

Of course, Wikipedia still supports Fox News. We are sending a signal to the world, a really bad signal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - We should wait until either the case goes to trial and a ruling is made (in which the facts of the case will be laid out), or until this is widely verified by other RS (preferably some right-leaning ones). Until then, it could be argued that we are doing WP:SYNTH by using deposition testimony and discovery evidence (WP:PRIMARY) to make conclusions. If we let the conclusions be made for us, we're in the clear. All that said, this is bordering on WP:BLUE given that some of the evidence is verbatim text messages and emails. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No one is proposing we perform OR or use primary sources. See that long list of what we call "reliable sources" above? We are actually allowed to use them to create content here! What an amazing idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    It is 100% OR because it is only evidence in a ongoing case. No matter how much RSes write about it, it has not been validated under a court of law as being valid and/or truthful.

    Is it likely truthful? Heck yes, but we cannot jump to conclusions like this. Masem (t) 20:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    Reliable sources are what we're all about, not jury decisions. Sometimes juries convict innocent men. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    We absolutely do not rely on reliable sources for the determination of legal matters like the Dominion VS lawsuit that this evidence was submitted for. Only the courts can make that determination. Masem (t) 20:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    Is that codified in PAGs? soibangla (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    For BLPs, it is definitely codified at BLPCRIME. "Innocent until proven guilty" should obviously extend to organizations as well. Unless the court decides what guilt is there and if any Fox individuals were complicit in it, we should be very wary of treating evidence provided by one side of the case as factually true, even though we probably all agree it is actually true. That's why we have trials so that the deeper truth can be determined. Perhaps this was all machinations of one person at Fox rather than the organization as a whole. Masem (t) 16:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    This isn't about guilt, it's about evidence that has been reported by numerous solid RS. Imagine the consequences for Dominion attorneys if they filed false documents with a court. Disbarment, careers over. soibangla (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    The RSes are reporting on the evidence, they have no legal insight to whether the evidence is legit or not or appropriate for the court. Its why, at least in the more prestigious RSes, they state that all these are alleged claims. The RSes are of course coming to their own conclusions as to what it all means, but they have no legal authority here, and we absolutely cannot take their assessment as the legal truth, no matter how many RSes claim it. That's the "innocent until proven guilty" we have to abide by.

    And it is not necessarily that the evidence may be false, but it also may not paint a full picture. For example, wholly separate, when Elon released the "Twitter Files", it was all "evidence" that pointed to Democratic interference, but as has been reported later, there's a fair number of Republican cases that happened as well, so what the Twitter Files was was not the whole story. Similarly, the legal council for Dominion has likely put together a package of files that strongly backs the defamation claims, but Fox may have additional evidence that creates a different picture that may point away from defamation. That type of action by Dominion's lawyers is not a violation of any legal code. (Keep in mind, I strongly believe Fox is guilty of defamation and intentional malice here, but I can't take it as fact until the case is resolved). Masem (t) 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    The potential legal consequences are irrelevant. The fact the communications have been publicly released and widely reported by RS is all we should be concerned with. Others in the press can speculate on what the legal implications might be, but that's not in our purview. soibangla (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Our purview is to be neutral, impartial, and dispassionate. Editing based on "innocent until proven guilty" is absolutely key to this. I know that the evidence is very damning against Fox and suggests more action on RSP should be taken, but that would be violating our neutrality policy to jump on that before the legal matters are resolved. Masem (t) 17:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Are you arguing weight for inclusion in the Fox News article or if we should use this information to judge their reliability? If you want to suggest this is DUE in the article then all the coverage basically makes this a slam dunk for inclusion. However, if you are arguing this proves the news desk can't be trusted, then we need to ask why Dominion is releasing this before trial. Ask how does it benefit them to release it if, in theory, the jurors are going to only evaluate what is shown in court? Would Dominion have motive to release things in a way that makes it look worse than it really is? Would they have motive to hold back and exculpatory messages etc? If yes, then we aren't in a hurry. We can see how this plays out. Other than the satisfaction if sticking it to a disliked source, how does this help wikipedia? Springee (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    lolwhat. Trying to apply BLPCRIME here is an incredibly unserious claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's perfectly reasonable. Please see my example where the Grimshaw legal team presented information that was damaging to Ford Mo Co in a way to shape public opinion. Only much later did we see that what the public was presented was misleading. Springee (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Corporations aren't living people. Andre🚐 18:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would say this tangent is embarrassing. Anything about legal cases, guilt, and results are pretty much off-topic here. Lest I be misunderstood, of course BLPCrime is important, but not here. No one is discussing (except for Masem) the case itself or questions of guilt. We are discussing what secondary independent RS say about the revelations coming out about Fox News internal discussions and views demonstrating their deliberate malfeasance and refusal to allow fact-checking their lies. THAT's the topic, so don't muddy the waters. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  From a legal and logical standpoint, the RSes are only reporting on 1) past events that were visible from outside Fox News and 2) the evidence provided by Dominion's legal counsel to support Dominion's case. They do not have the full picture as they are missing the evidence Fox News will use to defend itself. As such, whatever the RSes are reporting right now is their speculation, definitely not fact that we can state in Wikivoice. It doesn't matter how reliable these sources are, they are not the judicial branch and what claims they make cannot be taken as facts.

  I realize that nearly everything from the past that's been known before this point, and with the evidence given, that there is likely no way that Fox will be found to be complicit in propagating the false narrative and will be liable for the defamation charges they face, and thus my complaint may be prolonging the inevitable facts we can state. But this type of nuance is a core part of NPOV and NOR that we must hold to, despite the weight of evidence that suggests otherwise. This is basically, like, saying that Arbcom took up a case against editor X, where dozens of editors all provide evidence that X is wrong, and pre-stating that X must be guilty before Arbcom actually issues its decision about X. Let's wait to see what the whole picture is based on the legal case, from which we then can evaluate.

  And I stress what has been pointed out before: what does this change about how Fox is already handled on RSP? it's already a highly questionable source for politics (from its news side), and its talk show content already disallowed. Masem (t) 19:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  whatever the RSes are reporting right now is their speculation is incorrect, but there is likely no way that Fox will be found to be complicit in propagating the false narrative and will be liable for the defamation charges is speculative. soibangla (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Masem, you again write "what does this change about how Fox is already handled on RSP?" It makes a big difference. Right now we have no official deprecation. Instead, we rely on an unofficial ad hoc way of dealing with it, understood only by experienced editors, each time someone wants to use Fox News. The burden is on the editors involved, without them having the recourse of pointing to an official community consensus. The individual editors have to take the full brunt of accusations here at Wikipedia, and outside, for making such decisions. I paid such a price for opposing Breitbart here by having Breitbart feature me as a "Russiagate truther" for believing that Russia did interfere in the elections. What we do here gets noticed. We just know that we cannot trust Fox News when they speak, and we can trust that when they are silent it is usually for political reasons. It is a propaganda organization, not a true news organization, so we should officially classify it as such. Knowing this, yet not acting, is negligence and tacit protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just because novice editors may get Fox News's usage wrong should not mean we need to rush any change prior to the decision of the court case (again, the statement "Fox News is a propaganda organization" is a non-legal conclusion that we can't use, we need the court's evaluation the evidence.) If anything, I would suspect the bulk of those editors are not here to start to build an encyclodedia and instead want to counter the left bias that we naturally have from the result of our known RSes. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, though this is likely still a case that once the courts legally issue their ruling, we'll want the baby thrown out too.

  Here's the problem which this and the Breitbart shows - we have be reactive and follow events, not try to be proactive. If you expressed belief re Russian interference before it was proven out by other sources in order to change P&G or mainspace, that's a problem. This is not a problem limited to you or Fox News, but far too pervasive throughout WP; that editors strongly for or against certain topics too often lose the necessary perspective we expect of all editors to prevent disruption (The current ArbCom case is yet another example). It is 100% fair to peg Fox News as a developing problem in light of the provided court evidence, but until we know the conclusion of that story, acting on it is rushing matters. I've said before that I may poking on nuances here and delaying what will ultimately happen, but we need these processes more than ever to isolate us from the growing cultural war, and react instead of predict. Masem (t) 03:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  This thread is primarily about using Fox as a reliable source -- not stating in the Fox article in WikiVoice that Fox is crap. If a source is questionable, we shouldn't use it. There are plenty of other sources. If the only source for something is questionable, then what it says is questionable and we should wait instead of using a questionable source. We are an encyclopedia, not a new aggregator. Time is on our side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC).

  The thing is, while Fox’s reporting on the 2020 election and it’s aftermath is questionable, a lot of its other reporting is not questionable at all. This is why “other considerations apply”. We need to look at the specific information being verified by citing a Fox report, and ask “is Fox reliably reporting this specific information”? I am fine with saying “Don’t cite Fox for information relating to the 2020 election and its aftermath”… I am not fine with saying “Don’t cite Fox for anything”. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't that mean, in practice, that you have to check a Fox source against other, more reliable sources, and only use Fox if it agrees with them? Then, what do we need it for, if we have better sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bingo! Since we can't trust it, even on basic matters, we only know by checking actually RS that don't deliberately push fake news for ratings. We do not need Fox News. Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think we CAN trust it on basic matters… it’s specific matters where we can’t trust it. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  For those who are digging into this material, ask who released it and why? Who does the release of this material benefit? Was it released with the other side being given a chance to argue about the content? Do we know if the releases were full and complete or selective? One of the very successful strategies the plaintiffs did in the infamous Ford Pinto lawsuit (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.) was release a memo which was in reality a response to the government, using government provided numbers and framework trying to assess the cost vs benefit of new rollover protection standards. Since Ford could provide a good estimate on the vehicle cost side of things they were doing that. However, the Grimshaw legal team successfully convinced the public that the memo was proof that Ford didn't care about lives and calculated it was cheaper to pay off the dead vs pay for safety in the cars[36]. It was a totally false narrative but thanks to Mother Jones it stuck. When one side or the other releases a bunch of evidence we need to ask, is it because it helps them make better arguments in court? No, it's because they are hoping to taint the jury pool. Even if we take the evidence at face value all it's doing is verifying what we already have concluded. Springee (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously we cannot foresee the result of a trial. So, we cannot say they are guilty of anything. We most certainly can make our own determinizations of the reliability of a source and we can use RS for that purpose without the help of the legal system. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Fox is biased in my mind, but can be used for simple fact verification; airplane xyz crashes on xyz date. Beyond this, they tend to spin a story so it suits a certain narrative. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

When Fox executives referred to their "brand" being damaged (they did it in many ways), they are saying it in the context of "Our brand is WE DELIBERATELY LIE ABOUT ELECTIONS and don't dare stop!" Seriously, read the sources and see what Fox executives said about their "brand" and especially when they said it. You can't make this stuff up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The older editors all see the trajectory FOX is on. The question for you is, and please take your time to think about it, where should this source be categorized as a result? That's what I think was missing from your original post, and that would help some of us see your intent more clearly. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

DN, as an older editor I have indeed watched this. Before Trump, Fox was just a popular purveyor of normal right-wing stuff, back when the most left-leaning members of the GOP actually straddled the center and had a lot in common with the most right-leaning Democrats. Trump came along and radicalized the whole right, and Fox with it. (see Overton window) Then Fox discovered that Trump, as a fighter, would really boost their ratings if they were loyal to him. That pushed them, and the GOP, into a far-right position and the favored position as nearly the only source trusted by Republicans. We see the consequences of that. Now there are very few Republicans between Trump and the center, and it's a huge gap. The Democrats, OTOH, haven't really moved very much toward the left, at least nothing like the move by the GOP. Many Dems still straddle the center..

In the light of all the latest revelations, that things are much worse than we realized (they actually deliberately and constantly lied, as a de facto operational policy, to everyone, and punished any employee who resisted or fact-checked), I have already expressed my wish for a formal deprecation. They are arguably worse than The Daily Mail. They fail our standards for a RS. Not only no fact-checking, but refusal to allow it. No correction when their false reporting was constantly criticized. Until they completely crucify Trump and all of his lies, especially his "stolen election" Big Lie, they won't be in the same universe as what we require of a RS. Every day we delay this deprecation is a day we signal to the world that Wikipedia sides with Trump's lies, and editors who resist, risk getting named and excoriated in mainstream articles by the journalists who watch what we are doing here. We are being super inconsistent by extending the common Trump exemption to Fox News. They should not enjoy any form of protected status here. Treat them as we'd do any other source guilty of the same things they are doing. BTW, you are now a Yeoman Editor! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Fox News are innocent. Innocent, I tell you! And there's nothing you can say or do that'll change my mind! François Robere (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Appears to be an illustration of a goodly part of the problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• No need to change anything 1. Court filings are not a matter of law and should not be treated as absolute. 2. It has already been established that specific opinions of some of their hosts such as Carlson, Hannity, etc. are not considered reliable to Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A good summary:

Fox News is in no meaningful sense a news organization. Just for starters, engaging in a journalistic race to the bottom with an outlet like Newsmax—a wall-to-wall dreamscape of MAGA fabulation now fending off its own Dominion defamation suit—is something any remotely legitimate news-gathering operation should automatically lose by definition.

It is not a "legitimate news-gathering operation". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 20 February 2023‎ (UTC)

• No need to change anything and close this thread Not this again. Wasn't there a giant RSN RFC recently that already beat this dead horse? Fox News talk shows are already deprecated: WP:RSP#Fox_News_(talk_shows) and its other political reporting is WP:MREL with significant caveats and restrictions. Honestly, I think this thread should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM, since is turning out to be little more than an opportunity to gripe about a shared dislike in a pseudo-RSN-RFC format (headed with the traditional set of options, except they're all "yes"). The last RFC covered this ground and ended, lets give it a rest. GretLomborg (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I will ask this for the fourth time. Who are the Fox News non talk shows hosts that haven't resigned? Out of 24 hours a day, how much time do they take? I look at their website and it reads like a propaganda site. And reread WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  GretLomborg, this is a totally new situation. I'm going to just AGF that you are ignorant of recent events that cast Fox News in a totally new light. The RS are abundant. Look above. I have collected 47 RS now.

Fox News knew their election coverage was totally false, yet, to keep their audience from fleeing to far-right sources like OANN and NewsMax, and to keep Trump's favor and their ratings up, they chose to lie about it all. They continued to push election lies for over two years, and now it's all blown up in their face with all their internal communications telling the true story.

This is not about just the talking heads. It's also about the news division. So this thread is based on a totally new set of evidence. Literal fake news and deliberate disinformation. Internal fact-checkers were threatened into silence. They totally fail all we consider to be a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The RS are abundant. Look above. I have collected 47 RS now.... about "Fox News hosts," "Fox News stars," "Tucker Carlson," etc... - GretLomborg (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. READ them, not just the headlines. This affected the news division. They were not allowed to contradict what Carlson, Hannity, et al were saying. Fact-checkers were threatened. The top executives and CEO knew, and their decisions applied to the news division. Read the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I did read a few, and I remain unconvinced that there needs to be any change in the status quo. Those articles are almost exclusively focused on what the already deprecated opinion show hosts beleived. They also tend to be a little sloppy and not make the distinction we make (between the news and opinion divisions), sloppyness which is very unhelpful here. The little that is there about the news division, while not great, is also not grounds for depricating the news division. It's totally fine for a reliable source not cover some true news to the degree desired by some Wikipedia editor or even omit it completely, especially since there's no way to cite the absence of a story on here in an article. The line is more or less "publishes false or fabricated information," and even that can (and is) tolerated for sources where a line can be drawn in such a way to salvage reliable reporting in other areas (like the line here around the opinion hosts). Then there's the separate issues that the structure of this discussion is so flawed that there is no way for it to reach valid result, and there there was already a massive better-structured discussion about these same issues where the admin-closer clearly discouraged repeats without a clear on-wiki motivation (which this discussion also seems to lack), because of the waste of limited governance capacity they entail. Let's stop beating this dead horse. GretLomborg (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What is now plainly evident that was not previously has less to do with what Murdoch, Scott and the news division did than what they didn't do: they didn't push back against any of lies the hosts were knowingly peddling. Nary a word to report The Big Lie everyone else was reporting. Bret Baier, ostensibly the "real journalist" at the network, said privately there was no evidence of election fraud, but did he report that? The silence of the news division is just as damning as if it was actively promulgating the Big Lie and makes clear it is not a news organization and should not be treated as one here. If "sometimes Fox reports real news," then surely editors can find sources other than Fox to use here. soibangla (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what soibangla, Valjean, and O3000 have written, but I am not surprised to see some editors who aren't interested in any evidence that would show Fox doesn't report it fair and balanced, even enough to be marginally reliable. Even though this is an example of Fox blatantly falsifying information and toeing the party line. That is not enough to persuade people who already have made up their minds and don't have a red line. Andre🚐 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• All of which simply reinforces that Fox is not reliable when it comes to the 2020 Election and its aftermath. I think we all agree on that. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they are reliable on that topic. However, there is no evidence that they fabricated their news coverage of other stories. Seriously, I challenge you to look through their news coverage over the last week (or even month), and tell me where they fabricated the story.

Sure, there are other reliable outlets that cover these stories, and yes we could use them instead (I have no problem with swapping one reliable source with another)… but… that’s not what we are being asked to determine. We are not being asked what the best news source is… or even whether there are better news sources than Fox. We are being asked to determine whether Fox is generally reliable or unreliable (as opposed to being specifically unreliable on one topic). I still think Fox is, generally, on the reliable side of the line. The existence of other reliable news sources (hell, even news sources that are more reliable) does NOT equate to Fox’s coverage being unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

...not reliable when it comes to the 2020 Election and its aftermath. Or Covid, climate change, gas prices, the economy.... You can say not reliable for politics or science; but everything these days is tinged with one or both, and that includes plane or train crashes (where Trump is now and about which MTG is loudly calling for impeachment). O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This gets us back to asking “what are we verifying when we cite a source?” That the train derailed? I think Fox reliably reported this. That Trump visited the town? Same. Are you saying that Fox did not reliably report both facts? Are you saying they fabricated these stories? Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Blueboar, they lie about the really important things. We can use other RS for the small stuff. We do not forgive perpetual liars. You have clearly not read the sources, so here's the constantly updated list. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable" means "you can rely on it". Not "you have to check a long list of subjects first, and if the subject in question is not on the list yet, maybe you can rely on it, or maybe it will be added to the list later, who knows?" --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Flip it… It’s actually a very short list of things they are not reliable on. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not true. This is about their main focus, the topics they focus on and choose to deliberately ignore. American politics is their main focus. Minor stuff might add up to a long list of individual items that is longer than the list of problematic areas, but those areas are far more significant. The small stuff is always covered by other sources where we don't need to double-check whether they are deliberately lying to us. We always have to do that with Fox News. We lose nothing by deprecating Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, there’s sports (when race isn’t involved) and entertainment (when competitors aren’t involved). Looking at the first section of the NYT today, articles on immigration, Biden, NATO, McCarthy and Tucker Carlson, climate change, Ukraine/Russia, Israel, same sex couples, arms to Taiwan, train derailment (Obama made new regs and Trump removed them), Trump criminal inquiries, gun violence, Proud Boys, several election articles, Twitter law suit in the USSC, early inmate release, death penalty. These are all areas where Fox is a questionable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Good points, so striking part of my comment above. Of the areas they actually do cover, there are very few that aren't problematic. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe:

“I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. “Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.”

Pretty damning. He makes the case for deprecation. He ticks off all the most important boxes we require for a RS. Fox News fails each one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Fox News at least should be generally unreliable if not deprecated and blacklisted altogether. They indeed have fabricated information on many occasions. It's quite clear that their top brass have created an atmosphere designed to push advocacy and propaganda. It should not be trusted for any topic but particularly not for politics. However, because we need a stronger consensus than last time to actually change the status quo, I suspect we'll have to bring this topic up again in the future. Andre🚐 04:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why only Fox News and not the whole Murdoch "press"? Trigenibinion (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Sun is deprecated. The NYPost is considered unreliable for facts. The WSJ is considered generally reliable for news, outside of the opinion articles. It has received Pulitzers. Personally, I think it has slipped; but I am a subscriber for financial news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia is also rotten by such "press" and there are still a couple other outlets in the UK. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Canada has a similar problem in that 90% of the newspapers are owned by an American conglomerate. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a source which is "only" half propaganda should be tolerated. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the Australian Murdoch papers here previously. The Australian is a pompously serious paper and is green-rated on WP:RSP, but with caveats. Various city tabloids have been discussed and considered sources to apply with caution and not at all for opinion, e.g. Andrew Bolt columns, but not in a proper RFC as such - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you only ban Fox News, syndicated content can come from any other property. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

This really shows Wikipedia's anti-self-published stance is wrong. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Investopedia, 5

Previous threads: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Considering the low number of participants in the above discussions, I have little hope that this one will attract more attention. But can we at least alter the description of WP:RSP#Investopedia to something like this:

{{cquote|Investopedia is a website offering news and general info on finances. Previously owned by Forbes, it was bought by ValueClick in 2010, then by Dotdash in 2018. It is a tertiary source. Quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only for basic information.}} (struck through, see new suggestion below)

My arguments for the above are as follows:

• Investopedia has a useful dictionary on basic financial terms, as well as people and events. For example: Real Estate, Supply and Demand, Net Operating Income, Karl Marx, Brexit. Note that all these articles are written by one person, reviewed by a second person, then fact-checked by a third person. All people involved appear to be experienced.
• The website has a Financial Review Board with experienced people.
• This entry at mediabiasfactcheck.com says that the site has a low bias. It cites this article on small-cap stocks, this one on the trade war between the US and China, and this article about Donald Trump as examples of fairly neutral reporting.
• Quora threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A few comments:
  • "While Investopedia is great at teaching different things about finance and investment, I would avoid using them as a scholarly source. Depending on your criteria, investopedia would not pass tests (like being peer reviewed)." (direct link)
  • "I was an editor there for several years so I can confirm (...) that they have a lot of very smart people writing and working for them. Everything written for them is reviewed and verified by several people with industry experience." (direct link)
  • "I find investopedia quite informative for those ones that want to start learning about the industry. They have so many definitions, great explanations, (...). However, they make mistakes and that is why someone trying to make any investment decision using their information should be really careful." (direct link)
  • "The majority of their content is actually pretty good, but some of it is laughably inaccurate. The problem is, to be an encyclopaedic source, it’s not good enough to be right 90% of the time. While all sources have some inaccuracies, I think Investopedia is inaccurate often enough that you really don’t know when they can be trusted and that makes them useless as a reference." (direct link)
• Reddit threads: 1, 2, 3. A few comments:
  • "Their glossary is awesome and helped me learn (still a newb myself). Their news section should be taken with a grain of salt if you're using it as investing advice, just like any other financial news." (direct link)
  • "Investopedia is a mixed bag of helpful contributions, plagiarism, and outright wrong definitions. Quick lookup? Often fine. Useful source for papers or discussions? Definitely not. For instance: Investopedia: Contingent Convertibles. Financial Times Lexicon: Contingent Convertibles. Not that the latter is perfect (it does not even contain a definition) - but Investopedia is outright wrong." (direct link)
  • "From my experience, investopedia's pretty decent for learning the basics. You'll eventually probably want to move to books, textbooks, and some online lectures (plus some news articles on sites like FT) for learning more in-depth or advanced information." (direct link)
  • "It is good for very general definitions but doesn't go too into detail." (direct link)
• There is an interesting comment at the fourth thread about Investopedia, which points out that it has been cited by scholars and news outlets.

- Manifestation (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would advise not citing Investopedia at all, especially for basic information which can easily be found in a plethora of reliable sources (and if it can't then it isn't basic information, is it?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Can you explain why exactly you think Investopedia shouldn't be cited?
Here's the reason why I opened this thread: a while ago, I wrote the article Private label, which Investopedia has a nice page about. The article is written by Marshall Hargrave, who is described on the site as "a stock analyst and writer with 10+ years of experience covering stocks and markets, as well as analyzing and valuing companies". It was reviewed by Robert C. Kelly, who is described as a "managing director of XTS Energy LLC, and has more than three decades of experience as a business executive". It looked good to me.
Yesterday, someone came along and removed all instances of Investopedia from Private label. While writing the article, I of course read many sources. The Investopedia pages were very helpful, and had specific pieces of info that I could not find anywhere else. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that its good advertising for Marshall Hargrave and Robert C. Kelly. What exactly is their relationship with Investopedia? Kelly appears to be using their presence on Investopedia to plug a blue hydrogen project they are associated with. Also note that the company Hargrave works for, Bridgewater Investments LLC, is an unknown company and should not be confused with the similarly named Bridgewater Associates. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: No offense, but that's a cynical argument. According to that logic, everyone who writes an article under their own name is self-promoting and therefore unreliable. - Manifestation (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being cynical, Kelly is not being subtle about plugging their nascent blue hydrogen project. He doesn't appear to have any editorial qualifications, literally the only reason I can see for his involvement is self promotion. How else do you explain it? These aren't academics or recognized experts in their field, so why are they writing it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Discussed on WikiProject Finance and Investment here. It is certainly a convenient source, but some of the articles have serious problems, which would seem to militate against reliability. At a minimum, higher quality sources should be preferred. John M Baker (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @John M Baker: Hey thanks! I didn't think of looking at WP:FINANCE. I've left a notification there. - Manifestation (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable, however suffers from the same problems as other WP:TERTIARY sources and should be used with limitations accordingly. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  To elaborate, I encountered errors similar to the ones that are being discussed in this thread in major textbooks on investment, risk management etc. To complicate the situation, some topics in this field are POV-based: defining short interest indicator in terms of whether it is bearish or bullish instantly comes to mind - there are three different "right" answers between FINRA exams, Investopedia and various papers one may find in Google Scholar.

  I don't think Investopedia problems are sufficient to declare a single source unreliable, as they seem to plague the entire topic area. When Investopedia (or any other source) conflicts with others, regular procedures for dealing with POV or WP:EXCEPTIONAL should be followed. This applies to all sources per WP:V and WP:NPOV. A blanket statement in WP:RSP#Investopedia would be concerning, as it would result in an unspoken implication that "reliable" sources on investment exist that can be used to state something in this topic area without cross-checking other sources.

  I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject. I think most of its articles are useful to determine weight of different sections at the very least.

  Secondary sources should be preferred to Investopedia or any other tertiary source for citations. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the general sense in prior Wiki discussions, on reddit, on quora, etc., that it's not reliable enough to really be reliable. Mostly OK but sometimes way wrong, and its authors aren't really experts. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally unreliable - I consider it as having a poor reputation for fact checking. Additionally, I feel that the idea you can't find information elsewhere but can find it on Investopedia and thus must be used a very weak argument. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request exists. Hundreds of textbooks on finance and investing exist. Just because it's a convenient Google result does not mean we should use it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok people, how about we put this at WP:RSP#Investopedia: {{cquote|Investopedia is a tertiary source on financial content, owned by Dotdash. Its quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only on aspects for which no other source can be found.}} (ok... see my third attempt below.)

According to SimilarWeb.com, Investopedia has over 50 million views per month. Google often puts it in its results when searching for financial terms, so a lot of people encounter it when researching financial subjects, myself included. A lot of users will try to cite Investopedia in the future, so we better put some sound advice at WP:RSP#Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that Investopedia should never be cited when they're the only source that can be found? See WP:EXTRAORDINARY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Right; if they're the only ones on earth to publish something, it's probably wrong.

What's worse: in practice, Investopedia is overwhelmingly used by people who can't/(won't?) access books or academic papers, to support statements that have hundreds or thousands of proper, harder-to-access reliable sources. It's only very rarely being used for unique perspectives or statements that can't be sourced elsewhere. So that RSP entry would basically amount to a deprecation. Not the intended outcome, I assume. DFlhb (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited for clarity 07:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• My experience is that Investopedia isn't reliable. It's accurate most of the time – but I've seen errors often enough that I wouldn't trust it for information that I can't independently verify. For example, their page about jelly rolls gives a completely incorrect example (a combination of long and short straddles instead of a synthetic long position and synthetic short position).

That said, I've sometimes found that Investopedia is the only source available for accurate information aimed at retail traders. I cited it in Jelly roll (options) a couple years ago – but if I were working on the article now, I don't think I would. At the time I was less familiar with Investopedia as a source, and I know from pre-existing knowledge in this area that the claim I cited is true, but now I don't know if I would trust Investopedia for the information if I didn't have that existing knowledge. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia. I would suggest not to rely on Investopedia for them. And I agree with others suggesting that if other sources are available then we should not use Investopedia. And that leaves no room for Investopedia at all. Retimuko (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Mx. Granger. I use Investopedia a lot. Some entries are sterling, some entries are barely-edited blogging, and some entries read like crypto spam. I'd put it somewhere between yellow-rated and GU. It's like using a wiki that's pretty good with some terrible bits. I really wouldn't consider it Generally Reliable, even as it's frequently excellent, because it's frequently not at all excellent - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia.
That's a good point, Retimuko, but...
I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject.
Exactly, PaulT2022. Here's an example: when I wrote the article Private label, I put in a bit about private-label credit cards (PLCCs), i.e. store cards. I wanted to describe the difference between PLCCs and co-branded credit cards. One difference is: the former does not feature the logo of the payment network (Visa/MasterCard), the latter does. However, PLCCs do use that network for transactions. That statement is (currently) in the article, and was sourced from this Investopedia page: "They are also similar to other credit cards in that while private label credit cards do not carry a payment network's logo, they are still backed by a payment processor and issuing bank". This was a detail I could *only* find on Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If you've only ever found that information on Investopedia how do you know its true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that private-label credit cards use a payment network. What else would they use? I just needed a ref to confirm it, and Investopedia came in handy. I wish I could replace it, but with what? - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So you did original research and then went in search of a source? Thats backwards, we work from sources to create content not from content to sources. We don't edit through Manifestation (popular psychology). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

“ Investopedia is a tertiary source on financial content, owned by Dotdash. Their articles are reportedly of inconsistent quality, although some of its contest could be useful depending on context. Caution is advised when citing Investopedia, which is to be be judged on a case-by-case basis. ”

I would also propose keeping the icon, which according to the legend means: "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question." Manifestation (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

contest -> content, and I'd suggest changing to "reportedly range from high to low quality", since I've seen other entries where editors treat "inconsistent quality" or similar wording as if it were a quasi-deprecation. Other than that, seems like a good proposal. DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited, I think the case for GUNREL has been well-argued 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that we do actually appear to be approaching a generally unreliable consensus in this discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that way. To be considered unreliable the quality does not have to be consistently bad. It just has to be inconsistent. And it is not clear how would we judge on a case-by-case basis. So I would suggest to say just that: there is consensus not to use it. Retimuko (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both of you; the "generally unreliable" side has presented solid arguments, and I'd support a GUNREL assessment. DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's about time to wrap this up. I must say I'm disappointed. This is not the outcome I hoped for. But I have to face facts, it is the outcome I got, so here's what I propose as the entry at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

“ Investopedia is a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead. ”

Combined with a label of "Generally unreliable". - Manifestation (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Player.One and GameCrate (defunct) reliable?

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

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

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

Concern regarding Broadway World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

retroreversing.com and pc.net reliability?

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Theta_Muscae_and_the_Universe_Guide

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

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

credibility of the source

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

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

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

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

Planespotters.net

Hi there everyone! I'd like to draw your attention to www.planespotters.net, which is widely used across airline articles. I am concerned about the reliability of this particular source as their disclaimer at www.planespotters.net/about lists unofficial sites, including blogs. Can you please drop some lines regarding this in order to settle the matter once and for all? Thank you in advance. Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it tends to be more up to date than airfleets. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

But there's usually a lag of some days between a delivery appearing in the news and showing up on the website. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The site seems to be the work of one individual, so would fall under WP:SPS. I can find several book citing the site from seemingly reputable publishers (University of Belgrade Press, Sanata Dharma University Press, Springer), as well as other publisher either unknown to me or works that are self published. Does anyone else have any reputable source treating the site as reliable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jetstreamer

I would agree with @ActivelyDisinterested in that it appears it is currently run by a single individual so WP:SPS would apply. The website also doesn't make it clear whether a source was used from their official or unofficial list, either. In my opinion, even if there are reputable publishers stating that it's reliable...until we know which sources were used (official or unofficial) for the information on their page, we can't really be sure.

Starlights99 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a contact form if you want to ask for more information. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not self-published. The site publishes photos on behalf of many people. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As it is an image hosting site, the photos would fall under user-generated. The site likely edits the registrations into data given official sources. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also agree that it's an SPS and that we are relying on whether they treated as reliable by published RS's. Note that at least one of the "unofficial sites" that it lists in its disclaimer (i.e. Air-Britain is very much a reliable source. I think that official/unofficial here is the difference between airline/manuafacturer (what here we would call primary sources) and other sources - a mix of reliable and SPS/enthuiast sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I see differences between this site and airfleets where it's not possible to choose one as "better". Trigenibinion (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Some of their content is self published and some is user generated. None of it is WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're assuming it is self-published because you see a person as the owner. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  And you're asserting that it is not self-published because... ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not asserting that the data is not self-published, but I am not saying it is either. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you can't be bothered to evaluate the source why do you expect others to answer your questions about their evaluation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I told you before that if you have doubts about the source you can try asking them first. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thats not how it works, those who want to use the source need to demonstrate that its reliable. If they can't do that they can't use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am not a fan, but according to airliners there's no authoritative source for whole industry data and this would be the best free one. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  If there is no authoritative source for it then its inclusion in Wikipedia is inappropriate per WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  No industry-wide source. You could have data for some airlines but not for every one. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  So then wikipedia probably shouldn't include industry wide data. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's the point I'm trying to make. That if Wikipedia wants to show some things, it needs to accept compromises. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  We don't want to show some things. We only want to show what is WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  The number of aircraft represent a fact, not a viewpoint. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  The number of aircraft an airline has is not a random datapoint. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and if you can source the number of aircraft an airline to a reputable source then including the number of aircraft an airline has is due, if there is no such source then including the number of aircraft an airline has is undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which brings problems for filling up some articles. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thats not a problem, thats how its supposed to be. Thats the right way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is a problem. The articles would be incomplete. The right way is to accept this as a RS because some books do. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  It would be complete, an article is complete when you have exhausted all coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Some articles would be objectively incomplete, even if they comply with your definition. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Its not my definition its wikipedia's, wikipedia is meant to be objectively incomplete see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not advocating to include false information, only against extremist bureaucracy. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  The RSN noticeboard is not the appropriate place to do that, perhaps start a discussion at the WP:VILLAGEPUMP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am now only talking about bureaucracy as it concerns this case. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  None of us here are bureaucrats unless I'm missing something. You appear to have an issue with community consensus in regards to what wikipedia is, in order to change that you will need to get a new community consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have a problem about quickly banning a source when loopholes exist. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Horse Eye's Back,

  Just want to say that I also agree with this sentiment. Sources need to be neutral and reliable. Planepsotters.net is a growing collection of individual contributions rather than a single source. I don't think the information is actively being verified either. I would class it as not reliable.

  Thanks,

  Starlights99 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am reading all the comments left here. IMO, it cannot be considered reliable, but let's just wait for more input. Thank you all.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The aggregates are backed by registration numbers. Maybe the dry leases cannot be verified without resorting to community photos. Besides that, I would say it is a question of freshness and completeness more than reliability. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Future column seems to be indicating immediately upcoming deliveries. I would not use it. For retired aircraft, I would compare with airfleets. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also not pay any attention to parking status. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So yeah basically it's not reliable and shouldn't be used as a source. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would use it for the total number of in service and maybe retired aircraft. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in airliners.net, another verification source would be flightradar24. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The inventories of most airlines should be available by WP:RS printed directories - these do generally come out once per year, so may be less up to date than online sources, and of course someone will have to pay for them, while things like planespotters are free and easy to access.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It is OK to update some articles once a year, but maybe not others. Besides who will pay for it, the other question is if one person would have to fill out everything. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Are these directories solely based on official sources or is it yet another case where unofficial sources are also being used? Trigenibinion (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• As a Self-published source, this does not have the reputation of a well-known publisher adding to its credibility, and there is no evidence that the information contained at the site is vetted or checked or placed under any layers of editorial control besides the one person who runs the site. Self-published sources are generally only considered sufficiently reliable if and only if other reliable sources demonstrate that the person in question is widely regarded as a subject matter expert, and if other reliable sources frequently cite the source in question as itself reliable. --Jayron32 15:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. I think it might be possible to demonstrate planespotter is WP:EXPERTSPS, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. The sources AD posted above are a start, but I'd want to see a lot more, before we could treat it like baseball-reference.com or National Football Teams (listed on WP:WPFLINKS). Levivich (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Discussion:

References

Use of Salon for pseudoscience article (List of cryptids)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the article's body says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unreliable for several reasons:
  • The number of Wikipedia links and Commons images in this source is concerning. Of course these could have been added later by the publisher, but several of these articles were deleted due to lack of notability [37], lack of coverage even among fringe sources [38] and possibly a Wikihoax [39]. This begs the question of how the author came across these obscure "cryptids" if not by scrolling through the Wikipedia list and picking the ones that seemed the most entertaining.
  • Of the non-Wiki links that still work, many fail to support the "of interest to cryptozoologists" definition of "cryptid". Instead we have young-earth creationists promoting a "living dinosaur" agenda [40], local legends [41], some guy who saw something [42], and a man-eating plant that was actually rejected by "cryptobotanists" [43].
  • Even if we accept cryptozoology as a legitimate scientific field (which it isn't), the source's entire premise that these purported creatures have been studied and labelled by "experts" in the field does not hold up to scrutiny. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Comics Database

Can the Grand Comics Database be considered a reliable source for just the bibliographies of comics creators (for example, Bernie Wrightson#Bibliography)? The database has been praised by Comic Book Resources as the "greatest site on the internet for [...] creator credits of comic books".[44] It also has a complex verification process, so it's not really something that anyone can edit. For citing paragraphs, I think it's better to use other, non-database sources instead if just to give a greater variety of citations (though I don't think a few GCDB citations are too bad if nothing else can be found and it's solely for credits). But for lists of comic issues and bibliographies, which can often number in the hundreds and even thousands, using GCDB should be one of the best options. It does not seem realistic to find an individual citation dedicated to every single issue a comics creator ever worked on, some being very obscure.

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

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

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

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

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

Hoffman and The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society

Following a deadlock at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust#Hoffman, I'd like to ask here for opinions on reliability of this source: Hoffmann, Stephen P. (1986). "Review of Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German Occupation, 1939-1944". The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. 84 (4): 442–444. ISSN 0023-0243. JSTOR 23380962. .

The author, Stephen P. Hoffmann, is a professor of political science at Taylor University (now retired). The Register is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Kentucky Historical Society. (journalsearches.com, "About" at muse.jhu.edu, journal hompeage).

The journal was used to source the existence of the review published in it of the book in question (The Forgotten Holocaust), per WP:BOOK's recommendation that the Reception should "quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. ... Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations."

However, several editors have argued that this review should be removed because "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" (edit summary for removal) or "Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust.". (A related criticism is whether inclusion of this review is WP:DUE, although I completely fail to understand how an academic review of a book may be considered undue on a page about said book, unless it is unreliable?).

I'd therefore appreciate comments on whether 1) Stephen P. Hoffmann is RS 2) The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is RS 3) whether they can be used as RS in the area of WP:APLRS and 4) whether this specific review should be kept or retained in the article it was recently removed from. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is certainly in the grey area between WP:RS and WP:DUE; reviews are generally seen as pure opinion, and as such, aren't subject to the same kinds of assessment we do for statements of plain fact; what we're saying is in essence "Here is what this person says" and then paraphrasing the person's actual words; the place where they wrote the words directly is self-evidently reliable for what the words themselves say. That all being said, I think that there's a valid point to be made that reviews are generally more WP:DUE when coming from recognized subject matter experts, and published in recognized subject-matter sources. On the second of those, I don't think that the Kentucky Historical Society is, in general, a recognized source on the subject matter in question (World War II history or Holocaust history, etc.) nor are they a widely recognized general-history source (which may be even better). Per the Wikipedia article "It is an agency of the Kentucky state government that records and preserves important historical documents, buildings, and artifacts of Kentucky's past. (bold mine). In other words, neither is it an organization that focuses on WWII history NOR a well-known generalist history source. Thus, we're putting extra emphasis on Mr. Hoffman's personal reputation with regards to being a well-recognized subject matter expert on the topic at hand. I mean, I'm sure he was a fine political science teacher, but I can't find any indication his particular opinion on a book about the Holocaust bears special emphasis. Again, this is strictly not a WP:RS issue; we're sure Mr. Hoffman really wrote the review in question. It's simply a matter of "do we care what he has to say" rather than "is this source reliable for verifying that he said it." --Jayron32 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• State historical societies are hit and miss, rarely would I advise using them for information not directly related to the history of their state. Pieces that are not directly related to the history of their state are generally only published in the historical society's journal after the author failed to get them published in neutral presses and had to turn to a friendly press with low standards. Also just a note that while I am not familiar with Hoffman's work Taylor University has an incredibly poor academic reputation... They do God's Work first and scholarship second and God help scholarship if it ever interferes with God's Work. So in the order asked the answers to the questions would be: probably not, no (at least for stuff not related to Kentucky), no, and no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• I would definitely hesitate to use this review as a source of factual information about non-Kentucky history. However, I can't see anyone trying to use it that way. I only see it used as the source of the reviewer's opinion, and there is no reason to suppose that the reviewer's opinion is not reliably reported. So RS is not a valid reason for exclusion, which leaves only the question of whether this reviewer's opinion satisfies WEIGHT. Zero^talk 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is the source reliable? Yes, as established in the above remarks. Moreover, the journal in question reviews a large variety of books, not all connected to Kentucky or even the United States. Should the source be used in the article? That is a question for the editing process and the article talk page. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Zero, the source is reliable and due because it is a review of a book in question. It makes common sense to summarize the author's views in an article on that book. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Biruitorul, the source is reliable. I also agree with Zero. --evrik ^(talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Based on the foregoing discussion, I see no basis for excluding the views of Stephen Hoffmann on Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Like everyone else, I agree it's not an RS issue, it's a DUE issue, which is for the article talk page, not RSN (where I've already said why I don't think it's DUE). Levivich (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ianvisits.co.uk

There was a bit of a kerfuffle about this today, and seeing as the only mention on this noticeboard for this site is a vague mention by me here, it’s probably worth having a discussion.

Basically, ianvisists.co.uk is the blog of Ian Mansfield, a freelance journalist with decades of experience, who has written for The Guardian (also [45]) and whose blog has been name-checked on The Guardian ([46]) and BBC News. ([47]) So I believe it does meet the WP:SPS criteria of an "expert" as regards London transport and architecture; while it's not suitable as a main source, which should be reserved for books such as The Story of London's Underground (Day/Reed) or The Subterranean Railway (Wolmar), it might be okay to use sparingly as a source for recent facts. It really depends what is being cited and where, of course.

As a particularl exception though, one of the principal sources of his I like are a set of 3D axiometric maps of every London Underground tube station, which Ian appears to have obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the government, and doesn't appear to be officially published on tfl.gov.uk. Significantly here, although Ian hosts the content, he's very careful to say that the publisher is Transport for London, who hold the copyright, and appears to be hosting it as permission. So I'd say the maps, specifically, are as reliable as anything else published by TfL.

As another interesting data point, the site comes up via a Google News search, which is probably how many different users have decided to add it.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Previously I wrote;
"here he writes an article for the Guardian but here the WSJ describes him as an enthusiast and Engadget and the BBC both describe him as a blogger."
Looking again I find this Independent article that also describes him as a blogger, but the whole Independent article is based on Ian's article. There's also some books that reference the site from seemingly reliable publishers, Routledge, Simon & Schuster, Springer. Last time I said unreliable, but on second thought I don't think that's quite right. Reliable sources describe him as an enthusiast blogger, but treat him as something closer to an expert. So maybe not unreliable but not quite generally reliable, more considerations apply?.
Separately from the discussion on the sites reliability I see no reason to believe that the diagrams aren't from TfL. If they weren't the site would have been called out long ago on the matter by TfL and enthusiasts who work for TfL. Nothing suggests that the site is duplicitous, and as such the 3D maps are as reliable as anything else published by TfL. It's similar to the situation of findagrave, which isn't reliable but the documents it hosts can be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As with any map care must be taken that it only supports basic information, not interpretations on what the map contains. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I started a discussion at User talk:10mmsocket yesterday regarding this site, as I'd missed the entry here - I won't lift the discussion over here directly, but it would be worth having a look at the discussions there, in particular points raised by HJ Mitchell, Bazza 7 and Mattdaviesfsic, as well as 10mmsocket (all pinged here as a courtesy), which give some useful viewpoints to consider. Mike1901 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Psychology Today blog citation on Dissociative identity disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuchsia Magazine

Hi,

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

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

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

Contact Us

555.555.5555

1234 Block Blvd.

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

Iranian government and IRGC-linked sources

Quite a few Iranian government sources seem to be getting a free pass as reliable sources at present, with the exception of WP:PRESSTV.

A few discussions have been launched on the subject, and a list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here, and I would particularly like to draw attention to several news sources with close ties to the IRGC that are possibly flying under the radar at present.

The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC, and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials. There's one past discussion here.

The Tasnim News Agency also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger. There's one past discussion here .

Then there is Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though of the three it's probably least concern.

Given the general freedom of the press issues, the additional issues with news outlets with close ties to a notorious IRGC, and the specific content issues noted above, I think it would be worthwhile getting some renewed community input and firmer consensus on whether these sources should be being used, and if yes, in what context, with attribution or not, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think this discussion is necessary at this moment? Does the use of these sources which indeed can be problematic cause problems? If yes, in which areas? Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)