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

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[1] [2] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [3] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [4], [5], [6].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I see there was a discussion of SBNation, in which you participated, but there was no consensus. You argued that these blogs were sometimes reliable, and sometimes not,[7] which would be Option 2 if applied to Bloody Elbow. But there is recent precedent for examining the SBNation blogs individually here at RSN. Here is an extensive discussion from July 2023 of team SBNation team blogs, in which you also participated and argued they should not be used for BLP.[8] Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was unreliable. [9] The most recent one, had three participants, two of whom agreed it was unreliable, but my vote likely shouldn’t count since I am a paid consultant to a company written about by Bloody Elbow. [10]. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that to declare a source unreliable you need significant discussions between at least two qualifying editors about the source's reliability or an uninterrupted RfC. @ActivelyDisinterested: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be listed, and starting discussion and RFC just to get it listed on RSP is non-productive. This board is for advice for disupted sources, not a place to fulfil thr requirements setout to get listed at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable, as its just a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC As the RFC was only started to get the source listed at RSP. Blogs are covered by WP:BLOG, and strongly oppose listing this at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether it was a blog or news source pre-March 2024 is the issue. It was not self-published - it had different owners and employees. Wikipedia editors frequently misuse it as a news source, in my opinion. It has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, such as on the page for Ultimate Fighting Championship more than 35 times, and on ONE Championship. I think most of these uses are incorrect even though they are widespread. A formal decision on an RfC will help prevent further misuse, and also clarify that this does not affect Bloody Elbow post March-2024. This decision will directly impact how I treat the source when making proposals for edits I am planing. That's all I care about, not whether it gets list at RSP. @ActivelyDisinterested:, would you like a few examples of where it is treated like a news source on Wikipedia so you can see what I mean - to establish that there is widespread misuse on Wikipedia, which makes this RfC meaningful. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How it is used on Wikipedia isn't how reliable sources are judged, many unreliable sources are used extensively on Wikipedia. If it wasn't a blog at some point could you provide details? As far as I could see it was always a SBNation source and they are all blogs.
You should make the edit requests and then see if anyone objects. The first part of WP:CONSENSUS is through editing, if someone objects discuss it with them, if you can't come to agreement with them see WP:Dispute resolution (which may include looking for third party input on a noticeboard like this one). You are circumventing the normal editing process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it was always a blog, which is why I chose Option 3. Also, RSN is commonly used outside of disputes that went though Dispute Resolution, apparently contrary to your claim. On this page alone, RSN is used to determine the reliability of a source outside the context of a specific edit dispute on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is NPR a reliable source?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of NewsReports, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#profootballarchives.com. As to bringing up the 500+ edits, I only investigated the angle of how widespread usage has been on Wikipedia because User: Schazjmd brought it up during the previous Bloody Elbow discussion,[11]. When you participated in Profootballarchives.com, you did not object to User:Fourthords starting the discussion stating it has been used in 1500 articles, nor did you object when the same editor stated that they could find no other discussion about the reliability of the source (therefore no previous dispute about the source, which you say is necessary before coming to RSN). Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. (Former) SB Nation subpages are basically fan blogs with undetermined (or no) oversight by actual editors with actual degrees in journalism. If the only source for some material comes from pre-2024 Bloody Elbow etc. then that material shouldn't be cited. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC: twitchy.com

Am I Racist? is likely to be a... let's call it... frequently-edited article over the next few weeks. As of right now, its only two citations are from twitchy.com. I've seen a few mentions of it in the archives, but mostly in the context of other media properties its parent company owns. Its page Twitchy calls it a "Twitter aggregator and commentary website". That doesn't sound super reliable to me.

Is using Twitchy justified in this case? Snowman304|talk 06:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Twitchy does at least have Editors, but the description ('Twitchy is a ground-breaking social media curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you “who said what” in U.S. & global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7.') doesn't make it sound particularly reliable. It's also 'founded by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin' then 'sold to Salem Media Group, a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation' so bias may be a concern too.

With that said, it makes me wonder why the page has been approved at all with only two citations and from a potentially iffy source at that. It doesn't sound like it's evidenced a great deal of notability at this time. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no approval of the page. It was a redirect, and converted into an article. Doing so skips NPP and AfC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The use in that article is just 'he said, she said'. It could be reliable in a primary attributed way (if the opinion is even due), but for that use you could just use the original social media post. It doesn't appear to add anything beyond the original social media posts, so using it in the way it's used in that article wouldn't be appropriate in WP:RSCONTEXT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That was basically my feeling too. I'm hoping this sparks a conversation that (eventually) leads to it being put on the WP:RSP list. Snowman304|talk 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like it just scrapes content from Twitter with minimal filtering by humans. Not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Universe Guide

The reliability of Universe Guide is:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate
• Option 5: Blacklist (not mutually exclusive with 3 or 4)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• universeguide.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Background

Universe Guide is an amateur blog about astronomy that is cited on many pages about astronomical objects. This website has been discussed at this WT:ASTRO discussion, this WP:RSN discussion, and this WT:AST discussion, and there is general consensus that it is unreliable, and due to persistent usage, it has been suggested to be deprecated or blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Deprecate per the discussions linked in the background section. I can see this is regularly being added to articles, so deprecation seems warranted here. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate That blog is a self-published site which is not peer-reviewed. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 I've nothing to add from the last time this came up, it's a blog written from what one person researched on the Internet[12]. It doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyreputation for, if anything it's the opposite as per the discussions at WP:ASTRO. It's self published but not by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, rather I am an amateur space enthusiast of many years as opposed to someone who is academically qualified.[13] Nothing about the source makes it reliable for verification purposes, and if it is still being regularly added to articles for that purpose then deprecation is appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 too: Very clearly an unreliable source, even if it's a nice website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfoogles (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 for deprecation. Actually I called out this first on WT:AST, but was unable to make an RfC here because of personal issues back at home. One of my main issues with this website is this appears too often in Google searches, so it is inevitable it would be blindly used as a source. This is clearly a source written by a non-expert, and even makes its way to very prominent articles like Saturn or the James Webb Space Telescope. Deprecation indeed is necessary to keep this out of Wikipedia.

By the way LaundryPizza, I'm sorry for not initiating the RfC myself. Just got problems a few days ago. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4, this website is almost always not reliable, and contain several inconsistencies (like saying that the temperature of star X is 4,400 K, but later saying that it is between 2,400 and 3,700 K). I wouldn't be comfortable if there was any starbox using data from Universe Guide. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: @LaundryPizza03: You asked whether it should be deprecated or blacklisted, but only listed deprecated as one of the options for voting. Blacklisting is not bundled in deprecation. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll do that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

AntWiki reliability

@YoungForever has mentioned that AntWiki is not a reliable source and should not be used to cite Wikipedia articles due to it being user-generated. However, I believe that it can be used because contrary to Wikipedia which can be edited by everyone, it can only be edited by ant experts confirmed by administrators as stated on its website. See full discussion on User talk:YoungForever. Should it be considered reliable or not? 2003 LN6 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

All AntWiki says about editors is that they "are ant experts", without explaining what that means. Assuming that expert is synonymous with established ant scholars, then the wiki still suffers from the issue of not having peer review. If you can cite from a reliable secondary source, there's no need to be citing from here. If this wiki has something that you can't find in a reliable secondary source, then that probably means it hasn't been published in a peer reviewed setting and leads to further questions about what kind of content can be added to this wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every known fact is published in a peer-reviewed paper or book (or certainly not one that is easily accessible or findable in the Library of Babel). And not every published book of facts is subject to rigorous peer review, per economics of science publication. That is why even experts find it incumbent upon themselves to make and maintain (multiple) wikis.

From AntWiki:Governance: "Antwiki is currently managed by David Lubertazzi, Gary Alpert and Steve Shattuck. ... Anyone that can provide bona fide evidence of their professional expertise in ant biology will be considered for an editing account."

Given this and citations described below, if you trust the statements of the editors, then AntWiki would be somewhere in an as-yet-un-policy-specified position between WP:EXPERTSPS, WP:TERTIARYUSE, and a very minor professional publication with minimal-but-present peer review (as experts are apparently reviewing and using it). It may be worthwhile to draft an essay on these types of sources that have legit provenance, quality control, and significant citation and use from academics, but would at face value seem to not be acceptable. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not every known fact is published in a peer-reviewed paper or book (or certainly not one that is easily accessible or findable in the Library of Babel). And not every random factoid that someone on the Internet claims is true needs to be in Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia; our job is to summarize the highest-quality sources, not to try and indiscriminately collect every bit of information that anyone anywhere claims is a "known fact." A random undergraduate student could reasonably pass their "verification"; random nonsense they spew on a wiki still does not belong here and such a wiki cannot be cited here. Also, to clarify, there is no "peer review" and no editorial controls or fact-checking - they say that they perform vaguely-defined verification for new users, but individual edits or versions are not reviewed before publication. This makes it totally unusable as a source outside of WP:EXPERTSPS, which obviously cannot apply to anonymous editors because we have no way of verifying that it was ...produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Note that even Antwiki's vague, handwavy claims of verification do not come anywhere close to even asserting that they reach this standard. tl;dr: It is, by our standards, unusable trash. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with voorts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If we could show that these are all generally recognizable experts in the field, then it would be usable under WP:SPS... except for biographies of living ants. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"The queens can live for up to 30 years, and workers live from 1 to 3 years." That's longer than I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you that my forthcoming site AuntWiki will have no BLP concerns whatsoever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is showing that the editors are actually experts, deception does happen - on the internet no-one knows your a dog. It could be reliable, but I'm always sceptical of such sites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if we could show appropriate reliable sources relying on Antwiki (and not, as I first read it, Antiwiki, which would be a very different site), it would show that the editor base is expert as a group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup. We need evidence that Antwiki is being cited in peer-reviewed articles, or similar. Otherwise we are just taking their word for the 'ant expert' thing. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I can find articles on ScienceDirect that cite AntWiki as a source. Examples: [14], [15], [16], [17]. 2003 LN6 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Searching on Google books gives results from Springer, Cambridge University Press, Wiley, and many more. It gives a strong case for WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

its a wiki. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This wiki cannot be edited by everyone, registered users have to be ant experts verified by an administrator. 2003 LN6 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think requiring verification for user accounts is enough to escape WP:USERGENERATED, especially since they give no explanation of how this "verification" works. Beyond that, a wiki (even one with a super-special double-secret elite verificaiton process for new editors) doesn't provide any sort of fact-checking or editorial controls; this means that it regardless of everything else, it will never, ever qualify as "published" for Wikipedia purposes, which in turn means that it could only be cited as a self-published source - even the highest-quality verified editor on a highly exclusive wiki would still only be at best an WP:EXPERTSPS. But it can't even reach that low bar, because we don't know the identity of these supposed "experts"; instead, we're being asked to accept the anonymous verification performed by the wiki's editors. And note that EXPERTSPS is a higher bar than the wiki implies they use - 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. In short, every indication is that these could be random undergraduates with no publications to their name spewing anonymous nonsense with no editorial controls. No. This is a remove-on-sight level of source; it's completely unusable on Wikipedia, and should not be cited under any circumstances. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned before, it is used by several peer-reviewed and Wikipedia-accepted scientific publications and journals. WP:UBO applies here. In addition, the primary author of the pages, Steven O. Shattuck, has written books featured in the Smithonian Library and Google Books. 2003 LN6 21:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have super strong feelings about this source, but I don't think your assessment of their verification process is entirely fair. On this page they explain that editor accounts are requested by emailing David Lubertazzi or Steve Shattuck, both of which are published and well established experts in ants. The verification is from them, not just other editors. They say on that page and on the governance page that they deny editor accounts to anyone that offers qualifications that do not show clear support for ant-expert status.

  You said every indication is that these could be random undergraduates with no publications to their name spewing anonymous nonsense with no editorial controls but they do explicitly say Undergraduate students working in the laboratory of an ant biologist or a graduate student studying ants under the guidance of a non-ant biologist, for example, could be considered for a contributor account. (emphasis added). Contributor accounts cannot edit anything other than talk pages.

  It's not entirely anonymous either as All account names are created using the first initial and the surname of the account holder.

  If your argument is that they might not follow all of that, that's fair, though I think WP:UBO lends some credence to their policies being respected. I don't think it's a best source, and I certainly wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but remove-on-sight seems excessive CambrianCrab (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  So what is the final conclusion of this discussion, as no comments have been added in the last five days? 2003 LN6 05:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  From an RSN standard point probably no consensus, although that's in no way a formal statement. Good points have been made for its reliability, but several editors stand unconvinced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Are news sources reliable for articles on history?

I have been working on the Yasuke article. It is a topic which has received a lot more coverage in the popular press than in academic sources. However, it keeps coming up in every discussion that there are news sources that cover the topic, and that if anything goes against them, it goes against the majority view. This has conflicted with my attempt to replace news sources with more academic sources, like Britannica. I point out that there are major errors in the CNN Travel article, but that isn’t accepted by another editor, who insists that because CNN is reliable, then the specific article is reliable. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html The main expert interviewed in the article wrote a book on Yasuke as well as the Britannica article. The expert’s ideas are not without controversy, but the CNN article conflicts with what the expert has said about Nobunga, and in one case says the wrong source. There is so little literature on Yasuke that one can easily trace most ideas about him and all the primary sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

we've already talked about lockley here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability of Thomas Lockley

Was a mess, did not pay attention to it all, no clue what the consensus was at the end.

generally, unless if you can prove otherwise, news articles are generally assumed to be useful secondary sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

... i guess this was the closest RFC about lockley Talk:Yasuke/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

TLDR; until someone else has a secondary sourcing about Yasuke, can't really do much else... best you can do if someone hates lockley is attribute a statement to lockley? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

News articles are not generally reliable secondary sourcing for history -- see WP:HISTRS for overview. (Contemporary news articles are primary sources, while features are the equivalent of pop science, even when written by an expert, as noted in the discussion you linked, as they do not cite sources for controversial claims, which is exactly what is at issue.)

The linked discussion links to a review of Lockley's book (from which the CNN article seems to mostly be excerpted), in which it is made clear that the lack of citations are in the book as well, and it is intended as a pop history for casual reading.

This is not particularly complicated. Secondary scholarly/rigorous work supercedes non-secondary and/or non-scholarly/rigorous work in WP generally. It's not that Lockley's book is not a RS generally; it's that it would seem that anything in there that isn't verifiable in the scholarship generally is his speculation in a non-rigorous work, and so must at best be given with attribution. (The more history-topic-inclined editors may decide some statements should be discarded entirely as non-encyclopedic.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t about Lockley, it is about CNN. I think a few quotes explains the situation well.

CNN: "When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god"

Britannica: "The researcher Thomas Lockley (the author of this article) speculates that they may have seen him as a form of divine visitor due to the fact that the Buddha and other holy figures were often portrayed as black-skinned in Japan at this time."

I couldn’t find the quote from the book African Samurai, but Lockley believes that Nobunaga was an atheist or at least not very devout, which I understand is in line with other scholarship. The connection between buddha statues and black skin is Lockley´s opinion, no other scholar says this. In this case, CNN Travel is not even correctly portraying what Lockley says. There are other errors, and the general tone of the article is non-academic. Every time I remove the citation, it is added to some uncontested claim in order to add weight. Other more academic sources have been removed in order to insert news sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or, we do not get to judge RS unless we can show they make stuff up, not just disagree with one (not all) expert. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS applies here. (And see pretty much every guideline on RS -- we absolutely do judge RS -- it's not a binary.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an essay, and does not trump policy. Yes we can judge a source where is (for example) goes against widely accepted consensus (see wp:fringe, which is a policy), or where it contradicts itself, or where it flat out tells an obvious falsehood (such as the sky is not blue). What we do not do is use our own knowledge rather than referring to RS that contest a claim) to dismiss a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy that all RS on their face are equal, or that we cannot use multiple factors to judge the suitability RS in context. Per the intro overview of WP:RS: Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. That's pretty much 95% of what's done on RSN (or else we're resolving technical points in a larger contextual comparison of RS in context that goes on in an article's Talk page). And while we ideally try not to turn essays into P&G unnecessarily, the pandemic forced us to make WP:MEDRS into a guideline -- fwiw a roughly similar hierarchy for publications exists in most academic fields. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this an RS or not? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What do I say to an editor that ignores all arguments about context? The editor that disagrees with me has a similar interpretation wikipolicy as Slatersteven. I would say, more extreme. Suggesting only in cases of fraud or CoI can a source be questioned. In this case, it isn’t about a particular claim, because the citations have been moved from one claim to another, and ended up attached to a non-contested claim that at one point had four inline citations. Does the fact that it is in CNN Travel matter? I think it would be considered Human interest and therefore less reliable? Also, the article appears 90 % based on Lockley, who had just written a book at the time. So does that count as churnalism? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

>"See wp:or, we do not get to judge RS"<

If @Rotary Engine doesn't mind me paraphrasing a comment he/she made elsewhere:

• ". . . the specific nature of the source in both the context of the nature of the article and the specific content for which a source is intended to be used is important in determining reliability. [Per WP:RSCONTEXT]: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Additional guidance in the context of historical claims might be found in WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:SOURCETYPES. . ." [emphasis added]

And, per WP:RS:

• ". . . Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. . ."

(edit: pardon, I see this has already been discussed a bit by SamuelRiv & Slatersteven above; still worth emphasizing, IMO -- these, I think, clearly show that "unless it says 'the sky is red', we cannot use any reasoning about it whatsoever" is far too limited a criterion. It is not impermissible to make basic, incontestable inferences.)

---

As @Tinynanorobots says below, there is seemingly a persistent attempt at using "we can't use any judgment re: sources but rather must parrot them religiously!" as a bludgeon to ensure that the article/discussion is dominated entirely by the ouroboric recycling, in popular media, of what is -- as @SamuelRiv correctly points out below -- actually just a very few actual (pertinent, academic) sources.

I think that's a misread of the guidelines in both letter & spirit.

In some sense, it's a continuum -- no one would object at someone saying "hold on, these news articles are all saying that Yasuke was known for his proficiency with rocket launchers; maybe we need to look at where this 'fact' is actually originating", but more complex objections can become contentious -- but to suggest "recycled, unsourced claims in the popular media, on a topic not in their wheelhouse, must not be questioned at all* because they're on the WP:RS list" is a bridge too far, IMO.

(Interesting, perhaps, to note that one argument made in the RfC in question has been that we must assume news organizations such as CNN Travel have teams of fact-checkers & on-hand experts ensuring accuracy. As Zero references in a reply below, this is extremely optimistic, heh.)

---

• *(edit: by "not be questioned at all", I mean "...not be questioned as to weight at all": i.e. that it is verboten to infer anything from their being news media puff-pieces which all reference one or two original / academic [if you count Lockley as "academic"] sources.

I would argue against this, as said. To suggest that "no, these are all on the WP:RS list & hence we are not to reason about them whatsoever: whether there are 10, 20, or 100 of 'em, it counts as 10/20/100x more bricks on the 'majority view' pile" -- ...is to suggest that one's job as an editor is to turn one's brain off.)

---

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Himaldrmann Don't mind the paraphrase/quote at all. Appreciate the mention. Any pronouns are fine. May post a comment at the bottom of the thread. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord are we still doing this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the question here isn't whether this is a reliable source per se, more whether this particular claim is due for a particular article. If it is an exceptional claim, it may be published in an otherwise reputable source and still not be due for the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of free-form discussion on the talk page of Yasuke about what is and isn't due. Best to let questions of due and undue happen there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion always stops on the argument on the quality of sources. At least one editor believes that sources that are listed as RS can’t be questioned. All the sources that agree should be counted, and that forms the majority opinion. This comes up in every discussion topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say that if multiple news sources make a similar claim then those can be used if not other better sources exist. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There are better sources, but the other editor keeps replacing the better sources with news sources because of weight. When I point out that the news sources aren’t as good, I am called a [[truthfinder]] and accused of violating NPOV. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding from the article discussion threads is that it goes back to its previous RfC (linked earlier), which was a rather complicated discussion about what is a very tiny amount of actual usable sources (exactly 2 scholars that investigate the topic directly, iirc). You're correct that almost every English-language news article is essentially recycling Lockley, which is academically sourced to his one book. The result of the RfC afaik of the pertinent questions is that "it's more complicated than a simple yes/no" (regarding implying a particular definition of 'samurai' across several centuries in particular, wrt what seems the most controversial issue here) and that one or two academics summarizing it is fine because only one or two academics have ever studied it in detail, and their assessments (not their separate speculations) were not particularly controversial, even if quoted from a pop book or their (expert-written) CNN article instead of/in parallel with their academic papers. Either way, if the source SamuelRiv (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, but I don’t understand it. You didn’t finish your last sentence. Also, I don’t think this has to do with Yasuke´s status as a samurai. The CNN article not only states speculation as fact, it contradicts Lockley´s book and the article he wrote for Britannica. It also seems to cite the "historical fiction" part of Lockley´s book as fact. The problem is not so much that the article recycles Lockley, but that it falsely represents his ideas. This is shown by comparison of the CNN article with other works by Lockley. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's book is the one with any semblance of academic review (by the publisher and in academic publications after the fact), while the CNN article has none. I love citing a pop sci journalist who writes a good lay summary of an academic source (in addition to the original source), but they can sometimes get things wrong, or extract grossly nonrepresentative quotes from the author. Since we have Lockley's book (and plenty of other lay sources summarizing Lockley), and the CNN article cites only Lockley, I agree it would be ridiculous to cite the CNN article if it misrepresents the source at all. Citing a lay summary (in parallel) is only worthwhile if it's (1) free and (2) good. (For my previous post I probably meant to erase that final sentence that was cut off.) SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the problem with citing Lockley's book is that the local consensus seemed to be that his book was not acceptable for use in the Yasuke article due to the academic review saying that the author doesn't use citations which makes it difficult to discern his speculation from researched factual statements. The previous attempt to discuss Lockley's book here for a wider consensus was extremely drawn out, bogged down, and is confusing as to what it represents, so much so that I cannot derive any real meaning from it.

Honestly, I wonder if holding an RfC about whether or not Lockley's book is a reliable source might be in order if for no reason than to hopefully get a definitive answer. I have seen people post in the talk discussion that the RSN consensus was it was unreliable, I have seen other editors argue the opposite. It is a confusing mess. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 20:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The previous RfC seemed to suggest it was fine enough for a number of things. The discussion turned up a number of other scholarly RS that might be usable, such as Lopez-Vera (none of which were 100% ideal for this topic, but every topic takes what it gets). But a pop journalism writeup of a pop history book is useless -- just cite the pop history book -- that's what pop history is for (except for getting online text for verification, in which case, cite both in parallel). There's no need for another RfC -- they decided these historians were reliable enough in the previous one, and they settled how to say the most controversial claim in the article. Just use the sources there. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

just cite the pop history book. Except that won't work. People have tried to just cite the pop history book, it gets reverted. It is basically never ending, one side will try to add something and it will get reverted. The other side will try to add something, it will get reverted. One claims "unreliable", the other yells "against the RfC'. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with Lockley´s book is that it contains dramatization, and it is hard to know what is historical fiction and what is Lockley´s theory. We could probably figure it out by comparing the content in the book with other sources, such as interviews, but every attempt to discuss that is meant with accusations of TRUTHFINDER!. The sources used for the RfC were mostly pop journalist write-ups of Lockley´s book. The RfC was mostly resolved because there is no evidence that any expert thinks that Yasuke is not a samurai. Some are just less sure, or wouldn’t use samurai for any Sengoku warrior. I am not trying to overturn the consensus. The debate over whether the article needs to cite 3-4 news sources that mostly rely on Lockley and were written years ago.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you got a choice. On the one hand, you have two very imperfect but legit secondary sources on history by legit historians, which seem to be approved by the RfC. On the other, there seems to be some notion that because these are imperfect, it would be better to have these imperfect sources filtered through the lens of the non-historian, non-rigorous, more-pop-audience-focused, news magazines like a CNN feature (which goes so far as to additionally cite even worse sources for information, like a TV show). How does this at all make sense?

If people give you a hard time for citing the original secondary source behind all this, because they think it's not an RS, then refer them to this thread and the RfC. If they raise an undue fuss, we can chew them out from there. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are saying. What are the two sources that you are talking about? I suggest that you look at the lead at the Yasuke page. Then you will see how the sources are used and in what context.

Also, how do I know that there is a consensus on this thread? It seems like every either broadly agrees with me, or is asking questions and not giving clear responses. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

can you provide a concrete example, as in a diff? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have happened in stages. The CNN article was used to support the claim about Yasuke being given a stipend, a house, and servants. I replaced it with a citation of the Britannica article that had been newly rewritten. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1238887725 At some point, the in text citation was moved to the end of the paragraph. After that the CNN citation was restored. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1241316774 There have been a lot of edits in the lead, and the citations moved around, often as part of other edits. The claim about the stipend etc. later received a citation to an academic source, but then was replaced with CNN. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1243549402 The CNN article is not in the lead any more, but it is still used to support the claim about the stipend.

One error the CNN article contains, is that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources. This is not true. All other secondary sources that mention it, point to Japanese sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of these edits did more then just remove the source, they also removed claims solely sourced to that source. Also "that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources", yes as that is where all those other sources get the claim, they are talking about the primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The diffs that I linked to? I don’t see that. There are a lot of changes to the lead, but I can’t keep track of that, especially as a lot of them aren’t discussed on talk.

I am not sure what your point is about the Jesuit sources, of course it is supposed to be the primary sources. There are not that many primary sources about Yasuke, so it is easy to keep track of them. Some are written by Jesuits, but Lockley cites Ōta Gyūich as the source for the statement about the stipend, house and servants. Ōta Gyūich wasn’t a Jesuit. There are other sources that mention a stipend, but they are also Japanese. A Jesuit source mentions Yasuke receiving money, but I don’t think any expert has suggested that was a stipend. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition (or changes to) text, not just adding or removing sources "who served as a samurai ", I really need to go no further. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you are saying gotcha, but I don’t get your point. I made the efforts to find those diffs because you asked for them. There are additional changes, but they are unrelated to the citation change. Pretty much all the sources use "samurai" to describe Yasuke, so changing from one to the other doesn’t change that. Encyclopedia Britannica actually makes the case that Yasuke was a samurai, so it is stronger in that aspect. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

>"Also 'that it attributes the stipend, house and servants to Jesuit sources', yes as that is where all those other sources get the claim, they are talking about the primary sources."<

I think perhaps this is a misinterpretation of @Tinynanorobots, amigo (although he's not always the easiest to understand, to be fair–). I read him as saying that the primary sources for this particular claim are to be found in Japanese accounts; the Jesuit primary sources exist, but for other claims, not the "servants" bit.

>"It seems to me that all of these edits did more then just remove the source, they also removed claims solely sourced to that source"< . . . >"Addition (or changes to) text, not just adding or removing sources 'who served as a samurai ', I really need to go no further."<

I don't understand your point here either, sorry! -- if, arguendo, this is correct, then we've gone from "a better source is being replaced with a poorer one" (Tinynanorobots) to "true, but also, the information from the better (ostensibly , anyway) source is being stripped out along with it" (Slatersteven)... which, surely, would just make it an even worse example of editorial malfeasance!

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Travel guides and travel articles in newspapers are notoriously unreliable for history and should not be used. Not only that, but typically the writer has taken information from random places including Wikipedia. One of the most common errors is to uncritically report traditions as facts. Historical events that are mentioned in passing in newspaper articles are also not reliable. The only times that history in a newspaper should be considered reliable are (1) an article written by a historian or known expert, (2) an article by a journalist who directly quotes a historian or known expert. I've seen too many cases of historical errors being introduced from newspapers to suggest a weaker criterion. Zero^talk 13:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems overly restrictive... Unless you start with a very restrictive definition of history (something other than history being the past). A newspaper writing about something that happened last week is writing about history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone defines last week as history in this context. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a very helpful comment unless you offer your own definition of history in this context. For the record I define it that way, history is anything which is not currently happening (call it breaking news in this context). In practical terms I guess one could argue that true history begins whenever someone publishes the first academic paper... But for wikipedia's purposes history would appear to start when the first reliable non-primary source is published. If by history you just mean that news sources will be less reliable about older stuff, well duh... Thats already baked into our preferance for academic sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story “The Dead Past,” which lets you only see "historical" events, as in 1 second in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I was reminded of the adage that news is the first rough draft of history (or something like that) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were being reductio absurdium, but not I see that you were thinking like that. I think this is something that common sense, should be able to solve. Unfortunately, people forget that is allowed on wikipedia. There might even be an essay on history vs. the news. I think one litmus test would be if it is something that journalists or historians are considered experts on. Another might be that if there is the possibility to interview witnesses, then it is news. In this case, 1500s Japan is clearly history and not news. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with common sense is yours may not be mind, the Falklands war was 40 years ago (to me history) but you can still interview Survivors. 9/11 was 30 years ago (to me history) but you can interview survivors. History is "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.". Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those are border cases, and probably would need to be discussed on a case by case basis. Wikipedia policy on breaking news addresses this somewhat. Part of common sense is understanding what skills are needed to understand the subject and what techniques the journalist or historian is using. Most "news" isn’t investigative journalism. A lot of it is interviews or relies on press releases, by people who don’t specialize in it and have to produce something every day. A news article from 40 years ago about the Falklands war should probably be seen as a primary source. A news article written about the Falklands War today, would probably be a reflection piece, and lean towards being human interest. A book written by an investigative journalist would be more useful. However, I think a historian writing on the Falklands War would be better. It is a case by case basis, using common sense and consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, maybe, but no one contests whether something that happened centuries ago is news or history -- so @Zero's criterion is easily applicable, and we need not figure out whether "last week" counts or not.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The CNN article in question is not a breaking news article -- it is a feature. Not all articles in newspapers are news articles. There are features (profiles, retrospectives, essays and photoessays, obits), op-eds (two separate things), etc. All of these are conceptually entirely different with regards to whatever the above is. (Unless of course the samurai have reanimated and asserted a new dominion in the past week -- I don't watch CNN, so I suppose I wouldn't know). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point! There's no need to confuse the issue with sophistry about whether a news article from last week is unwarrantedly caught by Zero's suggested guidelines: entirely apart from this particular case not being anywhere near the grey area, it's also a fundamentally different type of article.

Himaldrmann (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So the question then is what relevance does this line of argument have, as this is (unequivocably) about history? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

None. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

...tbh, I've no idea. I just didn't want to seem unfriendly, you know?... Himaldrmann (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Lets make this easy, as there seems to be some confusion over consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The point below about "it depends" is very valid, the question really is a bit too broad. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Some crucial information is missing from this thread, which I stumbled upon by chance. Tinynanorobots has been repeatedly removing news sources from the Yasuke article (in what seems like a slow edit war) since August 22 [18]. Symphony Regalia and I reverted their edits, and we had a discussion on the article's talk page (here), which is TL;DR. They didn't achieve consensus and recently began removing sources without providing an explanation in the edit summaries (here's my complaint on their user talk page).

The important point is this: I agree with SamuelRiv Secondary scholarly/rigorous work supercedes non-secondary and/or non-scholarly/rigorous work in WP generally, but the news sources that Tinynanorobots is removing (CNN, TIME, Smithsonian Magazine) haven't been contradicted by any scholarly sources. These sources either support non-controversial content ("Yasuke was also granted servants according to Thomas Lockley"; "He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend", "In 1968, author Yoshio Kurusu and artist Genjirō Mita published a children's book about Yasuke"; "Yasuke was the inspiration for Takashi Okazaki's Afro Samurai franchise") or contentious content that is also supported by reliable academic sources ("Yasuke [...] was a man of African origin who served as a samurai"). There is literally no reason to remove these sources, as they align with and do not conflict with academic ones.

On the article's talk page, I proposed creating two citation bundles to avoid WP:OVERCITE: one for academic sources and another for news sources (here). The aim was to prevent edit warring/disruptive editing by clarifying that the content about Yasuke's status as a samurai is well-supported by sources, while also providing readers with a collection of news sources for those interested in how Yasuke has been represented in the popular press - an important aspect of the "Yasuke case". This proposal was rejected by Tinynanorobots (here), in my opinion without good reason. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There is literally no reason to remove these sources -- other than the fact that, as has been pointed out, they have been factually been misleading on key points for which they are cited (and for which they themselves give no attribution -- glancing at the discussion you link, date range). the news sources that Tinynanorobots is removing ... haven't been contradicted by any scholarly sources: This is why we have WP:Due -- in an academic topic (like very elusive histories) we don't need an academic source to be saying what is not true, when non-academic sources start saying something else or something new, especially when there are so few academic sources on this niche topic as here. If the information you want to cite is not in the academic sources, you should really ask be asking why you're citing it in the first place.

Anyway, all this substantive discussion of the content of sources as relates to the article is not appropriate to RSN, but rather the article's Talk page. Here we have said to abide by existing recommendations on history sourcing and the previous RfC. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Which did not seem to come to any real conclusion, and which (to a degree) seemed to have the same issue as this discussion, it meandered all over the place, going so far as to claim that because some of his work was peer review this made this book RS (nor does it seem to have been an RFC). So maybe a formal RFC is needed to ask the question is his book an RTS? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If the RfC on the author was at the article Talk page, then an RfC on the author's book about the article subject belongs on the article Talk page too. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the RSN notice board. Why do people keep bringing up general questions about this issue, dodging the basic question, is the book an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So maybe a formal RFC is needed to ask the question is his book an RTS? I don't think an RfC is necessary: virtually everyone agrees that Lockley's book Yasuke: The True Story of the Legendary African Samurai is not a reliable source. By the author's own admission, much of it is fictional. In fact, our Yasuke article does not cite the book. But this doesn't mean that Lockley is not a subject-matter expert, that his other publications don't qualify as reliable sources, or that news sources citing Lockley are not reliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

as has been pointed out, they have been factually been misleading on key points for which they are cited What? Where? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As I saw something said about this earlier in the discussion. Per the header of this noticeboard This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. If you wish to discuss whether content is, or is not, due for inclusion in an article that discuss should be had at the articles talk page or another appropriate forum. Inclusion is not a matter of verification but of NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that there aren't questions about reliability here, just that that's the only discussion that should be had here. Splitting discussions about what content to include to an unrelated board isn't helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are news sources reliable for articles on history?

Note can we here just express our preference, and leave any discussion to the above (main) thread)? Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes

I see no reason why not (as long as they otherwise count as RS), they can do the research, or even talk to historians. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No

(Good idea, @Slatersteven; impenetrably dense discussion seems to have kilt the motivating RfC—and I've been known to get wordy, myself... [*ahem*]—thanks for taking the initiative, compadre o7)

---

I think the answer is closer to No than to Yes, if we're voting—but upon reflection, I sort of wonder what possible outcomes this can even have. What's the difference between a No, a Yes, and an It Depends? The answer will be the same: "Use your judgment, look at context, look at track record of source, follow guidelines", etc. etc. I can't imagine some new guideline—or advice to ignore current ones—will come out of this...

...so I might leave off responding here, after this, though of course anyone who agrees with everything I say is welcome on my Talk page if they'd like to continue anything.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends

A lot depends on what precisely we are verifying when we cite a news source. News sources are great for basic historical facts (such as verifying that X event occured on Y date) but they are not really appropriate for analysis or for verifying conclusions. They often suffer from RECENTISM and so are not good for determining the long term significance of the events they are reporting on. In short, there is more to the issue than a yes/no question of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, the question is far too broad for a definitive answer. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends on context, content and source, the same with any other category of source; per WP:RS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Just as no source is 100% reliable in all contexts; no category of source is 100% reliable in all contexts.

News sources should certainly not be excluded from consideration as reliable sources in historical articles, but were the question Are they the WP:BESTSOURCES for articles on history?, the obvious answer would be "No; they are not." We should prefer WP:SCHOLARSHIP; again per WP:RS. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I remember a case long ago where a "historical fact" about a village was cited to a newspaper, but when I looked at the newspaper I found it was a comment in passing in a cooking article. I hope nobody here would consider that reliable. The point is that the reliability doesn't depend just on how long ago something was or how prestigious the newspaper is. It also depends on the context in which it appears in the newspaper. Zero^talk 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends. As I said here above [19] there's nothing wrong with the way news sources are currently used in the Yasuke article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It always depends. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Andre🚐 21:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends per context matters -- long-form or focused journalism is probably usually reliable in this vein, and can probably be particularly useful for metropolitan history, as large papers or magazines occasionally and even semi-regularly run features on historical events and persons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Bad RfC

Not an RfC, "news sources" and "history" are not well defined as this was immediately pointed out as problematic in the preceding paragraphs, and probably not here as we discuss academic sourcing in WP:HISTRS. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Its not an RFC, and we really can't answer such a general question, what is needed is a specific RFC about just this book. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

there has been one already somewhere in the archives of Talk:Yasuke Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The only one linked to here was not an RFC and was about the author in general, not the book. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

the difference between the author being reliable for historical fact, the book being reliable for historical fact, the newspaper covering a book being reliable for historical fact, and news sources in gen being reliable for historical fact seems like a case of trying to justify some argument about excluding/including the word samurai from the yasuke page.

if you want to figure this yasuke samurai stuff out, please do so without trying to make some broad distinction about whether all news stories are disallowed from historical wikipedia pages. seems like a mighty escalation to rfc with such broad and inconcise wording. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

reiterating thoughts above, Bad RFC. With such a broad question, without real actionable options, I suspect most reasonable editors would hedge and say "it depends"... which is basically a more polite way of saying they can't/won't comment without much more context.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The correct answer is 'it depends', but realistically no valid answer can be given to the question beyond pointing towards some policy pages. The answer to such a broad question would be best laid out in an essay. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pukekohe

After some discussion, @Traumnovelle: has removed content relating to the medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew's book No Maori Allowed book due to its self-published status. I am aware of WP:SPS which discourages the use of self-published sources especially if the book is outside of the author's expertise. Bartholomew's training as a medical sociologist and that is reflected in the book, which is a local history of Pukekohe. The author freely admits that his sympathies lie with Māori, which made it hard for him to find a publisher. Still, the book follows the conventions of academic books including rigour and citations of primary and secondary sources. While Traumnovelle regards the book as unreliable, he said that I could ask about the reliability of a follow-up TVNZ documentary that deals with Bartholomew's research. The documentary has received coverage from several New Zealand mainstream media sources including RNZ and The New Zealand Herald. As the original contributor, I just wanted to get feedback from other Wikipedians. Andykatib (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Bartholomew may meet the part of SPS which says "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". He has academic papers published in reputable journals. However, of his other books, are there any which have been published by a significant publishing house? I've spot checked a few of the more recent ones, and they seem to be published by self-publishing or niche publishing companies.-Gadfium (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a search for "bartholomew "no maori allowed"" on google scholar to get a sense of where it's been referenced by other scholars, which is important to getting a sense of the scholarly assessment of a niche or self-published academic work. Only 17 hits, with only a couple of them seeming to be really relevant academic stuff, but none of them taking the book as anything other than serious. (However, that still seems like a small number of hits after three years for something that the discussions here would indicate was so provocative.) (T&F on the Wikipedia Library, nor my other ready access, does not allow access to the two book chapters that cite it: [20] and [21].) Also the works citing Bartholomew seem somewhat scattered (at least those indexed by Scholar) -- I'm not familiar with modern anthro or sociology literature at all, but again I'd assume that a provocative work by anyone, especially an established scholar (especially one claiming that they could not get a NZ publisher), would get other scholars at least writing a book review. Am I not searching in the right place? Is anyone else having better luck finding reviews? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see how the number of hits compares to other books in the field...maybe the publication rate is just on the lower-end for this specific sub-category of New Zealand sociology? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Gadfium: and @SamuelRiv:. I don't presently have full access to university databases because I am no longer a student. Will be good to check if Bartholomew's book has been referenced by other scholars. I am just a bit upset because I did put a lot of effort into writing that Pukekohe history section but understand that it had to be removed if it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy. I read the book and thought it was a valuable albeit partisan local history. I hope @Traumnovelle: is just following the rules and not being motivated by malice. He did reverse some of my edits to the Shane Jones article on the grounds of WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS issues. I understand but was wondering if they have it out for me or am i just being paranoid?Andykatib 00:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You're being paranoid. I removed the content before looking into who wrote it. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my outburst earlier. It was unfair of me to accuse @Traumnovelle: of having it out for me. I allowed my emotions to get the better of me. It can be hard letting go of things which I poured a lot of work into. Best to let the community find a solution. I think should recuse myself from the Pukekohe article for a while and instead focus on other things since I am emotionally compromised. Andykatib (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gadfium:, @SamuelRiv: and @Traumnovelle:. I found some references to Pukekohe in two books: Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow's Changing Times: New Zealand Since 1945 and Malcolm McKinnon's The Broken Decade. Both books are published by academic publishers Auckland and Otago University respectively. Pg 36 of Carlyon and Morrow (2013) talks about the Māori Women's Welfare League undertaking a survey of living conditions of Māori in central Auckland and Pukekohe, where Māori worked on the market gardens and lived in substandard shacks provided by their employers. "A report chronicling this suation was presented to the Auckland City Council, the Department of Māori Affairs and the State Advances Corporation. Despite obvious need and constant League pressure on government, change was slow with Māori continuing to live in crowded, substandard conditions in the inner cities and having to wait inordinately long times for state rental homes." Pg 113 mentions that Pukekohe along with Auckland, Wellington and Warkworth hosted US military personnel between 1942 and 1944. Templeton (2016) talks about the majority of Waikato Māori being farm labourers, including on the Pukekohe gardens. Templeton then goes on to talk about an unsuccessful attempt by Pukekohe locals in 1932 to petition Parliament to repatriate local Chinese and Indians, who were seen as taking jobs off Pakeha and Māori. Parliament dismissed the petition two years later on the grounds that the "allegations set out in the petition... have not been proven." These two books touch upon some of the issues upon Bartholomew's book. I'm no expert on Pukekohe's history but I suspect that it may be the first seminal work to focus on the history of Māori in Pukekohe. Would it be safe for me to add content from these two books into the Pukekohe article? Andykatib (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a Google search. Besides Bartholomew's book and the TVNZ documentary made on it, I came across this E-Tangata article by Dale Husband and this Newsroom article by Aaron Smale. Dale Husband's article consists of an interview with Māori woman Phyllis Bhana who lived in Pukekohe during the 1950s. It talks about her experiences with discrimination and racism. Smale's Newsroom article doesn't focus primarily on Pukekohe but rather on the Māori rural-to-urban drift. The Urbanisation section briefly talks about efforts to improve Māori housing conditions in Pukekohe during the 1940s and 1950s, and Māori experiencing discrimination and abuse when accessing services and businesses in the town. The section mainly focuses on discrimination faced by Māori moving into then-predomoinantly European urban areas following World War II. Andykatib (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Both of those books are fine sources and content from them would be fine to include. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will add in the Carlyon and Morrow book. I see that the Pukekohe article already has the McKinnon book. Andykatib (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It's good you all found more sourcing, which hopefully can reinforce or significantly improve most of your original writing. To append what I said above: it appears to me that Bartholomew would be a RS worth citing for at least some small bit of information in this article (and other applicable articles). I wanted to confirm above whether citing Bartholomew's single source (with problems discussed) for so much content as you had is WP:Due (especially when the substance can be unsettling-to-controversial to some kiwis, from what I'm understanding), which I know can be very frustrating after you write a lot of good content (I've had it happen to me, and I'm sure most editors here have seen a large chunk of their writing have to be shredded at one point as well). Backing up significant statements by Bartholomew with other books confirming the key info and basic interpretation should be sufficient. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SamuelRiv:, thanks very much for your advice. I will use Bartholomew's book for citing the non-controversial parts of the article. For the more controversial content in Bartholomew's book, it will be good for me to back it up with other books. Will see what is available in the libraries.

Andykatib (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

informational report: BBC according to Telegraph

Offering this for everyone's edification. Just one datapoint, and unlikely to affect the BBC's reliability, but goes toward bias, and we should consider the impact of this and keep an eye on this report if it is corroborated or criticized: Telegraph: "BBC breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times" It may factor into considerations of NPOV and due weight and balance, though I'm not proposing any specific action, just wanted to bring this up to folks' attention. Consensus is AFAIK that both BBC and Telegraph are generally reliable for everything. Andre🚐 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The RSPS entry for the Telegraph notes that there's some consensus that it may be politically biased, and the accuracy of the BBC (or lack thereof) is definitely a political issue in the UK. Indeed, the report discussed but not linked to from the article appears to be heavily supported by pro-Israel and conservative groups. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm interested to know whether the BBC actually breached its own guidelines 1500 times (or even more than a few times). WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG tell us that those guidelines and the publishing of corrections are signals of a reputable org that can be trusted for reporting of facts and considered generally reliable. I haven't previously seen a lot of discussion that BBC may be not following its own guidelines, so that seems like a relevant fact if it turns out to be true. Not much purpose in having such guidelines if they aren't actually followed. Andre🚐 22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines would probably suggest that we wait for comment from further sources before proclaiming the BBC biased on the say-so of a single report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I said I wasn't proposing any specific action. Andre🚐 22:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that this isn't a report by The Telegraph, this is them reporting on a report by Michael Ellis, who very much is not a neutral source on the subject matter. So I don't see how much, if any, weight should be given to the claims in his report. Silverseren^C 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the research? The link in the sentence Researchers identified a total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, which included impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest. leads me to another Telegraph article that doesn't mention any such research (I'm looking at an archive version so it could be a bug). The first thought I had was whether this is BBC News or the whole BBC, the two tend to get conflated on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). The BBC makes a lot of content and not all of it is equally reliable. Travel docutainment for an example tends to contains information that makes a fun story but that maybe isn't be the academic majority view. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit and I'm not seeing any actual links to the claimed report. Since it's not actual research done by a credited group, but by a bunch of people specifically getting together to make it, I don't think they've published it anywhere. As for the contents, funny enough, the Daily Mail lays it out more clearly.

The Asserson report looked at BBC output across television, radio, online news, podcasts and social media during a four-month period beginning October 7 last year. The research was carried out by a team of 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists who used artificial intelligence to analyse nine million words of BBC coverage. A total of 1,553 breaches of the BBC's guidelines were identified, including impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest.

The report read: 'The findings reveal a deeply worrying pattern of bias and multiple breaches by the BBC of its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, fairness and establishing the truth.' The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out in the report as one of the 'most-biased' media outlets in its coverage of the war. In total, it was found that the broadcaster's output associated Israel with war crimes four times more than Hamas, with genocide 14 times more and with breaching international law six times more.

It also raised concerns about the number of journalists at the corporation who have previously shown sympathy with the terrorist organisation. The report found 11 cases where the coverage was done by reporters who allegedly had made public statements in support of Hamas.

Though this doesn't seem like it gives much more credibility to the report, if one of their main complaints is that the BBC has more news reports specifically about war crimes and breaching international law regarding Israel than Hamas. Wouldn't that be true of most news organizations covering the war in the past year? There's been more to talk about with Israel than Hamas in many cases, particularly with the ICC and ICJ investigations. None of this sounds particularly noteworthy. Silverseren^C 23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC's Arabic Channel was singled out this goes to my point about the scale of BBC output. Search shows 207 uses of BBC Arabic news[22] in comparison to 50,000+ use of the English news channel[23]. Is there a big difference between the output of the different language version? I couldn't say, I doubt it's ever been discussed or looked into given it's so rarely used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There appears to have been prior Asserson reports one from 2002 can be found here[24]. It includes every instance where the BBC called the lands occupied by Israel in 1967 the 'occupied Palestinian territories', and every time Israel settlements in those territories where called 'illegal'. I have a feeling Asserson is not the most neutral on the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

more detailed BBC response rather than the Israel supporting round robin, it's an AI based "study", "We have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on AI to analyse impartiality, and its interpretation of the BBC’s editorial guidelines. We don’t think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context."

Here's an argument in the other direction, don't think we need to rush to judgement here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think this specific Telegraph article says more about the reliability of the Telegraph than the BBC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"by counting particular words divorced from context." In other words, quote mining. Dimadick (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The actual pdf report is here [25] Andre🚐 05:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

*facepalm* Thanks for finding that, but it's even worse than I thought. They not only used ChatGPT for their analysis, but they even used it to determine the bias claims itself by having ChatGPT make a "sympathy report". Silverseren^C 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd disregard anything ChatGPT-related, but I'm interested to see any fact checks or any substantive claims of bias or selective reportage, etc. I haven't looked at it yet. Andre🚐 06:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read a good chunk of it by now. The "sympathy report" is a massive amount of it, where they used ChatGPT to determine whether articles were "sympathetic" to Israel or Palestine. It's an incredibly vague criteria. The rest of the report is mostly whining about wording and things, such as complaining that the BBC didn't use the word "terrorist" in every article that mentioned Hamas or that they used war crimes to describe the ICC and ICJ investigations, but look at all this terrible stuff Hamas did. In short, a lot of the report is whataboutism, just as was expected before you found a copy of it. The coverage of the report in the news media, as I quoted above with the Daily Mail, is pretty accurate toward how petty and inconsequential much of the report is. Silverseren^C 06:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A report by an well-known pro-Israel activist finds bias against Israel! Who'd have thunk it? Zero^talk 07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• The story has now been picked up by Variety, [26], who found this the most noteworthy part of the report: In a random sample of 253 interviews conducted by the BBC’s Arabic service, the report also found that over a quarter “were connected to Hamas or another terrorist group or had posted extreme antisemitic views online.” However these facts were not disclosed to the audience alongside the interviews. There's also an editorial from Labour MP Ian Austin[27]now. Andre🚐 08:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note Austin isn't an MP anymore, he was made a life peer by Boris Johnson for his work for Theresa May's government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  As a dumb American I don't know what a life peer is, but it sounds kinda silly and Britishy :-) Andre🚐 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Life peer Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is rather silly to be honest, as is the practice of UK news outlets to frame information in the most slanted way possible. Austin is a former Labour MP, but that somewhat misses that he is now an independent member of the house of lords who was given that position by a Conservative Prime Minister for working with a Conservative government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• I notice at the very end of the Daily Telegraph article it has that a survey found 17% thought the BBC was biased towards Israel and 15$ towards the Palestinians. Which leaves a lot not thinking it is biased one way or the other, or perhaps not caring. I guess now thay can say it is therefore a researched story rather than a hit piece. In opinion and editorial articles the Daily Telegraph leans very heavily towards Israel and promotes Israeli misinformation. For instance [28] is them promoting a story about the Gaza Health Ministry that didn't get off the starting blocks with reputable newspapers even ones that leaned towards Israel. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• "BBC, Bias and Gaza: A Partial Study of Impartiality" Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

whybuy.com.au

Can https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog be considered a reliable source when it writes about a company whose products it sells?

The blog looks like a content farm, to me. The entries are all anonymous, often use AI-generated images, and have a strong smell of AI-generated text (eg. sentences like This guide will delve into the essential considerations for choosing a fridge that you won't regret buying, with AI detection tool spot checks coming back as 80-100% AI-generated).

User:7336jeremy, the editor who used the blog as a source on the Fisher & Paykel article and readded it when it was removed, believes the blog to be reliable enough to remain in place "until a substitute can be found". Belbury (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content on https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog is likely AI generated. I disagree it is a content farm. I disagree that content that is AI generated is necesarilly spam. Almost every website of all reputations is likely to now contain AI generated content and if when adjudging a source to be reliable or not, the test is whether there is any AI content anywhere on the domain, then I believe the Wikipedia project may be dead.

Most of the content on https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog comes back as being generated by human. The only article on the domain that @Belbury pointed out to me as being AI generated spam in User talk:Belbury - for example - came back as almost certainly human (https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog/what-number-is-the-coldest-setting-on-a-fridge/)

The domain appears to be an appliance rental business which somewhat specialises in renting out Fisher & Paykel products. The information cited is historical information, it's not controversial in any way. One might expect an appliance rental business specialising in Fisher and Paykel to be one of the few organisations capable of generating reliable content on the matter.

In WP:BLOGS: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This rule requires that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion it should be with caution, unless a higher quality source is available, which there probably is. The use of caution, to my mind, signals that an editor ought to conduct a thorough check for the information elsewhere before settling on a blog page as a source.

The information is suitable for inclusion, and as far as I can tell someone else has not published it in a higher order independent source that I can retrieve. I have done a thorough search for a higher quality source, but came up empty. If a higher quality source can be found to replace the citation I would support that, but in the absence of such a source it is my view that the https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog is a reliable enough source for the information it is supporting, though it would be better if there was a higher quality source for it. 7336jeremy (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't point you to that coldest-fridge-setting blog entry as an example of AI-generation, but as the kind of SEO content that you'd tend to find in a blog content farm, irrespective of how it was written. Belbury (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm a Kiwi and I find it fairly ridiculous to think you cannot find a source elsewhere for the claim Fisher & Paykel started as an importer of domestic refrigerators. Especially since if this really is AI content, then it either came from somewhere; or it's some bullshit the AI made up. And sure enough my second Google search ('fisher paykel importer refrigerators') found [29] which okay doesn't quite cover the domestic bit although then again the blog doesn't seem that clear on that either. (My first was just to look and see if Te Ara had an entry for Fisher and Paykel.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry I didn't look properly at the diff and didn't realise how much is being sourced to that blog. Still it's a terrible source and I'm certain anything it covers can easily be sources elsewhere. I'll post at Wikiproject NZ asking for help. Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've updated what I could from the article you provided, but there are many more citations that need a higher quality source. It would be great if there was someone really committed to that page who spent time on it as it is an incomplete mess. If someone can get a hold of "Pioneering Spirit: A History of Fisher and Paykel" ISBN 0473204630, 9780473204631 available it seems in only 2 university libraries in NZ, I think this would be an excellent source for all of the historical dates. 7336jeremy (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A quick search on Trade Me brings up a couple of listings for a book "Defying Gravity: The Fisher & Paykel Story" by Keith Davies (journalist and author who has written books about NZ companies) published by David Ling Publishing (a small independent publisher but I don't think it's a vanity press) which could possibly be of use? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus looks like a good source but would need a Kiwi if its coming from a library as all copies seem to ne in NZ https://search.worldcat.org/title/156738567 115.70.87.152 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Trade Me is an on-line auction site where the book is for sale. Search the site and then ask the sellers whether they ship overseas. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that David Ling Publishing definitely acts like a vanity press, for at least some of their products. Don’t take my word for it though, see the copyright for that book, which is declared to Fisher and Paykel (the same colophon also describes it as “commission”). But that isn’t to say it would be a bad source; I’d rather an WP:ABOUTSELF than a blog like the one being discussed. If anyone plans to work on the article and wants me to go scan some of it (within fair use) send me a message—ideally at my talk, as I won’t stick around here. — HTGS (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

From the page history the timeline details were previously being sourced to the now-dead businesshistory.auckland.ac.nz/fisher_paykel/timeline.html. User:7336jeremy replaced that source with whybuy.com.au without making any changes to the text.

archive.org suggests that the whybuy.com.au blog entry was created in November 2023, so it (whether it was written by an AI or a company blogger) may have gotten its information from the Wikipedia article, which hasn't otherwise changed much since 2011. Belbury (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I did remove that source and replace it because it has no listed author or publication date, was a dead link albeit an archived one, the link subjectively looked spammy to me, it claimed to be associated with a university but anyone can make that claim, and it doesnt support all of the citations on the page. For example "The company entered the European market in 1992, and by 1994 was exporting to over 80 countries" - this is the very first citation on the Fisher & Paykel page. It's not supported in its entirety by the original citation, only that "the company entered the European market in 1992". The citation that "by 1994 was exporting to over 80 countries" I could only find here https://www.whybuy.com.au/blog/celebrating-history-fisher-paykels-fascinating-timeline/. Remember I didn't change the text, I only fixed the citations, the text was already there. The whybuy.com.au page has additional information about how Fisher and Paytkel entered the European market which is lacking in the previous source "Launch of Fisher & Paykel brand in the European market at Domo-technica Appliance Trade Fair, Cologne, Germany." Perhaps I should have kept the original as a source to the citations it did support, but to my mind. its at par or worse as a source than whybuy.com.au and less in depth. Additionally the whybuy.com.au article has a lot more timeline information than is included on the Wikipedia page so it seems unlikely to me its a circular source. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If whybuy.com.au was sufficient as a source until a better source can be found, the wikipedia article could be significantly expanded from it to include a much more in depth history. Once better citations are found replace the whybuy.com.au ones for sure, but I think losing the whybuy.com.au citations and leaving it with no citations does a disservice to the page. At least leaving whybuy.com.au there provides a starting point for a better article and someone can find a better quality source later so the Fisher & Paykel page is better than the poor quality not much more than a stub of an article that it is now. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're weighing up an anonymous timeline from a University of Auckland website against an anonymous semi-AI blog from a washing machine rental service, the former is certainly the more reliable source of the two.

The washing machine rental blog isn't a better one for having additional information in it; we don't know who wrote it or where they took that information from. If the blog includes a detail about 1994 exports which was present in the Wikipedia article but not the University of Auckland timeline, it's possible that the blog writer or AI was simply repeating the line from the Wikipedia article. It may be incorrect. Belbury (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I agree. But we're weighing up an archived dead link of a webpage now hosted on a different website that claims to be affiiliated with the University of Auckland which did not support the full citation, and a washing machine service company live blog which does support the full citation. I'm just telling you what informed my decision making at the time. Maybe it really associated with the University of Auckland but the subjectively spammy nature of the link and my own limitations in intelligence and time on verifying whether it really was or was not the University of Auckland informed my decision to change the link. If you can confidently verify that link for me, fantastic, some of the links can be cited back to that link, but either the text in the Fisher & Paykel page will need to be reduced to what is supported by the Univrsity of Auckland link, or we still find ourselves needing whybuy.com.au as a source, and the question remains is whether it is reliable enough in the absence of a better source or should we delete the assertions from Fisher & Paykel that relies on whybuy.com.au.

I also don't know why you have it in for AI writing either and use it is a derogatory slur - sure it can be used to produce spam, but its also an excellent tool to write with and improve readability. Like anything it can be - and often is - abused. But I don't think its fair to just throw around buzzwords like "AI" and "content farm" and draw on negative perceptions in the Wiki community with a presumption that AI assisted writing is spam to help make your point. The content should be judged on its merit, not whether there is content that has been written with AI assistance anywhere else on the domain.

The content on whybuy.com.au is more in depth that the dead previous source, and more in depth than Fisher & Paykel. If all whybuy.com.au's information coming from Fisher & Paykel in a circular way, why does it have so much more information than either of the sources? It doesn't make sense. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury Also if "the blog writer or AI was simply repeating the line from the Wikipedia article" and using m example citation I gave earlier, how would whybuy.com.au have additional information about the launch of Fisher and Paykel into the European market being that it was "at Domo-technica Appliance Trade Fair, Cologne, Germany." If it was circular, surely that detail would not be present in the whybuy.com.au source as it could not be sourced from Fisher & Paykel. 7336jeremy (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The University of Auckland timeline is here. It's not merely "claiming" to be part of the university, it's on the auckland.ac.nz domain.

I'm not saying all the information in the whybuy blog is circular. Where information appears in the blog but not in Wikipedia or the University of Auckland timeline, we have no idea where that information came from. The anonymous blogger may have copied it from a textbook, or from a web forum thread, or written it from memory, or misremembered it, or asked an AI to write it for them. We can't be confident about the quality of the information, because the blog has no author byline or editorial oversight. It is not a reliable source of information. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury as I said I thought subjectively the link looked spammy. I am known to be wrong on occassion as I have already said.

"we have no idea where that information came from. The anonymous blogger may have copied it from a textbook, or from a web forum thread, or written it from memory, or misremembered it, or asked an AI to write it for them. We can't be confident about the quality of the information, because the blog has no author byline or editorial oversight." - All of this also applies to the dead link, it just has a better pedigree.

I think we're off track anyway, I'd be happy enough for citations to be attributed back to the dead link if you are more comfortable with that, but as I said we still need the whybuy.com.au citation for some of the attributions as the dead link does not support the claims in Fisher & Paykel in full. I thought we were trying to determine if we were deleting the unattributable citations and removing whybuy.com.au as a source, or whether we can consider it reliable enough until a higher quality source can be found. 7336jeremy (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We're just trying to determine whether the anonymous washing machine rental blog is a reliable source for Wikipedia.

If there's a consensus that it's not, it should be removed from the article and any statements which cannot be sourced elsewhere marked as {{citation needed}} or removed. Belbury (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury I don't think you initially presented your request to the community in a neutral way when asking for contributions as to whether whybuy.com.au could be a reliable source. You made an argument that it wasn't a reliable source and used derogatory and emotive language ike "content farm" and "AI generated" which carry negative connotations in the wikipedia community. You didn't link back to the cited article on whybuy.com.au but rather the blog page to paint a picture that suited your agenda. You poisoned the well so to speak, and on balance I don't think there is consensus regardless. 7336jeremy (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There's millions of sources that don't have any AI involvement. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it a blog by recognized experts in the field? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I don't think it can be said that they're an expert since theres no named author and no secondary sources published. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources 7336jeremy (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then wp:sps applies, its not an RS as it is a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and this therefore appliues -

In WP:BLOGS: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources."

This rule requires that if the information in question is suitable for inclusion it should be with caution, unless a higher quality source is available, which there probably is. The use of caution, to my mind, signals that an editor ought to conduct a thorough check for the information elsewhere before settling on a blog page as a source.

7336jeremy (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The line before this one makes it clear this is referring to self-published expert sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You need to read the whole section as Slatersteven has said. The line your quoting can't be read separately from the line before "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." Your quote only applies if these requirements are already met. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You do need to read the whole section, I agree, and as such disagree with your assessment that its only in reference to self published expert material. The sentence in question is referring to the rest of the paragraph evidenced by an earlier sentence in the same para "self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources"..."exercise caution when using such sources". To my mind if the author of that rule had intended that only a blog post made by a subject matter expert were the only example of a blog post being used as an appropriate citation, that would have been expressly and explicitly stated.

The rule doesn't state that blog posts are 100% unacceptable as sources everytime even if it means deleting most of a Wikipedia article when there is no other source to take its place. It says blog posts are largely unacceptable. Which requires that sometimes a blog post is acceptable as a citation on Wikipedia. So is this one of those times? I would suggest it is, with the alternative being a substantially diminished Wikipedia article.

It's a historical timeline, theres not a huge amount of room for opinion and interpretation - its a low quality source, yes, but its also a low risk citation, no extraordinary claims are being made and its hard to see where the benefit comes from fabrication to the publisher, notwithstanding the obvious issues around reputation for fact checking and accuracy. 7336jeremy (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

notwithstanding the obvious issues around reputation for fact checking and accuracy The requirement for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy comes from WP:Verification#What counts as a reliable source it isn't something that can be cast aside. Without it you source is no good. Even without issue of self publishing this wouldn't be a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A blog post will always have issues around reputation and accuracy since "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert". Yet some self published sources, though less reliable, are in some cases suitable as a citation since "self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources". The question isn't whether any blog post is unsuitable as a citation, the question is when is a blog post suitable, and whether this is one of those times. I'm not proposing the use of this source while surrounded by several better quality sources. I'm proposing it to prevent the deletion of a significant portion of a wikipedia page. 7336jeremy (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are the only one who thinks this particular blog post is suitable. If content can't be properly verified then Wikipedia is better of without it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I very much doubt it. Just because someone published something to the internet doesn't make it a viable source for verify purposes. There's nothing to show that this should be considered a reliable source.

To the question in context I don't see why the old link was replaced, it appears dead but archives are available at the wayback machine. The old link was much more suitable for the purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This just seems to be a blog with the main purpose of promoting their business, AI-generated or not. There's no evidence to suggest they verify anything they put out. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to need an RFC on this, really? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus building

Is this an RS

Yes

• Yes in WP:BLOGS "Self-published material such as...blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources""Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." If a better quality citation is unavailable a blog post as a source, if used with caution, is better than deleting content from the Wikipedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7336jeremy (talk • contribs) 13:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No

• No is a blog, an anonymous blog (thus it violates wp:sps). Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No Precisely no evidence has been offered that this website has 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', as required by WP:RS policy. Whether it is 'a blog' or not is actually irrelevant, since it doesn't meet requirements either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No, it's self-published and written anonymously, on a site with no apparent editorial oversight. --Belbury (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No For all the reason given above. It has no reputation for fact checking or accuracy and matches none of the requirements for any RS policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Undoubtably a no from me. I've already made my point above, so I won't repeat myself. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. This is simply a LLM blog, with absolutely no indication of authorship, fact-checking or oversight, published on a promotional platform. I won't even get into the WP:COI. I'm not sure why people are even engaging on this - it's just a complete non-starter. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• No per all the other No !votes. At least two books have been published on the history of the company so there is no need to use a blog/LLM/SEO/whatever site as a source. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So do we have a snow close yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the OP should really find another subject to write about for a while. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a formal close, the result is very obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Theoretical Mathematics & Applications [TMA]

I need the assistance of a neutral, official Wikipedia editor to decide if TMA is a reliable scientific journal and the cited paper is a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia.  A commenter is blocking the entry of disclosure from the cited paper published by TMA into the page on the “Collatz Conjecture.”

Wikipedia defines a “reliable source” has being “published” [yes], peer-reviewed [yes], and not a predatory journal [yes].

Extended content

Objective Evidence Supporting Journal and Cited Paper As Reliable Sources. TMA has all the characteristics of a reliable source and none of a predatory or vanity publication (as defined by Wikipedia). TMA is peer-reviewed, published in both print and online format Has ISSN numbers 1792-9687 (print) and 1792-9709 (online) Detailed instructions for authors Indexed & abstracted by 7 services (AMS Digital Mathematics Registry of the American Mathematical Society, Genamics JournalSeek, Google Scholar, JournalTOCs, Norway’s National Scientific Database, Sherpa/Romeo, TOC Premier) Deposited with the National Librarian of the National Library of New Zealand International editorial board with affiliations - 18 mathematicians from 13 different countries [Canada, China, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, USA] Modest publication fee (US$200) Outlined publication ethics Norway’s National Scientific Database Theoretical Mathematics and Applications Publisher: Scienpress Ltd Minimum Criteria ✅ Scientific editorial board ✅ Peer reviewed ✅ International authorship ✅ Approved ISSN Scientific level placements Year   Scientific Level 2024             1 2023             1 2022             1 2021             1 2020             1 2019             1 2018             1 2017             1 2016             1 2015             1 2014             1 Level 1 are publication channels considered to satisfy the minimum requirement to be counted as scientific (external peer review, scientific editorial board and minimum national authorship). Stop Predatory Journals website – TMA not listed on website Cited paper [Hahn, Kirk O., 2024, Analysis Of Collatz Conjecture Rules, Theoretical Mathematics & Applications, Volume 14 Issue 1, 1 – 76] is “self-verifiable.”  The paper includes all equations and raw data so any reader can verify all calculations and raw data to confirm the disclosed results. Subjective Evidence Cited By A Commenter Alleging TMA Is Not A Reliable Source TMA not indexed by MathSciNet TMA not indexed by zbMATH Publisher Scienpress Ltd on Beall’s List TMA is predatory publisher TMA is vanity publisher Arguments Against Significance Of Alleged Subjective Evidence The need for a journal to be indexed by either MathSciNet or zbMATH is not a requirement to be a “reliable source”.  The significance of TMA not being indexed by either of these online search engines is unknown.  There can be many reasons why a specific journal is not indexed.  Neither searched engine states “only reliable sources are indexed” or “all reliable sources are indexed”.  It is known that zbMATH indexes some non-reliable sources (“Since 2024 preprints from a subset of the arXiv are displayed on zbMATH Open” – zbMATH website).  Although TMA is not indexed by MathSciNet, it is listed on AMS Digital Mathematics Registry of the American Mathematical Society, which is the same organization that runs MathSciNet. Beall’s List has been discredited as being inaccurate and biased ("That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five.”)[see WP page - Beall’s List] The Norwegian Scientific Index and the website “Stop Predatory Journals” (see above under objective evidence) have been suggested as better evaluators of predatory publishers (see WP page on Beall's List- Successors) TMA does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a predatory publisher (WP page of predatory publishing – “It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer review process, is highly non-transparent, and often utilizes aggressive solicitation practices. TMA does not exhibit any of the characteristics of a vanity publisher. The submission/peer-review/publication process of TMA is identical to all other scientific publishers.  In fact, the page charges of TMA are very low (US$200) compared to other journals (US$3,370 – Journal of Number Theory).

In conclusion, the subjective evidence cited by the commenter is not persuasive and does not out-weigh the objective evidence showing TMA and the cited paper are reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia. 45.50.231.56 (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You have been told no by several people, TMA is published by Scienpress, a well-known predatory publisher. The journal have also been pulled from Zbl for quality reasons, and was never indexed in MathSciNet which any legitimate math journal would be indexed by. Also @David Eppstein, Uwappa, XOR'easter, and JayBeeEll: since they were involved here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The paper is likely not a reliable source for the information, because of the nature of the content. Wikipedia isn't the place for new ideas, but rather commonly accepted knowledge. Your new ideas would need to gain some level of acceptance before being added to Wikipedia. From the discussion on Talk:Collatz conjecture it's clear that isn't the case yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is at: Talk:Collatz_conjecture#I_am_proposing_a_major_edit_to_this_page. Uwappa (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point, all you are doing is calling attention to the fact that Theoretical Mathematics and Applications is not, in fact, worth a damn thing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Uwappa (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"I have proved the Collatz Conjecture" is surely a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and we should expect indisputably reliable sources to report on it. Even accepting for the sake of argument that TMA meets the fairly low bar set out for Wikipedia to accept it as a reliable source, we wouldn't accept it as the only source for the claim that the Collatz Conjecture has been solved. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Headbomb. I don't have anything to add beyond noting that I agree with the comments of everyone here. --JBL (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Use of Fox News on Jo Boaler

Jo Boaler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sangdeboeuf has reverted content three times on Jo Boaler over the last few weeks. The content is specifically:

Boaler's work on the 2023 revision of the California Math Curriculum Framework was alleged to contain numerous misrepresentations and inaccuracies. In response, Boaler said that the accusations demonstrated "a lack of understanding of educational research protocols and processes."

The claim is that the content violates WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS because the article uses the word "equity". While the article is published under the media section of the website, the claim here is that the use of any topic deemed to be political is sufficient for excluding content sourced to Fox News. In this case, Fox News is one of the few mainstream sources that Boaler has spoken to about this specific topic.

While there are potential BLP issues with any news source, in this case we are dealing with direct quotes from the living person in question. I suppose this boils down to: Should we include Boaler's critical response to the allegations, or should it be excluded?

Grossman, Hannah; Lencki, Maria (1 April 2024). "Stanford professor defends herself after being accused of 'reckless disregard for accuracy'". Fox News. Retrieved 2 April 2024.

Looking to gather and integrate community input. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive non-story, and pretty clealry exemplifies why we don't use Fox. Fox created a controversy over a "report" (i.e., 100 pages of anonymous ranting that was probably thrown in the trash by the Stanford administration) and then asked for comment. It was dumb of Boaler to engage with Fox, but her bad PR strategy doesn't make any of this due for inclusion in the BLP. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The topic here is whether we should include her rebuttal of the allegations. The coverage of the anonymous allegations is a separate topic which may be worth digging into, but that's not based on Fox News sources. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if there are other sources use them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Since we are currently mentioning allegations of wrongdoing against Boaler—"alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university"—we should mention her denial of the allegations (see WP:BLPPUBLIC). If Fox is the only outlet that has published the denial, we should still include it. That doesn't mean we should use the Fox source to expand the mention of allegations. A better version would just be

In March 2024, an anonymous complaint was sent to Stanford's dean of research alleging Boaler had violated the research policies of the university. Boaler denied the allegations.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a comprehensive search recently, but when the content was added the Fox News source was the only mainstream source that reported on her rebuttal of the allegations. I'll see if I can find anything else that's been reported since then. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Boaler denied the allegations" requires a source, like everything. You can't cutely dance around citing sources that you're taking information from just because you think the source is icky. That's textbook WP:Plagiarism. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm suggesting that we cite the Fox source for the denial. Am I dancing around or plagiarizing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, then I misinterpreted your statement to mean not using the source at all; you just meant "to expand". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone but Fox and/or other unreliable culture war conservative publications reporting on these anonymous allegations? If not, neither the allegations nor the denial should be in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Voorts has a good point. IF the allegations have been widely reported (and thus DUE to mention) THEN her rebuttal is relevant and Fox can essentially be cited as an ABOUTSELF statement on her part. HOWEVER, if Fox is the only outlet to report on the allegations then the entire thing is UNDUE and both the allegations and her rebuttal should be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The anonymous allegations and the denial seem UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. In the BLP, it's sourced to the San Francisco Chronicle: [30]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that refers to the previous allegations. Inside Higher Ed covered this specific set of allegations here: [31]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

See also: [32], [33], [34],, [35], [36]. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three of those links are to The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper. Not exactly bolstering the case for due weight IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I've seen it used as a standalone source in other articles, I agree that the Stanford Daily alone should not be used to establish due weight. Inside Higher Ed, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and Ed Source are all top tier reliable sources when it comes to broadly reporting news in the education world. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine. In that case we don't need the Fox News source at all, and we can close this discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Stanford isn't investigating this at all seems to reinforce that it would be undue to include these anonymous allegations in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE weight works. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This could be used for an WP:ABOUTSELF statement, but that would apply only the second sentence. The first sentence is additional commentary separate from the ABOUTSELF statement, so Fox is likely not a suitable source for it.

Being reliably sourced isn't necessarily a reason for inclusion, rather all content that is included must be verifiable to a reliable source. So whether the statement is due if only Fox has covered it isn't a matter of reliability, and should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the issue with the Fox News reporting? TheMissingMuse (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is obvious cult war stuff, and so covered by FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Something doesn't have to be exactly labelled by the source for it to apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear the reason they are reporting on this at all is because of culture war issues, however they phrase their article or what category of article it's sorted into doesn't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for the motivations at Fox News. I can only say that I think Boaler's response is an important part of the story. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

FOXNEWSPOLITICS describes what the community's consenus is and why Fox is considered to be generally unreliable for politics. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is not politics news reporting. Is there something specific about the reporting or the article which is concerning to you? TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is quite clearly a culture wars political issue: going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the anonymous attacks are due to the fact that she promotes racial equity in STEM? That's a WP:BLP claim, and needs proper sourcing. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It would need a source if I were trying to add that claim to the article. I'm just using my common sense and knowledge of how conservative politics operate in the United States. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This helps no-one. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The question was why does FOXNEWSPOLITICS apply, and I was explaining why I think this is a political issue rather than a story about academic integrity. There's a fuzzy line between political, cultural, and academic issues, particularly in the United States where education has become centered in the culture wars. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're going to have to come up with some kind of policy rationale for treating regular news content as political if it's not explicitly labelled as politics. Going with your gut doesn't pass muster, especially when you make unsourced claims like: "going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM". I haven't seen any reporting that suggests that's what is actually happening here. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You're inventing a completely arbitrary standard for what counts as political coverage. Just looking at the "media" category on Fox's website, the top stories include one about Kamala Harris's presidential run, another about Donald Trump's comments about Kamala Harris, and another about Harris's drug policy positions. Do these stories have nothing to do with politics because they aren't explicitly labelled as political? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your own Inside Higher Ed source describes this as part of an attack against scholars promoting racial equity: Rufo and conservative media outlets have published multiple accusations of plagiarism and research misconduct [...] They’ve all been backed by anonymous complaints, and they’re all against officials or scholars at prestigious institutions who either work in DEI or have studied race and equity. [...] There’s a reason he’s focused on DEI and 'grievance departments,' Rufo said. [...] Observers such as Isaac Kamola, director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors, see 'a coordinated attack' behind it all. In short, this is another hack job by Christopher Rufo, similar to the anti–CRT panic of a few years ago: [37] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stick to the article in question. This is not the Inside Higher Ed article. There is no mention of Trump, Rufo, Harris, etc. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You said that you haven't seen any reporting that suggests there was an attack on Boaler because she promotes racial equity in STEM. I pointed out that your own source in fact suggests this. You don't get to dictate how sources are used here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a [DEI or whatever Fox diversity-buzzword-bogeyman of the moment is] story. It's also an evaluation of a scientific publication. That's both parts of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of DEI in the article. There is also no mention of any scientific publication, as there are none being referenced. Maybe you are reading the wrong article? TheMissingMuse (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting the very first line of the Fox source (my bolding): A Stanford professor, who was one of the thought leaders behind San Francisco's removal of algebra in junior high for equity reasons, is coming under fire [...] "Equity" is very much a part of DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. As reported by Fox, the anonymous complaint contends that Boaler misrepresented the findings and/or methods of a number of reference papers, which concerns a scientific publication. Are you sure you're not reading the wrong article?

The 2021 California mathematics framework, which was the source of the controversy here, has already been heavily politicized: [38][39][40] The anonymous complaint, as well as the university's response, are already mentioned at Jo Boaler, citing The Chronicle of Higher Ed: [41] The Fox article adds nothing significant IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of the word equity does not make this a political article. Which reference paper was a scientific publication? TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the complaint details 52 instances in which Boaler [...] allegedly misstated or misconstrued outside studies about learning, neuroscience, and math education.[42] Did you want me to go through all 52? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Fox News covering the intersection of science and culture-war politics is, well, it's not a circumstance in which we can cite Fox News. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no science or culture war politics in this article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the 2021 California mathematics framework, which became a proxy for various political issues, including equity and social justice, [43] is explicitly referenced in the Fox News article: [44] It quite evidently a political topic that both The New Yorker and CalMatters describe as part of the culture wars. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Shifting Focus

I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. There has some strong constructive input from various editors including Slatersteven, Firefangledfeathers, SamuelRiv, ActivelyDisinterested, and voorts. While I don't agree with everything they have said, their feedback has been invaluable.

There has also been another contingent of editors who have been responding quite emphatically that Fox News is just not a source to be used in anything that has even the patina of politics, with just the use of the word equity in the article being disqualifying. I certainly appreciate this perspective as well.

There have also been some questions about whether or not the coverage of the incident in question rises to the level required for inclusion. We have not dug into that deeply, however the broad coverage in the mainstream press and educational press establishes it as more than just an internal issue for Boaler.

It's probably worth shifting focus to evaluate whether or not this topic should be included in the article, and the address the issue of whether or not Boaler's response should be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. While I did not add the content in question to the article, I was the one who added Boaler's response, because I think it's an important part of the story. As for whether or not there is due weight for the topic to be included, I would ask: which noticeboard is appropriate for that discussion?

Input invited, and thank you everyone for participating! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether something should be included is an NPOV issue. It's usually best discussed on the article talk page, but outside opinion could be sought at WP:NPOV or as this is a living person you could try WP:BLPN (as it's usual better attended then NPOV). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the help. I will raise the broader topic there. Cheers! TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has said the use of the word equity by itself is the reason to reject the Fox News article. That is a straw man invented by you. The actual reasons given by me and several others are that Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war, and that the source is reporting on unreliable for scientific claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC) edited 03:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that "Boaler has been the target of politically motivated attacks, with the California mathematics framework being used by the right wing as a proxy for DEI in their culture war" is a misleading oversimplification. The criticism of the framework came from across the political spectrum and some extremely harsh personal attacks connected with that dispute came from progressive sources. See [45] and [46] for more context. Will Orrick (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not misleading and it's not an oversimplification. OP asked about a particular aspect of the criticism (i.e. an anonymous complaint discussed in a Fox News story) and that's what we've been discussing. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to provide supporting evidence for this statement: "This is quite clearly a culture wars political issue: going after a scholar with anonymous attacks because she promotes racial equity in STEM." Having paid close attention to the dispute over the framework as it unfolded I would not be quick to assume that the complaint was motivated by hostility to equity. The progressive critics of the framework claim that its proposals would harm equity. Given some of the tactics some of those critics used in attacking Boaler personally, it is not hard to imagine that the complaint could have come from one of them. It could also have come from some politically neutral party with strong opinions about mathematics education or about research practices. Will Orrick (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is here. The story was initially published in The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative blog. Whatever the reasons for the initial complaint, it's only in the news now because of the right-wing culture war on DEI. At least one observer sees a "coordinated attack" behind the recent wave of anonymous complaints against mostly black scholars studying race and equity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that The Washington Free Beacon broke the story points to a right wing source. (I checked that the story in The Chronicle of Higher Education was derived from the one in The Washington Free Beacon, and not the other way around.) I still don't see how one can know that the motivation was culture war based. My reading of Boaler's work is that it is primarily concerned with pedagogy and curriculum, with culture war themes, if present at all, a distant second. The main issues in this controversy cut across political boundaries and relate to tracking, acceleration, student-directed vs. teacher-directed approaches to instruction, but most importantly, to curriculum choices, in particular data science vs. algebra II. Opposition came from all parts of the political spectrum, as, unfortunately, did the ad hominem attacks on Boaler's work.

It may be the case that the only reason this is in the news now is due to the right wing media. That is regrettable, as the issues with the scholarship in the CMF were widely discussed back in 2022. See Brian Conrad's web page and a blog post about it by Peter Woit. Brian Conrad's comments on the blog post, in particular the second one, are relevant. Will Orrick (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Boaler has received extensive criticism from across the political spectrum, with the most substantive criticism having nothing to do with culture war issues. In fact, if you review high quality sources like | The Chronicle of Higher Ed, and the | NY Times sources (see article for more sources) you'll find that culture war issues are essentially absent from the issues raised. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but you raised the issue of this particular anonymous complaint, and several of us has argued that it is a right wing culture wars canard. Both things can be true at the same time. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has provided any reliable sources that support that perspective. No one has suggested that Fox News is a good source for establishing due weight for the topic. The only relevant content unique to that source is Boaler's rebuttal of the complaint. I think that's important to include, but I may be alone in that. TheMissingMuse (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required by article content, this would be a matter of consensus building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Fox article does contain details about Boaler's response to the complaint that I haven't seen anywhere else, for example her claim that the complaint was padded to make it appear to encompass a larger body of work than it actually does. These details don't appear to be suitable for Wikipedia, but for the reader wanting to hear Boaler's side, a reference to the Fox article could be informative. Will Orrick (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Ed and NY Times sources, from 2023 and 2021 respectively, have nothing to do with the 2024 Fox News article nor the recent anonymous allegations made against Boaler. You're just shifting the goalposts now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that Fox have, or would, falsify Boaler's quote. So the only reliability issue is the first sentence of the diff, which could just be left out as it's covered already based on other sources. Again whether that should be included isn't a matter of reliability, and should be discussed somewhere appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines on media outlets that publish Disinformation, Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda (DCTP)

After reviewing the current guidelines on the reliability of sources, I've noticed a gap in coverage regarding media outlets that consistently publish disinformation, conspiracy theories, or propaganda. Specifically, there is no clear guideline addressing the treatment of media that, e.g., after changes in ownership or editorial stance, begin disseminating such content. This is particularly relevant in regions like Latin America and Eastern Europe (and mostly, but not limited, to authoritarian regimes)--political shifts often lead to media outlets spreading conspiracy theories and false narratives as Imagocracy "an idea to characterise autocracies, where data, statistics and media all remain manipulated", i.e., most 21st century autocracies.

To address this gap, I propose we expand the guidelines to include criteria for assessing the reliability of media outlets known for publishing conspiracy theories, disinformation, or propaganda. A review of the literature reveals that media outlets like Expreso in Peru and Magyar Nemzet in Hungary have been documented for spreading baseless conspiracy theories, such as those involving George Soros, the "New World Order," and the "White Genocide" narrative. These outlets often shift their editorial stance to align with political agendas, as noted in studies published in journals like Media, Culture & Society and Journalism Studies, and so on.

For example, a 2022 study in JS highlights how Magyar Nemzet shifted from a centrist position to a pro-Orbán propaganda outlet, regularly publishing disinformation. Similarly, a 2021 article in MCS document the transition of Expreso into a platform for conspiracy theories following a change in ownership. Their potential to mislead and misinform readers is weirdly and frighteningly high.

An Expreso 2020 article literally says this:

[The anti-government protest] has resulted in a planned coup d'état aimed at seizing power to further impose the colonizing agenda of the New World Order, which is served by this local criminal organization, whose candidates and NGOs are financed by Soros.

In Hungary, the Nemzet goes further by dedicating articles to Sorosleaks conspiracy theory.

---

some editors might argue that categorizing these media as unreliable could lead to overly broad exclusions, potentially limiting access to diverse povs. However, it is important to recognize that the goal is not to censor, but to maintain Wikipedia's commitment to reliable and verifiable information. We could address these concerns by establishing a clear framework for assessing when a media outlet crosses the line from biased reporting to misinformation. This could include criteria such as frequency of publishing demonstrably false information, alignment with known conspiracy theories, and lack of accountability or retraction for such reporting. I would welcome feedback from other editors on this proposal. Are there additional sources or perspectives we should consider when refining the criteria for untrustworthy media? A collaborative approach will help to create a balanced guideline that protects the integrity of Wikipedia while respecting diverse viewpoints.

---

TL;DR:

• I propose to expand the guidelines on unreliable sources to include specific criteria for media outlets that publish disinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda (D/CT/P). (A list could also be made of the journalists who broadcast DCTP in these media.)
• If there is consensus on this approach, I can begin drafting a more detailed proposal, incorporating community input. I encourage everyone interested in this issue to contribute their ideas and research so that we can develop a comprehensive guideline.

JD John M. Turner (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the way to do this is case by case, if you have a specific list, you could start threads, not all at once, about these outlets to have them considered unreliable or deprecated. But note that RSP doesn't list every source, just perennially discussed ones, unreliable sources are still unreliable even if not listed. Also, if nobody is actually trying to insert them into Wikipedia, there's no need to have them preemptively deprecated, except for spam blacklist purposes. Does that help or make sense? Also, I would advise you to communicate in more succinct and targeted messages as this one is a bit long. Less is more here. Andre🚐 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought such issues would be covered by the requirement for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy part of WP:Verification. What you're suggesting sounds like WP:SCOPECREEP.

As Andre said sources are handled as they become an issue, if a source has never been used or it's use disputed then there is no need to list it anywhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Unicorn Riot reliability

Is this website a RS?[47] Mhorg (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be cautious. Their "About Us" makes no mention of editors, fact-checking, or even who their writers are. It's a nonprofit set up to report "underrepresented stories" and present "alternative perspectives"; The New Yorker quotes one of the founders as saying they have a "reputation as a clearing house for data dumps on far-right groups".[48] Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed we have an article on them. And I also see that a number of articles do cite them.[49] Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

They're certainly biased to the left, but they're one of the few organizations that has on-the-ground coverage of social movements/protests in the United States and engages in investigative reporting of the far right. They have both an editorial independence policy and a correction policy. I would presume they publish under the Unicorn Riot byline rather than individual names because they operate as a collective. So yes, be cautious and attribute their reporting in-text. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A paper describing them as an "anonymous hacker and surveillance collective"[50].

A paper describing them as "activist journalism"[51].

They may have aspects that would lead us to treat them as a primary source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Some news reporting is primary, some is not. We can't say the whole outlet is primary just because part of their work is invesitgative/on-the-ground reporting. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Biased but reliable. Their investigations are solid and used by others. They report on topics not covered by more mainstream sources. If other more reliable sources exist for a claim, those might take precedence; if not, this source is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Belladelli et al. (2023): Reliable or unreliable?

Way6t has claimed Belladelli et al. (2023) is not a reliable source. I have claimed that Belladelli et al. (2023) apparently is a reliable source. WP:RS and WP:MEDRS have both been brought up in the discussion. Relevant discussion may be found at: Talk:Human penis size#Discussion on the inclusion of Belladelli 2023. I have shared some relevant, summarized details below. Please, feel free to take a closer look at the source and share your thoughts.

• "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis":

"Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, authored by Federico Belladelli et al., and published in World Journal of Men's Health (from website: "Open Access, Peer-Reviewed", "Indexed in SCIE, SCOPUS, DOAJ, and More", "pISSN 2287-4208 eISSN 2287-4690") on Feb 15, 2023. Also, included in the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central and PubMed.

• Per Human penis size's "A note regarding sources" (editnotice), which links to WP:MEDRS:

"This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources that meet the de-facto standards here for sources in articles on medical topics. Given that we now have high-quality evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies on this topic published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either crowdsourced user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed analysis thereof, even if they been reported on in reliable sources such as the popular press."

Daniel Power of God (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Way6t: appears to be saying at the Talk page that the review is technically in line with what makes something an RS technically, but that Way6t is applying editorial judgement (with an additional outside source) to argue that use of the review in this article is WP:Undue. Making this judgement involves a bit more reading into the literature and context of this topic, and this is something outside the scope of this noticeboard.

If you need more input, I suggest posting instead on WT:WikiProject Medicine, where you may find people already equipped to judge the appropriateness of the review better. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC on The South African

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The South African?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• • The reason why I am opening this RFC is that I have a concern about The South African hosting plagiarised Wikipedia content in their news articles. The one that concerned me was this article that appeared to have directly copied from our Des van Jaarsveldt article. I emailed the paper informing them of this but got no reply. When I raised the discussion at RSN, opinions seemed to believe there was reason to doubt the reliability of The South African so this is why I am formally opening the RFC and asking the community given it has similar characteristics to the issues from WP:ROYALCENTRAL that led to it's subsequent depreciation. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    Might be worth looking at the author's others writings too.. don't have time to rn Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

    • @Bluethricecreamman: Well I have looked into this particular author and it seems he has done it again in a later article about Pravin Gordhan. The article also appears to copy from the Wikipedia article, specifically the lede. I don't know if that may change people's opinion as to whether its just one author or the whole source needs a look at. Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested: and @North8000: so they can see too. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (The South African)

• Option 2 They appear to be a standard news organisation, although the issues highlighted raise concerns about their quality. I can't find any other issues being raised, although search for information on them is made difficult due to their name. I don't think one issue is enough to declare them generally unreliable or deprecate them, but it does show the source should be shown more scrutiny if it's used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) Except in extreme cases, I'm against generalization (=overgeneralization) of any source. Which means "other considerations apply" is what nearly all should be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Its news stories attributed to journalists seem largely reliable, or at least no worse than many other outlets we trust. However, we need to be aware of the possibility of wiki-mirroring in these articles. There also appears to be incipient AI use which may require further discussion if more examples become evident.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The South African)

• There are multiple publications that have very similar names, so it's not easy to search for information on the source. Also there appears to be two very different periods in its history - from 2003–2015 it was a freesheet distributed in London, but since 2015 it has been an online news source focused on the South African market. The BBC[52] and Stanford Libraries[53] both have media guides about South African news media, neither of which mention the The South African. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've left a notification of the RFC on the Project South Africa talk page[54]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

I have a question about a dispute.

If reliable Historian A writes that "Historian B says x", can we say in wikivoice that "Historian B says x"? Obviously it would be better to cite Historian B directly, but in this case Historian B's works have not been translated into English so I can not access them. Is it legitimate to cite Historian B (with attribution) in this indirect way?

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What is the context here? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestine_war&diff=prev&oldid=1245176061

"Historian Aref al-Aref gives the number of Palestinian deaths as 13,000, with the majority of that number being civilians." Cited to Henry Laurens

References

Discussed here Talk:1948 Palestine war#Morris' "800 murdered" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies, it's not exactly a WP:RSN problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

From your link it says "If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones." I understand this to imply that such "secondhand" citing is legitimate. Am I interpreting that correctly? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually ok.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

bellezavenezolana.net

• bellezavenezolana.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

sampling of usage below, non exhaustive

• Mister Venezuela 2004 one of four sources, including the pageant website
• Mister Venezuela 2005 one of two sources, including the pageant website
• List of Miss Venezuela editions (external links)
• Miss Ecuador 2004 Miss Ecuador 2005 Miss Ecuador 2006 (external links)

Mister Venezuela 2004 and Mister Venezuela 2005 are entirely or nearly entirely based on a single source, a website indicated above. It appears to me to be a fansite with probably hand-coded HTML. Just wanted to get a second opinion before moving forward with these two articles or any others that include the source. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is an SPS. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely self-published. Digging into the internet archive is was written by 'Julio Rodriguez'. This could be 'Julio Rodriguez Matute' who has some note as a 'beauty pagaent historian' (is that a real thing?), but even if it was the case I dont see that it would be enough for WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

bne IntelliNews

Is this a reliable source? Mist1et03 (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For what specific claim in what context in which article? Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he should give us citation. Setxkbmap (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for failing to provide any context. I had drafted an explanation yesterday, but the server prevented me from publishing it.

The article that rouse my attention was [55]https://www.intellinews.com/czechia-invites-israeli-minister-on-international-arrest-warrant-for-a-visit-342863/ , which, at that time, hadn't been covered by other media outlets according to the Google search result.

I digged a bit deeper and found that despite being cited by some 250 articles here, this site hadn't undergone any discussion on its reliability, at least when I was searching for it. So I'd like to ask for opinions. Mist1et03 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not that i think that the site is unreliable, it's just that i feel like this information is not that "hot" to be implemented immediately into some article, but can wait a few days. As far as i see, nobody else reported on this, not even Czech media.

So while BNE has been cited by some other reputable and more famous agencies, even if they are reliable, you should wait a few days maybe, and then decide on whether it can be used as a source for this information or not. Setxkbmap (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Most sources will never be discussed as no-one ever questions their use, so that a source that has been used so infrequently hasn't had a discussion about it's reliability is the norm. WP:NEWSORG gives guidance on how to handle news organisation in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone. So to conclude, we know too little about the source and the story it covers. And even if the story is true, WP:NOTNEWS applies in this circumstance. Mist1et03 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

pageant.net / pageant.com

• pageant.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• pageant.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

usage of pageant.net (not necessarily complete)

• List of Mister Venezuela runners-up and finalists
• List of Mister Venezuela editions
• Mister Venezuela 2000
• Mister Venezuela 2001
• Mister Venezuela 2003

usage of pageant.com (complete list of articles)

The sites pageant.net and pageant.com are self-described as Beauty Pageant News Bureau. It was archived by Internet Archive and used in some articles above. It doesn't smell like a reliable source to me, and has this description that seems to invite payment for coverage: "though we never demand that anyone buy an ad to get news coverage, we are always happy to run ads" [56][57]. There's none of the usual stuff we try to find for reliable sources: no statement about editorial control, no list of staff, and a Georgia post office box listed as contact information. I haven't seen any indication of when/where the "run ads" material appears, so maybe it's in everything. Or maybe it's just in some things without attribution.

An example of pageant.com from Kimberly Pressler is here and image credits seem to indicate it came from the pageant, but text is not credited or sourced, just laid out as bare fact, which doesn't increase my confidence in this as a source, in fact makes me even more suspicious that it is borderline covert advertising for the pageant agencies. Or, toning down that statement a little bit, just churnalism, which is not a reliable source.

Similarly, World Miss University contains [58], another unsigned, unattributed list of people's pageant placements.

☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle

This is a still developing story worth keeping an eye on: Over the past few days, several heavyweight sources in Israel and elsewhere have impugned the reliability of The Jewish Chronicle (currently listed as green on WP:RSP), accusing the paper of publishing outright disinformation in service of a PR campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Interestingly, some of the pushback is from the Israeli Defense Forces:

• Channel 12 refutes report Sinwar planned to smuggle himself, hostages out of Gaza via Philadelphi Corridor, The Times of Israel, 6 September 2024
• 'A Wild Invention': Jewish Chronicle's Report on Hamas' Plans Comes Under Scrutiny, Haaretz, 9 Sep 2024
• Author of a Questionable Jewish Chronicle Article Comes Under Fire on Israeli TV, Haaretz, 10 Sep 2024
• IDF investigates claim Jewish Chronicle published stories based on ‘fabricated intelligence’, The Guardian, 12 Sep 2024
• שרה נתניהו טענה ש"יש ידיעות", הגרי: "לא מכיר מידע שיבריחו חטופים מפילדלפי" (Sara Netanyahu claimed that "There is news", Hagari: "I do not know of any information that kidnappers will escape from Philadelphi Corridor"), Ynetnews, 10 Sep 2024
• Why did a British Jewish newspaper publish fake Israeli intelligence? Israel’s army suspects fabrications published in the Jewish Chronicle were part of a pro-Bibi influence campaign, while the article’s author is not as he claims., +972 Magazine, 11 Sep 2024

This may be an isolated case – it appears to be the work of a single journalist (other papers have had scandals based on a single journalist's work, including The Guardian ...) – but the tie-in with Netanyahu and the accusation of politically motivated disinformation are potentially worrying.

The Jewish Chronicle have posted a statement, saying an investigation is underway. Andreas JN466 15:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Journalists sometimes don't have to reveal sensitive sources to their editors, so it's possible this reporter got played. Announcing an investigation into what went wrong is precisely what we would expect an RS to do. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking back through the archives, the latest being Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 438#Jewish Chronicle, this publication seems to have a knack for getting itself into trouble. As I said in the linked discussion I merely want the RSP entry clarified that JC is unreliable (rather than no consensus) for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians and that seems clearly to be the case and I still have that view. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to wait and see how they handle the situation. This is obviously bad, but what comes of their internal investigation will be a better indicator. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Mounting an "investigation" after being exposed does nothing towards establishing reliability. It was forced upon them. The conclusion "While we understand he did serve in the Israel Defense Forces, we were not satisfied with some of his claims." is about as weak as it gets. Zero^talk 04:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the new statement marking the conclusion of the investigation, in full:

The Jewish Chronicle has concluded a thorough investigation into freelance journalist Elon Perry, which commenced after allegations were made about aspects of his record. While we understand he did serve in the Israel Defense Forces, we were not satisfied with some of his claims. We have therefore removed his stories from our website and ended any association with Mr Perry.

The Jewish Chronicle maintains the highest journalistic standards in a highly contested information landscape and we deeply regret the chain of events that led to this point. We apologise to our loyal readers and have reviewed our internal processes so that this will not be repeated.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/conclusion-of-jewish-chronicle-investigation-into-elon-perry-daaqr8b9

I agree this is not good enough. "Has served in the IDF" – with no further details, such as rank, years of service etc. – is risible. (Military service is compulsory in Israel for everyone unless exempt for religious reasons.)

We need to deprecate this source for anything related to the Israel–Palestine conflict (and possibly anything related to the Israeli government). Andreas JN466 06:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

More coverage:

• Jewish Chronicle investigating journalist accused of publishing disinformation about Gaza war, The Times of Israel, 12 Sep 2024
• Has the UK’s oldest Jewish newspaper become Benjamin Netanyahu’s propaganda tool?, Middle East Monitor, 13 Sep 2024
• UK’s Jewish Chronicle removes stories by writer accused of fabrications about Gaza war, The Times of Israel, 14 Sep 2024
• Jewish Chronicle fires freelance journalist Elon Perry after false reporting on Gaza war, The Jerusalem Post, 14 Sep 2024
• Jewish Chronicle retracts allegedly fabricated articles on Gaza, Middle East Eye, 14 Sep 2024
• Crisis at Jewish Chronicle as stories based on ‘wild fabrications’ are withdrawn, The Guardian, 14 Sep 2024

Quotes from The Guardian:

• Founded in 1841, the JC – as it is familiarly known – has long been a respected institution in British Jewish life, attracting prominent Jewish journalists and writers to contribute. But the recent events have caused consternation about the direction of the paper as it has drifted further right under its editor, Jake Wallis Simons, and amid questions over who owns it.
• In recent months, there have been suggestions in the Israeli media that stories have been placed in European newspapers, including one in the German tabloid Bild, that are based on fake or misrepresented intelligence, planted as part of an effort to support prime minister Benjamin’s Netanyahu’s negotiating position over Gaza.
• The removal of the articles, after an investigation formally announced by the paper only the day before, raises serious questions for JC editor Wallis Simons, a former novelist who has written for the Mail, the Telegraph and Spectator. Despite being provided with a series of questions, Wallis Simons and the JC have so far declined to describe how Perry – an individual with no discernible journalistic track record, let alone as an investigative reporter – came to be writing for the paper or what due diligence had been exercised over an increasingly fantastic series of claims.

--Andreas JN466 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that at the minute no consensus exists that the JC is reliable on the British left and Muslims, after an extraordinary series of false stories in a short period of time, which coincided with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party. I think we need to stop using the JC, as it is in effect run for propaganda purposes and frequently publishes falsehoods. This is obviously going to happen again.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It should already be listed with yellow, given the summary of before 2010 and the prior no consensus, so at the least, edit the listing to conform to additional considerations (and put the ongoing discussion tag up). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just to note, prior to this episode, the JC has been reported TWICE in four years (2019, 2021) to press regulator IPSO's standards department due to unacceptable conduct. No other paper has been referred to the standards department, not even the ones we deprecate.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

There should be a guideline on investigative journalism, but it is mostly covered by extraordinary claims: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." As a rule, I would not use original investigative articles, but look at other publications that have picked up on them. That will establish weight and some opinion on the degree of credibility. In this case, the story was picked up, so could have been used, even if we did not use the Jewish Chronicle as a source.

The source Boynamedsue provides (Byline Times) to discredit the Jewish Chronicle has a whole series of articles where it accuses mainstream media of bias and inaccuracy called "The Crisis in British Journalism." Mainstream coverage of both the Israel-Palestine conflict and Corbyn's ties to alleged anti-Semitism have been seriously questioned in reliable sources. We cannot ban all of them. TFD (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The British media has a strong anti-Palestine bias, this does not make it unreliable. The JC has a record of massive factual inaccuracy unparalleled in British journalism. Although the media was horrendously biased during the Corbyn years, only the JC breached IPSO's code 15 times in two years. That is one breach every 7 issues. The Mail and even The Sun are far more credible in terms of factual reliability.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the list of those 15 alleged breaches: [59] Note that only four of the alleged breaches were upheld and they took place over a period of three years. The Times had 16 complaints upheld during the same period. TFD (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The list you give actually states 13 separate breaches are upheld, but is incomplete. The press gazette wrote in 2023 that 15 people "have won IPSO complaints or libel settlements against the Jewish Chronicle since 2018", in reality that related to people who sent a letter in 2021, so it covers 3 years not 5. The JC has along track record of extreme unreliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW the JC is a weekly tabloid format that is less than half the length of the times. In the time one edition of the JC comes out, the Times has published at least 12 times the number of words. The fact it is producing as many rulings as the Times is astounding.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am unable to see 16 upheld complaints against The Times on the website you linked to. This is what I found: 4 upheld complaints against The Times in the past two years, the same number as for The Jewish Chronicle. Could you say how you arrived at your number?

A thing to bear in mind when comparing publications is publication frequency and volume. The Times is a fat daily, the JC is a weekly, publishing a rather smaller number of stories per year. Andreas JN466 06:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The IPSO issues have been discussed exhaustively on the JC's talk page, and my strong view is that this is not a reason for deprecation or gunrel status. Cathcart in Byline Times is attacking JC as a way of attacking IPSO, which is indeed flawed but if we accept this as a reason to downgrade JC we'd have to downgrade all UK mainstream media and only use unregulated media in the UK.

In short, this is a red herring, whereas the new revelations raise serious concerns we need to address. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• If I understand the nature of the complaint, the paper had a reporter filing false stories. The paper has publicly retracted the stories and fired the reporter. Isn't that what we want out of a RS? If not then shouldn't the NYT be downgraded? Springee (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Quoted in The Guardian: “It seems that by firing Elon Perry @JewishChron is hoping to put this whole affair to bed, as if decisions weren’t made at the very top to employ a fake journalist, publish nine fake articles without verifying sources, and use the paper [as] an active agent in a pro-Bibi influence op.” Andreas JN466 00:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  That appears to be an opinion article. Certainly that quote is the opinion of the author. Springee (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  The paper didn't do its job in the first place i.e. they didn't vet the freelance journalist properly. Cortador (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about this source, but through reading about the Elon Perry situation I learned that no one seems to know exactly who owns the newspaper. This made me wonder whether this incomplete-information situation is a factor in assessing reliability in Wikipedia. Clearly there is some dependency on knowledge of ownership (e.g. state owned, run by the CCP etc.) that might have an impact on a case-by-case basis, but I'm curious how not knowing who owns a source is handled. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

When a news source refuses to divulge who owns it, I think we are entitled to assume the worst. Zero^talk 06:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For the ownership question see:

• Alan Rusbridger: Who really funds the Jewish Chronicle? Why it’s troubling that we don’t know…, Prospect Magazine, 26 April 2024
  • Quote: Well, we don’t know. But imagine a mystery foreign backer with a plausible British frontman buying the Telegraph, on condition that his identity be kept schtum. There would, rightly, be a parliamentary hue and cry about their background and motives. One of those involved in the Gibb-led consortium told me he now regretted ever being involved because of its “incredibly opaque” nature. He said he and another consortium member had asked directly who the other backers were and found it was “an absolutely closed door”.

Also, The Times has weighed in:

• Jewish Chronicle sacks writer over story that caused furore in Israel, The Times, 15 Sep 2024 --Andreas JN466 08:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• The "reporter" also made false claims about his background that the paper never bothered to verify. It's not a Claas Relotius situation where someone who is a legitimate journalist gets caught making stuff up. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• This happens sometimes even with the best sources, the NYT Caliphate debacle immediately comes to my mind [60]. What counts is the quality of the investigation and subsequent actions, so I think we should wait a bit. Alaexis_¿question? 11:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wait a bit for what? They claim to have finished their investigation. Zero^talk 12:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Lost two of their top columnists as a result ""Of course, all newspapers make mistakes and run articles that writers on the paper dislike," Freedland wrote. "The problem in this case is that there can be no real accountability because the JC is owned by a person or people who refuse to reveal themselves. As you know, I and others have long urged transparency, making that case to you privately – but nothing has happened." Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't know that. They have therefore removed his stories from [the] website and ended any association with Mr Perry. What else should they have done? Alaexis_¿question? 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Resignations:

• Three star Jewish Chronicle writers quit, accusing it of prioritising politics over journalism, Jewish News, 15 September 2024
• Columnists Quit Jewish Chronicle as Troubled Paper Severs Ties With 'Journalist' Over Debunked Hamas Story, Haaretz, 15 September 2024
• Jewish Chronicle writers attack publication after 'fabrication' row, Israel Hayom, 15 September 2024
  • Quote: The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper – publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition – but it is only the latest. Too often, the JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgments political rather than journalistic.—Jonathan Freedland

--Andreas JN466 14:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Guardian as well Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'd say not reliable. There are too many serious problems. Most recently, and discussed here, is a whole range of fabricated stories. That is already concerning, so much so that many high-profile contributors have resigned. Perhaps even more concerning is that nobody knows who owns the JC. In my view, transparency about ownership is important for the integrity of any newspaper or media outlet. The combination of planted false stories and no insights on who finances the JC makes me doubt it could be used as a source while the ownership is not known. Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• This is likely to require a RfC, but for the time being, TJC should be considered at least unreliable regarding Israel/Palestine and related topics due to a scandal resulting in four high-profile resignations, unclear ownership structre, plus questionable reporting as noted above. Cortador (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that a massive scandal is causing a massive shakeup is, again, exactly what one would expect out of a generally reliable source. (No source should be used without a minimum of critical judgement, mind you, and is subject to cross-verification.) I suppose in this overall time period of the scandal and shakeup -- plus+minus one year from all the reporter's articles (they span June--September 2024) say -- it's appropriate to say the source is yellow, but it's hardly become now-and-retroactively unreliable.

  Contrast to some of our unreliable outlets where an article or reporter or topic caught red-handed on serial inaccuracy/exaggeration/slop is simply tolerated and dismissed as just a normal part of their political bias or low expectations of rigor. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ordinarily I would agree but with the history here plus the lack of transparency, I think there's a problem beyond the usual. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need to start a RfC here, I can't seem to find the RfC which justified the reliable rating Andromedean (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is not just recent:

  • From the Jewish News article: Freedland, a columnist at the JC since 1998, began his resignation letter by stating his deep family connection to the newspaper. “My attachment to the JC runs very deep,” he wrote. “I have been a columnist since 1998. My late father started writing for the JC in 1951. That bond explains why I have stuck with it even as it departed from the traditions that built its reputation as the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper. “The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper – publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition – but this is only the latest. Too often, the JC reads like a partisan ideological instrument, its judgements political rather than journalistic.”
  • From The Guardian: “The coarseness and aggression of the JC’s current leadership is such a pity and does such a disservice to our community,” wrote Pogrund. “It also once again poses the question: who owns it!? How is it that British Jews don’t know who owns ‘their’ paper. Moreover, how can a paper not disclose its ownership? It’s an oxymoron. I hate having to pose the question publicly but I asked privately more than a year ago to no avail.”

  The problems seem to date back to the 2020 change in ownership. Would this make an appropriate cut-off point? Andreas JN466 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with SamuelRiv. Andre🚐 21:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  The problems predate the change of ownership in April 2020. On the 4 August 2021, barely a year later Brian Cathcart wrote

  "A slim, weekly publication, the Jewish Chronicle has been found by IPSO to have breached the Editors Code of Conduct 33 times in three years. In the same period it has admitted libel on four occasions, paying damages and publishing apologies. This is a failure of standards on a scale not witnessed by IPSO before." Andromedean (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• A single instance of flawed reporting doesn't impugn the source's reliability unless it can be shown to be systemic. See the New York Times, which also has controversial views of their ownership (see Biden vs Trump) and it also is relevant how the outlet deals with the coverage. In this case, the outlet seems to be taking the appropriate steps but we should keep an eye on it. There are other outlets who have had similar controversies and ownership (cough Al Jazeera cough) but are considered to be generally reliable if biased on certain topics. Without a more comprehensive evaluation of any failed fact checks, this one issue isn't any more damning of the entire paper than similar issues in the New York Times. Andre🚐 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Systemic issues – this is a common refrain in the criticism: that the material published is not political and journalistic, but political rather than journalistic – in other words, the politicisation comes at the expense of journalistic standards. This criticism is not restricted to the now-removed set of articles, and it is something that we should take note of.

  As for the paper's owners, it is normal for newspaper owners to have views. The owners of the New York Times and their place on the political spectrum are known. What people are saying with respect to The Jewish Chronicle is that the owners are unknown – because the publication refuses to say who they are. That is unusual to say the least.

  More reporting now:

  • The National,
  • BBC,
  • Times of Israel.

  The Times of Israel also reports on an Israeli press interview with the (pseudonymous) writer of the now-removed stories. Andreas JN466 22:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Andrevan's comment makes a false comparison with the NYT. The New York Times has almost 6,000 employees and a print circulation of 300,000, and 9 million online subscribers.

  The Jewish Chronicle has just 30 employees, a total of 3,000 digital subscribers and 3,200 paid for print circulation. There are MANY blogs out there with more employees and more readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Jayen did not. Andre made the comparison. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Jewish Chronicle is an old and storied institution. Reliability is not determined by the number of employees or subscribers, or circulation. Andre🚐 22:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  It went into liquidation in 2020. This is a new organization with an old brand. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  It announced in March that it would be owned by a charitable trust. I would like to point out that a lot of horrible people have owned news media in the UK over the years.

  Also, DYK that Murdoch owns both the Times and the Sun? It does not matter who owns a newspaper but where it follows journalistic standards. And I don't get btw why the BBC should be considered less reliable than the Sun, because the Sun is owned by an individual person while the BBC is owned by the state. TFD (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nor is it determined by age or whatever storiedness might be. It is determined by factual accuracy, which the JC has been proven repeatedly to lack. I would repeat, no other British newspaper has such a shocking record for slandering people and publishing false stories, not even the ones that we deprecate.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  See TFD's comment above. It is not determined by age, true, but it IS determined by reputation. Andre🚐 23:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

See my answer above. TFD's comments are a good faith error on the number of breaches, and a failure to consider libel rulings and the difference in number of issues between weekly and daily titles.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• It has been asked above about what papers do in this situation, and it seems usual that they do extensive reporting on what went wrong, what was false or can't be confirmed, and who was involved. The reporting is in depth investigation and done by journalists (usually senior journalists) and editors not involved, but perhaps, this paper is too small or too intent on not being open about it, for whatever reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given the entire affair is less than 2 weeks old, correct? Maybe they will. Andre🚐 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  JC has declared that they have "concluded" their "thorough investigation". Now they might yet again be lying, but I suggest that we believe them. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Ought be treated as unreliable for anything remotely connected with Is-Pa and British Politics. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• This is quite an grotesquely major scandal for a prominent newspaper; unknown owners who are likely right-wing ideologues, publication of a fabricated story by a freelance journalist under a pseudonym who after their firing made death threats to an Israeli reporter due to the revealing of their identity, and now the resignation of the newspaper's most prominent columnists. The Jewish Chronicle should be immediately deprecated generally and on matters related to antisemitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Inclined to agree that the opaque ownership is an even bigger problem than the specific instance of false reporting. Most publications have bias, and many have disreputable owners, but at least when the owners are known we can understand and weigh that bias, and still manage to extract signal from the noise. An anonymous owner is no better than an anonymous editorial board, which would usually be a red flag. It’s a broken chain of accountability. JC articles from after April 2020 (apparently the date of the takeover) should be treated with utmost caution. No opinion on articles from before that date. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

www.phoronix.com

I would like to suggest the addition of www.phoronix.com as an unreliable source

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Phoronix

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#cppreference.com Wiktorpyk (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason or dispute? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mainly just got pissed when I saw wrong info on an article that was quoting an article on that website that was wronng to be honest and I also got comfirmation from a GNOME developer that the source is not reliable. I have provided two disputes confirming that too. Wiktorpyk (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide the specific article (the WP article and the citation in question)? Phoronix newsblog posts are not generally a RS per existing guidelines, but I don't think anyone has posted an example of it being factually incorrect yet.

The guidelines are clear enough to disqualify it as an RS at a glance, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. I dunno if AWB scripts can just put bsn tags on it if bot editors won't otherwise bother to check for the original source material of the blog, though, given that's what it's being generally cited for. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Adwaita_%28design_language%29&diff=1245507291&oldid=1232781085 Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that Libadwaita was meant to be released in 41 but it was delayed to 42. Wiktorpyk (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For this particular claim, the easiest policy-compliant solution is to use "Heaps of tweaks and improvements incoming with GNOME 42" by The Register (RSP entry), which I have just added to the article in Special:Diff/1245895832. — Newslinger talk 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that recognized subject matter experts can be counted as reliable sources, and that includes blogs that are widely used as reliable in reliable sources. It is wide ranging but not always accurate but I think acceptable for what it does. Any expert will find holes in practically every article anywhere on what they're an expert on! NadVolum (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is Phoronix any more reliable than any other blog? No, not really. It's a blog, just a technical blog, essentially WP:SELFPUB. It doesn't have any kind public editorial standards or fact-checking board. The reason why WP:NEWSORGs are presumed reliable is that they have some kind of oversight. That being said, is anyone actually citing Phoronix and what articles? I mean, they are, because I just checked and people are citing it a lot for open source press releases, of exactly the kind that this user is bringing up. However, I think we need more than one example of a problem before we can downgrade the source, and it needs to be documented in writing in some amount of rigor. Andre🚐 09:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Self-published. Phoronix is a blog solely authored by Michael Larabel, the lead developer of the Phoronix Test Suite. While I have a favorable impression of Phoronix's content quality and consider Larabel a Linux expert, he does not meet the subject-matter expert criterion in 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." A web search shows that Larabel only publishes articles on Phoronix, which makes Phoronix generally unreliable as a self-published blog that does not qualify for the subject-matter expert exception. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Andre🚐 21:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed "RFC on" from the section title, as this request is not a formal request for comment. — Newslinger talk 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

thisisgame

Is this a reliable source? I brought up ThisIsGame at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 32#ThisIsGame but didn't get any answer, so I'm checking this again over here. To recap what was said:

• ThisIsGame has an official partnership with Game Developer (formerly Gamasutra), a reliable source on WP:VG/S, since the 2010s. Both websites have had referred to and translated materials from each other, like this ThisIsGame article from 2019 and this Game Developer article from 2011.
• The founder and owner Simon Lim (AKA Im Sanghun) was formerly a journalist at Ilgan Sports and The Hankyoreh, both reputable and reliable sources.
• Another executive Hyeon Namil is an alumni of PC Powerzine, a reputable print video game magazine from 1995 to 2005.
• It has had invited external authors from other media to write for its website, like this piece from Nexon Computer Museum.

Unfortunately their About Us is lackluster (a common issue in Korean sources) so it's hard to guarantee credentials for everyone working there, but the website does a lot of interviews and field reports themselves, and the company and their writers have had interaction with a lot of other organizations, including English sources like Gamasutra and The Game Award. I think it's generally reliable for video game topic unless they make an exceptional claim. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Source

Hi I made an edit recently using this source and just wanted to check whether The Indo Canadian Voicehttps://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/MinorityMedia/items/show/1037 can be considered as a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. Thank you ! - Also just to note they also have a weekly physical print that goes out to the local south asian community in Vancouver,

"In September 2024, Satish Kumar, President of the Vedic Hindu Cultural Society in Surrey, British Columbia apologized to the Sikh community after a letter he wrote to the Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre objecting to the visit of Canadian Sikh MP's to the temple. " Jattlife121 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

It doesn't have a fact-checking or editorial policy; circulates for free in random stores; calls itself "award-winning" in its logo but doesn't say what award it won anywhere on its website (and I couldn't find anything via Google); and publishes stories about people getting internships. I would say this is probably not reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the story about getting an internship misleading or factually incorrect? Is a free-circulation newspaper suddenly a marker of unreliability (even though it's a sustainable business model for metro newspapers across the world, including very reliable and prestigious ones)? What is a "random store"? These are sloppy judgements.

Now, there are plenty of reasons for why it is not to be considered a quality print publication -- even with print circulation and a named staff, it does not have named writers or bylines, and it has sloppy photo citations. There is an advertising policy but not an editorial policy in its print edition. I'm generally flexible on shoddy subpar publications when it comes to hyperlocal news, but this is Vancouver -- there should be no shortage of better material to cite -- you should even be able to local newsblogs with explicit bylines and editorial policy.

Of course, in this case, OP is not using this for hyperlocal news, but provincial news plus an MP, so there's really no reason to use a subpar hyperlocal source on here period when you should find ample coverage elsewhere. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Yes the story is quite new and developing. I am sure in the coming days, further reliable sources will be reporting on the events. Jattlife121 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.sikhpa.com/canadian-hindu-org-call-sikh-mps-ideological-opposed-persons-in-leaked-letter/ @SamuelRiv Would this also be considered as such ? Jattlife121 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need a RFC, but what happened to the last RFC, and how did it get a reliable rating? I vaguely recall an inconsistency between the balance of views and final decision, yet I can no longer find it. Andromedean (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fadeaway World

Is Fadeaway World a reliable source for basketball content (particularly NBA stats)? Myself and one other user seem to be butting heads about this matter at a couple of ongoing AfDs. I maintain that the site's corrections policy, fact-checking policy, editorial guidelines, and ethics policy prove its reliability, and I believe this is the main argument presented by the other user that questions the site. I'd appreciate wider community input to develop consensus on the matter. Left guide (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this. For convenience, I'll post my prior points here. WP:USEBYOTHERS is one guideline:

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.

As a background, the trend in newer sports sites is to hire inexperienced writers: Like at SB Nation and similar blog networks, the Maven site operators are independent contractors. They start with low base pay and no benefits, though company officials say they can make more if they drive traffic and ad sales. (The Washington Post) In that Post article, it covered Sports Illustrated and how Maven, which is now the Arena Group—which also owns Fadeaway World—was even hiring high schoolers to write.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: WP:USEBYOTHERS can sometimes help absent other evidence, but it's not a prerequisite for reliability, and in this topic area, sources seem to gravitate towards primary sources like nba.com and basketball-reference.com (rather than fellow secondary sources) for stats out of simplicity and convenience. As to your second point, I don't see anything on the WP:RS guideline page or elsewhere around the project that automatically deems a source unreliable due to a purported lack of experience in its writers. Meanwhile, there are several policy and guideline clauses that affirm Fadeaway World's reliability from the aforementioned site links (my emphasis):

WP:BESTSOURCES clause of WP:NPOV and WP:REPUTABLE clause of WP:RS:

All articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

WP:SOURCE clause of WP:V:

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Do you have evidence of other reliable sources directly proving that Fadeaway World has made uncorrected false or inaccurate statements about NBA stats? Left guide (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, the original primary source is most suitable for straightforward descriptive statements of fact. Is there any reason why you're looking for secondary sources if stats are the only thing being supported? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Yes, because it's a source that's being discussed for notability purposes at AfDs, and primary sources don't count towards notability. It's helpful to know whether this source can be used to shore up notability in future article creations to defend against deletion. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

USEBYOTHERS was an example under the WP:REPUTABLE guideline, which says

The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive.

The NBA is so widely covered, so I don't think we need to be lax on a source's reputation. I'll see what others' perspective is. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Listicle as a RS?

In Template:Did you know nominations/Poll (parrot) Di (they-them) and Launchballer are claiming that https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/communities/marco-eagle/2016/08/03/strange-but-true-andrew-jackson-and-cursing-parrot/87926936/ is a reliable source. Additional opinions would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced to the Marco Eagle which is "Part of the USA TODAY Network" (bottom of page). When you click on "Careers" it goes to here which says Gannett, a mass-media holding company, owns over 200 local media plus USA Today and other things. Overall I see no general reason it would not be reliable, but have not read the article itself to judge. -- GreenC 17:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the article. My question is about the specific article, not the publication in general. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that I have looked into this, the source is not reliable. Indeed many of the sources are not reliable because they are merely parroting an old legend, but they are still good for establishing notability of the parrot. I'll work on this article hopefully if I have time. -- GreenC 05:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Snopes says this is unverified [61] which already throws doubt on an "article" that is just a colleciton of trivia. Would not consider a usable fact on WP. --Masem (t) 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim in question is apparently the main thing the article subject is known for and its basis for notability. I see several other sources on the page that appear to make the same claim based on their titles. Is there a reason why we can't simply use one or two of the article's best sources for the DYK nom? Or are we saying that this is the article's best source? I don't see the point of expending community time litigating something if it can be resolved through simpler means. Left guide (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Daily Mail comparison

Several places have framed the deprecation of the Daily Mail as political, comparing it to Fox News or the Telegram.[62][63][64][65] I want to offer an analysis of an apolitical article for future editors to reference. The chart below compares a 2019 Daily Mail article to the WP:RS cited in the Wikipedia article on Rodney, Mississippi, a rural ghost town.

WP:RS	The Daily Mail
The town is in the Mississippi Delta region of northwest Mississippi.	The town is in the "Mississippi River Delta" (which is in another state and 200 miles away).
Economically dependent on river traffic, Rodney, Mississippi, gradually declined when the Mississippi River shifted several miles away from the town.	The town was "ruined by the American Civil War", framing it as the singular result of Union cannon fire.
The river began to change course when a sandbar formed around the time of the American Civil War.	The river changed course after the Civil War "because of the huge reconstruction" of damaged buildings and the construction of a bridge "crossing the Mississippi River".
The town's decline was exacerbated when the railroad bypassed it to run through Fayette, Mississippi.	After the Civil War, the town underwent "a rebuild and it was decided that a railroad would be constructed" across the river.
Construction begun on Rodney Presbyterian Church in 1829 and Mt. Zion Baptist Church in 1851.	The Presbyterian Church and Mt. Zion were built "after 1763 when the town was inhabited by the French" (about one hundred years too early).
The Presbyterian Church was began by the residents who also initiated the founding of Oakland College.	The church was "constructed by the Native Americans before" the French arrived.
Alston is a former grocery store.	Alston Grocery (shown in a photograph) is described as "a rusted lonely red cabin that survived" bombardment during the Civil War.

There are smaller errors, but those are the major ones. Thanks, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see why we would even bother giving these random opinion pieces the time of day to be honest. If they don't consider fabricating their own front pages (among other things) a dealbreaker that really says more about them than it does about us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you really expecting encyclopaedia type information about a deserted town in America from a popular British newspaper? Something of very marginal interest but fills a few column inches to keep its readers occupied for a couple of minutes? How many readers in America know or care where whole countries like Austria are? It is not where somebody writing about the town would expect to get reliable information from any more than they'd expect to get something reliable about Tyneham in the Los Angeles Times. NadVolum (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)