Which of the following best describes People Make Games's videos in the area of video games?

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

Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (PMG)

• Option 1 People Make Games is reliable for video game journalism. They've been cited several times by multiple sources we consider reliable (including PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow), and all their contributors are professional video game journalists. You can even see in the WaPo article (and other places) that they follow basic journalistic standards like asking their subjects for comment before publishing a story. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 They seem legit, given that other scrupulously reliable sources treat them as reliable. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 for video-games journalism. They're a solid outlet, have broken at least one major story in that area, and are treated as reliable by other sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 and I'm glad that people aren't dismissing them automatically because they're on YouTube. casualdejekyll 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So am I! Such a nice change of pace from normal, especially for those of us who remember how difficult it was to get consensus on Anthony Fantano's status as a "music critic." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 as it appears to be a self-published source, but could be used with attribution as WP:EXPERTSPS. The authors are the publishers; there doesn't seem to be any fact checkers, editors, masthead, ethics policies, separation of news from opinion, etc. Just being cited alone doesn't make something an RS; this one is just not professional journalism, it's a well-respected blog, but it should be used only with attribution per EXPERTSPS. It's not like CNET or other professional publications. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that I find too much fault with your logic, but it's a little funny that CNET is the example you give given, well, the discussion basically directly below this one :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol, true, that was the first tech publication that came to mind, but my mind is outdated ;-) Levivich (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's important to note that while PMG is a small organization and doesn't have all those roles as separate people, it clearly does still have those roles. Its employees are all professional video games journalists and do clearly bring journalistic ethics with them in their role as PMG. So for instance, they do request comment from their subjects (implying some sort of ethics policy and also some sort of fact checking procedure), they do separate news from opinion (because they have no opinion section), they pretty clearly are treated as journalists by the industry (as shown by the many sources citing them, but also it's reasonably clear in the Nuclear Gandhi video that they are treated as journalists by games companies as well).

  An important thing to note here is that they're a journalism collective, somewhat like Bellingcat. They're not self-published because no individual journalist gets to publish their reporting alone: PMG as a whole organization is the publisher while the individual reporter is the author. If a story didn't pan out, it wouldn't get animated by their animator (and presumably the other members of the PMG team would also object to releasing it). Loki (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that having no opinion section means that they separate fact an opinion. That generally means the opposite, that fact and opinion share the same space in their content. This also means that use of People Make Games as a source should probably be attributed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd add: Having those roles as separate people is kind of the whole point of having separation between reporters and editors. A group blog is a group blog, and sometimes acting ethically (e.g. requesting comment from their subjects) is not a substitute for not having an ethics policy. Being cited is not the same thing as "treated as journalists", and being treated as a journalist is not a substitute for being a journalist. Point-by-point, your response concedes that they do not meet any of the usual criteria for RS journalism (no separation of reporters and editors, no public written ethics policy, no separate fact checkers, no separate opinion section, no professional/credentialed journalists). Levivich (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 Washington Post uses them, so I'd support their reliability based on that. I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if I would use that as a reason to have it as option 1. If anyone it would be a reason to have Washington Post as option 2 or 3 in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 for use in the area of videogames. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Option 4 and this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong option 1 Option 2 Reliable for statements of fact in their area of expertise, however, extra caution should be advised for BLP material. Echoing others, I'm quite pleased at the open-mindedness of the comments. WP:RSP fundamentally exists to keep non-factual material out of our articles, but there's zero reason to be rigid about how we define what an RS can be. Thanks for offering this up for discussion, and I hope we see more of these kinds of outlets. DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC); edited to add caution about BLP material; hadn't thought of that when writing my comment, and I agree that it's a valid concern 12:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. WP:SPS with no indication of a published editorial policy or editorial review. This would make it Option 3, but acknowledgement in major outlets should be sufficient for an exception. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. In agreement with Thebiguglyalien SolVerdict (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2, I think they're fine to use within their area of expertise (games and game culture) but I would advise against using them alone for BLP info without attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (PMG)

• As we describe on its page, Nuclear Gandhi is an urban legend that Gandhi in the original Civilization was particularly likely to nuke people because of a bug. However, it's come out recently that in fact such a bug did not exist, nor was Gandhi even particularly likely to use nukes, and that this was purely an urban legend the entire time. On the page, we cite this dodgy Russian-language source (translation) for several important claims about it.

However, the source we cite openly says it got this info from the People Make Games YouTube channel, in particular this video, which originally broke the story. And by all appearances this video is a very reliable source. People Make Games is staffed by professional video game journalists, including the one who broke this particular story, they've been cited by other sources we consider reliable (like PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow) and the video itself contains multiple interviews with the developers themselves saying no such bug exists. In my opinion, PMG is about equal in reliability to Bellingcat for the specific area of video games, and for basically the same reasons.

Yet not only do we not cite the video here, we don't cite People Make Games anywhere, about anything, as far as I can tell. Even for stories that they broke, we always cite someone else just repeating what they said. I believe this is primarily because they publish in video format, on YouTube, rather than in text, and we don't consider "YouTube" reliable. I think this is a silly bias against video content that we'd never allow if PMG was a news channel, and I'm aiming with this RfC to establish that just because PMG publishes its investigations on YouTube, that doesn't mean they're unreliable. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I enjoy watching PMG, they are arguably a self-published source, and thus shouldn't be used as a directly cited source for non-self BLP claims, eg their allegations of abusive behaviour by indie developers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat is also arguably a self-published source, yet they're green on WP:RSP, and have absolutely been used for BLP claims before (e.g. they named several Russian intelligence officials involved in the Skripal poisoning). That's why I brought them up, to prove that we don't have a general policy against citizen journalism even in BLPs.

To be clear, I believe the actual situation in both these cases is that PMG/Bellingcat is the publisher and the particular journalist breaking the story is the author, making neither of them WP:SPS. (This is the same as the situation with, say, the NYT; if we said that every employee of an organization is that organization no source would be reliable.) One of the key distinctions between self-published and independent sources is that independent sources have organizational editorial standards, which both PMG and Bellingcat clearly do. Loki (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Loki, what makes a self-published source self-published is the lack of a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. People Make Games is not self-published; they appear to have an editorial staff and vet their stories as well as any other journalism organization. --Jayron32 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by 3 people who all collaborate together, far less than the number of journalists working on Bellingcat, so I don't possibly see how it could satisfy having a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. Most major scoops by PMG have been covered by regular video game journalism websites, so this is really moot anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that they keep getting covered by regular video game journalism websites shows that other video game journalists consider them reliable, even despite their small size. And just because other sources frequently cover their work doesn't mean that we don't need to mark them reliable. So for instance, they did an interview with the creators of Blaseball that we ought to be able to quote from, even though to my knowledge it hasn't been cited elsewhere. Loki (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video game websites cover a lot of shit, frequently including stuff like Twitter posts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do they have a corrections policy? Do the follow it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't have a website outside of YouTube and Patreon, so, as far as I can tell, not a published one. However, they have responded to criticism of their work before at length. Loki (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure why we need this source when Sid Meier himself has said this is a myth. But it's not the countless callbacks and references that make the nuclear Gandhi story so funny to me. It's the fact that none of it is true. The overflow error never happened at all. (Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games p. 262) Although it did exist as an Easter Egg in Civ V. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not just Nuclear Gandhi I'm talking about here, they've broken other scoops in the past as well. Loki (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t know this outlet well enough to opine on general reliability, but I would oppose depreciation. That is (and should be) saved for extremely rare cases. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I absolutely wouldn't like them to be depreciated, I'm just following the standard format. Loki (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I've contacted Chris Bratt of People Makes Games to inquire about editorial policies. DecafPotato (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good idea. Loki (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [1][2] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Ventures's portfolio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interactive content by definition does not include traditional news articles. In the context of Buzzfeed interactive content means their famously stupid quizzes [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet more AI content farm magazine filler

Futurism's got this story by the throat. "Magazine Publishes Serious Errors in First AI-Generated Health Article: The owners of Sports Illustrated and Men’s Journal promised to be virtuous with AI. Then they bungled their very first AI story — and issued huge corrections when we caught them." [4]

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

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

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

Editor @Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic reproduction of material already published somewhere else and hosted on it, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable for any of its content. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).

I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes CC is reliable. And it hosts electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which most of the times cannot be found anywhere else, with proper referencing of its original source (e.g. [5]).

The reproduction of documents on CC, from those I have been able to compare, are faithful:

• compare this entry of the Modern Catholic Dictionary with its original paper publication (p. 104). You can compare any of those Modern Catholic Dictionary entries, all of them are hosted on CC's website; it took this one randomly to prove my point.
• compare their electronic retranscription of this paper to the one from EWTN
• their transcription of this chapter to the one on EWTN

Horse Eye's Back main criticism is the About Us page of CC. I do not see why the user thinks such a page would indicate CC would not be a reliable source. Compare it to the same 'about us' pages for similar websites which as far as I know are considered as RSs: America [6], Catholic News Agency [7], Catholic Herald [8], The Tablet [9], Orthodox Times [10], Orthodoxie.com [11], Christianity Today [12]. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), Christianity Today is not a WP:RS. Not intimately familiar with the others but I'm getting the feeling that you don't really understand what a WP:RS is. I asked you before and I'l ask you again, is there even one sentence you feel comfortable pulling from their about us page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is EWTN? Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EWTN is an extremist broadcasting organization operating out of Alabama. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see - but what makes you think CC and EWTN are connected? It doesn't seem as if they are. Read that "About us" page more carefully, & follow the links. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're connected, what gave you that impression? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a) You said: "CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable)", which I misread - you use too many initials that non-Americans won't follow, and b) you keep going on about EWTN - why is that? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP mentions EWTN almost as much in their opening statement as Catholic Culture. Wouldn't have gone on about it except some guy asked "Who or what is EWTN" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the websites I gave are sources used throughout Wikipedia for years and considered as reliable by all people who have regularly worked on WP articles concerning Christianity. Your attack on EWTN is gratuitous; CNA is a very professional and neutral specialised news source. Veverve (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, EWTN is not a WP:RS. It isn't even a RS for Catholic opinion because they fight with the church so much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an extremist broadcasting organization, they fight with the church so much: says who? EWTN is not the topic. You appear to be extremely biased, to the point of not being non-constructive. Veverve (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Says any reliable history of EWTN... Given the list of "reliable sources" you just trotted out I wouldn't be throwing accusations of bias around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNA is quite well-respected for its reporting as far as I can tell (alongside its sister publication, ACI Prensa), and it's a well-established WP:NEWSORG. Christianity Today is also a well-established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Merely being affiliated with a religious group does not make something unreliable, Horse Eye's Back. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNA/EWTN is *not* well-respected and is not well established, its niche at best. What sort of reputation does Christianity Today have outside of evangelical circles? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic News Agency has an editorial structure where journalists report the facts on the ground and editors who review reporting and conduct fact-checking. My understanding is that it's generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church. CNA is also nineteen years old at this point, so I would say that it's pretty well-established; it's certainly not a new upstart like Axios (website) (a WP:GREL source, founded in 2016) or BuzzFeed News (another WP:GREL source, founded in 2011), and I'd find it incoherent to argue that the latter two have somehow had enough time to become well-established if the formermost source has not. ACI Prensa is even older (founded in 1980).

Christianity Today, outside of the mainstream Evangelical population, generally has a positive reputation going back a long time (The New York Times has referred to it as respected as far back as 1972!). I'm frankly surprised that this is even a question. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church" so like I said... "its niche at best" if you want to continue this discussion we can open a section for EWTN/CNA. If not lets focus on Catholic Culture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly here reliable for what is a question.

Age alone is not a solid indicator, or being respected in 1972, as some sources that may once have been reliable may have fallen of late to printing things like The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement as seen with one of the sources referenced in this thread (not that Fidelity Press necessarily ever was reliable). These kind of sources are of course reliable as primary sources for the opinions of the people they publish. What places Eternal Word Television Network as more reliable than The Christian Broadcasting Network?

That a source might have a bias or agenda doesn't impact its reliability (e.g. BuzzFeed News) but once challenged we need to have the discussion of what current editorial oversight and fact checking is taking place. Where did you learn of the CNA's editorial structure and fact-checking? That does sound like evidence of reliability. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. Michael Jones, the writer of the piece you're referring to, has... never exactly been a reliable guy (there's enough written about him that he may be notable... that's a new article idea). But where is that on the Catholic Culture site? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was published by the same publisher, so they are reprinting material from a dubious publisher, and this was one of the things that Veverve listed as something to cite to Catholic Culture. It's tangential of course, but it does call in doubt to my mind exactly what is being published on the site. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found that through [13] along with numerous other antisemitic publications. Basically the entire publisher looks like garbage.

E. Michael Jones does look like a good candidate for an article. I'll make a stub if enough sources turn up. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: I've created Draft:E. Michael Jones. It looks like the article itself is admin-level salted after socking, so I think it might be better to develop it in the draftspace until it's a fuller article rather than to simply stub it. There are plenty of sources in addition to the ADL profile, including Several pages in Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America, 1950-1985, Reviews of his books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), a feature piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, etc., so I think there will be enough to demonstrate WP:NBASIC (there's at least 3 pieces of SIGCOV about him here, plus the reviews of his books to help fill in some of the details on his writings). Feel free to join/expand if you'd like; it's currently beyond barebones. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between CNA and CBN starts at the top: the editorial staff actually has a journalistic pedigree, blending experience in secular and Cathoic Journalism. The editorial team of CNA is led by editor-in-chief Shannon Mullen, who worked for 10 years with the Asbury Park Press. During that time, he was part of the team that was a finalist for a Pullitzer Prize in Public Service and the Frank A. Blethen Award for Local Accountability Reporting from the American Society of News Editors, as well as winning national awards from the National Press Club, the National Association of Black Journalists for various pieces of his investigative journalism. Assisting Mullen as CNA's current Europe Editor is AC Wimmer, who worked as both as a journalist and then as a senior executive in Australia's SBS for a decade before moving to CNA as the founding Editor-in-Chief of CNA's German-language service CNA Deutsch. Zelda Caldwell, formerly an editor of Catholic online periodical Aleteia, is a News Editor.

Meanwhile, it's a bit hard for me to discern the editorial structure of CBN, but it looks like Pat Robertson and his son Gordon are the people making editorial decisions for a large portion of the organization. Neither are journalists by nature, and the whole editorial structure doesn't really hold up to that of CNA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, that sounds reliable on the surface. CNA is not the site in question unless it relates Catholic Culture. I've shown them reprinting material from a clearly unreliable publisher, for what it matters. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My best reading of Catholic Culture is that it's like New Advent inasmuch as it's a reliable republisher but additional considerations apply for original works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Herald seems to be a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Milo Yiannopoulos, am I missing something here? None of these appear to be top tier WP:RS and a good number of them appear to be unambiguously bad sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To say "a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg..." Is just silly - like him or not Rees-Mogg is a senior politician and minister who I'd imagine has had articles in all the English nationals (except perhaps the Guardian, but that's their "fringe" position). Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now do Milo Yiannopoulos. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks - don't know as much about him - he's not on the BBC the whole time, "fringe" broadcaster that they are. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'l give you a minute to read his wikipedia page. Also RE BBC you understand the difference between a guest and a contributor, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning to mention that you'd been canvassed[14] to this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider Business Insider to be a fringe publication? It takes more than publishing opinion columns by one person to land one's publication in cuckoo land. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a trick question? Business Insider is not a recognized WP:RS, check WP:RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you whether or not you consider Milo Yiannopoulos to be indicative of the editorial position of Business Insider on the basis that they allowed him to publish a column. Do you genuinely believe that Business Insider has the same political leanings as Milo? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about editorial position, we're talking about reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I thought you were referring to the use of "fringe" in WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to argue that the source ought be afforded little weight for reasons extraneous to reliability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe in the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE is about reliability. How can one make a fringe argument that is extraneous to reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an RS, but to be treated sensibly. It is a conservative-leaning Catholic site, which makes its position clear at the "About us" page. Opinion pieces reflect this house stance, just like those in the New York Times or The Guardian. It carries extensive texts and documents, such as the official (American English) translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No doubt most of these can be obtained elsewhere, even online, but I don't see why this site can't used. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't use advocacy sites because they don't separate news and opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RS. It's not even close. It's not scholarship. It's not journalism. I see no masthead, no professional journalists, no editors, no fact-checking, no ethics policy, no separation of news and opinion... this is not an RS, it's just an advocacy website, and it says so on its about us page. I don't even see any news that they actually publish... it seems to be entirely commentary and reprints? Levivich (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's got leadership listed on its website, and the person listed as an editor of CWN is a career journalist who has served at numerous publications. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure when you phrase it like that it sounds nice. But it doesn't sound as great as naming those "numerous publications" which are Crisis Magazine, The Pilot (Massachusetts newspaper), Catholic World Report, and Catholic World News. Those are all kissing cousins, he appears to have no mainstream media experience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason to consider Catholic Culture reliable? Their about page suggests that they are an advocacy organisation. In cases where they are simply re-hosting things which have been previously published in an unquestionably reliable venue, simply cite the reliable source. In the case of the Modern Catholic Dictionary specifically, their dictionary says that it is based on Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, ([15]) – it is specifically not claiming to be a faithful reproduction of the Dictionary! Their news section appears to largely consist of excerpts from other sources, in which case we should reference those other sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: despite the "Based", the Dictionary on CC appears (I have not checked all 5000 entries) to reproduce word-for-word the original printed material. Veverve (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the original printed material then there is no reason to use CC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An electronic version is better (ability to ctrl+F, to change the police's size, etc.). But this is off-topic. The Dictionary was used as an example of how faithful the reproductions on CC are, and that therefore those that are hosted on the website can be trusted. Veverve (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be an example of that if you haven't actually checked whether it is or isn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole article that's available at Sampling (statistics) if you'd like to learn more about how random sampling works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is still zero no matter how big the dataset is. Veverve doesn't have access to a reliable copy of the source, they haven't actually compared a single entry against that entry in the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The about us page of Catholic Culture gives no indication it's a reliable source. I agree with Levivich that it appears to be an advocacy group, and that if a reliable source exists use that instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the several editors above who find this source dubious. What reason is there to rely on this, what information is unique to it that can't be found on a clear RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: as I wrote, some of the works previously published that the website hosts cannot be found anywhere else online. And the website also hosts the Catholic World News. Veverve (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is available in print why not use the print version? If you use a digital version for searching and cross referencing that is up to you, but I think it should be cited to something published by a reputable publisher. Which brings up another question, are the three works you cited themselves RSs on Wikipedia? The first is a dictionary, a tertiary source, correct? And published by whom? The second is published by someone (Fidelity Press) who features on their website a "Culture Wars" magazine the title of the January issue being The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement. This seems like a rabbit hole I'm quickly losing interest in descending through. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone can go to a US library to read a paper from a 1950s or 1990s journal on theology, hence why having online editions is helpful. CC for example contains articles from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.

The Dictionary is reliable: the book was published by Doubleday (publisher), and is written by Catholic theologian John Hardon who taught at university.

As for the editorial line of Fidelity press in December 1994 (the date the second article is from, almost 30 years ago), I do not know about it. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hometic and Pastoral Review is an Ignatius Press publication not a Trinity publication. Not the first time you've made that mistake in this convo[16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does host papers from the Hometic and Pastoral Review, the which is published by Ignatius Press, e.g. [17]. Veverve (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we use Catholic Culture if we can just cite the actual article in the Hometic and Pastoral Review? I can make a blog and host a lot of reliable sources there, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source. Lets also be clear, Fidelity Press is not a WP:RS, you weren't asked about their editorial line you were asked about their reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Now that I think about it: since when is a publication's reliability juged by its 'About us' page? Not all newspaper have to state their hierarchy, the identity of their editor-in-chief, the fact that that they fact-check things (the latter is supposed to be done by all), etc., in such a page; I mean, the About us of the Guardian says nothing of this. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly getting into Whataboutism and WP:OTHERCONTENT territory. If you want to challenge The Guardian that is a separate discussion - and is a discussion that can be had about any source at all. Your source has been challenged, what can you provide as evidence for it qualifying as a WP:RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Veverve is saying that the notion that the "about us" page does not describe their own editorial hierarchy is of limited value, not making an argument against the reliability of The Guardian. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are not judged by the aboutus page, but they can be useful in seeing how a source sees itself. For instance the Guardian positions itself as a organisation that delivers investigative journalism, now obviously we shouldn't take a sources word as written but it gives an indication of what to expect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this discussion is another flawed one from HEB. They often hit the nail on the head in recognizing unreliability (like with OrthodoxWiki) but have mischaracterized CNA's reporting standards and association with EWTN. I say we just move on and recognize instances where inline attribution is necessary (for example, on the Crisis pregnancy center article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning to mention that you were canvassed[18] to this conversation by the OP? Also we don't appear to use Catholic Culture at Crisis pregnancy center, what am I missing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a frequent user of a noticeboard who chimes in on a conversation moved off that noticeboard should be characterized as "canvassed", but then again some policies are just not worth remembering when trying to make a point. My comment was exclusively in response to your statement CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), a bizarre mischaracterization that arouses concern regarding your judgement in this case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what happened, you were pinged by the OP [19]. You are Pbritti are you not? What is the mischaracterization? CNA is 100% owned and operated by EWTN, no? EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why OP persistently pings when I've noted to them previously that the noticeboard is on my watchlist and is a priority for me. Look at my record on that noticeboard, if you'd like; I actually ended up here because of my watchlist, noticing the ping after the fact. Your claims regarding the journalistic quality of CNA is frankly absurd and it doesn't take long to find instances where their reporting is accepted unchallenged by consensus-agreed reliable sources such as AP, NBC, NYT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP pings you because they're canvassing people they believe will be sympathetic to their position (note that 2/3 supporters for their position here were pinged by them). So you don't dispute that EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization and that EWTN is the owner and operator of CNA you just say that despite that CNA is reliable because its been used by others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry that frequent contributors in a subject area have looked into your claims and have disagreed with some of your statements. I am disappoint the OP pinged people on the noticeboard; that's behavior they've been chastised for before. For what it's worth, Austronesier's position on CC is mine. Your spiteful and poorly-supported claims have proved a deficient on this noticeboard in the past year; please reflect on your approach towards editors and this noticeboard and reconsider your understanding of what constitutes reliable sourcing according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The community has repeatedly accepted those "spiteful and poorly-supported claims," if you can't contribute in a subject area impartially I suggest that you don't contribute in it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you've said in this conversation about EWTN and CNA suggests that you're not exactly impartial here! I wasn't pinged to this conversation and I suggest with others that Catholic Culture is reliable for reproduction of things published elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about my comment suggests that I'm not an impartial when it comes to discussions of reliability? I've participated in hundreds of them across dozens of topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza: Seriously, how is EWTN a WP:RS and not an extremist advocacy organization? EWTN routinely promotes conspiracy theories like the Irish slaves myth, see this piece which even goes as far as to claim "All writers on the 17th century American colonies are in agreement that the treatment of white servants or white slaves in English colonies was cruel to the extreme, worse than that of black slaves"[20] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This site doesn't seem to be particularly problematic, I can see that attribution could be necessary quite frequently as it (like every other non-academic source) is biased. Horse Eye's Back is there some particularly factually inaccurate material on the site that you have not noticed, or are you concerned that is used for notability? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: what on the site do you think could be used with attribution? Their news reporting is just re-prints of other sources and the people who write their commentaries aren't in general subject matter experts. The "factual" content they do publish is unusable, going alphabetically we find Abortion... The first line of abortion is "Abortion is the greatest single scourge of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, claiming far more innocent lives than any other threat, including war, poverty, starvation and natural disasters." are you suggesting that we can add that to Abortion as long as we attribute it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't add that, but it would due to WP:UNDUE rather than reliability concerns. That is clearly opinion, and there are far more prominent sources for Catholic perspectives on the topic where they would be relevant. The news stories do contain original content, though much of it is attached to an original story taken from elsewhere. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't presented as opinion, its clearly presented as factual information and that's the problem. The same with the miracles, they're presenting WP:FRINGE as fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most media outlets mix fact and opinion without explicitly labelling content as opinion, I can point you to dozens of articles in the Times, Guardian or Telegraph which do the same. Often they do it in a much more deceptive way. The language here is clearly that of opinion, and as such would need attribution. It is not trying to pass this opinion off as fact, but as moral truth. As such, it presents no problem for us, it can easily be distinguished from factual claims. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Factual claims like what? What are you finding on this site? I found that they reprint material from the most reprehensible of publishers as I outlined above if you've read the discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you're ignoring their claims about miracles? Also just FYI that isn't a "moral truth" its a historical claim which is presented as factual. It isn't presented as a subjective opinion, it is presented as an objective fact. For example: "As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the claims they make about miracles, I only just noticed your mention of it. What do they say about them? I would say that claims made about the supernatural by people belonging to mainstream religions do not disqualify those sources on other matters. A Christian, Buddhist, Jew or Muslim by definition believes things we should not report as fact, but they are not disqualified as reliable sources. :::::::As for the second point...Do you seriously claim that stating a debatable opinion without explicitly declaring it to be opinion disqualifies a source? We would have next to nothing to base our articles on if that were the case. A writer is allowed to forcefully state what they see to be a true argument, this is not factual inaccuracy. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They say that miracles are real and not in the sense that Catholics *believe* them to be real but that they are factual events which actually occurred. Reliable sources do not mix factual reporting with personal religious views. Mixing the two does in fact disqualify the source. If you compare NYT articles by Christian, Muslim, Atheist, and Jewish writers you aren't going to find any substantial differences in how they report facts. Its not opinion, they clearly declare it to be the objective truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find support for private revelation in plenty of peer-reviewed theological journals too, so I don't know what to tell you. Graham (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:FRINGE is already a content guideline so we don't have to do anything? Plenty of theological journals which aren't WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to ones which do meet WP:RS. These would include refereed journals published by scholarly presses such as Cambridge University Press, SAGE, or the like.

And I would encourage you to read WP:FRINGE's discussion of handling theological claims (in the third paragraph of WP:EVALFRINGE), which begins, "Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis [emphasis in original]." Graham (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is proposing that they be treated exclusively as scientific theory, people are saying that they should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. Pardon my ignorance but what scientific phenomena does private revelation make a claim concerning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of an example of the kind that a conservative Roman Catholic website like Catholic Culture would conceivably discuss, I would point to Our Lady of Fátima as an alleged apparition that many would dismiss as a scientific impossibility. Graham (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic ones are generally the healing miracles "He spat in my eye and now I don't have cancer!" and such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Only reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF. They have a mission, and their mission is not comparable to scholarly or encyclopedic information. Original material may be citeable as WP:OPINION with due weight (e.g. when secondary reliable sources mention it). All reproduced material however (if coming from reliable sources) should be cited from the original. The URL can be added but should be flagged as a reproduction. I think we can trust that the material is reproduced faithfully without editorial distortions. Or are there any indications that we can't? –Austronesier (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Austronesier… OK to use in ABOUTSELF and attributed opinion situations… but not for verification of non-ABOUTSELF facts. CAN be used as a “courtesy link” for text of reproduced documents, but cite the original (and note in the citation that the link is a reproduction of that original). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with @Austronesier: that this source is basically only going to be useful for ABOUTSELF, but even then I would be suspicious and find a better source. As an aside, I think @Horse Eye's Back: should be commended for the scrutiny he's applying. We need a lot more of that. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Red-tailed hawk that, with respect to works that are being republished on Catholic Culture, I think we can assume that they are being faithfully (no pun intended) reproduced, absent evidence to the contrary. Each of those sources would have to be evaluated on their own merits; we can't assume them to be unreliable simply because they are republished on Catholic Culture. It's always preferable to cite the source directly where we can, but where the original source isn't conveniently accessible, I see no problem with Catholic Culture being put in the via field of the citation template to comply with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. This is distinct from the question of whether their original works are reliable, however. Graham (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't make any judgement on their original publishing, but I believe that we can presume that otherwise-reliable sources that they are rehosting are faithful reproductions absent any evidence to the contrary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an RS. It is a religious movement, and as such, its conflict of interest makes it inherently unreliable and gives rise to their NPOV and NOTRS. The CC links Veverve provided highlighted that CC writes non-neutral opinion pieces (not journalism) and the same goes for the “previously published documents” Veverve linked to. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a currently open RFC re Frontiers at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Frontiers Media.

There is a discussion at Talk:Genetic studies on Jews regarding the reliability of a study published in Frontiers Genetics. The study was recently removed from the article by Triggerhippie4, citing undue weight and quality problems. I have also questioned the reliability of the source based on the reputation of Frontiers Media SA, while Iskandar323 and Nishidani are more supportive of it.

Iskandar323 has floated the idea of a new RSN discussion, because past RSN discussions (such as this one) have never mentioned Frontiers Genetics, specifically. However, my take has been that, as a rule, all journals published by Frontiers Media SA are considered unreliable for bio-sciences, which includes population genetics. If Frontiers Public Health is unreliable, so is Frontiers Genetics.

Anyway, is Frontiers Genetics a reliable source for in-Wiki author statements like "not surprisingly, Ashkenazi Jews prove to compose a distinct yet quite integral branch of European genomic tapestry"? - Hunan201p (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the quality of the source as a whole is a somewhat separate discussion from individual instances of usage. These are macro and micro issues with respect to each other. If we unpack the first, the thing to pay attention to is the journal's own literature on its process, alongside its Impact Factor (4.772) and CiteScore (4.9). Regarding the example of individual article usage provided (a quote), even a self-published source can be used for a quote attributed to a sufficiently eminent subject-matter expert, per WP:SPS. Wikipedia's assessment of source quality is of more relevance to the question of whether a source can be used for statements of fact in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am extremely perplexed as to why anyone should raise doubts about this source.

This is not about Frontiers of Science. It is about the reliability of Raphael Falk as a source for the history of genetics regarding the Israel/Palestine context.

• As someone whose German-Jewish parents fled Germany soon after Hitler’s seizure of power, Falk was particularly sensitive to ideas about race, particularly if they took place in his place of permanent refuge, Israel.
• Falk was a geneticist, one of the foremost scholars in that field in Israel, ending his career as emeritus professor of genetics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem-
• He became interested in the history of genetic theories in Zionist thinking and Israel, and went on to become an historian of science/biology, with a particular focus on theories about Jews.
• He wrote two works as an historian of biology (a) Genetic Analysis: A History of Genetic Thinking, Cambridge University Press, 2009 ISBN 978-0-521-88418-1 (linking to Robert Meunler’s review) and (b) Zionism and the Biology of Jews, Springer, 2017 ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8 (orig in Hebrew 2006), which zeroed in on the role of concepts of biology in the conceptualization of who Jews were within Zionism and, with the establishment of the state, Israel.

It is therefore utterly irrelevant what venue Falk chose to publish his overview in. Misguided attempts by editors of nondescript background (on the talk page it was even asserted that Falk's views were 'anti-Jewish', codelanguage for antisemitic!!!) to challenge his work on molecular genetics, or his theoretical and historical work, by citing one or two putative examples where his affirmations don't agree with snippets of what other wiki articles cite for ideas contary to those of Falk are, frankly, outrageous. His competence as an authority on the topic (as a geneticist and historian of biology) he is cited for has never, to my knowledge, been questioned. On the particular points paraphrased from Falk, the views are increasingly commonplace and have been endorsed by eminent scholars specializing on the origins of Jews as varied as Steven Weitzman (in his book The Origin of the Jews: The Quest for Roots in a Rootless Age, Princeton University Press (2017) 2019 ISBN 978-0-691-19165-2 and Shaye J. D. Cohen. There is nothing 'controversial' here. I've cited Falk's 2017 book for a number of articles and no one has ever thought this problematical.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see a problem with citing a subject matter expert with attribution. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all genetics-related studies – whether they have appeared in Nature or Science, or in a journal which uneven output when it comes to Quality, like Frontiers in Genetics – the impact of the source is a good indicator for due weight. A widely cited paper in Frontiers in Genetics (and there are loads of them) is better than a low-impact article in Science. Falk's article "only" has 12 citations in Google Scholar, but then we have to consider that this is not your usual population genetics paper with PCAs and f₃-statistics, but a critical review of the methods and interpretations employed in modern population genetics in a very complex context. Such studies by their very nature have a different impact, quantitatively and qualitatively. So no undue weight here IMO, but I would probably move away from plain Wikivoice and attribute the material in-text to Falk. –Austronesier (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is an editor of nondescript background? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the opposite of a high-pitched agitated editor, but I might be mistaken. –Austronesier (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term both in the general sense, editors of indistinct background whose competence to judge cogently issues of genetics is unknownm (including myself), and, in the narrower sense, I had in mind the editor who today trashed an article by Israel's whilom foremost historian of biology, a leading geneticist, as 'junk', and yesterday binned the same with a dismissive insinuation he was an antisemite, i.e. pushing an 'anti-Jewish POV'. Perhaps in the latter instance, I should have used a harsher adjective. The first rule in editing complex topics is humility and an awareness of the limits of one's sense of omniscience.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of Jewish genetics is highly controversial and contested. Many editors involved in this discussion have insisted that Raphael Falk is a "professor emeritus" and pointed out that he is Jewish, as if this gives him the privilege to self-publish, or makes it impossible for him to be an anti-semite. However, see the example of Richard Falk, who is also a professor emeritus, also Jewish, and also an anti-semite. Raphael Falk, the genetics expert we are discussing, was not an anti-semite, but he was an anti-Zionist, and spent most of his career trying to refute any notion of distinctly "Jewish" genetic ancestry, for better or for worse. Falk's research has clear ideological underpinnings, since "As Raphael Falk has argued, the question of Jewish genetics is not solely a scientific one, since the way one interprets the science, the uses one puts it to, and the very way in which one poses the questions are cultural and political, rather than only scientific."[21] This makes Falk by admission an un-objective participant in this field of research, who is at the opposite end of a spectrum from zionists who believe in a Jewish 'race'. There are sometimes highly ranked professors with controversial or opinionated ideas, and they also get their works published in shoddy journals. See Richard Lynn as another example, but note that I am not comparing him to Raphael Falk. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not worth replying to because of (a) its epistemological naivity and (b) failure to grasp the principles of paradigm analysis in the history of ideas. Knowledge is embedded in interests and assumptions. Historical analysis teases out these biases, and no one who does that well assumes that they alone are exempt from the cognitive pressures of their own times and milieu. Don't reply please. Read at least Falk's works on the topic before blathering about the person.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Falk has been accused of antisemitism (so you might care to strike that comment), much like Kenneth Roth is, along with pretty much anyone else that criticizes Israel for anything at all (or they are accused of anti-Zionism it then being argued that is the same thing as antisemitism).Anyhow, this has fa to do with what we are discussing here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. The editor should immediately strike out the absurd claim that Richard Falk is an antisemite. Disgraceful.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falk is obviously not "anyone who has ever criticized Israel, at all".[22][23][24] IMO, Nishidani and Selfstudier are over-reacting here. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are calling a still-living person, a Jew at that, an antisemite. Technically you mean he is a Self-hating Jew. The usual attack media can get away with that, and we invariably note the tripe as an accusation when a RS reports the assertions. You, as a wikipedian editor, cannot. You are not a reliable source, and you are way out of your depth here. So, retract that smear.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, your description of reliable sources as "usual attack media", as well as your very staunch defense of a guy who has been condemned for anti-Semitic stuff by several top diplomats, makes you seem like an especially tendentious editor. Are you really capable of bringing an objective and divorced perspective to this discussion? Please try to. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunan201p: This was meant to be a discussion about Frontiers Genetics, but you have utterly derailed your own thread by deviating from the topic entirely. I cautioned against the risk of mixing macro and micro in my first comment, and now this has become a discussion not about Frontiers, and not even about Raphael Falk, but—very confusingly for any other editors who might come across this discussion—Richard Falk, and whether they are antisemitic. It is basically worthless now. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Really? Did I do that all by myself?

Frontiers is a predatory publisher. Anything published in a Frontiers journal should be treated as suspect. If someone publishes in Frontiers, the first conclusion is that they couldn't publish with a non-predatory publisher. This comes across as a farrago of special pleading. If the guy wrote a blog post, is he such an expert that it would be a WP:MEDRS? Of course not - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I may be mistaken, but I think you've fallen for the very obvious confusion that has been invited here. I think the blog post you are referring to is that of Richard Falk, while the original discussion was about Raphael Falk (academic). The use of the example of a totally unrelated individual with the same surname and initials has obviously added to the confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you are equating Frontiers with a blog, that hyperbole really needs explaining/justifying. Also, Frontiers Media was only classified as a "possible predatory publisher", and that was only according to the now highly dated 2015 Beall's list. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers journals are not treated as good-enough journals on Wikipedia, and if you want their predatory listing removed then a discussion on dubious genetics sources isn't a place to do that - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we are really relying on Frontiers here, but just for my edification, where on WP is the consensus that Frontiers journals are not treated as good-enough journals on Wikipedia and where is the predatory listing? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable Frontiers is unreliable, that's not something we need to debate much. It is a predatory publisher with substandard reviewing. The argument that we should trust the article because the author has done some other good research doesn't hold. Having done some good research is no guarantee that all research is good (I've published many articles in leading academic journals in my own field, that does not mean I can submit a paper to a predatory journal and demand it should be respected just because I've done other things that were good). Quite the contrary: if the findings would be reliable and noteworthy, hardly any academic would submit to a journal such as Frontiers. In my department, even doing so would result in a warning. Jeppiz (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a warning on the talk page of the article in question to users Iskandar323, Nishidani and Triggerhippie4 to stop the long edit war over this Frontiers article. All users, regardless of opinions, would do better to await the outcome of this discussion. Whether the Frontiers article should be in or out pending this discussion is something I don't have an opinion of, but if it is kept in, the tags should be kept in as well. It is disappointing to see both how long this edit war has been raging, and that even good established users get drawn into it. Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jeppiz: Not only was your initial talk page post misguided, but you have mischaracterized what has principally been a talk page discussion as an edit war. Again, it would be better if you kept your aspersions to yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iskandar323: I can understand you don't like me mentioning you in an edit war and I respect that. In terms of behaviour, I don't see a problem with your editing whereas I do think Triggerhippie4 really should have refrained from returning to the issue so soon. Nevertheless, are you saying I am wrong to state that you re-added the Frontiers article after it had been removed? I am also not sure what "aspersions" you are alluding to, can I recommend you either develop that point or strike it? All I've said is that you are one of the users who recently took part in either deleting or restoring the Frontiers article. Is that statement wrong? Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This was never the right noticeboard for this, and it is wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good but I would still like to see the WP consensus against Frontiers that David Gerard mentioned above. Also this discussion appears to be confused as to whether we are considering the author reliable as a subject matter expert or whether we are relying on Frontiers. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Selfstudier above. Ad stated on the talk page, I believe Falk's findings to BD correct and have no problem with his hypothesis. My issue is with using Frontiers as a source, given that it's a very poor academic source. As I would seem Falk has published the same research at Springer (a reliable source), I would have no problem at all with the same content being in the article but sourced to his publication at Springer, not at Frontiers. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of declaring Frontiers entirely unusuable. Like MDPI, there are topics that it generally shouldn't be used for at all (like medicine) but for some other topics (like paleontology) I think it's okay to use on a case by case basis, provided that what is being said is not contentious and that the authors are established experts on the topic. (No opinion on this particular case though). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, that is a sound approach in academia but less so on Wikipedia. I use that exact approach both for my PhD students and Masters students, telling them that the occasional use of a less good journal can be OK on a case by case basis (although I would not accept neither Frontiers nor MDPI). On WP, I fear that such a case by case approach just results in users WP:CHERRYPICKING so that predatory journals are fine when they say what the users wants but unreliable when it contradicts them. The case in question is no exception, falling into the usual default lines we see in ARBPIA topics. (Personally, I am happy to declare I will never put forward an article from Frontiers or MDPI regardless of what it says). Jeppiz (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your speciality is, but unfortunately, within paleontology (vertebrate paleontology at least), MDPI and Frontiers have become mainstream enough that they can't be ignored like this. Species are being described in these papers, which are accepted by other researchers. The people using the venues are not some rank amateurs, but some of the most senior figures in field, like Éric Buffetaut and Robert R. Reisz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate. There are a lot of things about academic publishing which are unfortunate. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and not positioned on the bleeding edge of academic research. I don't think we want to treat predatory journals as just blogging platforms for reputable experts, but maybe that would work in some cases. For papers being cited as peer-reviewed research, if other researchers accept some work from these predatory journals, those other researchers should be cited instead of citing these predatory journals directly. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable - Neither in general, nor specifically for the disputed diff. The proposed content is interesting enough that multiple better sources would be needed, and they would have to be properly summarized without the poorly-attributed direct quotes. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a frankly totally evidence lacking discussion to make any sort of pronouncement on Frontier Genetics as a journal, but even, for the sake of argument, were we to suggest that it is so predatory that it amounted to being self-published, then Raphael Falk, with his six-decade publishing record with academic publishers would still be a subject-matter expert on genetics that you would want to listen to and who could be considered reliable per the standing precepts on self-published sourcing at WP:SPS. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks as if we need a full RFC on Frontiers to determine a consensus as to reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Iskandar323, I fear you are confusing things. This is a discussion about the reliability of Frontiers, whether Falk is reliable or not is a different question. Having said that, your comment is illuminating as to the real problem, which (in my reading) is that most users comment based on what they want to include or exclude (WP:CHERRYPICKING) rather than based on the academic status of the publisher (as it should be). As I already mentioned, I seem to be alone on the talk page in saying that both SurnameDNA and Frontiers are unreliable for genetics (an uncontroversial statement that I dare say most academics would agree with). Instead, there are different 'teams', each with their preferred unreliable source they want to keep, while wanting to exclude the unreliable source of the 'other team'. If I'm mistaken and any other user supported removing both, I apologise - but I have not seen it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have only responded so far based on SPS/subjectmatter expert being met and so with attribution I think it is OK to cite Falk.(per Nishidani, This is not about Frontiers of Science. It is about the reliability of Raphael Falk as a source for the history of genetics regarding the Israel/Palestine context.

  If we want to deprecate Frontiers (no SPS exception) or in the alternative as Gunrel, in which case the SPS exception will apply, it needs a proper RFC, and we can do that because I can see in the archives that Frontiers has been discussed before but afaics without reaching a final consensus.

  Otherwise this will just be another discussion without consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Equally confusing is the claim "so predatory that it amounted to being self-published". Those are two entirely different categories, it's not like "very predatory" equals "self-published". The statement makes no sense, sorry. Jeppiz (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Falk, reliability

Recent AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Raphael Falk (academic) closed as Keep.

The discussion above is clearly about the reliability of Frontiers, yet some users insist on making it about Raphael Falk. This is not academically sounding, and rather indicative that the motive is the desirec include Falk's claim in Frontiers, rather than discussing the academic merits of Frontiers (in general). It would be better to keep these two entirely unrelated discussions apart. As for Raphael Falk, his academic output is very modest. I can only assume the reason we have an article about his is because of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, because ad per WP:ACADEMIC, Falk is very far from any academic notability, as already a quick look at Google Scholar and JSTOR confirms. A few modest publications, with relatively few cites from other academics. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is about Frontiers, we need an RFC to determine reliability.

If it is about Falk, he qualifies both as a subject matter expert and because apparently the same material that is in Frontiers is published by Springer in Hebrew. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on Frontiers. As for Falk, one of tens of thousands of non-notable academics (he does not satisfy even one of the eight criteria at WP:ACADEMIC for being a notable academic), the same normal academic rules apply to him as to everyone else. A publication by Falk (and by any bona fide academic) in a good academic publication is reliable. As a non-notable academic, Falk does not benefit from any intrinsic reliability (nor do I, despite being much more widely cited than Falk, so no offence to Falk intended). Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falk has a WP article, that means he is notable by WP standards. If you think otherwise, then maybe AfD that article? Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, though that is rather irrelevant for this discussion. Thankfully, having a WP article and being RS as an academic are entirely unrelated (some [in]famous academi s have articles despite being uncitable. Far more common are the tens of thousands of academics whose research is RS though they have no article on WP). Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started the RFC below. If I read WP:CITEWATCH correctly, the general thought seems to be that it is hit and miss. But given this discussion and what's in the archives , maybe we should just sort it out. Maybe you would like to kick off? Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of the question about citing the actual source code as references in regards to verifiability policy since I now have a working demo for the sliding windowed infinite Fourier transform that can be cascaded just like IIR filters, which the original paper didn't mention it (not even alpha-SWIFT part) and it is cited on the relevant part on an article about sDFT. So the question is the source code a reliable source if there are working demos for it and there are no papers about any algorithms described by the actual source code? 2001:448A:3043:762C:746D:DED5:4321:8398 (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned in the first discussion linked above, interpreting anything other than the most trivial and obvious information from source code is original research from a primary source, and concerns of due weight for article inclusion direct us to use secondary, not primary, sources when considering the addition of information to an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Code that you wrote and posted on a WP:UGC site is clearly not a usable source. You can't evade WP:OR policy by posting on a different website first. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie and Rosguill: Does these working demos for above count as secondary sources since it demonstrates how the algorithm works, or is still a easily-misused primary source? 2001:448A:3041:7E63:D3E:5407:F6DD:3DF5 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is still very much a primary source. We would want a reliable secondary source (magazine, expert, etc.) to interpret it for use on Wikipedia. The system excludes what might be a lot of good content, but also keeps the site from devolving into endless pet theories. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Absolutely not. It is original research. This is not even a close question. Banks Irk (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Huge no here, especially code you wrote yourself or that hasn't been published in a book. If it were published in a book it would still be a primary source and any conclusions you make from it WP:OR. Strange that someone would even ask if that is allowable. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with DIYeditor, I realized the actual source code is actually a frequently-misused primary source but in some cases, it was cited as references on articles such as Constant-Q transform (especially one of the implementation of the faster ones that cited this). But for now with consideration, I re-added the cascaded SWIFT method here on an article about sDFT but this time, it doesn't cite GitHub Gist as sources as it is WP:UGC, instead it cites lock-in filters from Zurich Instruments website for the equations for both the obtained windowing function and its Fourier transform on the aforementioned article, which I think it is good right? 2001:448A:3041:7E63:D3E:5407:F6DD:3DF5 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Content marketing blogs from product vendors aren't any better. Please read WP:RS thoroughly and stick to reliably published materials from now on. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a WP:COI article about my sister that is currently at Draft:Carla Vernón--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am trying to get a better understanding of how to pursue encyclopedic merit for my sister's bio, which has been declined at WP:AFC by User:Scope creep who broadly panned all the sources. I disagree with the assessment, but my understanding of its perspective has been improved by recent Draft talk page discussion with User:Rosguill. One specific source has also been described by User:Melcous as non-independent on the same Draft talk discussion. When I look at this source, which is not listed as one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that is unreliable, I view it as a piece of journalism in which the author requested comment that my sister responded to with some quotes that were included. However, the parts of the article that I intended to rely upon as a WP:RS appeared to me to be in the voice of the author. Rosguill suggested that the editorial process of this source may rely largely on PR packages rather than journalistic research. Can I get further clarification on whether Nosh is or isn't an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source and its parent is a news aggregator for the beverage industry that consists largely of disseminating press releases. In the case of this particular article, it appears to be reproducing the subject's email announcing a job change with the thinnest of veneer to make it look like a real article. There is nothing that inspires any confidence in the source. Not reliable, especially not for a BLP.Banks Irk (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it listed at WP:RSP? On what basis do we know the unquoted content was from my sister's hand/voice?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSP is a list of stuff that has been repeatedly discussed on this and other WP-pages. If you know of such discussions about nosh.com, you can suggest it at RSP talk or go WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Banks Irk On what basis do we know the unquoted content was from my sister's hand/voice?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article explicitly says so. It references and extensively quotes her email. Banks Irk (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Banks Irk, I admit, I do not often research WP:BLPs in professions where press releases and personal emails determine content, but it I am asking about the unqouted content. I understand her quotes are her own hand/voice from the attributed emailed correspondence. I do a lot of editing in sports. If a journalist quotes LeBron James in an article I do not assume that James wrote the whole article. Here, I am asking about the unquoted content. Why do we assume that the author did not do any journalism for the unquoted content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone is free to chime in here other than User:Banks Irk. I just need an explanation about why there is any belief that my sister wrote the unquoted content in the article above. For comparisons sake let's look at this story when Tom Brady first announced his retirement last year. This ESPN article is pretty normal coverage of the announcement. It has lots of quotes by Brady and lots of unquoted content. Do we believe that Brady wrote the unquoted content as well?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Scope creep and/or User:Melcous would be welcome commenters here as to why we believe the unquoted content was written by my sister and the author put her byline on an article that she had nothing to do with.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• TTT, I think it's fair to say the source is non-independent, in the way that half-interview, half-bio pieces frequently are. I don't have hard evidence that Ortenberg is primarily relying on Vernon's email, as opposed to independent research, but that's my best judgment. Using nosh as a source in general is questionable, with its big "Submit News" button at the top right not inspiring confidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that they accept submissions. However, they are not a wiki. They have a very extensive team with editors for wide ranging subjects-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger your initial question here seems to muddy the difference between reliable sources and independent sources. Just because something is not listed at WP:RSP does not mean it is independent. A source that is an interview with a subject is by definition not independent of that subject, and one that is known for basically rehashing press releases is even less so. To be frank, it's a similar question to your own judgment on writing this article - you may very well have reliable information, but as her brother you are not independent. Melcous (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt I am not independent of my sister and thus I am editing by special process. The source article at issue here is clearly not an interview. An interview is an article where an author presents a list of questions and responses to those questions. My point on this source is that as a producer of 100s of DYKs, 100s of GAs and dozens of FA & FLs, I have a lot of editing experience. I have presented a lot of sources. I have never presented a source with an editorial team like this and had it not be considered a source. As I am talking to more people about this source, I continue to look at the article and see quoted and unquoted content. I feel that the unquoted content was not of my sister's hand. Thus I thought it was fair to say that with this editorial team it has to be good content. Now, I feel that you are saying all of the unquoted stuff is truly sourced to press release content that my sister could have had a hand in. I think a large percentage of content on WP is sourced to press releases. I am not sure I truly understand why press releases are so bad, but for a CEO, I guess independence may be an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience with this sort of speciality source but I'm not sure the editorial team is as impressive as you are making it out to be. For starters, that link seems to just have general staff roster rather than being exclusive to info on their editorial staff which is what a good source generally does, and means we have to pick through it to see what's there.

Further their "CEO / Founder / Editorial Director"'s education seems to be in marketing not in journalism. Putting that aside for a while, I'm not sure having their CEO as "editorial director" fits the sort of independence of editorial staff we generally expect (i.e. separation of church and state), nor "vision shapes the editorial, publishing, and positioning of all of BevNET's properties".

The "Editor, NOSH" while having journalism qualifications seems to have worked mostly in marketing. The "Managing Editor, Brewbound" at least does have some journalism experience and education but her more recent experience (stated to be nearly 10 years) and education seems to have been in marketing.

Their "Editor-in-Chief" at least seems to have been mostly or exclusively a journalist and also their "Editor, Brewbound" and possibly their "Managing Editor, BevNET". The qualifications and experience of their "Producer, Taste Radio; Contributing Editor, BevNET", "Spirits Editor" and "Editorial Assistant, BevNET & NOSH" are unclear.

Mind you I assume this is a NOSH article and people who only work on Brewbound or BevNET (or probably the Spirits Editor) are irrelevant. But that further fits into the wider issue that we can't just look at the link see a bunch of people and assume their content is fine.

From a BLP standpoint, while these sort of sources are generally mostly positive and as mentioned by others generally coming from the companies and the people around them, I would oppose their use for content about living persons because their poor standards means there's always a risk they will repeat inaccurate information. (And putting aside it should not matter, it's not guaranteed that the subject will always be happy about the material since the interests of a company don't necessarily align with individuals involved.) Perhaps we could make an exception for very basic details like person X was hired for role Y in company Z, but that's about it. (And it also doesn't demonstrate notability.)

As for your press release comment, I'm not convinced it's true. But in any case while it is true we have a lot of material not sourced to RS (whether no source at all or the source is an RS), it doesn't mean it's acceptable to add to the problem by adding more improperly sourced content. And press releases are rarely RS and especially not in a BLP.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

Which of the following best describes the StatMuse chatbot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah but that "someone" is primarily a defunct SPS now available only in archive form, example [25]. Almost everything down this hole is problematic, chatbots are just the new lowest level of hell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 4: Deprecate. For the obvious reasons of reliability, accuracy, and OR. JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on this turkish journal I've never heard of and isn't mentioned in archived discussions? I haven't found any english sources for its statements. In particular, is it considered reliable for using the following quote, that contrasts with what most Western perennial reliable sources have been reporting?

"İddia: MOSSAD'a göre Ukrayna ve Rusya kayıpları". hurseda.net (in Turkish). Archived from the original on 25 January 2023. As of 14 january according to Israeli intelligence sources: Killed combatants: NATO: 2,692; Non-NATO: 2,360; Ukrainians: 157,000; Russians: 18,480. Wounded combatants: Ukrainians: 234,000; Russians: 44,500.

Thanks for your inputs. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself might be OK (it gets cited by others) but the statement (translated) "Allegedly, the field data of January 14, 2023, based on Israeli intelligence,..." would give me pause. I would want confirmation from elsewhere for that info. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it has been cited, but not in a good way [[26]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Israeli intelligence estimates are being made public, which is possible, then I think we should try to get them from a stronger source. One concern is trying to make sure that this is really from them, but a second aspect is trying to make sure we use a source that has a reputation for the competencies needed to interpret such information. As with governments, not all comments from intelligence services is equally reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are, why to this source, why not to a better quality (say, Israeli) one? But what do we know about this source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this does not match public Israeli intelligence estimates, those numbers are all wrong. I think you're looking at a Russian information operation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The details they are posting have been widely debunked, so regardless of the site the particular article is not reliable for anything. See AFP or PolitiFact. Previous Russian disinformation about NATO troops fighting in Ukraine has also followed the same pattern, see this BBC article from last September for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

• What "public Israeli intelligence estimates, that the source doesn't match" are you referring to?
• All reliabe sources confirm the presence of foreign volunteers including instructors in the Ukraine conflict, as does indeed the above BBC article.
• The Ukraininan government and Fact Checkers mentioned above deny the presence of regular NATO troops in Ukraine.
• The source in question never claims, that the casualties it reported were regular NATO troops, but divides foreign casualties by country of origin. The UK and Ukraininan government's denials of regular NATO troop presence don't contradict the source.
• The Ukraininan government has publicly raised very high demands ahead of the Israeli foreign minister's visit, that his government is interested in lowering, e.g. by means of publication of confidential data. [27]
• Such a diplomatic strategy may only work, if the data is too accurate for the interlocutor to deny.
• The UK and Ukraininan governments have not disputed this data in their statements, which is especially remarkable in the face of the very high Ukrainian casualty estimate.
• Being the only NATO member advocating discussion as a conflict resolution mechanism, Turkey's media are likely to be closely monitored by Ukrainian officials, answering your question on Israeli intelligence conveying their threat of embarassment thusly.

89.206.112.13 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article says the MOD denies the claim, so not it does not confirm the story, it conforms the story exists, yes, not that it has any validity. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 2,458 Dead – NATO soldiers, so it quite specifically says what you're saying it doesn't. There may be foreign fighters, but to say they are NATO soldiers is a complete fabrication. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in trolling: it has been confirmed by more than 350 citations already.[28] 89.206.112.13 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again your pointing to foreign fighters in Ukraine NOT NATO soldiers, the presence of which has be debunked by multiple high quality reliable sources -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Mossad were going to leak casualty estimates in an attempt to influence Israeli-Ukrainian negotiations, as you seem to be implying, and wanted this information to be seen by Ukrainian officials, why would they leak it to an obscure news provider, rather than one of the major Turkish newspapers? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because a low-visibility outlet, that he still may notice, gives your opponent more leeway by reducing the chance of it being picked up by major global publishers, while at the same time clearly demonstrating your determination of not just threatening but actually pulling the trigger on going public. The Ukraininan government could have easily called this bluff by disproving the claims, but instead chose to already lower its demands in full public view, before they even met with Israel, lending yet additional credence to the source. This amounts to the diplmatic equivalent of implorimg them to stop embarassing them in public and stay quiet.[29] This being nevertheless inductive, does really nobody on this noticeboard know any actual facts about the outlet Hürseda Haber? Who are they anyway? 89.206.112.13 (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the data is suspect anyway, it doesn't matter that much who they are. Maybe a Turkish speaker could check the Turkish Wikipedia for some info but I think your original question has been answered...not reliable for the quoted material. Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hürseda seems to be basically a party propaganda outlet of Free Cause Party, a political splinter group of pro-Kurdish-minority, pro-Islamist orientation. Its party line seems to be strongly pro-Russian, pro-Iranian, anti-Western, anti-Jewish. Definitely not the kind of thing we should use as a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes to all three.

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

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

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

As a background, Hersh is a Pulitzer-winning American investigative journalist who first uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib torture, and a few other scandals involving the US administration. He mostly published in The New York Times. Recently, he switched to self-publishing for reasons explained by him here[30] and so, his newest piece of investigative journalism appeared on a personal publishing platform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To clarify, RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." [31] Hersh posted his blog post in a social media blog named Substack. WP:SPS says "social media postings are largely not acceptable, as sources. Also Substack is WP:NOTRS, WP:QS whereby Substack does not fact check their blogger’s works and has no editorial oversight.

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

For #2, No due to WP:UNDUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTWEBHOST and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL According to RS, the "subject matter" in Hersh's blog post includes unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and others [32]. And because RS report that Hersh's subject matter about the living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated [33] [34], I am concerned we'd run into WP:LIVING issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Kashmiri:, wiki's RS do say 'the West blamed Russia' and that the 'West pointed fingers at Russia.' Here, "Russia shrugged off Western accusations of its complicity in mysterious explosions at the Nord Stream pipelines in Europe this week” [35], here "World leaders quickly blamed Russia for explosions along the Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipelines." [36], here "Western governments have stopped short of pointing the finger directly at Russia" [37], here "Western officials were quick to stress on Tuesday that the explosions appeared to have affected Russian-owned assets.[38]. Plenty more RSes say the same thing. And, those quotes from RS should be included in the wiki article & I've often wondered why they're not. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use headlines as sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Selfstudier: I disagree and here's why - the "information (details) about the subject" of Hersh's blog are not corroborated and not verified by any "knowledgeable sources." In other words, other than just 3 RS writing, Hersh wrote a blog post, there is not a single RS that I'm aware of who has verified the "information about the subject" from any "knowledgeable sources." In fact, one of the RS used in the wiki piece on Hersh's blog debunks Hersh's allegations about the "subject." [39] For those reasons & reasons @Bobfrombrockley: stated, I don't that WP:ELYES applies here. Best Regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Yes to all 3, given that his accusations have been met with denials and been covered in third party secondary sources. With that, including the initial accusation by a notable and noteworthy commentator is fine. nableezy - 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1-Yes and source it to WP:RS not his blog 2,3-NO as per WP:SPS he is not an expert on nordstream or explosions --Shrike (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can various pages[40][41][42][43][44][45] of a website claiming to belong to the "Human Rights Ombudsman" of the "Donetsk People's Republic" be used as a source for the military casualties of the Russian-backed separatists during the War in Donbas (2014–2022) ?

Currently, they are used in this section: War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)#Separatist_forces. A long discussion is found at Talk:War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)#DPR_and_LPR_casualties.

Apart from being primary sources published by one side in the war, I see additional problems: (1) They use the TLD .ru (Russia), although at that time they claimed to be an independent republic, that was not even recognized by Russia (the last page was published after the recognition by Russia). (2) They use propaganda terms like "Armed Aggression from Ukraine"[46] which are against all reports by reliable sources. They also justify the Russian aggression against Ukraine ("After the recognition of the Donbass Republics by Russia, the Ukrainian armed formations intensified shelling, as a result of which, on February 24, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin made a decision to start a special operation in Donbass in order to protect the civilian population from the aggression of Ukraine.")[47] Rsk6400 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but using quotation marks in this context is like kindergarten. It also makes the question moot. No need to discuss anything, if the ombudsman does not exist, and the Donetsk People's Republic does not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not and it does not, because there is good precedent. At the risk of derailing the actual discussion:

UN human rights agencies and news media use the same quotation marks, or caveats like so-called and self-declared, to avoid endorsing the legitimacy of fake Kremlin-controlled organizations. The “ombudsman” of a former fake state and current Russian civil-military occupation administration is not what one can reasonably consider an ombudsman, and courts have determined that the “republics” were under the overall control of Russia since May 2014.

For example:

• UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Such detentions were formalized with the introduction of so-called ‘administrative arrest’ territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, and ‘preventive detention’ in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’. ”[48]
• CBC News: “While Canada and the rest of the world doesn’t recognize the self-declared republics, the area has served as ground zero for this intractable war, where no territory is being gained and multiple attempts at ceasefires have failed. . . . At one point during the trip, a blue and yellow Ukrainian flag was visible in a field. But directly across was the black, blue and red flag of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), denoting the start of non-government-controlled territory.”[49]
• Historian Serhy Yekelchyk (107): “all this happened before the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic formally established the union state of New Russia . . . At first they operated within the old Soviet paradigm by creating ‘people’s republics,’ . . .”[50]

The reason this is not even more obvious is that sources very often defer even using the names, formerly using expressions like “pro-Russian separatists,” but now mainly just refer to “Russian occupation forces” as such or “Russian-occupied territory.”

(Denigrating justified good-faith concerns as “kindergarten” and showing up just to reject even the notion of holding a discussion is not an argument, and it is not nice.) —Michael Z. 18:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No  Agree that these are not reliable sources on anything but their own statements. At WP:RSP Russian state media like RIA Novosti, TASS, RT, and Sputnik are already flagged as “biased and opinionated,” “generally unreliable,” or outright “deprecated.” PR/propaganda organizations of the Russian-controlled “republics” should be treated as even less reliable during the period of 2014 to September 2022 when the Russian government denied its relationship with them, and as equivalent since the Kremlin claimed the annexation of parts of south-eastern Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say, what I have already previously said, regardless of ones own POV regarding Russia. Claims by both belligerents during a conflict should be viewed as equally reliable or unreliable, just as in any conflict, and both views require equal representation. Excluding the views of one over the other creates an unbalanced view. Previous editor discussions/consensus at the start of the War in Donbas, as well as at the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was that DPR reports of their own military losses (which have been relayed by RS as well, like the BBC) can be used so to present the DPR's claims of their own losses, just like we present Ukraine's claims of their own losses. If the DPR's numbers of their losses were to be removed, the information in this regard would be skewed heavily towards the POV of Ukraine, whose claims of their enemies losses we also include and regularly update, despite a number of RS calling into doubt Ukraine's claims which are consistently well above Western estimates of Russian losses. In any case, the removal of the POV of one of the belligerents in the conflict, while continuing to include Ukrainian claims and sources such as Kyiv Independent and Ukrayinska Pravda which are heavily biased towards Russia, will create articles that are heavily skewed towards the POV of one belligerent over the other. I will ping other editors who have been involved in previous discussions or editing the casualty figures to voice their own opinions on the matter @Cinderella157:@Jr8825:@PilotSheng:@Mr.User200:@Pincrete:@Alaexis:. As for myself, I am not going to repeat myself any further than I already have at the article's talk page and here and leave it to the community to decide. EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general, during the war everyone downplays their military casualties while the civilian ones are sometimes exaggerated, sometimes downplayed, and sometimes just not known precisely. The official losses and the estimates can differ by an order of magnitude (13,000 vs 100,000). One of these numbers is bound to be wrong but for now we keep both of them on Wikipedia!

This particular site is used for the numbers of military and civilian casualties of Donetsk People's Republic. We have no reason to think that it's *especially* unreliable and not including the casualties taken by one party of the conflict would clearly be a WP:NPOV breach.

Finally, in the cases when it's possible to cross-check the numbers from this site with the ones published by UN [51], they seem to be in line. For example, according to UNCHR 6,500 rebels and 3,400 civilians were killed in 2014-2022 in the whole of Ukraine, compared to 5,042 civilian and military casualties in DPR according to the ombudsman's site. Alaexis_¿question? 21:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re missing the fundamental fact that the so-called “DNR” and “LNR” are Russian-controlled militias, and do not have their own civilians. They do not have defined territory and borders, nor have they ever held their entire claimed territory (which is not defined), nor do they have their own population (much of the population in or near their controlled territory fled years ago). The civilians that are being displaced, forcibly deported, wounded, and killed are Ukrainians in Ukraine. These Russian-controlled military groups were covert occupation administrations for Moscow, and since September they have been overtly civil-military occupation administrations for a foreign government.  —Michael Z. 15:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not black and white. You could say that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a "covert occupation administration" for Turkey and that it has no civilians, as all the people living there are Cypriots. That's partially true but the fact is that it is the current administration of the territory and therefore produces data about the population of North Cyprus, which is used on Wikipedia, with the necessary attributions and caveats. Here the situation is similar: some figures are only available from the de facto administration of the territory and sometimes it's worth using them here. Alaexis_¿question? 20:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus is not a battlefield where Turkey is levelling cities, forcibly deporting millions of “its civilians,” and accused of incitement to genocide. So I’d say it’s in some ways not similar. —Michael Z. 20:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a much more thorough ethnic cleansing in Cyprus than anything that has happened in Ukraine. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want to make Russian government officials in Ukraine look reliable, pretty much your only comparison right now is ISIS/ISIL.  —Michael Z. 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Russian state-run outlets are not reliable. Just use the OHCHR figures. That's the best way to go. There is absolutely no reason that we should use Russian state-run propaganda outlets. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• NO, as per above. This is not an independent third-party source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Context is everything Alaexis clearly states the problems with using figures directly or indirectly sourced from an involved party on either side - so not just this particular source but also Ukrainian source or sources parroting Ukrainian figures. This request is specifically in regard to the War in Donbas (2014–2022). Figures from an involved party are reliable for what they state. It might be appropriate to use such a source within the body of the article, where due weight can be applied to figures from both sides. However, when it comes to a summation expressed in a Wiki voice (eg in the infobox), we should only be relying on independent third party sources that have made their own assessments - eg the UN figures. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a very sensible approach, I would support it. Alaexis_¿question? 19:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support too this kind of approach. Mhorg (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reporting by reliable sources is not “parroting.” Treating Ukraine and Russia as exactly equal and opposite is not an WP:NPOV position, but a false balance.

  Furthermore, in this conflict, “he said, she said” and we can’t know who is more likely to be right, if at all, is literally a Russian propaganda view intended to demotivate and promote disengagement while Ukraine needs aid.  —Michael Z. 20:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also support Cinderella157's approach. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No the "Donetsk People's Republic" is in quotes for a reason, it does not exist. This would be like citing Vichy France for WWII reporting. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Context is everything per Cinderella157. I agree that (even given good will), the figures coming from ALL parties should be treated with great scepticism, in this case there are additional reasons to be sceptical about this quasi-regime. BUT as a clearly attributed claim, there is no reason to NOT use these figures, though to do so in any other way would be inapt. Even UN etc figures are often dependent on data sent to them by warring parties, since the practical difficulties of collecting their own data are too great - though these are generally the best figures available. Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No Use third-party sources that have vetted information and don't have a pony in the race. Russian-state-sourced media has a long history of problematic reporting and very questionable reliability; this is no different. --Jayron32 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT an RfC, (so just discuss) but a feeler for whether we should start one to see if we can get his websites (plural) listed and deprecated at WP:RSP. I was amazed to see it wasn't even mentioned there. His websites are so bad they violate WP:ELNO.

Joseph Mercola is possibly the most infamous, currently living, peddler of pseudoscientific alternative medicine products and truly dangerous ideas. He is now suing Google/YouTube for removing his videos. He has several websites, the most notable of which is https://www.mercola.com/. He has also moved much of his content to Substack, which is an infamous "last refuge" for bad actors who get banned elsewhere (that applies to quacks and fringe journalists). Mercola's content is literally "so bad no one else will host it".^[1] Here's a sample from our article:

He was warned by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2021 for selling fake COVID-19 cures.^[2][3] In March, the Center for Countering Digital Hate named Mercola as one of the 12 most prominent sources of COVID misinformation in a report later cited by US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.^[4] In September his accounts on YouTube were removed by the company for breaking their policies on COVID-19 misinformation.^[5] Mercola then moved some of his content to Substack. According to Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Mercola's content is "so bad no one else will host it".^[1]

On September 29, 2022, Mercola filed suit against Google, who owns YouTube, alleging they violated their provision of giving the subscriber an opportunity to remove any of their content to comply to a new policy.^[6]

Is there some interest in pursuing this endeavor? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercola.com   Shows exactly one use that isn't the article about Mercola himself. I think in order to call a RfC you would need to demonstrate that its use is a problem, which I just don't think is the case here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that one other use (it was at Sauerkraut, where the citation was not needed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Mercola should be considered generally unreliable if not deprecated. However as Hemiauchenia says I am not aware of anyone trying to add Mercola links to Wikipedia. Andre🚐 00:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely unreliable, don't need an RfC. Could be a case for Xlinkbot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that most editors are fairly sensible since they aren't adding him as a source to articles. That's good. What I'm really after is a community decision at WP:RSP about it. We need to get it deprecated. (Only sensible and uncontroversial sources can explain no mention at WP:RSP. Mercola is neither, so a community decision should be found there.) Right now his article has only one link, in the infobox, after I removed one link from the External links as a violation of WP:ELNO. I'd like to get rid of the one in the infobox, and I'm hoping a decision at WP:RSP would enable that move.

What's the next step? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead and remove the link from the infobox based on this discussion, but you don't need to add it to RSP unless it comes up again in the future. Andre🚐 03:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then, if anyone complains, we can take this further. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't matter because anyone can search for Mercola and easily find his website. In regards to his lawsuit he sued because Google had a policy to allow all users time to comply with any new policy changes but neglected to do that in his case.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support to deprecation. It's not that the links are there at this moment; it's that they keep being added every now and then and it takes time and effort to remove them.

Links to this peddler of fringe nonsense should have no place in any self-respecting encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• So like, what's the point? Deprecating/listing on RSP/etc. etc. are all about controversial sites; things that either have been, or that we anticipating being, points of contention. Stuff that is on the face completely unreliable doesn't need to be listed (or even discussed, really), as we expect people to be able to apply WP:RS all by themselves, without coming here to ask permission or checking the list at RSP. There's no need to get community consensus to remove every bullshit source that has ever existed. Most of them, you can just remove or not use; if there is a controversy, then this might be an appropriate venue to discuss, but we have no evidence that anyone is trying to use this, nor do we have evidence that its use is widespread. If it's shit, get rid of it on your own, WP:SOFIXIT applies here as anywhere else. Permission is not needed. --Jayron32 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there's no reason to have an RfC on RSN but I think most other editors have missed a wider point. The OP seems to be under the mistaken impression deprecation would mean we're forbidden from including the website in the infobox or as an external link and that seems to be the primary reason they're asking for deprecation.

  But that's not what deprecation is for or what it achieves. It's not even what blacklisting achieves since the link can still be whitelisted where it is appropriate. Consider famous cases like Breitbart News and Daily Mail. Unsurprisingly both articles include links to their respective media outlets in their infoboxes. (Maybe elsewhere, I didn't check.)

  To be clear, deprecation is about preventing editors using something as a source in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. It makes it clear to editors the default would be to never use the source (as an RS) and they would have to have a very very good argument as to why we should use it as a source in any particular case. Blacklisting is about preventing abuse or mistakes e.g. for sites which are spammed or which contain dangerous enough material that we have to be sure it never occurs. There should be evidence there is actually such a problem. If there are zero links to a source and people aren't too many cases of people having to remove them then it is unlikely blacklisting is needed.

  Whether to include a link to the website not as a source but either as external link or infobox should be discussed in the article talk pages where such a link is proposed guided by our relevant guidelines and policies of which WP;RS is basically uninvolved. There is no reason to involve RSN in it since it's not an RS question the website isn't being used as a source in any way.

  We definitely consider potential harm from the website but you don't need a discussion on RSN to establish potential harm. For example we removed the link to Kiwi Farms after this RFC Talk:Kiwi Farms/Archive 4#URL and 8chan after Talk:8chan/Archive 2#Inclusion of the link to 8chan but still link to Stormfront after Talk:Stormfront (website)#URL. To give a bunch more examples, we also still link to The Right Stuff (blog), VDARE, [[The Daily Stormer], 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipediocracy. No idea about discussion on these. If any of those websites have ever been discussed on RSN before, I assume these have been short discussions since there's no question they aren't suitable as sources. (Like with Mercola, they're so bad that they're definitelty a case where I think we should not include a link even if we're covering something because of secondary source discussion unlike I think we generally should as mentioned in a discussion above.)

  With the exception of the last three, personally I consider all of these websites more harmful than Mercola. But I acknowledge a key difference is with most of them it's unlikely people visiting via us is a significant factor in the harm since anyone who is taken in by them is probably going to find it anyway and are unfortunately already down a rabbit hole Wikipedia can't do much to prevent. But it's possible some people may visit Mercola's website and be taken in by some of the absolute nonsense without that being the case.

  Note I am not saying you need to start an RfC on the article talk page. As always, if you've removed the link, explained your reasons and no one has objected you can leave it at that. I'm also not trying to say we should keep a link to Mercola's website/s. There is a key difference between the Mercola case and the one ones namely that the other ones the entire article is basically about the website but thankfully we do not have and I don't think we need to have an article on Mercola's websites, we just have one on the person. But the point is discussion here and even deprecating or blacklisting is of very limited relevance to the question you seem to be asking.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time I've written on this noticeboard, so please excuse any mistakes on my part.

Anna Paulina Luna is in the news recently. I was reviewing the citations on her wiki-article, and one source, The Floridian (a news website), caught my eye.

• "Trump Will Host Fundraiser for Anna Paulina Luna". The Floridian. November 17, 2021. Retrieved August 23, 2022.

As I was navigating the site, it seems (to me at least) that this site has a bias. I did not find this site on WP:RSPSOURCES. I feel that a review of this site for inclusion to WP:RSPSOURCES would be worthwhile.

Thanks!

KD5TVI (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having a bias matters too much in the grand scheme of things, we all have one. The quality and standards of their reporting matters more then them having a preference. With that said, there's substantial issues with that quality and standard. The seem to be widely described as a blog. Their coverage is described by one reliable Florida politics outlet as not just biased but sycophantic. And the head guy, a failed congressional candidate, had his twitter DMs exposed by another conservative Florida media org in large part because they were sick of him asking higher profile outlets to retweet his stories. All in all it doesn't give me the feeling that they stand on solid ground with regards to their journalistic standards. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many issues, I am unconvinced that this publication is legitimate.

1. The link to the article you provided had an incomplete sub-title: "President Trump called her a". Another article that I quickly found [52]: House Democrats banned together in support of Omar - "banded"?
2. See bottom of page, the Twitter account of this publication is a personal account @JavManjarres, while the email of this publication is Diversenewmedia@gmail.com .
3. Clicking categories they feature at the top of the page, they refer to Biden as "Joe Biden" and Trump as "President Donald Trump".
4. Their sidebar still has the title: Stop Nancy Pelosi, over one month after she is no longer Speaker of the House. Three of the four advertisements are for politicians, Republicans I assume.
5. They write about [53] the Biden classified documents incident that Evidently, the National Archives informed Biden attorneys two months before the story became public last week ... but other sources (including Fox, the source they actually linked to [54]) report that Biden attorneys informed the National Archives of the documents. starship.paint (exalt) 12:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion as to whether “the Floridian” is reliable or not, however I oppose adding it to the RSP list in either case. That list is for sources have been discussed multiple times (the P in RSP stands for Perennial), and “the Floridian” has not. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Blueboar above, a general RfC on The Floridian is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meh… Requesting comments on a source’s reliability is fine (that is what this noticeboard is for)… my objection is purely about adding it to the the RSP list. That part is premature. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, to be more specific, an RfC on adding The Floridian to WP:RSPSOURCES is inappropriate. Though if such an RfC were appropriate, the wording above wouldn't be, since it isn't neutral, as WP:RFC requires.

There has been an increasing tendency for 'reliability' RfCs on this noticeboard to be seen as a solution to disputes over sourcing in specific articles, rather than perennial questions, and in my opinion it needs to be actively discouraged. At best, it is premature and based on a misunderstanding of WP:RS in general (which doesn't support a simple binary segregation of sources into abstract 'reliable' and 'unreliable' categories), and far too often, such RfCs become proxy battlegrounds for debates over single uses of a source.

Rather than an RfC, what is needed in this case is a simple discussion of the specifics, as laid out in the notes at the top of this page: what wording is The Floridian being cited for, and where? And as far as I can see, that hasn't even been discussed on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following best describes Frontiers Media?

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

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

Survey (Frontiers)

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

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

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

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

• Option 2 i.e. Status quo (WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media). There is excellent research in frontiers journals. There's also garbage research. It's a mixed enough bag that you can't summarily rule it out as a source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is “pay to publish”, then I would not call it generally reliable. It might qualify as specifically reliable (context is important)… but, even then, I would treat anything they publish as SPS by the author. In-text attribution would be important, and WP:DUE would come into play. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• #3, generally unreliable. With regret, because they have published some valuable articles, too. But my limited experience has taught me that utter crap is also found in Frontiers journals, published either for payment or because you're friends with the journal's chief editor and no serious journal will publish you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per HB. HB really knows what he's talking about when it comes to academic journals, and he regularly removes actual predatory journals. I don't cite frontiers very often, but I occasionally do so if the authors are subject matter experts (which means that the work is standing up on the reputation of the author rather than the journal). If it is judged generally unreliable, then there will be no room for nuance regarding these cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, generally unreliable. The poor reputation at RSN discussions has persisted for years. Where is the evidence they have done anything to improve their editorial process? Bad reports continue to come out,[55] and they are now being disregarded by some universities.[56]. In most RSN dicussions, the consistent advice I am seeing is that they shouldn't be cited for biomedical stuff[57] and other "important" stuff, yet that's the majority of their output. It's difficult to see why they should not be deprecated. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 I tend towards Headbomb's logic. Some Frontier journals are highly respected (e.g. Frontiers in Immunology which acts as the journal of the International Union of Immunological Societies), some are not. I wouldn't want a situation where use of very good, solid, peer-reviewed review articles in Frontier in Immunology can't be used. Red Fiona (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 or 4 - Yes, sometimes garbage journals publish good work. Sometimes they publish useful work frequently enough to be tempting to us as Wikipedia editors. Is the defense here that because its a convenient journal, despite its problems, we should be citing them anyway? It's an extraordinary and supremely rare rare situations where we absolutely need to be on the cutting edge of research, and therefor need to cite a primary source from a predatory journal where no better sources exist. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2: The status quo of 'use with caution' is the most practical approach. Frontiers has dozens of journals, and the case for any given journal, in any given subject area, is going to be different. The assessment of that should remain case-by-case, and be performed by editors willing to put in the legwork of scrutinizing the quality of individuals papers, their authors and the reviewers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 is the most sensible option, per Headbomb. Papers should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. WP:MREL, with the footnote being highlighted by Headbomb's unreliable.js tool, should be enough to drive people to discuss these on the talk page and determine whether a paper should or shouldn't be used. DFlhb (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 The CiteWatch entry above does not seem to be invalid; no evidence has been presented that the situation has changed positively or negatively. Problematic, but not a "never use" option. --Jayron32 14:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Open Access journals where the content is free-as-in-libre content for all don't jive with funding methods relying on paying to access content and so other funding options have to be explored and is at least philosophically different then pay to play. I would not hold that against them to the full extent of a predatory/pay to play journal. That said for some of them the intentionally wide net they allow does merit caution. The current situation seems to take that into account. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 Agree with Headbomb. Every publisher publishes some garbage. I have read perfectly good review articles in Frontiers journals. I would be more concerned about the original research published there, which we shouldn't be using much anyway. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Frontiers)

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

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

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

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

All publishers at least on occasion publish garbage research. Is Elsevier generally unreliable because it once published a paper that suggested that octopus were space aliens? [58] and which one malacologist described as pseudoscience and nonsense [59].? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, an actual participant in the review of a Frontiers study has given a different perspective.[60] - Hunan201p (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question/Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I've noticed that a lot of song-related articles site the sheet music website musicnotes.com as a source supporting the claims of the following things: the tempo, the key, the time signature, the vocal range. However I feel that this would classify as WP:OR given that there is no evidence that the sheet music on the website is provided by the artist themself (Musescore has "official" scores which they've said are given to them by the publisher but those are of dubious quality from my experience, but that's a whole other can of worms). So should we classify it as OR, or leave it as is (or some other option I didn't think of)? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their work is officially licensed by most major music publishers, per this. That seems to be something in their favor. Have you found any third-party reliable sources that have analyzed the music one way or the other? I see a smattering of individual online reviews, but that's mostly irrelevant for our purposes. What we need is some kind of third-party analysis. --Jayron32 18:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also says this however: "Our in-house staff of professional arrangers ensures quick-to-market production of the largest selection of officially licensed pieces. " so the pieces are officially licensed, however they might not be 100% accurate to how it was originally intended. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that lots of modern music (perhaps most) does not begin life as sheet music; it is transcribed by later publishers. Is Hal Leonard any better than Musicnotes.com? Other than being a legacy publisher from the pre-internet age, are they really better than Musicnotes, for example? --Jayron32 19:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Weiss has converted her Substack Common Sense into what appears to be an attempt to create a more "institutional" organization called The Free Press. It describes itself as a "new media company", and it does not seem obvious to describe it merely as a blog (as Weiss' Wiki article seems to imply). It features a cast of contributing journalists/writers, not only Weiss. I know Bari Weiss is, perhaps to some, a politically controversial figure, yet her credentials as an established journalist seem fairly clear by her resumé. Is there any consensus or opinions on whether this source is OK for Wikipedia? Obviously it not a major, traditional institution like the Washington Post or ABC, but it does appear to merit some discussion as it appears to be rather more than a blog. Euor (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty looking blog is still a blog. There is no editorial board, no standards, and no mechanism for corrections, literally nothing except a note from Bari Weiss... It remains a blog, not a bona fide news organization. Slywriter (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like Weiss's blog. Should be treated as a WP:SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, WP:SPS and should not be treated as a media organisation. Jeppiz (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to have some degree of editorial oversight, and I wouldn't characterize it as being composed entirely of WP:SPS. There are multiple people who serve as editors over the content published, including Weiss herself Peter Savodnik—both of whom are serious journalists. Nellie Bowles, who is involved both as a reporter and in a broader strategic role, is also both full-time on this project and a serious journalist. My only concerns are (1) that the content tends to be more essay-based than straight reporting (but Vox is considered WP:GREL so that does not appear to be blocker in and of itself) and that (2) the new media organization is truly new; it doesn't appear to be well-established quite yet. But the basis of editorial review and fact-checking appear to be present, so this is definitely not a self-published source in any reasonable sense of the term as it pertains to the articles written by the various writers and contributors. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largely matches my view. They seem to employ good people. I recommend waiting until they're more established to classify them either way. DFlhb (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly better than most group blogs but still basically that. No reputation for fact checking an accuracy so probably not a usable source for facts unless authors are subject matter experts. As opinion, unlikely to be noteworthy as too fringe. So not necessarily never usable but I can’t imagine many situations when it’d be worth citing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by too fringe? The opinion range seems to broadly span center-left to center-right. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that statement a bit odd. I also find it reflecting centre-right to centre-left view. Obviously it will appear to contain deeply heterodox opinions if you strongly adhere to a certain orthodoxy. But if you zoom out and attempt to detach yourself from POV (impossible to do completely, of course), it seems to reflect certain ordinary opinions of a considerable segment of the population. Example: it appears The Free Press has now written an article concerning a new audio interview series with J.K. Rowling. If you strongly reject Rowling's views, I am sure it would appear "fringe", bringing on all kinds of criticisms toward The Free Press about "platforming" and so on. But zooming out, is J.K. Rowling and her stance in the whole gender debate "fringe"? Or is it representative of the position of a considerable section of the population, whether you agree with that position or not? To dismiss it as "fringe" despite a wide base of support for her, including among generally the right-side of the political spectrum (~half the population?) implies a value judgement that is problematically POV to me. And I say this as someone that is no fan of her positions. Anyways, this is beside the point of whether its editorial standards and reputation is acceptable as of yet.--Euor (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS still, despite the glossy coat of credibility paint. It still has none. Zaathras (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zaathras. An SPS by any other name is still an SPS. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it could just as well be a blog. It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS, and then we cite those sources/URLs. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• southasiatime.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

This looks a bit dubious. I found it sourcing some stuff at Miss World 2023. The "about us" page has no physical address or list of people, notably not an editor-in-chief or information about any associated print publication. The "about us" does claim ownership by "LDC News Service". Best I can tell is that LDC is a group with a Facebook page (if it's the same outfit); I'm not even sure if it's incorporated or (looks probable) student-run or something like that. Can anybody else tell more? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the about page, I see an editor listed but no editorial guidelines. Domain is only four years old and there is no indication it is anything other than a blog. I would say not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500. by Lynda Norene Schaffer^[1] has received a review that states that it contains "many errors of fact, misleading simplification of material and references that are frequently inadequate, inappropriate or dated." The review almost exclusively covers the deficiencies of this work and closes by saying "It is not my practice to comment negatively on the work of fellow scholars, but on this occasion I feel I have a duty to speak out." (Andaya, B. W. (1996). [Review of Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500, by L. N. Shaffer]. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 10(1), 152–155.)

Having in mind guidance like WP:HSC, it is difficult to see how a work with such a damning review could be considered an RS. It is also a little dated, now, and there are other works that could be used to reference any editing that it might otherwise be used to support. If you have access to JSTOR, you can find the review here[61].

I am asking for comment here, as I have deleted the use of Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500 in the handful of instances where it has been used in Wikipedia. Three different editors (who are unknown to me) have thanked me for making those edits (on 3 Sep 22 and 2 Sep 22) on three different articles. I now find that use of this work as a reference has been reinstated in this edit[62] (together with reinstatement of other problematical references that are another matter). I have had no success with engaging with the editor involved (largely in other articles). Hence I am trying to find another way of dealing with the use of this book as a reference. Also, it occurs to me that there may be some reason that I have overlooked as to why this book should be acceptable as a reference

I should perhaps add that I often look for reviews of historical, archaeological, etc. books in suitable academic journals before using the work of an author unknown to me. I don't know if this goes further than other editors working in similar fields. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks RS, but I have not encountered this group before. Just doing due diligence; I know for a fact that such a scandal happened, and other sources will definitely exist. However, this *appears* to be well-researched long-form journalism, which I would like to use. Does anyone have any thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the article Bureau of Investigative Journalism exists? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable. Excellent reputation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be treated as among the most reliable sources by other reliable sources. That's a hallmark of reliability. Looks really solid. --Jayron32 12:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles generally suffer from a lack of investigative journalism, and an over-reliance on day-to-day news reports. Definitely include. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the about us page, Dylan got some staff now doing reports. In the past, some editors considered it to be not reliable and blacklisted the page. Ominae (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people contributing to an unreliable source does not make it more reliable. How is the source treated by other sources? Is it cited by other scrupulously reliable sources? Does it have editorial control? Does it respond to errors and make corrections? Does it employ respected writers and investigators who themselves have a reputation of reliability? If ALL of that doesn't happen, it isn't reliable, no matter how many people write for them. --Jayron32 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw some wiki pages around here that are using it. When I used it before, it got blocked by the blacklist. Ominae (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, don't judge something is correct merely because other people are also doing the wrong thing. Go back to core principles. Check a source against WP:RS. Does it meet all the criteria. This one clearly doesn't. Don't worry if someone else did the wrong thing. That's not license to also do so yourself. --Jayron32 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a broken record but a few people writing guest articles on their friend's blog does not turn it into a news outlet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some input on whether declassified studies (see below) conducted by the U.S. Military constitute reliable sources for information like aircraft losses, military equipment performance, and the employment and effectiveness of doctrine/tactics. Particularly in regards to Project CHECO, a fairly large undertaking to study the effectiveness and use cases of U.S. airpower in the Vietnam War. Also, apologies for vomiting these links at the end but I can't be bothered to cite them nicely at the moment.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486516.pdf - Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report. Fixed Wing Gunships in SEA (Jul 69 - Jul 71)

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA487052.pdf - Project CHECO Southeast Asia Report. USAF Tactics Against Air & Ground Defenses in SEA, November 1968 - May 1970

Further, are defense analysis papers or military college papers usable?

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADB033848.pdf - TYPES OF WEAPON PROGRAMS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR NATO STANDARDIZATION OR INTEROPERABILITY Norman J. Asher Janice B. Lilly July 1978

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA485884.pdf - Overreliance on Technology in Warfare: The Yom Kippur War as a Case Study

Rsemmes92 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shower has a section that reads:

Showering is mostly part of a daily routine primarily to promote cleanliness and prevent odor, disease and infection. Advances in science and medicine in the 19th century began to realize the benefit of regular bathing to an individual's health.

This statement is backed up by a single source: a sociology book from 2003. While I do not discount the importance of WP:SKYBLUE for common-sense statements, it must be balanced with WP:MEDRS in this case since the article is making sweeping claims of the disease prevention effects of showering, and MEDRS firmly establishes that medical claims must be backed up by sufficient peer-reviewed secondary studies published in reputable journals and not a book about sociology, and certainly not science from the 1800s. Existing precedent would suggest removing this statement until MEDRS-compliant sources can be found. MarshallKe (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be more an a wp:undue than a wp:rs issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move this to the talk page rather than deleting, to give people an opportunity to look for MEDRS that may or may not substantiate dueness. I generally don't like to judge dueness based merely on sources we cite, without doing my own survey of sources from scratch. Also, while we should use MEDRS for medical claims, the sociologist author seems reputable, and I'd expect there to be non-medical statements we can source to her. DFlhb (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Colorado Times Recorder

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

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

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

Can you link to the editorial board? Because I see a listing of staffers (not all with a journalism background and many with political orientations described)[63], but not an editorial board? Additionally, the site has an explicit political orientation. Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idavox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenting on all three sources

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

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

• Source. Kurtz, Michael L. (2011). "Organized Crime". In Wood, Amy Louise; Wilson, Charles Reagan (eds.). The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Vol. 19 Violence. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. pp. 123–124. ISBN 9780807869284. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
• Article. Joseph Civello
• Content. Kurtz writes: "Little is known about the Dallas family of Joseph Civello. Some accounts depict it as an independent Mafia family; others describe it as the Texas arm of the Marcello empire."

I was considering using that material in the article about Joseph Civello, but I am having troubling evaluating contradictory aspects of the suitability of this source. On one hand, Kurtz is a professor emeritus of history and the book in which his chapter appears was published by a university press. On the other, he is a JFK assassination "researcher" with at least two other books on the subject - both also published by a university press - who doesn't know who really killed JFK but that it had to be a conspiracy.[64] Those views spill into this book when after the bit about Civello he made a number of unfounded claims about Jack Ruby including 1) he was "probably the best-known individual in the history of organized crime in the South", 2) he "began his career in the Al Capone organization", 3) he "joined the Civello organization" when he moved to Dallas, 4) "he assisted in smuggling arms and supplies to anti-Castro guerrilla fighters in Cuba", and 5) he was in cahoots with the mob to have JFK assassinated. With these statements Kurtz repeats what various conspiracy sources have claimed while contradicting what the largest investigations into Ruby have found (i.e. Ruby was not a member of organized crime anywhere but that he was acquainted with a lot of underworld figures[65]).

If an editor wanted to use this material in the Jack Ruby or Assassination of John F. Kennedy articles, I am assuming it would be considered to be from a fringe source and treated as such. In this context, how do we evaluate that exact same source for potential use in the Joseph Civello article? Thanks! -Location (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a really good question. I think I would have trouble taking anything seriously that he writes about history if this is the quality of his scholarship. But we editors really don't get to have an opinion. So I think we would need to move to the next generation of researchers who hopefully are evaluating his work. What do they say about this person who would appear to the public to be on the same equality level. In the world of psychics we have Dr. Gary Schwartz who has "tested" all kinds of people who claim to be psychic, his testing is so flawed that although he has a PhD and is tenured at his University, the rest of the scientific community thinks he is a joke. Though when I went to look for evidence of this, I find little. But because of his lack of methodology I personally would not rely on his scholarship, though it might be difficult to back that up if we are talking about using him on an article here on Wikipedia concerning psychics. I'm interested in others thoughts. Sgerbic (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the positive side, both the general editor of the series, Charles Reagan, and the volume editor, Amy Louise Wood, appear to be respectable scholars of southern US history. If Kurtz's work were solely complete crankery, you would hope that they would not have invited him to write an entry; if he had written a completely bunk entry you would hope that they would have not included it. (Indeed, even Kurtz's work on the JFK assassination seems to have recieved reviews in scholarly journals which don't immediately dismiss it as complete crankery - I don't have full text access, but both Conkin's review in the Journal of Southern History and Turner in the Journal of American History don't seem to be dismissing him completely out of hand.

On the other hand, you can always use your editorial discretion to not use a source that you don't find convincing; until another editor makes the case that it's important to include you don't have to use any given source! Especially if that source is claiming things which you believe are contrary to the academic consensus! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic and Caeciliusinhorto-public: Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the editors of the series and book, Wilson and Wood, are respectable scholars, and that is part of what makes it difficult to evaluate this scholar.

While I agree with Kurtz that "little is known about the Dallas family of Joseph Civello", I think I would have trouble justifying to another editor that statements in one paragraph of his article should be considered reliable, but statements in another paragraph should not. As far as finding alternative sourcing for the article, the difficulty I am having is that most reliable sources of information for Civello seem to be primary sources, but almost all of the secondary sources that discuss him either do so in the context of the JFK-was-killed-by-the-mob conspiracy theories (this is Kurtz) or they are books/websites about organized crime who have gotten their information about him from the conspiracy books (this also appears to be Kurtz). -Location (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably air to not using the source. You have put a lot of thought in it and the arguments you are making against using it seem to outweigh the few reasons to use it. Sgerbic (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned by the bot to an RfC where one of the arguments is based on this. Anyone know more about the extent to which the AP publishes political opinion pieces like this (without marking them as such)? There's no opinion section at the top of apnews.com, and while I know the style of say, style/entertainment sections necessarily involve a degree of opinion, I guess I was under the impression they didn't get into this kind of thing (Black Lives Matter "rejecting the perfection of God and Jesus" and whatnot). I mean to read it, it's obviously an opinion piece, but I'm curious what other folks have seen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree it looks like an opinion piece. I'm not entirely sure where it's categorized. The author is not your usual pundit type though. Long time historian and a retired PoliSci professor, he's extremely widely published in newspapers for historical perspectives mostly in the Texas area but also as far afield as Connecticut and has over a dozen books mostly focused on Texas history. It's an interesting find. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion piece, there's no doubt there, also the same author has other AP articles (example) that run in a similar vein and are also opinion pieces. I also hadn't realised that AP published opinion pieces such as this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AP might occasionally fail to label obvious opinion pieces as opinion pieces. That's bound to happen when the AP is producing such a large volume of content; I've seen organizations like The Guardian and the religion section of The Washington Post make this sort of mistake before. WP:REPUTABLE asks editors to exercise common sense when evaluating sources, and it's very clear that the particular piece you're bringing here is an essay expressing the opinion of the author, so common sense dictates that we should treat it like an opinion piece. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AP has historically allowed a bit looser standards when it comes to religion (it is a field largely devoid of facts in the traditional news sense after all, one who sets out to fact check the Bible is in for a world of pain). I wonder if this piece didn't start on the religion side rather than the politics side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• An opinion piece is as an opinion piece does. If it quacks like an opinion piece and it walks like an opinion piece, that's what it is. It also has no bearing on the general reliability of the AP. Treat that one article as an opinion piece, and that's all you need to do. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, but I didn't ask what to do with that case; I asked for information/insight about AP practices, their website's organization, and the extent of this phenomenon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the ever-reliable Poynter points out, it is quite routine for otherwise-reliable sources to improperly or insufficiently mark opinion pieces. I've also been seeing some articles that combine both news and opinion (not by the AP, just in general by WP:RS), though that's thankfully rare. As long as editors know to exercise proper judgment, and attribute whatever should be attributed, there's no problem. DFlhb (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the past, I know that we have considered a failure to properly separate news and opinion to be an indicator of unreliability... though it would be admittedly hard to apply this to the AP (partially because reliability is a combination of factors of which that is just one.) But it's definitely not a good look. --Aquillion (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never noticed this kind of opinion piece on AP before. I can’t work out which section it appears in. It’s very egregious that it’s not clearly labelled as opinion, so we might need to watch out for this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following an AFD discussion, I'm seeking consensus and a WP:RSP listing for Congressional Quarterly and Roll Call, two related U.S. political newspapers. It seems clear from their pedigree and standing that they're generally reliable sources, but there was disagreement among editors of whether they constituted "trade publications" and are thus ineligible to be used to establish notability per WP:ORGIND. QuintinK (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Congressional Quarterly wasn't mentioned at all in the AFD, let alone the subject of a disagreement. The other source mentioned in that discussion is The Hill, not Congressional Quarterly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, under no reasonable definition of the term, are they trade publications. They just aren't. They are specialist journals, for sure, but that doesn't mean they are trade publications. That's just silly. Politics is not a trade or an industry, it's a matter of public interest. Journals that focus on politics aren't trade publications. Regarding RSP listing; are these sources frequently discussed and is their use frequently under contention? I mean, one person in one AFD making one claim does not a controversial source make. I see no reason to list them if they are not frequently brought up for their reliability. This includes Roll Call, CQ, and The Hill. These are perfectly reliable sources for all purposes, full stop. They also don't need to be listed at RSP as there is no evidence anyone is questioning these.--Jayron32 16:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Call seems to sponsor the Congressional Baseball Game, so it's not clear to me that it's not generally independent for items related to that specific event, nor is it currently independent from anything related to FiscalNote (its owner), but I don't think they're trade publications in the sense of something like Supermarket news.

The current form of Congressional Quarterly feels more like a business intelligence source rather than a traditional news source. There are going to be additional considerations with respect to WP:ORGIND that apply for BI sources, since they have a tendency to regurgitate press releases with relative frequency. But, if there is original reporting from CQ, then I don't see any independence issues per se that are more broad than "it's not independent of organizations substantially owned by their parent company/projects of a sister organization". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]