Hello all! While editing recent articles in Peruvian politics, especially regarding Pedro Castillo and the 2021 Peruvian general election, Jacobin was encountered on multiple occasions. There are some interesting interviews and articles written by Jacobin, though there has not been a clear consensus on the reliability of the magazine as a source.

Previous discussions with dedicated sections were held, with the oldest being seen here on Archive 302, while in Archive 324 users shared that the reliability of Jacobin was between generally reliable and no consensus/addtional considerations after reviewing discussions from Archive 302.

Since it appears that Jacobin has hundreds of links throughout the project, it is suggested that we determine the level of reliability of the source so it can be present on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page.

Options are as follows:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated

Thank you for taking the time to take a look at this!--WMrapids (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So where's the dispute? I see you in reverts with other editors on those articles, but not concerning Jacobin in particular. What is the precise usage you are disputing, for which claims, and which of these usages are observably in dispute? Without this, this is an invalid RFC - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused now, I thought the idea of an RFC was a generic reliability request. The idea being that there would be at least two prior discussions of the source and with a view to including it in the perennials with the outcome. Have I got this wrong?Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It has been discussed here a bunch of times: a year ago, with a clear consensus for "generally reliable but attribute"[1] and then seven months ago, with a consensus for "use with caution"[2]. Three substantial discussions would mean we could add it to the RSP list, but I don't see what we might say that wasn't already said in previous discussions, without a specific usage to discuss. (My choice though, if we proceed with this RfC, would be for option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occassionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.)
• Option 2 OK, that's clear enough, left wing source, mixes facts with opinion on occasion, so attribute seems best.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - Only reliable for attributed quotations. I would say too much opinion to be trusted for all matters of fact, but clearly reliable for attributed quotes and demonstrating due weight.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Add: This is what we do with most partisan sources, including left-leaning sources with an agenda just like some editors above have pointed out Jacobin has (e.g. WP:FOXNEWS, CounterPunch, Democracy Now!, Jezebel, Media Matters for America). There's nothing particularly troublesome that sets Jacobin apart from these other extremely partisan sources as more unreliable. It just needs attribution to counteract its heavy bias.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3. It consists entirely of opinion pieces and is openly and heavily ideologically slanted. There is no good reason to use such a source - either better sources exist, or it's usually WP:UNDUE. Option 3 allows for occasional use for interviews with highly notable subjects or if an author of an article is a recognized subject-matter expert. Ending up with option 2 would result in editors arguing it can be used as a source for things like economics, contentious labels for BLPs, and so on, that are clearly not appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. It's really politically slanted and it's not a straight news source. I wouldn't trust them. Remember, we're talking about using them as the sole source for a fact. If Jacobin is your sole source for anything but the most ideology-free facts, no. Even for things like, I don't know, the year that a town was established or what have you... if Jacobin is your only source for a fact, it'd be a pretty obscure fact and maybe just skip it. I don't get a sense of how rigorous their independent fact-checking operation, and since "getting facts absolutely correct" is not their primary business raison d'etre, I'd be suspicious of even of anodyne facts such as the population of Labrador or whatever, if they are the only source, til I know more. Individual exceptions may be hashed out in individual articles. Herostratus (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 While I personally think it is generally reliable, the strong political slant of the magazine makes it best to use with attribution and perhaps not for contentious claims. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. They are a textbook example of a usable WP:BIASED source that is still reliable (with the attendant warnings of why you have to be cautious when using any heavily WP:BIASED source, of course, but if that alone disqualified a source then we wouldn't have BIASED.) Here is CJR's in-depth write-up of them, which compares it as follows: And yet as important as these articles were for Jacobin’s reputation, the magazine more closely resembled Wenner’s Rolling Stone, or Harold Hayes’s Esquire, or Tina Brown’s Vanity Fair than it did Dissent or the New Left Review in at least one respect: its whole was greater than the sum of its parts. Implicit comparisons to similar magazines earlier in the piece include The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Time, and Playboy. Note that every one of the sources it's compared to there are a WP:RS. It is a plainly BIASED source, yes, and requires a warning to that effect; sometimes it has to be used with caution to avoid giving undue weight to its point of view. But anyone arguing it is unreliable is going to need to explain how they can support leaving, for instance, Reason at green in WP:RSP (another source that the CJR piece directly contrasts it with.) Or PinkNews, or The Intercept, or The New Republic, or one of numerous other comparable sources we consider reliable - or, for that matter, The New Yorker or The Atlantic, which are written in a similar style and are particular points of comparison above. Jacobin's less mainstream perspective is something that has to be considered when deciding where it is WP:DUE, but it isn't a matter of reliability. In short, if a source has a reasonable reputation, then simply being biased isn't enough to render it unreliable; you have to demonstrate inaccuracy resulting from that bias. --Aquillion (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 Aquillion covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. Gamaliel (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 (possibly Option 3). Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement [3]. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left [4]. It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela [5], the USSR/Communism [6][7], and anti-semitism [8], [9]. I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) [10][11][12], Daily Kos (RSP entry) [13], Raw Story (RSP entry) [14], The Canary (RSP entry) [15], and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) [16].Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jacobin is fringey on some of these issues, but we need to b e careful about unreliable versus opinionated. The Nieman Lab piece just says it has to use a range of methods to keep its revenue above its costs ("The majority of [contributors] are graduate students or young professors.") not that it is unreliable. Wolcott is criticising their politics, not claiming they publish fake news (he attacks the Intercept for the same reasons). The Intelligencer says it has bad opinions on communism and Venezeula, but doesn't comment on accuracy. Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic says socialism is bad therefore democratic socialist magazines are bad, but doesn't comment on reliability. The (highly unreliable) WSWS dislikes its politics, but, well, so what? Arnold and Taylor provide lots of good reasons why Jacobin's opinions are unpleasant, but again doesn't talk about reliability. Finally literally all the ADL says is that it published an opinion piece saying “Israel Doesn’t Have a “Right to Exist”. The fact that these commentators take the time to polemicise against The Jacobin might suggest that sometimes its opinions are noteworthy, but it tells us nothing about whether it is reliable for facts. So I think these arguments keep us in option 2 territory. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 or 2 I agree broadly with @Aquillion:'s thoughts and think a disclaimer in the vein of The Intercept(RSP entry) would be ideal. That being said, Jacobin is not, strictly speaking, an actual news source and a part of me is uncomfortable slapping the WP:GREL label on it, even with a disclaimer. I mostly think 1 is the way to go, but I understand and accept 2. BSMRD (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Aquillion. Reliable doesn't mean free of bias; if it did we would have no reliable sources. The CJR article should really be the end of this dispute (if there was one?) — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. I don't like Jacobin, but I've never heard them to be liars or fabricators. Use with attribution, and I wouldn't use them as sole evidence of notability - it is after all primarily a magazine of opinion - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: Jacobin's clasification as unreliable would not preclude it from being used with attribution; what's important is to determine how reliable it is to be used for facts or with an editorial voice. Not only is Jacobin's bias concerning, but also its reporting. Besides the links provided by Dr. Swag Lord, to put an example, I should mention an open letter signed by around 200 Ecuadorians (Open Letter to Editors of Jacobin and Monthly Review), including prominent left-wing academics and activists, that criticized Jacobin and Monthly Review, which republished an article by The Grayzone, for attacking Yaku Pérez, an ecosocialist and indigenous candidate. In the case of the former, the signatories state that Jacobin overlooked Ecuador's indigenous history and ignores Yaku's "critiques of extractivist statism and monolithic personalism". This is more concerning knowing that Jacobin has quoted Alternet ([17]) and The Grayzone ([18]) in the past, sources that have been deemed as unreliable and that should be deprecated, respectively, and that Jacobin editors Hamzah Raza and Denis Rogatyuk have also contributed for the latter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The open letter is something we should take seriously as it was signed by the most distinguished scholars of Latin America. But I still think it suggests we should treat Jacobin on a case by case basis. We would never want to use it for a topic such as the Ecuadorian election, Pete Buttigieg's past or Labour antisemitism, on which there are acres of other reliable sources and it would be deeply undue to quote the Jacobin. And we would want to avoid a contributor like Denis Rogatyuk whose bylines are mostly in very low quality sources such as Telesur and Grayzone. But where we might want to use it is on a topic that is not covered by so many reliable sources such as radical history,[19][20] other under-represented histories,[21][22] trade union disputes[23] or possibly socialist theory. These are topics where the contributors are often academic researchers. In addition, it occassionally publishes notable writers such as Enzo Traverso,[24] Dawn Foster,[25] or Doug Henwood.[26] If we go with option 3, we will exclude noteworthy material on topics that are likely under-represented in mainstream sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 Concure, Aquillion covers the policies well and there's nothing to disagree with or expand upon. Ip says (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1/2. WP:BIASED but no evidence of unreliability. Use with caution especially toward WP:DUE, but any factual reporting from them ought to be accurate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 My cursory Google News search for phrases like "according to Jacobin" and "Jacobin reported" finds virtually no references in straight news stories in outlets we generally consider to be RS. As with all things, we should judge by what RS say; many !votes here are "seems reliable" or "I can't recall hearing about an issue with them". We, as Wikipedians, are not qualified to engage in the kind of content analysis needed to properly vet any publication, nor has anyone here shown evidence of having committed the time to do so on this publication. The scientific consensus for content analysis of online media generally suggests two constructed weeks of content be reviewed for every six months evaluated. In the absence of any editor doing that, we should not be !voting on reliability based on our gut instinct and must defer entirely to whether or not RS consider it reliable. In this case, there is no evidence they do (though, also no clear evidence they don't). Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 possibly 3. Dr.Swag Lord's evidence is compelling. I would also point to Adfontes Media bias chart [[27]]. Compare Jacobin to Breitbart. They have nearly identical reliability (29.93 vs 29.82 respectively) but Breitbart is actually considered less biased (-23.3 vs 17.49). This actually lands Breitbart in the second tier sources bracket vs third tier for Jacobin. Adfontes is not the end all be all but it is reasonably respected around here. Springee (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdFontes says that the Weather Channel, Forbes and the BBC are biased left and the Daily Mail is no more biased right than them, so I think it's stronger on rating reliability than it is on bias, as its idea of the middle is pretty right-wing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. To the contrary, on searching for coverage of Jacobin in reliable source, it has been cited by Snopes for its fact checks and there are affirmatory reviews in The New York Times and Vox alongside the in-depth piece in the Columbia Journalism Review which has already been brought up above. On the basis of this, I would recommend Option 1 with a disclaimer that it is a partisan magazine whose opinions should be attributed and coverage checked for due weight; à la Reason (RSP entry). If it covers something that is not covered by any other reliable source, it is likely not due but that is not a objection against its reliability. I'm not too concerned with the criticism it has received which more so question its ideological standpoint rather than its journalistic integrity. The open letter published in New Politics stands out as a positive to me, which criticises it for negative coverage of a socialist candidate. If anything it goes to show that the magazine is not susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. It's use of sources also appears largely responsible, where in case of more partisan sources it tends more towards presenting a viewpoint with attribution rather than as a citation, i.e "This Raw Story piece reminded me of an article in the New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago." or "As the Washington Post notes, ... Or as Daily Kos’s Stephen Wolf put it, they were ...", etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: while I understand most of your arguments, I'm not sure if I follow the rationale about the content of the open letter. In this case, Jacobin's criticism towards Yaku Pérez, the socialist candidate, appears to be mostly due to its criticism to Rafael Correa, left-wing head of state and part of Latin America's pink tide. The author even goes as far as to say "Pérez’s political record suggests he is a Trojan horse for the left’s most bitter enemies". If this suggests that the candidate would actually help the political right-wing, it would be a proof of the contrary, that Jacobin is susceptible to hyperpartisan impulses. I tried to bring the question, among other things, on how omission by the outlet can affects its reliability, not only for being strong worded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I did not look too closely at the context. My specific point regarding hyper-partisanship doesn't stand anymore considering it but nor does it affirm it the other way around. Them taking a position in an internecine competition doesn't tell us anything about their reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 With 2 as my second choice. None of the purported evidence of their unreliability presented here makes a compelling case, and I've seen them write stories on par with other reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 and attribute (in most cases). No specific case has been provided for unreliability. The main contentions are 1) that it has a pronounced bias, 2) that it cites sources we deem unreliable, and 3) based on some Ecuador election things. For 1) bias affects reliability only insofar as it actually affects reliability. For 2) the sourcing requirements we use on Wikipedia are quite specific to this community, and they really do not apply to the sources we use. Assuming Jacobin editorial oversight restricts citation to specific dodgy articles within a broader publication, there is not issue with them citing those broader sources. And 3) I confess I haven't dug too deep into this, but a brief glance at the article and reflection on the comments here seem to show that this is a left-wing political kerfuffle, rather than an issue of reliable sourcing.

Now for a positive case for reliability, based mostly on a sampling of uses from various sources:

1. The outlet has a robust editorial board with 10+ full-time editors, 10+ contributing editors, and a separate editorial board.
2. Reliable news outlets rely on Jacobin for quotes, implying that they are reliable at least as far as being trustworthy for not making things up.
3. Peer-reviewed academic works cite Jacobin for statements of fact about topics including protest movements, international economics, and the history of various political movements.
4. Sources on the American right cite Jacobin for statements of fact, implying at least limited acceptance across the aisle (though, to be fair, usually used to make ironic points--but taking Jacobin's statements as true, if politically inflected). Right-wing publications also use Jacobin to represent the perspective of the left.

It should be recognized that this collection cannot give a full picture of use, but it does give illustrative examples of how Jacobin is used in context. These examples demonstrate both the wide usage of Jacobin in news RS and peer-reviewed literature.

I have tried my best for the journals to identify specifically peer-reviewed works from reasonably recognized journals, though I may have missed the mark since I am not a subject-matter expert.

Based on the lack of opposing argument, the positive arguments suggested above, and my presentation of the combination of robust Jacobin editorial support and robust use in the literature, I suggest that the source can be treated as generally reliable. I am open to specific examples showing otherwise, but these have not been shown so far (beyond political disputes and biased titles).

Jlevi (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 It is a respected magazine with authors who are published in major reliable sources. Bear in mind that opinion and analysis articles are not reliable sources wherever they are published unless written by experts and facts and opinions reported in the magazine usually fail weight unless they are published in many sources. As a minor publication with little news coverage, I would not expect it to be widely used as a source. But there are cases where it could be useful. TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Though RfCs are somewhat new to me (not sure if RfC openers can do this), the observations by multiple users appear to support Jacobin as a generally reliable source. Jlevi has noted the editorial prowess of the magazine as well as its acceptance across the political spectrum and academia. However, I will expand on recognizing some concerns.

It seems these are the main concerns:

• Bias: Users often hear the "every source is biased" phrase and this obviously applies to Jacobin as well. There are also multiple generally reliable sources regarded as having some bias, including Al Jazeera, the Anti-Defamation League, The Australian, Bellingcat, The Guardian, The Intercept and The Nation. This bias should not discount Jacobin's value as a reliable source regarding left-wing and socialist viewpoints. This bias can be noted in its entry just the same as the previously mentioned sources.
• Use of unreliable sources: As NoonIcarus has mentioned, some articles mention Alternet, Grayzone and possibly other dubious sources. Though one can say that a broken clock is right twice a day, the use of these two sources in particular seems to be too common among left wing publications from what I have seen in my brief research, unfortunately. However, Fox News – which has previously been deemed generally reliable – has used Breitbart reporting on occasion as well, even describing Breitbart as "one of the world’s top news publishers". There is also the issue with contributors and opinion pieces, though I will elaborate on this next. As with other generally reliable sources, we can include a comment to make sure content is properly attributed.
• Contributors/Opinon: As with any other publication or source, there are going to be contributors and opinion pieces. These are usually not treated as statements of fact according to WP:RSEDITORIAL. This is one of Jacobin's shortcomings as it can be difficult to decipher whether an article is from a contributor or staff. For example, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d shared an article by New York that reviews some opinion articles regarding Venezuela, such as one from George Ciccariello-Maher, though these are just that; opinion articles. Many of these articles were not written by Jacobin staff. If included in WP:RSP, it would be important to note that users should observe what is opinion, similar to the WP:RSP entry of The New York Times.

In conclusion, Jacobin appears to be a biased, though generally reliable source. Ways to identify their opinion articles may not be so apparent, though their work is respected across the political spectrum and overseen by a large editorial board as noted by Jlevi. If added to the WP:RSP list, I recommend an entry similar to The Nation, stating something such as "There is consensus that Jacobin is generally reliable. The magazine identifies as socialist on its website. Most editors consider Jacobin a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Ensure that opinion pieces are observed and utilized appropriately".--WMrapids (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 or 2, although I will note that almost all of what they publish is opinion so most of it isn’t of much use to us unless the opinion holder is notable or useful for something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 I have not come across any claims of their unreliability or publication of false/fabricated information. They do however have a notable left-leaning political stance and don't seem to clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces. I think attribution may sometimes be necessary when it comes to some of their more polemical articles, but otherwise I'd consider them to be generally reliable. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1/2. We must bear in mind this is a partisan source, definitely. Unfortunately a lot of what they publish is less of investigative journalism and more opinions/editorials, so we should tread here carefully to distinguish fact and opinion, which is also a feature of quite a lot of news outlets of a similar level of bias. That said, the factual accuracy has not been credibly asserted to be low enough not to merit a generally reliable descriptor; the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument by Jlevi is convincing for me (at least the sources actually refer to Jacobin), and this magazine has quite a lot of interesting insights into the left (such as the recent article about NDP govt in British Columbia in 1970s), if opinionated. On the other hand, Dr. Swag Lord pointed out some problems with their using unreliable sources, so I'd say thus: good for pointing out the perspective of the left and for insights on the left; be cautious about contentious factual assertions. Probably The Nation is a better alternative, but there are certainly worse sources than Jacobin. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 Although Jacobin's articles skew heavily toward opinion/analysis, they're supported by facts that have been cited by top-tier sources. Caveats regarding weight and attribution are unnecessary; like any reliable source, we use statements of opinion with attribution and statements of fact without. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1, with the summary containing the qualification provided by WMrapids. I'm fully convinced by the points by Aquillion (reliable WP:BIASED), Jlevi (strong reputation as demonstrated by UBO) and WMrapids (particularly regarding the applicability of WP:RSEDITORIAL); I'm not seen any evidence compelling evidence put forward to suggest unreliability/factual inaccuracy. As a second, lesser preference, option 2 on the basis that BIASED says opinionated sources are reliable in specific context, and per points above by Dr.Swag Lord, TFD & Horse Eye's Back made about its predominantly opinion-based output making its use situational (i.e. additional considerations), although I think this is would be inconsistent with the approach we've taken with other biased but usable sources of both left and right-wing dispositions, particularly the Intercept & Fox News, again a point best made by WMrapids but also others. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2. As far as I can tell, Jacobin publishes mostly op-eds. The reliability of the op-eds should be judged on the basis of the author's expertise and the claims put forth in the op-ed. If claims are extraordinary and made by an author who is not an expert on the subject, then the source should not be considered sufficient to include the content. To say the Jacobin is Option 1 is like saying the NY Times editorial pages are generally reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 and 2. As long as the story is factual and can be validated then Jaconin can be used as a reliable source. It shouldn't just be discredited automatically because it has bias. Every media has bias including mainstream media. A good example is the one article from Jacobin that talks about the media blackout on Assange. When a major witness recuited by the US had admitted that he had lied about Assange, the mainstream media has largely ignored it. ^[1] There is no reason for the mainstream media to shun such a bombshell story and also the Jacobin story indeed checks out. https://www.democracynow.org/2021/6/28/julian_assange_extradition_case. So it seems like they are an ivaluable source as they are willing to point out real info that is largely ignored by the mainstream media outlets and as long as their articles are strongly backed by facts from top tier sources, then they have done wrong to deserve the label of unrealible source IMONvtuil (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC. Somewhere in all this there might be some serious discussion about a dispute where Jacobin is used or misused in a specific Wikipedia article, if so bring it up separately. Pseudo-voting on this page won't overturn or confirm WP:NOTCENSORED, Jacobin is an opinion magazine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peter Gulutzan: The entire RfC is based on usage in recently edited articles (which you can see in the initial inquiry). This should be sufficient enough for an RfC as the intention was determining whether the source, Jacobin, was reliable and appropriate to be included in the project.--WMrapids (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basing an entire RfC on "usage", as if being used justifies an RfC, increases the objectionability. I did look at the "initial inquiry" and searched the talk pages of the named articles, Pedro Castillo and Peruvian General Election, for evidence of a dispute about "Jacobin". I didn't find it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 because it is generally reliable per the following media bias fact checkers who rate Jacobin as having a left bias, but high factual reliability:

-Media Bias Chart (1)

-Media Bias Chart (2)

-Media Bias Fact Check

-Page University

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 - I wouldn't use it for any claims of fact, but there are some circumstances where it can be used to sources opinions with attribution. Volunteer Marek 03:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC - We should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, which is essentially what the nom is trying to do here. We risk rating the source as reliable (or not) when the issue is unimportant because "sure, why not?" and thus giving the impression that a source (which in this case is an opinions mag) is reliable in all contexts. The perennial sources list is for perennial sources, meaning sources that are discussed perennially, not just once with no actual contentious matter discussed. It is not sufficient that the source be used X number of times (and less than a thousand cites is not in any sense common usage on Wiki - we have deprecated sources that are still used more times than that). FOARP (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 It sometimes mix factual news with opinion, it can be used with attribution. Sea Ane (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 Jacobin is virtually all opinion pieces, its perfectly fine for showing its opinions, but that is at most. This is not even getting into Fringe/ extreme views such as the editor in chief supporting the killing of the Romanov Children [44] or other editors joking about killing other civilians [45] 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: come on people, we've done this before, so much that I'll start by quoting my comment from a past discussion—Jacobin has a political perspective that is far from the mainstream; this is not the same as it having a strong bias, which I would take to mean "is willing to sacrifice factual accuracy for political interests", and I'm not seeing any evidence of that happening here. See also Jlevi in the discussion I linked, Jlevi in this discussion and Aquillion and WMrapids in this discussion. Political bias has nothing to do with factual accuracy: if you need an example, try Palmer Report, which I can only describe as centrist (it's left-wing for America and right-wing for Europe) and also batshit crazy. "Fringe" doesn't apply to socialism, which has a respected academic following; it's obviously a minority, but you're going to struggle to apply "fringe" to political ideology that way because you'll find no majority support any ideology. Obviously opinion is opinion but so is true for all option 1 ("generally reliable") newspapers. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 There's a lot of contradiction between articles in the Jacobin but given it's largely opinion pieces whatever we decide is pretty much a moot point—blindlynx (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 Like many other news sources, it has a lot of opinion pieces but becomes problematic when it mixes news with opinions as it ceases to become a neutral source of news. If the ration of news reporting to opinion pieces or neutral news reporting to news reporting with intergrated opinions was higher weighted to neutral news reporting, I would support Option 1. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 – While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Invalid RfC per David Gerard, but since it is actually happening, Option 1 or 2: generally reliable but keeping in mind that large portions of its content are opinion pieces. MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per WP:BIASED. As an aggregator of far-left op-eds, the magazine should not be used as a reliable source for any political-adjacent topics. KidAd • SPEAK 23:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. Jacobin just publishes opinion, they are a WP:PARTISAN source that documents their perspective on things. Given they also use sources such as Max Blumenthal/Grayzone 123(linked at "spied upon on behalf of the CIA.")4(linked at "coup in Bolivia")5(linked at "to implicate the presidency") for their information – a source for which consensus exists that they publish false or fabricated information – or sources like AlterNet[46][47][48][49] – which we consider to instead be generally unreliable – I think there are significant concerns about the accuracy of the information they present alongside their commentary. It does seem okay to use them, with attribution, as a source for their opinion on certain issues, though. Obviously there will often be WP:DUE concerns with doing that (for instance I'm not sure it would aid neutrality to add to our article on Qanon things like "Jacobin, on the other hand, argues that despite their conspiracy mongering Qanon-ers do have some 'legitimate concerns', stating that 'QAnon-ers are correct about a lot of things. Recent revelations like those surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal indicate that a lot of wealthy elites are, in fact, members of a pedophilic cabal.'"[50]) but broadly speaking I don't think there's too great of an issue attributing opinions to them. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:URLREQ

I posted this on the talk page of Mona Lisa and have been directed to check here.

Can podcasts be used at all? If yes, is it as references or external links? I want to contribute quoting the episodes from the two widest known podcasts on Art History: ArtCurious and The Lonely Palette.

Here is an example from ArtCurious about Mona Lisa: https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It also has the transcript.

Please suggest! - Veera.sj

Prior Discussions:

• sciencebasedmedicine.org 2018
• Film_review_by_David_Gorski... 2012

Since then two statements from Novella and Gorski:

• "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness..."
• "Our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record."

This is no doubt a very useful source, influential and respected, but still much content is self-published and not subject to review.

The RSNP entry states that it "...publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines...". All I can find is: the submission guidelines which are hardly robust and i see not other links in the prior discussions.

The RSNP entry should be updated to reflect that some content is self-published and remove the statement concerning the editorial guidelines unless something else can be found. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-published as the website excercises post-publication editorial oversight, as can be seen with the recent Irreversible Damage review, which was promptly retracted. I think you'd be suprised how lax the actual editorial control is for most of our other "reliable sources" like newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hemiauchenia here; I don't see grounds to change what the RSP entry currently says. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)twiceAgree with the others here. It probably wouldn't change too much anyway, as far as practical usage here is concerned, since the source is already being used for attributed expert opinions to refute quackery/pseudo-science/misinformation, which isn't much covered by better scientific sources anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If SBM was considered self-published, it means it wouldn't be allowed to be used in BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, it would mean it wouldn't be allowed for biographical content anywhere on Wikipedia. Since there is editorial that can (and does) correct or retract content, I don't see how this can be "self published". Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, yeah, right. The same way it's possible to base a whole BLP on such sources? [ok, the rant about NPROF goes elsewhere]. Anyways, I agree that, since the source actually appears to have editorial oversight, the complaint here seems unfounded. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Its certainly a significant slip in terms of oversight but they were never excellent to begin with and aren’t awful now so I don’t think anything has really changed, however if they degrade much more they would be in SPS territory and a rethink of the existing consensus would be required. I would note that even as an SPS not much would change, most of the author’s opinions are still notable as is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Unreliable, no indication of editorial independence and now we can’t even trust that a bad editorial process is even being applied... They simply do not meet our requirements with their current corporate structure, the head editor is also the President of the parent company and sits on it board with his two brothers... Why did we ever consider them reliable again? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with saying a source is reliable because it publishes errors but retracts them later, is that the source may be used in a BLP prior to that retraction, doing further damange and possibly remaining if editors do not realise that a retraction occured - assuming that the error is picked up by the source at all. What is needed is that the editorial control be excercised before publication, not solely after. If authors are publishing directly, without editorial oversight prior to publication, then it seems to meet the criteria of an SPS. Still useful, still valid for expert and attributed opinions, but an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilby, It is my understanding that the most controversial BLP statements require multiple RSes, not just one. In that case, SBM does not degrade our content in that arena, as it is only verifying what others have already said.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is an SPS, and there are other sources for the content, then we use the other sources and we don't need to use the SPS. If there are no other sources, we don't use the SPS and don't add the claim. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SBN is a topical site, and that topic is medical skepticism. As such, it would be quite impossible for them not to have editorial oversight, regardless of how they classify it, else they would not remain topical. The editors at SBM are doctors and researchers; editorial control which they consider lax or minimal would probably be on par with "strict" editorial control at a journalism-focused outlet, owing to their deep commitment to factual accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm probably not understanding your argument, but as far as I'm aware, whether or not something is topical is unrelated to how it is published. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The point I was making was that, in order to remain topical, a certain level of editorial oversight is required, lest some writer decide SBM is a good place to host their video game reviews and political commentary. This is true of any topical source. Someone is necessarily reviewing submissions and saying "Yes, this is within our purview," or "No, this is not appropriate for our site".

    But it's worth pointing out that the specific topic in this case also requires the use of fact-checking and review, lest it fall outside the norms and practices of said topic. See Skeptical movement for more on those norms. Evidence of this practice is apparent in every single article published by the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Given they specifically stated that the do not check articles by some authors before those authors publish the articles on their site, I don't feel that editorial control prior to publication is necessary for it to be topical. That's an odd argument, but I don't see how it could hold. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep status quo, RS. The post-publication review, pre-editorial review, and set of standards on what counts as good ethics in their reporting are what make this source reliable in my eyes. I think you'll find that in these statements they're just verbalizing and being honest about what other outlets (newspapers, definitely) have always been doing. We find errors in reporting of even our best RSes, and even scientific journals (which this is not, and is not trying to be) make errors and are forced to retract. SBM retracts and keeps itself honest. We are starving for reliable sources in pseudoscientific topic areas. We should continue to use SBM as an RS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is when the errors are found. Forbes, YouTube and Facebook all remove content if problems are found after content is published, but this doesn't mean that content on those sites is not self-published. To be self-published the author needs to both write and choose to publish the content themselves; if there are processes which then allow content to be retrospectivly removed, it is a good thing, but doesn't change the initial self-publication process. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an RS. This is querulous. - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Has a good track record of scientific accuracy and is often useful for WP:PARITY and to apply the WP:PSCI policy. —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the original post, content from "trusted authors" and editors is not reviewed prior to publication. This would make such content fall into the self-published classification. It is likely expert self-published content so it would be usable in relevant non-blp context, but it would not be usable where BLP applies. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the original post: Our review of the article in question and the decision to retract was entirely internally generated by the editors. which belies your claim of no editorial oversight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi does not appear to have claimed that there was no editorial oversight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, would you describe as the difference between a self-published source and one which is not self-published? If it's anything other than the lack of independent editorial oversight, then be prepared for examples that undermine your definition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is not reviewed prior to publication” =/= "no editorial oversight," you’re either arguing past them or being disingenuous. You must know thats its editorial review prior to publication which matters most for our purposes, are you sure that your passion for the source isn’t overriding your normally logical nature? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. Also, I'd like to see where in our P&Gs it states that editorial oversight is required to be exercised prior to publication, because that looks like an invention.

And yes, I'm quite sure, as I'm not really passionate about it at all. One wonders why you feel the need to assume I am. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t intend to answer your question, all I intend to do is inform you that you appear to be mischaracterizing the argument of another wikipedian. That is important, no? Also we’ve been around each other long enough for me to know that you have a passion for skepticism, if thats news to you I’m proud to be able to let you know more about yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to my question would be a determinant factor in whether your claim of what I appear to be doing is even remotely accurate.

As for the rest of your comment, it's unnecessarily personalized bs that doesn't merit any response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its literally irrelevant, "is not reviewed prior to publication” =/= "no editorial oversight” end of story. This is not how you handle this sort of thing, at the very least you need to WP:AGF and realize that to another reasonable editor it looks like you mischaracterized an argument. There is no reason to go on the attack, let alone attack a friendly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not a reliable source. Self-published. If this were in any other topic besides medicine/alternative medicine there would be no question. It's a POV-pushing blog. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased isn't the same thing as unreliable, and Wikipedia is by design slanted towards the mainstream scientific and medical establishment. If there were a site with the same editorial structure on another topic (pseudomathematics, let's say), then it would be an RS too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but it's NOT reliable, for the reasons I and others stated, bias or no bias. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi, would you also describe The Conversation as an SPS? Because RSP considers it GR. Would you also describe healthfeedback.org as an SPS? Would you also describe The Economist as an SPS? Or The New Republic? All of these have similar practices to SBM in this regard.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibboleth, sorry to jump in here, but do any of those publications state that they allow contributors to directly publish to their sites without going through an editorial process prior to publication? - Bilby (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's characterized as self-published is covered in Note 9 of WP: V. It is the independent reviewers validating the reliability of content that changes a source from self-published to not-self published. It is also implied (though not explicitly stated) via the second bullet example in note 9 that this review should happen prior to publication. Of the three examples you listed, The Economist explicitly states "Every single article we publish is checked for accuracy and credibility. We have a dedicated Research department to support this task." and "Our Research department works on edited copy as close to the final version as deadlines allow. We check against original sources that we believe to be reliable; for items that cannot be verified directly we form a view based on other credible information." which demonstrates they do their review process prior to publication. I couldn't find any review process in Healthfeedback, from it's about page it appears to be an expert-based crowd-sourced review site, so likely self-published but trying to keep it limited to experts in their fields. For the conversation they have an editorial team, and claim to be a newspaper so it can be assumed that they review articles prior to publication. The new republic publishes a magazine so presumably it has some editorial review process for that, but I couldn't find anything spelling it out, nor what areas besides the magazine would be reviewed and what wouldn't be. Now the source in question openly admits that they do not do a review prior to publication for "trusted Authors" and editors. The only source in your list that would be close to this practice would be Healthfeedback which I would also say is a self-publishing source. I would also note that there is nothing in RSP that says SPS can not be Generally reliable. Generally Reliable is per SPS: reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. Self-published expert sources writing in their own field could also fall into that characterization. Further Generally reliable goes on to state "or a higher standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question." which would mean a generally reliable source could be unusable in contexts such as BLP, which is of course the case for self-published sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your arguments, it would follow that The Conversation is not RS, either. In SBM's case, David Gorski and a group of volunteers do the review (unless, as was admitted, a few editors have a possibility to publish without prior review; but that's not reflected in editorial guidelines yet, so presumably it still passes through Dr. Gorski). In The Conversation, (submission criteria) the criteria do not differ substantially but the editors are anonymous. The New Republic only sets general criterion of importance of idea and fitness to publish an article there, but does not detail any specific criteria, which would presumably discredit the outlet, according to OP's logic, because they are definitely less rigorous than SBM's, regardless of what you think of the current criteria.

That you (well, we rather aren't) are able to freely post on some website is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the source to be labeled SPS. The other thing that matters is the reaction to any bullshit or blatant falsehood that might appear on the webpage. No editor here has credibly suggested that nothing will be done at all if such BS appears; and so far there is no indication that there isn't going to be any reaction (in fact, one of the sources is a retraction notice, which is another sign that even trusted editors' content may be removed, and Dr. Hall publishes there rather frequently). And also, such "privileged" authors do not make up 100% of posts, do they? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is much question that SBM is reliable, the only real issue, I think, is whether or not portions are self published. Given that self-publishing involves the same person writing and publishing their material, without an independent editor, the statement that SMB "allow[s] trusted authors to publish without prior review" seems to meet the criteria. I disagree that meeting this is not a sufficient condition - self-publishing sites do remove self-published content if it fails to meet their guidelines (YouTube, Facebook, Forbes, etc), but this doesn't mean that they are not allowing self-publishing. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that would mean you'd have to get a list of these "trusted editors" in order to have them excluded for SPS purposes (I see none); further, the comparison to YT or FB seems to be misplaced, because while the latter two do have some sort of guidelines, they are not publishers in the sense that by definition they only employ post hoc control of content (and obviously their teams can't catch all the misinformation on the web, giving that there is too much of it, or it is seemingly innocent but disinfo in context, or that they have to balance the freedom of speech concerns with the guidelines; none of which applies to SBM). It still passes through dr Gorski, and I'd assume he reads for obvious non-sequiturs before clicking "Post" in a fast-tracked procedure; and there is an efficient post hoc control procedure just in case, which again, they have no urge to balance against freedom of speech concerns (even if they legally are under no obligation to provide First Amendment rights). I think that SPS requires that the editors in question are given direct tools to post the stuff - you may ask the outlet for that information, but there is no indication of that so far of it in the submission guidelines. See WP:USINGSPS: The relationship between the author and the publisher is the key point. If it's the same person (or the same group of people) doing both, then it's self-published. If it's a different person or group of people voluntarily deciding whether to make the authors' works available to the public, then it's non-self-published. The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked, I imagine, so from the supplement to the guideline it would appear that it is in fact not self-published. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in practice, that we'd have to treat all contributors as SPS unless SBM starts noting who is self publishing and who is not. It isn't a great solution, but erring on the side of caution with BLPs is the better choice. According to the site, it is not passing through Gorski - trusted editors are posted directly to the site. I'm not sure why you are saying that Gorski reads them first when the site has said otherwise. As to the tools, the statement is pretty clear: "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" - whatever else may happen at the backend, apprently their work is not being reviewed prior to publication.

At any rate, no, deciding who to allow to publish directly on your site does not mean that they are not then self-publishing. Forbes selects their contributors, but those contributers self-publish to the site. iUniverse presses the button when printing a book, but they don't check the contents. Self-publishing is simply a matter of both authoring and publishing your own material, without an editor checking that material and approving it prior to publication. SBM have stated that they allow some authors to publish directly to the site, without an editor first approving what they write. Thus, it is self-publishing. Other aspects - such as approving who is allowed to self-publish, or potentially checking the material after it is published - doesn't change this. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point you are just being querulous and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in your quest to disqualify SBM as a source. You can confidently assert what "we'd have to" do, but you are still incorrect and ignoring everyone detailing how you are incorrect. The appropriate essay at this point is WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think problem is an attempt to claim that the site as not allowing some authors to self-publish when they have clearly stated that they do. I'm not the only person who thinks that saying some authors publish directly without being reivewed is self-publishing, so I'm not sure why you feel that WP:1AM is applicable, however attacking the person rather than the argument is rarely a good move. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, Szmenderowiecki's point here was extremely important: The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked. SPS says if it's the same person doing the editing and publishing, then it's SPS. If it's different people, not SPS. In this case, different people. Not SPS. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking someones right to publish directly on your site does not mean that they were not publishing directly on your site. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, Unless I'm missing something, the preceding comment is a non sequitur.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is that "The decision to let them publish in a fast-tracked process was not made by them, and that privilege could be revoked". Being allowed to publish in a fast track process, or to be more specific, being allowed to publish your own work without prior review, is not changed by whether or not that permission can be revoked. - Bilby (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the permission can be revoked, it automatically means at least some editorial oversight, because otherwise how would you base your decision on whether to grant that permission, not grant it, or revoke it? And if there is editorial oversight, it can't be an SPS.

The very fact that the second link is an extensive retraction notice about an article whose author can be assumed to be in the "privileged" category means that at least some vigilance is exercised.

Re: Revoking someones right to publish directly on your site does not mean that they were not publishing directly on your site. Technically, yes; however, that argument does not lead anywhere. First, SBM did not say "we grant the tools to edit the webpage as they see it fit"; rather, what was said is that "no prior review" was needed. Theoretically, that would mean that Gorski (because I have no reasons to assume they edit the webpage themselves, as that's not what the people said) just rubberstamps these articles, whatever their content; in practice, however, the second link disproves the notion that no editorial oversight is present. Secondly, I'd rather propose to write to the editor on that matter than speculate ourselves what is happening there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out that WP: USESPS says that a self-published source can have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. Since this is something a SPS can have, it can't be the deciding factor on whether a source is a SPS or not. The determining factor is independent review prior to publication. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki, I think you are talking about two different processes. One is how some articles are published; the other is what happens to the articles after publication. Gorski said that they are published by the authors without review. After publication, those articles may be checked by editors, and if there are problems we see that in one case it was retracted. But how they respond after the article is published is seprate to the processes which allow the articles to be published first. Many sites which allow contributors to self-publish also retract articles if a major problem is identified - Forbes, for example, has done so in the past - and if SBM is checking articles not long after publication then it speaks highly of their reliability and standards, but it is a separate process. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent some questions arising from this discussion to Dr Gorski and have so far received no answer to confirm/deny the assertions posted here (apart from what they have already written). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I followed Bilby’s last comment either but I will point out that in this case some of the editors are also on the board of the New England Skeptical Society which is the putative publisher, that is journalistically a unique arrangement. For instance Steven Novella is the founder of both groups and is both the executive editor of Science-Based medicine and the President of NESS. To me that would strongly suggest that pieces by Novella fall under our SPS restrictions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will further note that 3 out of 5 board members of NESS have the last name “Novella” which does actually lead me to question the reliability of this source a little more than I was before... Thats an undue level of control for one family to have, especially when it seems that all pay their bills through “skepticism.” It would also mean that we don’t actually have editorial independence here... That is a *major* issue for us reliability wise, if theres no editorial independence then we don’t have a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Steven, Jay and Robert they are brothers. At the same time, I don't see evidence of the current composition of NESS's board to be having much influence on the quality of the articles published on SBM; and, in fact, the two other brothers aren't listed as editors and don't seem to interfere in any way into functioning of SBM; nor are the other three members of the board. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a question of quality, its a question of editorial independence... Which they do not appear to have, I’m not seeing clear separation between the parent company and the source under consideration here. Also just FYI three brothers on the board of a non-family non-profit is *highly* irregular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the sentence says that trusted editors may bypass the usual review doesn't mean anyone can publish there, and unless we see evidence of abuse of "trusted editors" to include incompetent people or if these people start making bullshit claims, nothing should be changed. There are no indications of deterioration of quality of content, the determination of which is the main objective of RSP (and not the determination of the independent review process, which is indicative of good quality but not its only measure), or dubious "experts" speaking on the tribune of SBM. Everything that matters is already in the RSP entry, and also I concur fully with Shibboleth in what he says.

As for potential uses for WP:BLP claims, being quite a regular reader of the outlet, apart from calling folks like Joe Mercola charlatans and kooks, I can't recall any worthy instances of mentioning BLP claims in Wikipedia cited to SBM only. A lot of that could be included simply as opinions of researchers/recognised medicine sceptics, i.e. attributed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Stephan heavily cites four posts from SBM:

• Jones, Clay (March 11, 2016). "Ezekiel Stephan: Another Pediatric Death by World View"
• Novella, Steven (April 27, 2016). "Parents Convicted in Death of Toddler"
• Gavura, Scott (May 5, 2016). "Is there a naturopathic standard of care?"
• Gorski, David (September 30, 2019). "Deconstructing Justice Terry Clackson's outrageous acquittal of David and Collet Stephans for the death of their son Ezekiel"

These are all contain both authors opinions and assertions of fact, Clay and Novella even call out that they are presenting their opinions or "medically informed speculation." Why are these opinion posts used to assert facts in the article when there is very broad coverage of this story? And there are factual errors in the posts, for instance from Novella:

• • condition worsened until he became acutely ill, at which point his parents rushed him to the hospital. At that point they were giving him fluids through an eye dropper because he could not eat or drink. Also, he was so stiff from the meningitis that he could not sit in the car and had to be laid flat...not breathing on arrival at the hospital Incorrect timeline of events.
  • ...also consulted a naturopath, and picked up Echinacea as a treatment. This is disputed.
  • The Stephans are also simultaneously victims. They consulted a naturopath, and naturopaths are licensed in Canada...death is therefore on the heads of the naturopathic profession and the Canadian government as well. Canada does not license naturopaths, the provinces do, and in Alberta they were not regulated until August 1, 2012 five months after the incident.

Read those posts and evaluate if they should be used for such an article. Should the article say for instance: Gorski criticized the judge's statement about Adeagbo's failing to look for another possible cause of Ezekiel's death since the symptoms of pus on the brain and in the pleural cavity clearly indicate that the meningitis was bacterial. when he posts: "that lymphocytes predominated does not rule out bacterial meningitis, as it took me all of a minute to find Googling and doing PubMed.. Or ...further criticizes Clackson's dismissal of the incriminating things the Stephans said to police and ambulance attendants, claiming that the Stephans were under stress.

Mostly the problem in that article is not Science-Based Medicine, but how WP editors have incorrectly used the source. But an unqualified green entry in RSP and "generally reliable" allow for such uncritical and inappropriate use. fiveby(zero) 14:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally reliable" does not mean "completely infallible", and I don't think a green entry at RSP seriously overrides any experienced editor's ability to recognize that. That post by Novella says, As is often the case, there are different narratives of what happened, depending on your perspective. It is likely the jury had access to more facts than the public, and so their verdict, which was clearly difficult, needs to be taken seriously. Here are the basic facts as being reported... So, getting into the weeds on disputing the timeline seems beside the point; the source itself is saying that the sequence of events it describes shouldn't be taken as definitive. (After all, Novella only had public information to work with.) If our article does, then we might have to adjust its phrasing, but that's a Talk-page issue, not an RSN one, really. Likewise, he writes, They consulted a naturopath, and naturopaths are licensed in Canada (and, unfortunately, in many US states). Being licensed by a province of Canada is being licensed in Canada, just like being licensed by the state of Oregon means you're licensed in the United States. Putting blame on the Canadian government is not illegitimate, since one could imagine the federal government taking the lead against it in one way or another. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger problem for Novella is that he is a contributor to the source, an editor of the source, and president/founder of the source’s parent company (which he and his family controls the board of). For Novella’s work they’re a SPS, but that is in general OK because Novella’s view is notable and often covered in WP:RS. Also just a sidebar but being licensed in Oregon means being licensed in Oregon not being licensed in the United States, try to apply to a weed job in Michigan with your Oregon handler’s permit and not a Michigan one. Similarly licensed in Oregon to carry a concealed firearm most certainly does not mean licensed in the United States to carry a concealed firearm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes in editorial guidelines might indicate the need for a more critical eye on exactly how we use the source, though I'd suggest we should already have been evaluating each use on its merits (particularly whether it's being used for WP:PARITY regarding a fringe claim made by even less reliable sources, or to make its own extraordinary claims). Perhaps a note should be added that not all articles may have been reviewed prior to publishing, and thus additional care should be taken when citing. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked several questions regarding the editorial independence of SBM through Dr Gorski. Unfortunately, a lot of specific information I have sought for the purposes here have not been answered. From his answer, the following info could be read from there:

• Dr Gorski may but does not necessarily review articles from "trusted editors" prior to publication; these have their regular columns every week or two. I have hard times interpreting the sentence saying Mostly we deal with quality control issues internally for trusted authors for the purposes of establishing whether this is an SPS. I have received no information on who is among these "trusted editors", though Dr Gorski and Dr Novella presumably are both among them. Those who are not "internal editors" have their submissions fully reviewed.
• One editor who used to be a "trusted editor" had that status revoked, presumably due to quality issues (name unspecified).
• NESS funds the costs of SBM but otherwise is uninvolved in any processes related to SBM; at least SBM says Dr Novella as NESS founder does not interfere with his role as Editor-in-Chief or with any article published on SBM.

I will not support OP's proposal to remove the editorial guidelines statement but the "some self-publish on that outlet" is a position that could be supported, based on this answer. It should IMHO also be coupled with the fact that post-publication control is functional and working, and the green rating should not be changed. In all, that would be more accurate but will not substantially impact the cases where SBM is appropriate to use, as, as I said earlier, I can't recall many cases where BLP claims are sourced to SBM only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that - it sounds like what we mostly expected. Still reliable, especially on fringe topics where WP:Parity applies, but also in part an SPS and should not be used for third-party claims about living persons per WP:BLPSPS. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming thats true then they simply aren’t a WP:RS, what a shame. Novella’s status as founder is irrelevant, its his status as President which matters. Did Gorski address that? Did he have a comment on the Novella family not just the one Novella controlling the board of NESS? Without knowing who is and who isn't a trusted editor we have to treat everything they publish as SPS. Also why ask Gorski? Novella is clearly in charge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also why ask Gorski? Novella is clearly in charge. "David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor: SBMEditor@icloud.com Please use this e-mail address, and this e-mail address alone, to contact Dr. Gorski about SBM-related matters. That’s what it’s there for." (see here). He wrote me that he discussed the matter with Novella prior to answering my query.

As for possible Novella's meddling in SBM matters as NESS president, the answer I received is this: SBM has total editorial independence. The NESS simply funds the costs of running SBM but has no other role or input. That's it. It would therefore appear that the fact three brothers are on NESS's board is irrelevant to the editors of SBM, or so they think. The other two brothers do not contribute to SBM (that's what I know, not what was written). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that NESS has no role in running SBM would appear to be contradicted by the fact that Novella is both the President of NESS and executive editor of SBM. That is unless at these organizations President and executive editor have different roles and responsibilities than in any other American corporate organization. Applying standard corporate and journalistic ethics to the situation its simply not plausible (or even strictly possible) for executive editor Novella (chief honcho at SMB) to be independent of President Novella (chief honcho of NESS). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the information in this response warrants a change to what RSP has to say, but if it does, it'd be a pretty minor adjustment of phrasing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Szmenderowiecki. Maybe i wasn't clear in the original: "...publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines..." If their guidelines were published we would be able to point to them somewhere. Unless you mean the three paragraphs that begin "For further background, ..." here? BBC publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, but plenty of outlets do not. RPS entry shouldn't claim that SBM does. fiveby(zero) 03:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The submission guidelines are the editorial guidelines, too (as it would be hypocritical of other editors to demand high-quality texts if the "trusted editors" could submit bullshit). These need not be as detailed as in BBC, which, let's be frank, has a much larger outreach than SBM and is a public broadcaster and not a blog, but these are more than sufficient, if properly followed, to sieve out bad quality content, which is exactly what we need for WP:GREL. That is what I consider "robust". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But those submission guidelines are simply not followed for trusted authors. It is not hypocritical, Dr. Novella is very upfront about how the blog works, but it is simply not what is required by the policies and guidelines:

• WP:GREL: The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
• WP:V#Reliable_sources: The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
• WP:RS#Questionable_and_self-published_sources: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight.

In the case of trusted authors nothing stands between them and posting their work. WP's policies and guidelines are pretty clear in this case. There is a plain statement that there is no fact checking and no editorial oversight. fiveby(zero) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simple: fact-checking and analysing arguments happens post-publication, not pre-publication, if any is needed in the case of these trusted editors. The example when they retracted the piece of work due to its poor quality is given in link #2 at your opening post, which is already indicative of error-correction, which is a good sign as regards accuracy and fact-checking. The post that they do not correct or retract can be thought to be of high-quality, and that is what matters; because even if it is self-published, it is written by a recognised expert in the field. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Szmenderowiecki. There is a professional structure in place for "checking or analyzing arguments." Firstly, outside articles are screened, edited and often rejected ahead of time. On the other hand, to be a trusted contributor you must have a degree and a track record that proves your competence to review the scientific literature. Trusted contributors' articles themselves are reviewed after they are posted. "If any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways. Often, clarification in the comments is sufficient. Sometimes we make corrections to the original text of the article. When we receive outside complaints, one or more of the non-author editors (usually David Gorski or myself) will re-read the original article to determine if, in our view, it was fair and appropriate, which is almost always the case. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything in the article, as long as the article adheres to defensible science-based standards." Novella is a practicing neurologist at Yale, Gorski is a surgical oncologists, and both are professional science communicators. A contributor who fails to meet their standards would not remain trusted. Who sits on the board and Novella's position in the org chart is a silly concern given the multiple ways in which Gorski and Novella's reputations are on the line with this site. They have other fact checkers it seems, but it seems like the fact checking buck stops with them. Hence this specific retraction that is now ironically being weaponized against the site. The point of the SBM site is to convey the scientific consensus on FRINGE topics. There are precious few sites that do this (can you think of any?), because professional scientists don't have the time, interest or motivation. Mainstream press is often worse than nothing when it comes to understanding the claims and reading the literature. Journalists, even science reporters at the New York Times, are not in the consensus reporting business. So downgrade this source at our own risk. There will be no WP:PARITY anymore, and wikipedia will become what Huffington Post was in the 90's, a hotbed of denialism and the first stop in marketing of the latest snake oil.DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable, SPS because not all submissions are vetted prior to publication, and because of the composition of the board. It can be used as a parity source, but since we have editors comparing it favorably to the New York Times, the green/reliable listing on the perennial sources list needs to be downgraded to yellow. It should be treated like the ScienceBlogs entry, since those are also invite-only blogs by subject matter experts, and yet aren't considered RS. Geogene (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As part of an effort to improve the links at {{Find sources}} (something I'll be seeking further input on here once it gets farther along), I have been looking at newspapers commonly described as a newspaper of record for various countries. For Australia, the two publications most frequently cited are The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, sister papers in Melbourne and Sydney that share some articles. However, they're currently missing from RSP. So, how should these be seen?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Please indicate in your !vote whether it applies to the SMH, The Age, or both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)^{Edited 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Please see comment at #20:18, 13 Aug for further explanation about why I am launching this RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (SMH/The Age)

• Option 1 for both: never found any (systemic) issues with either, and they're as newspaper as record as you can get. I'm more familiar with SMH but have still encountered The Age multiple times. When writing content I have in my head that these are top-tier sources and I'll read and summarise them before anything except other top-tier sources like NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC: no evidence there's a particular Wikipedia article with a cite that's under dispute. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC, there appears to be no actual dispute to comment on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per Bilorv. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. Agreed with Bilorv. Nothing wrong with an RfC about a source's reliability. We have those all the time, and it doesn't have to be tied to a particular dispute at a particular article. The purpose here (updating {{Find sources}}) is good and clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Option 1 - although they are state-based papers they are based in large cities and have a long-standing national following as a reliable news source in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Option 1. Having read the explanation, now I understand what it's being about. At least I saw no obvious reasons for their unreliability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. The suggestion that these two excellent newspapers are anything but RS is ridiculous. If they change their standards, we could revisit this. At the moment they are about as good as it gets. If a news item says something, it has been checked for accuracy and on the rare occasions that an error is made it is promptly and prominently acknowledged. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 these are serious newspapers in major cities, with professional journalists and editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 noting the comments by David Gerard and Pete - they are, and have been over time reliable sources. JarrahTree 10:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer the underlying question behind this RfC, yes, these reliable sources would be considered Australian newspapers of record. – Teratix ₵ 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (SMH/The Age)

Meta-discussion (SMH/The Age)

• We absolutely do list The Australian at RSP. RSP isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of every countrys major newspapers, which are assumed to be generally reliable, only thosed that are frequently discussed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, self-trout about the The Australian. I edited out the comment I initially made that we don't list any Australian publications. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not be opening discussions just because a source doesn’t appear at RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This; RSP should only be sources that are common targets of debate as an RS (whether it clearly is one or isn't). That said, I see no harm in a separate page of listing the newspapers of note and reputability for major countries as an RS subpage/essay, as this is often a question asked. This doesn't necessarily that their reliability may be later brought into question if they aren't already listed at RSP, just that we can take these generally by default as good sources. --Masem (t) 17:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this position really confusing, and I think it's rather particular to the regulars on this noticeboard. The ship has long since sailed on whether or not RSP is a listing of major publications—it very clearly is, and creating a separate page doing the same thing would be an extreme exercise in forking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If that ship has sailed I’m sure you can point to a relevant consensus or series of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're the one asserting that a rule exists about which discussions are appropriate to bring up here, so the impetus is on you to demonstrate consensus for that rule. I looked through the instructions at the top of this page before opening this thread and the others, and I found no such rule listed. The only thing approaching that is the advice to provide examples of disputes about a source. In this case, my note about module development fulfills an equivalent function of explaining why I'm seeking consensus about these sources.

    Another way to look at it, if you prefer, is that these publications have been brought here a bunch of times before (search the archives), just not in a formal enough way to justify an RSP listing. If we're willing to have a listing for The New York Times, then it seems very U.S.-centric to not allow listings on other countries' newspapers of record. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be ignoring the “P” in RSP... The NYT has been discussed ad-nauseum (theres literally a discussion open right now just above this one), I would also note that unless theres been other discussions a single discussion won’t qualify a source for inclusion in RSP so I’m not really sure what the point of this is, you would have to do this sort of open question repeatedly for each source which just seems disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria, it states For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Given that, it seems we need to add RfC tags for the discussions here to count. I'll go ahead and do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that theres not actually a dispute here I don’t understand how you can make an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed with Sdkb on this. There are downsides to the growing reliance on RSP (just seen someone argue a gossip rag is reliable because it's not listed in red at RSP, only its parent newspaper is) but it's far and away better than before we had it, and it doesn't make sense to be omitting obviously reliable sources when as thorough a list as possible is useful to both people who are not familiar with the sources (because they're not from that country, say), and people not yet familiar with Wikipedia's standards in practice (because you can read WP:RS and WP:V 100 times but without seeing some examples, you can't actually tell where our line is). — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there ever any serious question about this? I'm not offhand familiar with The Age, but it seems to me it should be relatively uncontroversial to add at least The Sydney Morning Herald as a reliable source to the list. If someone objects to that and says it's unreliable, I guess then we need an RfC, but I don't see why we do at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade, the RSP rules state that an RfC is required to list a source unless it has been discussed multiple times before. An editor objected above to adding it to RSP, so the RfC tag here is necessary. Apologies for the bureaucracy, but this appears to be the necessary path to a listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can Sdkb please link the prior discussions which led to the RfC being launched? We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question, and I do not appear to see any evidence of this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question. Is that a rule or just your opinion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been common practice here for a long while, and that's why it's the wording at the top of this page about when to launch an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To iterate on my comment above, I think it would be good if we had a list of newspapers of note for each major country/region that we presume reliable. Some of those may already be listed on RS/P but the point of the RS/P list is to include entries that have a point of contentious (whether in good faith or not) from multiple discussions as to list them as RSP and avoid having the same discussion over and over again. It seems silly to have RFCs on new entries when there hasn't been a point of issue with these works before, so just that they can be added. But by having this other separate list, noting that unless the work is listed at RSP and thus confirmed to be reliable, that list is a presumption of reliability which could potentially be discussed later. So that we'd have one list, RSP, that are sources that have had reliability or lack thereof asserted through multiple consensus-based discussions, and then this other list that is generally safe to presume reliable until proven otherwise (unless already included on RSP) but have not had the consensus discussion to prove that all out. --Masem (t) 17:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem, I don't think any such thing exists as a publication that is so clearly reliable that we don't need to worry about it being challenged—any publication reliable enough to confront tough issues is necessarily going to generate controversy. We have the NYT listed but not other countries' papers of record because there are a lot more U.S. editors than those from any other country, but that's just systemic bias. Regarding the point of the RS/P list, it may have originally been intended only for keeping track of repeated disputes, but as Bilorv put very well above, it's very clearly now being used as a (non-comprehensive) list of what we think about the major sources of the world. I get that we don't want to allow editors to start launching giant discussions about the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner just because they can, but this really isn't that—these are publications used thousands of times across Wikipedia and that have been repeatedly mentioned on this noticeboard before. There is no need to drag heels just to cling to an antiquated idea of what RSP is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from Sdkb: @Peter Gulutzan, Horse Eye's Back, Hemiauchenia, Masem, Seraphimblade, and Spy-cicle: Okay, so I appear to have stepped into a hornet's nest regarding the issue of when it's appropriate to launch discussions here. That's largely on me for not explaining better why I'm seeking input on these publications, so here's a more complete explanation. I hope we can drop the pitchforks.

The {{Find sources}} template is used primarily on talk pages to help editors find relevant sources to improve pages. It currently has nearly 800,000 transclusions, which means that an extremely high level of consensus is needed to make changes to it. One problem with the template that has been raised several times on its talk page is that the only newspaper it links directly is the NYT, which works fine as a newspaper of record for the U.S. but doesn't really make sense for, say, an article about Australia. Myself and a few others are working on remedying that, building in the capacity for the template to automatically determine an article's country and provide an appropriate newspaper of record if we've identified one for that country. That work is still at an early technical stage, which is why I referenced it a little obliquely above. If you'd like to help out, please do; otherwise, just wait and we will be seeking consensus here and at other prominent venues before anything goes live. For the initial launch of the feature, we're planning to include nine of the major English-speaking countries. I want the list of publications to be as straightforward as possible, so that debate doesn't get snagged around the question of which publications to list. Having all of them greenlisted at RSP seems an appropriate way to achieve that, and the RSP instructions state that a single RfC is sufficient for a listing, so that's what I'm doing here for the four countries out of the nine whose newspaper of record isn't yet listed. Again, the publications we ultimately choose will be shown on hundreds of thousands of talk pages, so it's essential that we affirm that they are considered reliable sources, and this is the reliable sources noticeboard, so it is the place to do that. The discussion at the other three seems to be going fine and producing useful and actionable consensuses; I hope that we put all this meta stuff aside and do the same here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restating the situation like this, this I would approve of, since you're talking being able to cementing the use of the known RSes in a well-used template. Assuring the community agrees these are RSes would prevent long-term arguments on that template that we're using sources unvetted by the community. I wouldn't agree that RSP should be used to fill in all good RSes on WP that otherwise haven't been the subject of perennial debates, but clearing ones that are to be used in a highly visible template makes a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 21:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is the case, you should ask directly whether a source deserves to be called a newspaper of record and should be put in the template, since that is a substantially higher bar than simply being an WP:RS (and would confuse editors less when you start asking that question for sources that seem plainly and uncontroversially reliable.) I think that that's a reasonable question for RSN (since it's a question about a source's reputation). An affirmative answer would probably lead to the source getting listed as green on RSP anyway, though. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aquillion: I think whether or not a publication is a paper of record is a different bar than whether it is reliable, not a higher bar. For instance, looking below, it seems that many editors feel that The Straits Times is the newspaper of record for Singapore but that it's not always reliable. As I said, I will certainly be asking about selections for the template once it reaches that stage of development, but those selections need to be both reliable and publications of record. Right now, I'm asking only about the reliability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail & Guardian is a weekly newspaper based in Johannesburg. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (M&G)

• Option 1: had to do some research on this one. The Mail & Guardian does robust journalism, not much bias creeping into its non-opinion pieces; I've no reason to doubt its About us claims that it maintains editorial independence from its advertisers (except where signposted), and it's got a Corrections and clarifications process that looks great. Of recent news alone, The Guardian and Sky News cited it as a source and Washington Post asked its EiC for a quote. Our article has an Awards section too, though I haven't properly evaluated it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: They have a great ethics policy and corrections and clarifications process. Polls show that they're widely considered the most reliable newspaper in South Africa, a country which "has one of the most diverse and independent media in Africa with a high degree of press freedom" according to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: the previous two commenters have expressed it well. I would consider the M&G the most reliable paper in South Africa (at least of English-language newspapers). The usual WP:RSOPINION caveat applies to opinion pieces, which on the M&G website are clearly tagged as "Opinion". - htonl (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Gerard: How else are sources supposed to be added to WP:RSP then? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not for compiling a catalogue of assessments of all known sources. An RFC should be raised when there is an actual dispute at hand - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1, although I don't read it as frequently as I used to all the information I find there is generally reliable. I have found it to be a reliable source on South African related news for many years now. I still regard it was one of the most reliable news sources in South Africa.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (M&G)

Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. I also note that (unless I'm missing it) we do not appear to currently list any South African publications at RSP. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a hammer, many things look like a nail. After gathering low hanging fruit, move up the tree. If the fruit doesn't fall, shake it down with increased vigor. -- GreenC 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, there is a list of South African publications as reference sources for use on Wikipedia that was compiled as part of Wiki Project Africa's sources list. It has not been updated in a while (two or three years now) and it could use more input from others to update/improve its accuracy and completeness.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes is considered a reliable source now. Recently it turned out that their owner published dozens of plagiarised stories on the website [66]. To their credit, they admitted it and suspended him. Having said that, the articles themselves are still there (they plan to add notices to them) and in general this puts their editorial oversight in doubt. I suggest to move them to "No consensus" for now and add a note that some of the articles have been plagiarised. If/when they clean up this mess and we see that they are still cited by other reliable sources they can be moved back to reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 14:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism and unreliability are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it shows issues with their editorial oversight because of it. If they plagiarized it I think it is reasonable to assume they did not properly vet the information. PackMecEng (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what? "Plagiarism" isn't a synonym for "fabrication", the fact that he did not properly attribute his writing doesn't alter the reliability of the underlying material. He was cribbing from reliable sources, at least. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we should not be using content that is knowing plagiarized even if the material is based on reliable sources. That's a copyright problem (eg why we don't want people linking to questionable article duplication sites when we can just use the original source). Also, that they were plagiarized and not given sources also does raise some question of other articles by this one writer of how much fact checking they used, so in that subset of articles, reliability is an issue. I think its fair to at least temporarily mark Snopes unreliable until it is clear they have marked all suspect articles and then we can add that caution while re-instating Snopes to reliable after that. --Masem (t) 14:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This notice board is about reliability, not legality. And no, it does not raise any question about how much fact-checking they did, it just means they were too lazy to write it themselves. Unless it can be shown the stories were false this is not a reliability issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A site that may be incorporating material either legally or ethically beyond their copyright (well beyond fair use) is a clear issue with regards to editorial oversight. I would fully expect that a site with such oversight would try to check for such issues if plagiarism was in play. That this is still likely content that from the original works are still reliable and likely what we would still include, its fair not to remove Snopes fully (nor remove current uses from existing articles) until we know what articles are tagged, and then go through, strip those ones (if they are used) with better corroborating sources, and then we can re-mark Snopes as reliable outside those marked as such. --Masem (t) 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they've removed the plagiarized content, then we don't have to worry about linking to plagiarized content. If we have footnotes linking to previously plagiarized content, then they're now dead and should be removed rather than rescued from archives. Largoplazo (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are fact-checkers. I think we need to hold them to high editorial standards. If they allowed this to happen, which wouldn't have happened in a traditional newspaper, their editorial processes are not great. If we see that other media continue to cite them, we can restore their status. Alaexis_¿question? 14:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer an example where their fact checking was wrong? That seems to be the thing that would relate to their reliability. The fact that articles were plagiarized doesn't make them less accurate. It also doesn't necessarily shine poorly on any internal fact checking, as the stories contained checkable facts and references to the actual sources that were referenced in the plagiarized articles. If they fact checked the claims, they would have checked out. Detecting plagiarism often requires actively looking for it, and that isn't what their job would normally entail. No reason to believe that this was a systemic problem rather than the work of a single author as it appears to be. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a story with the Babylon Bee when they labelled satire as false news and they were criticised for their handling of the $2000 checks story ([67]). Not enough to make them unreliable but not exactly a stellar record either which confirms doubts about their editorial processes. Alaexis_¿question? 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would hold more water if people didn't routinely fail to understand that the Babylon Bee was satire and share articles as though they were real news. It quite literally is fake news, even if it is explicitly done for satire. Also "criticized for their handling" doesn't mean "wrong". As an American I can say that I fully understood from the outset that the two checks would total to $2000. Many people didn't. That's not Snope's fault. Their fact check was correct. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal opinion. I gave you examples when others didn't find their fact checks correct. Alaexis_¿question? 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your link is to a blog. Do you have any reliable sources on the subject? I am skeptical when people cite blogs as evidence of unreliability because in practice it amounts to little more than "this random person disagreed with their reporting" - unless the error is trivially clear, we need to see other sources of reasonable weight saying "they actually got this wrong." As far as the satire story goes, Snopes said that they fact-check satire in situations where there are people who believe it is real; in that case, they also updated the fact-check to make it more clear. Both these things are marks of a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dismiss. As I have mentioned in an earlier discussion, the question of editorial oversight is a proxy for quality but is not the only measure of quality, nor is it a direct one. The behaviour from Snopes is for now appropriate and something I would expect for an outlet that cares about its integrity. If anything, any caveats should apply for these 54 articles only; and even then quality isn't impacted by the fact someone employs Ctrl+C+V and a thesaurus for "writing" fact-checks (as it would be the case if they were citing some garbage sites, per GIGO principle).

I agree that fact-checkers should uphold to the highest standards possible; but it seems they a) are going to clean that cock-up, which was connected with one author only; b) won't and don't make the fact checks now of any worse quality; c) this mishap alone does not force Snopes out of RS territory. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Buzzfeed article ends by paraphrasing a journalism professor: "Many prominent news organizations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and BuzzFeed News, have acknowledged plagiarism in their own pages and publicly corrected the record, as Snopes is doing now." We cannot expect that reliable sources will always live up to professional standards. TFD (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but in those cases it is generally not from the co-founder/editorial staff, this is a higher level. Which calls into question their editorial decisions. PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the incubators in Kuwait, the WMDs in Iraq, and some of the stories about Clinton-Sanders, Trump-Russia and misinformation on COVID-19? (I am referring to items reported as news that were later retracted.) Do you think this was the result of rogue reporters? TFD (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking yeah mostly and some maybe not, but that kind of misses the point that I was making. None were by co-founders or that level. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that reliable sources, particularly for current events, are not as reliable as people think they are. Inevitably, there will be inaccurate information in articles, particularly for current events. Fortunately with snopes when it is wrong we can determine that by checking their sources. A typical article will have a claim and compare it with a reliable source. We can then go to the rs. TFD (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and see - There's no immediate evidence of inaccuracy and their editorial team is addressing as they should. Since this is still a developing story I think it would be best to wait until we know exactly which articles are affected so we can reference the original sources instead.

Buzzfeed shines a light on what's been going on at Snopes over the past few years, and one quote in particular illustrates a shift towards clickbait that I (and others) have noticed lately: "In other emails from around the same time (2014-2015), Mikkelson described his vision for the site’s future 'as a platform for traffic-generating junk that people would complain about if it were on ‘classic’ snopes,' including articles copied from 'viral item of the day' sites.'" On the other hand, comments from former employees show a strong sense of ethics on the editorial team, which gives me hope that they'll be able to correct the problems caused by one "bad apple" of a founder. Once the dust settles around the plagiarism issue, I think it would make sense to reassess Snopes' reliability to see if their recent work upholds the same standard of accuracy that they were known for. Since fact-checking has become more mainstream we can probably source a lot of things to major outlets such as CNN instead of Snopes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and see, as several people said above. One individual, even the co-founder, is not enough to discredit an entire source provided the source's editorial controls and other safeguards ultimately work as they should - part of the purpose of several of the requirements in WP:RS is to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the source does not simply serve as a mouthpiece for the views of its founders or owners. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see. Per the multiple explanations above. There's no reason to immediately go to no-consensus. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see. The yardstick for a reliable source is not "perfection" it is "what is their response when they screw up?" In the immediate aftermath, it appears the editorial team at Snopes is responding correctly, and we need to see if they follow through with plans for retractions, etc. --Jayron32 15:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point it seems limited to one author, one time period that's several years over, and probably a part of the site, we would not readily use anyway -- when we use such fly-by-night stuff, which should not be often, we have better sources for, '“breaking” and “odd” stories on various subjects originally reported on by other news organizations'[68], one would hope. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see At the moment, we simply don't have the information to judge how bad the damage was, though it's a reasonable guess that if the problem was plagiarizing for clickbait, then the affected topics might be pretty incidental. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Still reliable unless there are further expositions of bad practice at Snopes, barring of course the articles they are still tidying up. I commented more on this here. Their comprehensive response to BuzzFeed's story, rather than making a superficial PR comment "We dispute these claims", is consistent with a high-quality reliable source that cares about fact-checking. However, I do understand that these recent developments are shocking, do damage Snopes's credibility and I think that it would not be unreasonable to begin an RfC on Snopes either now or after some waiting period recommended by editors above. At such an RfC I would hope to lay out the strongest possible case to keep it at "generally reliable". (I'd welcome a ping to any such discussion.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Still reliable, RfC not needed and would likely be pointy at this stage. Plagiarism isn't a reliability concern - fabricating information would be, but there have been no claims of fabrication/lying/misleading against this one individual here. There's no reliability concern to start with - but even if there was, Snopes has acted exactly how we would expect a reliable source to do - suspend the person, begin issuing retractions and appending notes to articles to explain, etc. But again, plagiarism isn't even a reliability issue - it may call into question the editorial processes of the source, but plagiarism is, in many cases, hard to find. Automated tools are... to put it bluntly, quite crap at it, and a respected editor/writer isn't going to be run through an automated tool for every article they write, much less have a human review the results of that. I doubt anyone can show me a source that has never had a writer plagiarize something - it's how they respond that matters, and they're responding correctly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims. A major source is Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment. A person said "I don't see any discussion as to whether Stundin is or is not (generally reliable)" Should Stundin be considered a reliable source in general or for this? Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not to consider it a normal WP:NEWSORG? - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of but it has been questioned so I'm here. Their description ofthemselves is at About Stundin, you'd have to translate that to English, they only do a little in Englsh including the queried article. NadVolum (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Via google translate, the organization does seem to have editorial oversight. Their "objectives" section seems to be saying that they are an "independent" formed after a group of journalists resigned from DV (newspaper) "after a hostile takeover of the media due to the coverage." Is there someone in Iceland who might be able to interpret that for us? —valereee (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krun, do you have any familiarity? —valereee (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally consider it to be reliable, as far as news outlets go, probably better than most small news outlets and less likely to be swayed by special interests than the larger ones. Of course, every news outlet has some sort of angle or bias. Stundin has a declared purpose of avoiding special interest bias and has certainly striven (and managed, I think) to steer clear of big business influence. See here for a list of shareholders (and shareholders’ shareholders) as well as Stundin’s editorial policy, as published by the Icelandic Media Commission. I believe Stundin leans a bit toward skepticism of corporations and institutions and would probably rather err on the side of the “common man”, private citizens, whistleblowers, etc., but I don’t think they would print something unless they trusted the source. – Krun (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not (for me) can it be used for a claim, the issue is can it be used to A, say this claim is a fact as in "On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported that a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment". And, B, does it (alone) carry enough weight to pass wp:undue and wp:not news?Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post consider it a reliable source; they have done secondary reporting on Stundin content, as has UK current affairs publication Private Eye。Cambial foliage❧ 09:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No the Washington post reported what they had said, as in "they have claimed this we can't confirm it" in fact it makes it clear that the claim he is a key witness is not true. As such it implies the Stundin article is not accurate. So a reputable RS has said this is not a reliable source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've completely failed to understand the text of the article; perhaps try reading it again. Washington Post confirm that Stundin is reliable by their secondary reporting of the content of the interview. They disagree with the characterisation of the witness as key, and this is stated in the current use of the source. A reputable source considered the content of the interview reliable and worthy of reporting on. They disagreed on a specific detail and this is noted. Try to keep up.Cambial foliage❧ 21:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article talk page and only found two different links to the Washington Post [69] and [70]. The first doesn't seem to refer to Stundin AFAICT. The second refers to this interview [71]. Your comment also seems ambiguous, you first said "they have done secondary reporting on Stundin content" which seems to imply they did this multiple times. But you later said "their secondary reporting of the content of the interview." In the absence of someone providing links to the different times the Washington Post have done secondary reporting on multiple different Stundin content, I'm going to assume you initial comment was poorly worded and they only did so a single time. I don't think the Washington Post choosing to report on one single interview by a source proves that they think the source is point blank reliable. The point of reliable secondary sources is they are supposed to assess sources and fact-check where necessary. So this means from the evidence presented this far, IMO at best, we can maybe conclude they think think Stundin is reliable for this one interview. Which isn't actually that difficult, you have to be a terrible source to lie about what someone said in an interview. Perhaps the Daily Mail reaches that level but many non RS do not. Indeed plenty of RS report on stuff Daily Mail claim anyway. Point being, the Washington Post may very well think Stundin is generally unreliable. Or more likely since they have limited experience with Stundin, have formed no firm conclusions of their reliability. I'm not even sure that we can conclude they've concluded Stundin can be trusted for the entire interview anyway. Realistically, if they're only reporting on one aspect of that interview, the only thing they need to be certain of is that Stundin are not lying about that part. Note I have no specific comment on how to handle the content of the interview. Since this is RSN and the question was about the general reliability of Stundin, I feel it is reasonable to comment on that aspect. In fact, I don't even have an opinion on whether Stundin is generally reliable other than that if Stundin is, the fact the Washington Post chose to report on a single interview they conducted, is almost useless as evidence for that. IMO David Gerard etc above are heading in the right direction to assess the general reliability of Stundin. Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this confused and lengthy text you attempt to replace the limited information we have about what the Washington Post does think (report of interview accurate; framing of certain implications they disagree) with unfounded speculation on what they might think. You implicitly admit this is based on nothing. You also claim several implications in the text to which you respond that do not exist (e.g. "they have done secondary reporting on Stundin content" does not imply multiple instances). Gerard and valereee's comments are certainly appropriate to assessing reliability. The Washington Post (and Deutsche Welle)^[1] taking the interview report seriously is also a factor bolstering its reliability. Cambial foliage❧ 10:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can see the problem at the RfC and why I raised about being a reliable source here. The Washington Post is the only major media source which covered it. There are lots of other reliable sources but they are not major media sources. The current text quotes Stundin as saying he is key and also the Wshington Post saying it disagrees. The other sources are being dismissed as not giving any weight for inclusion and the whole paragraph has an RfC saying it should all be completely deleted. As to the actual facts there's Thordarson's own words in the Icelandic version and many of them are corroborated by an ex Icelandic Interior Minister in tanscript of YouTube interview on CN-news - but that's not a major media source. The lack of coverage in major media has been noted in for instance FAIR - Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage. If the major media sources don't cover something but many others do is it then undue to include it? NadVolum (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It probably meets rs but the issue is weight. What weight do we give a story that appeared in an Icelandic bi-weekly publication that has only been picked up by only one major news source (the WP), considering that the topic (Assange) regularly receives extensive coverage throughout the world?

To put this in perspective, a witness against Assange has been reported to have retracted his statement. Assange's defenders say this invalidates the case against him. Had this received widespread coverage, media would have published a range of opinions and we could inform readers what bearing the story would have on the case against Assange. At present we don't know and Wikipedia articles should not get involved in the debate by giving prominence to stories that for all we know have little or no relevance to the case.

TFD (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem that there are not many sources like the Washington Post saying the evidence is not key? If anything the text gives that more prominence than in the various reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT doesn't say anything about removing stuff because it does not have enough sources saying it is wrong! NadVolum (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been widespread coverage in reliable sources. The problem is the lack of corporate media coverage. WP:WEIGHT does not say we should only use corporate media sources. That is why some media critique sites have written about this as a kind of media blackout. NadVolum (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a conspiracy? SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of the various media critique sources given and you'll see they raise a range of possibilities. The FAIR cite above is of the opinion that the mainstream media have decided to side with the security state. NadVolum (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at WP:WEIGHT again, as far as I can see it not only says nothing about mainstream press being decisive, it actually says practically the opposite in "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Mainstream media as a criterion emphasises prevalence in the general public. There is no assumption a widely read newspaper is more reliable. NadVolum (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of WP:WEIGHT says, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Washington Post, an Icelandic newspaper that isn't even among the country's top ten newspapers,[72] and a handful of alternative media most of which fail rs is not the body of material on the subject. Iceland's population btw is 370,000, or about 1/10th of 1% of the U.S. population. While the size of the country may not be the only factor in determining weight, Stundin does not have much readership outside Iceland, since few people understand Icelandic.

Also, we don't assume that being widely read is necessarily important since tabloid newspapers such as The Sun have massive readerships. What we should consider is how influential it is in other reliable sources. So for example when the Oxford University Press publishes a book about the Afghan war, most of the news sources used will be major mainstream media.

TFD (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're still going by numbers. And how would you expect a biweekly to compete on web numbers? There's a discussion on this page about Mail&Guardian, a South African paper, and it looks like that is considered reliable, and it has a story by John Pilger on this very matter Julian Assange: A day in the death of British justice. Your criteria removes anything like that. And no I doubt many of the factual or biographical books I have ever mention the major media as sources. I wonder if your rasoning has contributed to another thing I was looking at just recently on Wikipedia, a theory of wealth inequality covered in Scientific American and discussed by Bill Gates which implies to me a lot of government thinking is counter productive - but it isn't covered at all in WIkipedia, even the basis from 25 years ago hardly gets a mantion. One might have thought something like that would be covered by the Economist or the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal at some stage. Though mainstream would exclude the Economist I suppose. NadVolum (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+ [73] in Jacobin (magazine) too which is being discussed above, but it seems to rate a 2 because of its strong ideological stance. Just shows how widespread it is in non corporate sources if it was in two that are being discussed here at this time.. NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not exclude Mail & Guardian or Stunden as sources. The reasoning for the policy is that given a huge amount of facts and opinions about major topics, editors have to be selective in what is included and what is left out. The criterion mandated by WEIGHT is to report facts and opinions based on the weight assigned to them in reliable sources. If a specific fact or opinion is almost totally ignored in the vast majority of reliable sources, then it lacks weight. That may mean that relevant facts and opinions are ignored because sources have largely ignored them. But what is relevant is a matter of judgment. What you consider important, I may not and vice versa. If you and i for example were to write a 500 word essay about New York City, chances are that the two essays would not contain the exact same facts and opinions. That's because each person has a different view of what is important. Because different editors will have different biases, there must be some way to determine what is included and excluded. For better or worse, that determination is based solely on the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Some people disagree with the policy because it means that articles about current events will reflect the bias in legacy media. If you don't like that, then you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the CBC article, "Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds." It says, "The Wikimedia Foundation, which funds Wikipedia, acknowledges that articles on the online encyclopedia are not representative of the impact that women have had throughout history, saying that mirrors the world's gender biases." Something similar can be said in this case. TFD (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that policy was applied uniformly to the article it could be chopped down quite a bit. For instance someone in the RfC produced a link to the Intercept and I queried how it would get past this business of major media sources. But looking at the article I see some things are based solely on that publication. Cut out all the ones not in 2019 Newspaper web rankings and worries about space should be relieved. I agree one can't have things which have too little weight in the context. But WP:WEIGHT does not attach weight amongst the general public as a considertion, only weight amongst reliable sources and then only for whether things are trivial or fringe. It is not the approprite policy if there is one to support what you are saying. NadVolum (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure many of us would think that was a bad thing given how bloated that article is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then the guidance in Wikipedia:Article size indicates it should be split into a main article with summaries and sub articles. NadVolum (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NadVolum, from what you have said above, your view seems to be that corporate media are not inherently reliable to assess WP:DUE on this issue. This is an interesting argument, however, it is not the view of Wikipedia. Size of circulation is absolutely one of the criteria we use to assess reliability of news organizations. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSVETTING.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NEWSORG does not mention it at all that I can see. RSVETTING says "Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point", and that's about it. "Absolutely" is a bit of an exaggeration as far as I can see, it is one option but certainly not the most important in RSVETTING. NadVolum (talk)

Stundin seems to be a reasonable WP:NEWSORG, and the attempts to keep it out seem querulous. No reason not to use it; put an attribution on if necessary - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reasons whatsoever have been provided to doubt its reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 06:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is journalistically fairly standard-issue as UK tabs go I think, though without the hard-right political leaning of most. It's not listed on "Perennial Sources", unless we're supposed to infer a blanket judgement about the whole market segment. Item at issue seems fairly uncontroversial in itself, though there could be WP:UNDUE concern. Other sources are available, but they're either on the index expurgatorius themselves, or appear as 'no consensus'. Any advice, either in the general or the particular case? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using the Daily Record as a source for material of that nature (which is covered by BLP, despite the subject's recent suicide). It's a sensationalist tabloid - if the information can't be supported by better sources, it shouldn't be in our article. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. The Daily Record aren't generally liars - but they are a tabloid given to sensationalism - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is another available source, the Standard, which /PS more-or-less puts on the "very nasty, but we can't touch you for it" category. So I was essentially wondering if the DR counts as slightly better, slightly worse, or much of a muchness, and consequently whether to use one of the two (as at present), both, or neither and exclude the material. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The "perennial sources" list is a list of specific sources that we've discussed so much that we decided to summarize the discussion consensus in one place. It has never been meant to be a canonical list of sources, either good or bad, and that fact that a source isn't included on the list doesn't mean anything one way or the other. We assume people are both competent enough to apply the reliable source criteria and genuinely wish to get it right when it comes to using high-quality sources. --Jayron32 15:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It still seems a little odd that it's not been, as most UK tabs have. Granted this one is more 'local' in circulation than some others, but certainly not all. (Compare with the other source mentioned above, indeed.) I'm sure how the various links supplied in your comment might be helpful. Some UK tabloids are potentially OK, others are not, so it's immediately obvious where the bright line between the two falls? Not to me, I'm afraid, hence the query, at the place where where I understood such queries were supposed to go. Perhaps I should get me coat. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is not that complicated. Perhaps it's 2 points.

  1. WP:SOFIXIT: If someone has used a bad source in an article, and you can replace it with a better one, or if it (and what it is referencing) needs to be removed, you can just fix the problem yourself. You don't have to ask for a discussion unless what you're trying to do generates some reasonable objections. Don't assume you need permission from anyone to make Wikipedia better. You don't. Not everything needs to be discussed ahead of time.
  2. You asked for advice on how to deal with what you consider a bad source. My advice is "we trust you to make good decisions about obviously bad sources". Edit with confidence, but be willing to discuss when there are objections.

  That's all. Your question was apt and quite fine, I was just trying to answer it, not tell you the question was invalid. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article (Institute for Statecraft) makes heavy use of the Daily Record on quite a contentious topic. I wonder if a neutral editor could have a look and see how much of it is appropriate? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC) (Pinging Girth Summit and David Gerard who were the editors who weighed in on the Record's reliability to see if they'd be willing to look at it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Both AllSides and Ad Fontes Media have been discussed before, although Ad Fontes Media ended up being listed as unreliable at WP:RSP while Allsides was largely ignored. I would like to revisit this.

• Both sites claim to use objective / repeatable / scientific etc. methodologies.
  • AllSides methodology: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods#MethodsDescriptions
  • Ad Fontes Media methodology: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/
• Both sites claim their methodology is superior. And the methodologies apparently evolve over time (according to Ad Fontes Media).

So they seem similar on the surface. Ad Fontes Media's chart is more granular and also provides an evaluation of reliability as well as bias. AllSides just groups sources into 5 categories (left, leaning left, center, leaning right, and right) without making any judgment about reliability. In my view, it isn't granular enough, because sources like CNN and NYT get grouped in the far left column along with Mother Jones, and National Review ends up being grouped in the far right column along with Brietbart News. That just seems weird.

The problem I see is that both sites use volunteer responses as inputs.

• Ad Fontes Media accepts analysts but you have to apply and meet some qualifications.[74]
• Allsides has a place where anyone can become an analyst in their blind survey inputs to rate news sources.[75]

So, if our consensus has been that Ad Fontes Media is unreliable, should that consensus extend to Allsides? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you've said, I would say yes because it would be applying the same logic to a site with a nearly identical purpose and methodology. If anything, it would seem even less reliable, based on your analysis. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think AllSides is reliable as an attributed source (something like a Metacritic for political bias), ideally combined with other reliable sources to more fully describe the consensus or range of views on political biases of different sources, e.g. "ABC News has been ranked as left-leaning by AllSides,[76] and as centrist/least biased by X". The chart alone may be too simplistic to cite, but AllSides publishes detailed methodology for their rankings, and are under staff and editorial control (see National Review and ABC News). I don't think AllSides uses volunteer user data as inputs: the Rate Your Bias survey appears to be just for fun, and their methodology states: "Users can indicate whether or not they agree with our ratings, but our ratings are not determined by community votes. Instead, community feedback simply acts as a “warning system” that our current bias ratings may be off." See also a a recent discussion of AllSides and Ad Fontes by the Poynter Institute. Full disclosure, I started the AllSides Wikipedia article. I don't know the Ad Fontes system well enough to have an opinion at this time. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Uhh... why is Ad Fontes unreliable? Wikipedia editors shouldn't judge the methodology of sources, this is not in our purview, just as we don't judge the methodology of primary journal articles. Classifying a source as unreliable because editors don't believe in the methodology seems like a NPOV issue IMO. The statements shouldn't be made in wikivoice, but both sources are perfectly reliable for their own opinions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been at least 4 discussions listed in the past for the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart, and consensus every time has leaned towards "unreliable for use in Wikipedia". A significant minority of respondents have argued it may be used well-attributed statements of the "According to Ad Fontes Media..." type, but in every discussion the greater consensus is that we shouldn't use them. You can follow all of this at WP:RSP. If you want to start a fifth such discussion, feel free, but history is not on your side. --Jayron32 16:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I observed at the top of this discussion, there is no real difference between Ad Fontes and AllSides. Both claim to use objective scientific methodologies and each claims theirs is superior. The output of each is different; the Ad Fontes chart (if it were deemed reliable) is actually useful, while the AllSides chart is nearly useless due to its aggregation of fringe with run-of-the-mill bias and combining reliable and unreliable sources into a single group.

  I started this discussion because I have no idea why we would treat them differently. I also looked at the past discussions about Ad Fontes and I found nothing definitive, no solid consensus, no formal vote or anything, just a few comments from a few editors spread across a few discussions — certainly nothing that would warrant an entry in WP:RSP. @Jayron32: Would you point to the definitive discussion where this was decided to list at RSP? Because I couldn't find one. In my view, the Ad Fontes entry should be removed from RSP pending a real discussion about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This study here: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm Is it reliable? Apparently MDPI was cleared of any poor peer-reviewing charges and Entropy Journal does properly peer-review its sources. What do y'all think? Pentagon UFO 12th topic in item list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of this noticeboard and of WP:FTN will show that MDPI is notable for publishing dubious material, although its journals are not equal. Even when properly peer reviewed, unless meta reviews, journal articles are primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). Sometimes it is WP:DUE depending on the author's notability, credentials and the topic (WP:ATTRIBUTION can be used then). With this particular paper, it's an argument that ignores that the life that is considered plausible to exist in the solar system (and that is indeed being looked for as part of space exploration) is simple and microscopic. That SETI was considered more serious than ufology in general, but that it pretty much confirmed the Fermi paradox (intelligent life is considered plausible somewhere else in the universe, but any advanced civilization is so far away in space and time to the others, making any contact extremely unlikely despite signals at the speed of light). Basically this paper's arguments rest on speculation and unreliable reports, then it jumps to extraordinary conclusions... —PaleoNeonate – 16:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, MDPI has not been "cleared" of anything. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather the opposite, in fact. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy is one of the shittier MDPI journals. It describes itself as "a journal of entropy and information studies", a nearly meaningless phrase, which is positively unrelated to UFOlogy, Flight science, Aeronautics. This is like publishing a genetics article in an accounting journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340952315_EVIDENCE_OF_A_MASSIVE_THERMONUCLEAR_EXPLOSIONS_ON_MARS_IN_THE_PAST_The_Cydonian_Hypothesis_and_Fermi's_Paradox
• https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2016-5529

What makes these sources unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A brief glance at our article on Research Gate should answer that question. For me this is not only a no, it's an absolutely not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conference talk, which is not necessarily peer-reviewed, and even well-respected publishers have been known to publish quack — there recently was a juicy discussion at WP:FTN about a bizarre study in the well-known Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology which claimed that cephalopods are aliens. This claim is way too exceptional to be given due weight in the absence of secondary sources, and in this case, we do have explanations for these isotopic anomalies — for example, the unexpected abundance of ⁴⁰Ar quoted in the abstract is also present on Earth, and is well-explained by radioactive decay of ⁴⁰K,^[1] a naturally occurring radioactive isotope with a half-life of 1.25×10⁹ y.^[2] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What explains the anomalously high radiation in the northern hemisphere of Mars?Chantern15 (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]

Here's how you can find that info yourself. Look in the reference section of the weird Martian nuclear war conference talk and see where they got the idea of anomalous radioactivity from in the first place. They cited that to a conference talk by someone else, Taylor et al 2003, which is not fringe. Read that and you'll get the mainstream explanation. Geogene (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll check it out!106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]

In any case they are just conference papers so they don't meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It did get published in AIAA, but I understand what y'all are saying.106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]

It is perfectly possible, in fact likely that there was an enormous amount of fission reaction on Mars in the past. See Natural nuclear fission reactor. And Mars would show stuff from much older times. So probably some good science behind this. Mixed with an awfully vivid imagination ;-) NadVolum (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, there can be a manned mission to this area to determine exactly what transpired at some point in the future.106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]

Is the following a reliable source on the topic of Armenian terrorist organizations in 1970s-1980s?

Gunn, Christopher. Secret Armies and Revolutionary Federations: The Rise and Fall of Armenian Political Violence, 1973-1993.

I would appreciate third party opinions. We've had a discussion with fellow editors here: [77] Outsider opinions would be really helpful. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet our criteria? Google Scholar gives 2 hits, one a dissertation and the other seems to be a collection of conference papers but I can't read the language and have no idea in what context it's mentioned. Where is it mentioned in scholarly books? What makes Gunn an expert? I think WP:UNDUE covers this, it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, it really has to be a notably exceptional thesis to be used and I’m not finding anyone talking about it or referencing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." I note the author is now an associate professor at Coastal Carolina University. But as with any source, the situation matters. TFD (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not where the period falls in that particular sentence, pretty sure its "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.” Which isn’t exactly saying the same thing now is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• His research, from what I could see, exhibits pro-Turkish bias (this sentence says it all: It is significant that the first attack of a terrorist group allegedly dedicated to extracting an admission of guilt from the Turkish government for alleged crimes against the Armenian people would be directed towards the World Council of Churches in January 1975 - see paper), and, as he admits in his paper (p. 103-115), the interpretation he proposes on that specific phenomenon is not mainstream, as he tries to pinpoint (p. 110) what he sees as flaws in the dominant narrative about ASALA and the Justice Commandos (A re-evaluation of the accepted origins of these Armenian groups exposes inconsistencies in the standard narrative and invites an investigation into the “deeper roots” of Armenian terrorism suggested by earlier scholars.). His endorsement, sort of, by the Turkish MFA to discuss 1915 also makes me wary of him. Mention with attribution, conserving appropriate WP:WEIGHT (that is, the pro-Turkish standpoint). Please also find other sources mentioning the murder, which Gunn does not mention but whose interpretation is more prevalent. If you can't do that, better not cite it at all because of NPOV concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Christopher Gunn is an Assistant Professor of History who focuses on Middle Eastern Studies and political violence. And @Szmenderowiecki:: having an alleged bias does not necessarily make someone unreliable if they are an expert, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It would be better to use formally published articles that stem from the dissertation work (individual chapters are often published as separate journal articles), such as perhaps this, this or this. Otherwise the dissertation could be probably used sparingly, so long as it is not used to verify outlandish claims, nor lend undue weight to any subject or opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not cover the cases when said sources, explicitly or implicitly, engage in denialism. That's going more into WP:FRINGE territory, which is not covered by BIASEDSOURCES. Btw, since we strive to get the best sources available, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements"; I cannot vouch for this source's impartiality. The article, however, does not strictly discuss the events of the genocide, but rather one of the episodes inspired by the Turkish denial thereof, so yes, the paper is OK, but no, I can't allow it alone, because this view is, by author's admission, minoritarian.

  Strictly on the question of reliability of Gunn, I'd say: with reservations due to strong bias, therefore, attribution seems best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not intend to use Gunn on the topic of Armenian genocide. But he does use the term "Armenian genocide" as well, for example in the sentence: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide..." But I'm looking for more sources to discuss individual terrorist acts, and in particular Assassination of Galip Ozmen. We know now that the assassination was perpetrated by Monte Melkonian. But his version, presented by his brother, is obviously aimed to present himself in a better light, i.e. he claims that he shot children by accident. This version is presented in the article. Gunn provides also a different view. Basically, there are 2 versions. Quote from Gunn: Melkonian claimed that he was unable to see who was in the car because of its tinted windows. The State Department report, based on eyewitness accounts, stated that assassin waited in front of Özmen’s home, watched the family get into the car, and then attacked. I cannot verify State Department report, entitled “Turkish Diplomat Assassinated in Athens; Armenian Secret Army Claims Responsibility,” ATHENS 08453, Aug. 1, 1980. If someone could, it would be really helpful. Alternatively, I wanted to attribute the claim to Gunn, but some editors objected. Which is why I decided to ask the community for their opinion. Grandmaster 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This report is neither available to me, but if you want to cite the State Dept report via Gunn, I see no problems with doing that (but you might probably look for some AP reports, for example, as they might include some of the information). It is just I'm afraid that this source might be easily misused, as I outlined earlier.

  There must be more resources expanding on that murder - citing Melkonian's brother is OK but it would be better to supplement it with third-party scholars who analyse Melkonian's actions; and by that I don't mean Gunn only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that Armenian terrorism is a very little researched topic. There are books like Francis P. Hyland. "Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects", 1991, or “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, by Michael M. Gunter, 1986, but Gunn's is the most recent research, which takes into account new information that emerged since 1990s, such as declassified CIA and FBI files, memoirs, etc. I cited AP and UPI reports, but they don't go into much detail. I think best would be to cite State Department with attribution to Gunn. Grandmaster 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That wouldn't appear to be the case as Gunn talks about "the standard narrative", "earlier scholars" etc., which would imply that the topic is well-researched but that the author thinks the guys were wrong in the cause for the terrorist attacks. In any case, there's some more info on the murder: [78], [79], [80], [81]

  The topic is researched quite extensively in Turkish, but I don't speak it, and Turkish sources IMHO should be dealt with extra care due to the official position of Turkey of genocide denial, which tangentially influences how they speak of i.a. the activities of Armenian terrorist groups (i.e. terrorist attacks due to the will to revenge for Armenian genocide vs. terrorist attacks for claimed repressions and mass murders against Armenians in 1910s that never were, the latter of which seems to be Gunn's position). But for simple factual assertions, including for quoting the State Department documents, I see no reasons not to cite him. It's just any conclusions about the intent, or causes, that we should be careful about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I'm familiar with those sources too. They do not add anything new, because de Waal and Kiesling simply quote Melkonian's book, and Hyland is from 1991, and Feigl from 1986, and since then a lot of new information became available. As I said above, there were only 2 dedicated scholarly researches on the topic, and Gunn's work is the latest one. Others, like de Waal, only touch upon the terrorism in the context of general Armenian-Turkish relations. But I agree with you Gunn could be used to state facts about particular terrorist acts, and terrorists organizations. To me, the work appears to be very well researched, and peer reviewed too. Grandmaster 08:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an involved editor in the discussion started here, I don't see a clear consensus that Gunn is even reliable or not to begin with, and OP is "thinking" that we should cite State Department with attribution to him? Gunn claims he quotes from the state department, if Grandmaster can cite those State department papers, go ahead and add please. Other than that, my opinion is that Gunn isn't a reliable source attributed or not, especially on contentious topics related to Armenia and Turkey: per this discussion, and per fellow editors in here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment The alleged bias in the source seems to be that it categorizes the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian Revolutionary Army as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. These groups killed scores of Turkish diplomats and their family members as well as bystanders. They are universally referred to as terrorist groups in mainstream literature.

They had three demands: recognition by Turkey of the genocide, compensation and Armenian independence. The fact that these were laudable goals or extensive support from the Armenian diaspora does not mean that one cannot question their methods or write about their activities. This is no different from writing about the IRA, PLO or Kurdish groups that engaged in terrorist acts.

The thesis is a reliable source, per policy, not because of who wrote it but because it was vetted by experts. That makes it more reliable than say an article by a reporter with a journalism degree.

When the author referred to alleged crimes, he was referring to a 1975 article in the New York Times that presumably used the term or similar wording. At that time the genocide had far less recognition than today. But he uses the term crimes without qualification in the Historiography section on p. 10.

TFD (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see your argument here. At least from my standpoint, they were terrorists for all intents and purposes. But the source he quotes in the paragraph in the research paper on the very similar topic, which I quoted and added emphasis to, says "Ibid., 12. See also Department of State Telegram, GENEVA 6267, USMISSION GENEVA to SECSTATE WASHDC 5186, and August 11, 1975" (ibid. refers to "Popular Movement for the ASALA, ASALA Interviews (Great Britain, April 1982)"). NYT does appear in the following paragraph but only to cite the number of Armenians emigrating from USSR, not to echo the tone of coverage at the time. Nor does the usage of word "crime" in the sentence was the successful transfer of responsibility for the crimes of 1915 to the entire, collective population of modern Turkey imply he recognises it, as the sentence sums up the few pages where he describes the efforts of Armenian diaspora to shift the genocide blame from the Ottoman govt to Turkey and the Turks (or that's what he writes). He does not say "yeah, the genocide happened, but the guys were evil and terrorists and so on".

I also don't agree with the argument below as it does not really answer the question about reliability for events in 1970s-80s, not 1915. Nevertheless, some quite evident bias is seen throughout his scholarship and not the one that could be justified by reasonable differences of interpretation of sources. He frequently cites Michael Gunter, who also holds non-orthodox views on the Armenian question (essentially, bothsideism), even as he is the go-to scholar for the Kurdish question. I don't believe Gunn's dissertation to be totally out of whack, however, at least not to the degree that would warrant its dismissal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even for the research paper's topic, Gunn shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Gunn's writing is very sensationalist and more closely resembles yellow journalism than a research paper. Examples: "these death sentences came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (65), "it is now clear that Armenian activists cared very little about whether or not their targets were men, women or children, let alone whether or not possessed the capacity to defend themselves" (83), "the diaspora would now support the assassination of any Turk and that carrying out these death sentences made one an instant hero, whether or not the victim was a diplomat, spouse or even a child" (108), "Melkonian proved that the hate instilled by Armenian propaganda campaign was enough to justify the murder of Turkish children" (122), "including the targeting of children" (277), "death sentences for Turks came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (321).

For how much he tries to champion them, Gunn seems to have no problem residing in and accepting money from a country founded on the murders of millions of civilians, women and children included. But I digress. Unlike Turkey, ASALA never ordered the deaths of spouses or children, and Gunn provides no citations for any of these. He should also be aware of this if he's reading the sources he cites.

Gunn also blames the invasion of Cyprus entirely on Greeks and makes no mention of Turkish imperial ambitions. Ironically, Gunn even mocks someone for mentioning Turkish troops shooting women and children: "One Greek-American constituent of Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY) lamented the “’heroic’ exploits of the Turkish paratroopers, who upon landing in Cyprus opened their automatic weapons upon helpless women and children”" (123).

For someone like Stanford J. Shaw, who is universally discredited as a historian and openly known to have had connections to many Turkish institutions, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative". Yet Gunn calls George E. Danielson a "staunch, faithful and solid ally of Armenian nationalists" (122). When does a biased source cross the line to an unreliable one?

Gunn writes that Gourgen Yanikian was "deranged" (321) and makes no mention of him being a genocide denier who lost 26 family members. Gunn implies his motive was "adulation and glory" (321). This goes far beyond bias, it is outright falsification. His dissertation contains too much lies, bias, and distortions to be considered of any value even for 1973-1993. --Steverci (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with your opinion, which you expressed on talk. But none of the quotes above show any bias. It is quite obvious that ASALA resorted to indiscriminate violence, and would kill anyone who stood in their way. There cannot be any argument about that, it is enough to see terrorist acts like 1983 Orly Airport attack or Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack, the sole purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible, including children (who actually died in Orly). If someone plants a bomb at the airport or fires at passengers with machine guns, it is quite obvious that the perpetrators do not care who they kill, the only purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Yanikian being deranged is supported by official sources that Gunn quoted, which also show that his story is very dubious. I see no evidence that Gunn took money from the Turkish government. And you have no problem with citing Gunn selectively, like here: [82] You say you have no access to this source, but because Gunn quotes it is Ok to use. But when Gunn quotes the US State Department, he is unacceptable to you. How is that possible? The source is either reliable, or it is not, it cannot be used selectively to support only one narrative. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same thing as intentionally targeting children the same way as politicians were, as Gunn dramatically claims multiple times without evidence. I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously if you're going to claim the "sole purpose" of the bombs was to "as many civilians as possible" for the fun of it, never mind any Turkish crimes against humanity. Even Gunn doesn't make lies that outrageous. The example you linked is not comparable because we have an Armenian source (Melkonian) and Turkish source (Gunn) confirming he was a spy. This is why biased unreliable sources can still be useful in certain context. Just look at Gunn's Linkedin page to see who is paying Gunn. There is not a single reliable source making the "deranged" claim, which is exclusive to Gunn and possibly other Turkish sources, and there are more reliable sources saying otherwise. Officially, the court ruled that though he would permit evidence of "impairment of his mentality ... going to show a diminished capacity," he would not permit "any evidence of straight insanity". Further proving Gunn intentionally censored information that would hurt his Turkish jingoist narrative, further proving his unreliability. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any crimes against humanity could justify planting bombs in airports and indiscriminately killing civilians, including children. And yes, that was intentional targeting of children by ASALA, because terrorists knew very well that there were children among passengers. I see nothing on Gunn's Linkedin that would indicate that he is being paid by Turkish government. And Yanikian being deranged is information taken from FBI files. He was clearly a sick individual, who killed innocent people. Grandmaster 07:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source that ASALA hoped the bombs would killed children, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gunn admits he spent years in Ankara and Antyla and was supported by Turkish "academics" and politicians. All claims of insanity are obviously just Turkish slander in an attempt to 'delegitimize' genocide victims. The only sick individuals are the ones Yanikian shot. Quote the FBI files or it's just more of Gunn's propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not include in any article that ASALA hoped to kill children, it is just a fact that they killed many children. For example, in Orly they killed 2 French children, Melkonian shot Turkish diplomat's daughter, etc. Facts speak for themselves. When indiscriminate bombing and shooting is used, it is quite obvious that they deliberately endangered lives of children. There is no point in arguing about that. Studying Turkey requires traveling to Turkey, it is logical, and it does not mean that the researcher is not independent. And you can do your own research and check the files that Gunn quotes. You have no problem using him as a source when it supports your narrative. Grandmaster 08:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject wasn't those killed in bombings though, it was assassinations of diplomats and other politicians who were specifically targeted. Gunn uses sensationalist language to imply children were targeted too, when they weren't. If Gunn wants to use undue sources, then he should be treated as an undue source. Simple as that. Narrative has nothing to do with it. As Animalparty suggested, Gunn's only possible use could be for non-outlandish claims, if that. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable I wanted to point out that Gunn using the term "genocide" does not make him any less of a genocide denier and a negationist in the slightest. Gunn cites various well-known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw. On Shaw, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative" which should leave no doubt Gunn is, like these predecessors of his, just another Turkish-funded propagandist pretending to be a scholar. Turkish historiography has become more sneaky in recent years, often trying to sneak in genocide denial more subtly, and feigning an innocent guise of "neutrality" when called out. From the words of a historian:

Again, after decades of being exposed for their lies, Turkish institutions made the decision to be more deceitful instead of being more truthful. Turkish sources that show the slightest hint of historical negationism should be immediately disqualified as reliable. --Steverci (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the source is not about genocide, it is about Armenian terrorism, and it is intended for use only in the articles dedicated to this particular topic. I haven't seen any real argument that could question the reliability of this source in connection with terrorism. Grandmaster 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this piece published in both APAC News[83] and Michael West Media[84] support the statement on the page Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

In August 2021, ASPI was criticised by APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein, for censorship of ASPI's own Wikipedia article using "sock puppet" accounts. Noting that "For ASPI there is no greater crisis than criticism, it appears, a level playing field can always be titled in its favour”.

From what I can tell APAC News is a blog both edited and published by Marcus Reubenstein and Michael West Media is a group blog primarily edited and published by Michael West (journalist). While APAC marks this as an opinion piece Michael West Media does not. To me neither source appears to be reliable and we also have a failed verification here because while the author heavily implies that they don’t strictly say it, although a reasonable reader would be left with that impression after reading it... The piece appears to advance the theory that the Waskerton sock cluster is being run by ASPI without actually presenting any evidence of it, they also misidentify Telsho as a Waskerton sock not an ineedtostopforgetting sock which may be the root of the error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the already involved @Burrobert, Ultranova1337, Onetwothreeip, Nick-D, El C, and 60.241.141.45: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if this is overly nuanced to the above ping, but stressing that I'm actually the WP:UNINVOLVED admin who protected the page and who also recommend to Horse Eye's Back that they should bring this matter here, to RSN (and to do so sooner rather than later). HTH! El_C 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I forgot that the term had different connotations for an admin. A better choice of word would have been “aware” or similar, your interactions have been in a purely administrative role. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote contains a misspelling which was also in the original. The correct word is "tilted", not "titled".
• I don't have a problem with the two sources. Michael West is an established journalist and the site that he founded has an editorial team. The writer Marcus Reubenstein has "twenty years of media experience" in various well-known media companies. The article is an opinion piece needing attribution, which has been correctly made.
• The Waskerton/ineedtostopforgetting error does not affect the writers argument. The point he was making was that the ASPI may have been using socks to curate the page. Whether there was one master or two masters does not hinder the argument.
• The wording may need some adjustment. A more accurate version of the first sentence would be something like "In August 2021, APAC News editor and Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein suggested ASPI may have been using Sock puppet accounts and other methods to censor its own Wikipedia article". I think "suggested" rather than "criticised" more accurately reflects the content of the article. The reason I have added "and other methods" is that Reubenstein's suggestion is not limited to the use of sock puppets. He also mentions "Wikisneaks". He points out that the article has been edited by two accounts which seem to have a direct connection with the subject (we note that on the talk-page). He also says content critical of ASPI has been "scrubbed" from the page soon after it has been added. He doesn't attribute that to the sock puppets.
• The second sentence is not a sentence so needs to be rewritten. However the quote is correct.

Burrobert (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sidebar but how you know thats a misspelling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "a level playing field can always be titled in its favour" makes no sense
• "a level playing field can always be tilted in its favour" makes a lot of sense and conforms with the argument that the writer has been making throughout the article.
• "tilted" could easily be misspelt as "titled" as it only requires the transposition of two letters.

Burrobert (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is asking the wrong question. An opinion piece can be assumed to accurately reflect the views of its author(s). The author and operator of the website are both professional journalists, so there should be no problem here. The issue being discussed on the article's talk page is whether this is a notable opinion. I personally think that it is for the purposes of noting the commentary it provides on the Wikipedia article on that article's talk page (e.g. the 'in the media' template), but it does not warrant inclusion in the article proper. The Michael West Media site appears to fall under WP:PARTISAN as it while it has professional journalists on staff, it does not include a statement of its editorial policies/processes and is openly campaigning on several issues. If what are clearly reliable sources pick this op-ed up, it might warrant inclusion in the article proper as being a notable opinion. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: the problem with that would be that its not marked as opinion on Michael West Media, they’re running it as a featured news article. Its only marked as opinion (specifically commentary) on APAC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all articles on the Michael West Media site are op-eds under the definitions set by Wikipedia's guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can’t all be, they have a journalist and a reporter on staff if their about us page is accurate[85]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not marked as opinion or commentary on the APAC website, where it has "comment" tagged. The source should be assessed on the basis of its presence in Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”Comment” appears to mean “commentary” in that context, why would you say otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael West Media is not a "group blog", it is a fairly prominent Australian news website. The news website has a very clear point-of-view, but this does not exclude sources being used on Wikipedia, especially if it is to cite an opinion. The article is an accurate representation of Marcus Reubenstein's views on the subject, and is clearly a notable opinion. We do not need to discuss in the article any of the source's minor inaccuracies or any potential implications that readers may find. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Can you please provide supporting evidence for this being a news site that has been accepted as reliable? For instance, mainstream media sources or academic works that state this or use it as a basis/reference for their work? Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D It would depend on what you mean by reliable. It's certainly a prominent source of news so it meets the standard for being a notable enough opinion to be placed into the article, within its context. You might want to try searching the news articles of the more mainstream established news sources, since most results on internet search engines will direct to Michael West Media itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, The New Daily has used the Michael West Media website a number of times, such as [86] [87] [88] [89]. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be articles by Michael West, not about Michael West Media. Being a journalist generally doesn’t qualify someone to become a publisher and editor all on their own, which appears to be what Michael West did after being laid off. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they clearly refer to Michael West Media. West himself was most notable for writing articles in Sydney Morning Herald among others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No really, check again. The author on all four pieces is “Michael West @MichaelWestBiz” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. If there wasn't any reference to Michael West Media, I obviously wouldn't have brought them up. Did you not look at the end of the articles? Anyway, this discussion should be closed and we should move to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article, where we can discuss how the criticism and analysis of the subject should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you realized that Michael West was the author of all four pieces the entire time? Whats the point then? Michael West mentioning Michael West Media doesn’t do anything for us reliability wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael West mentioning Michael West Media isn't what has been shown. I was helping Nick-D with their query, and gave them an example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You just showed us four examples of Michael West mentioning Michael West Media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the examples from The New Daily referencing and mentioning Michael West Media... All written by Michael West. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, written by editorial staff, who are not Michael West. The articles themselves are written by Michael West, but obviously not everything on the page. This would be very obvious if you looked at the entire articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course not relevant here who wrote the words, it is only relevant that The New Daily as a publisher sees fit to refer to Michael West Media. We could just do without the misinformation that the words in reference were by the article's author, Michael West. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the words in reference are in fact made by the article’s author, unless of course unknown editorial staff are taking the liberty in writing in the first person as him. Do you perhaps have references made in slightly more reliable sources in pieces with authors who are not Michael West? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this is the right place to put this. I'm interested in a couple of sentences from a previous version of the article, "Soul patch," on Wikipedia. Here is the version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soul_patch&direction=prev&oldid=1040092104. One sentence of interest reads, "Jazz flute players who disliked the feel of the flute mouthpiece on a freshly shaven lower lip often sported the look." This sentence does not have a citation supporting it. The next sentence reads, "On the other hand, jazz trumpeters preferred the goatee for the comfort it provided when using a trumpet mouthpiece." This sentence does have a supporting citation.

I am wondering if the sentence about flute players is sufficiently supported by the sentence about trumpet players, i.e., if trumpet players got comfort from facial hair, is it reasonable to think that jazz flute players would have gotten comfort from a soul patch even if the particular statement about jazz flute players is not supported with a citation, and hence leave the statement about jazz flute players in the article? I have looked for articles that support the statement about jazz flute players and can't find any. Thanks for feedback Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable, sure, but it is a synthetic or confected argument. We need a reliable source making the claim, rather than connecting the dots ourselves, no matter how plausible it might seem. --Pete (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there is no rule or policy the disallows the addition of unsourced statements. It only becomes an issue when someone challenges it. Personally I think this sentence is plausible (and interesting) enough I would tag with {{fact}} not delete it, but that can't stop others from doing so. As always, if you want something to stick on Wikipedia, a source is the best pushpin -- GreenC 03:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearfrienda​ questioned the reliability of Social Blade, which is used to update almost every Internet personality's subscriber, follower, and view stats; some major examples of articles using Social Blade are Cr1TiKaL, TommyInnit, and That Vegan Teacher (the origin of the discussion). Pokimane also uses Social Blade, just not in the infobox. L33tm4n (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information is clearly not made up, and thus is reliable. It's only really useful as a source in a limited number of contexts (eg to source statistical/historical numbers, etc.), but for those use cases it's reliable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks. :) L33tm4n (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Blade is reliable – this kind of information (views etc) is really easily scrapable, so the numbers on these kinds of websites are generally accurate across the board. One thing I'll note is that you can't trust websites purporting to show twitch subscriber counts: these numbers aren't public, and require a bit of guesswork and for you to be monitoring each accounts page 24/7. For instance, see twitchstats.net and twitchtracker.com, which give wildly different numbers; I don't think either one of them is reliable. Social Blade doesn't do this though, and from what I understand can be trusted. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to take care of the difference between "are the numbers accurate per the listed sites", and "are the numbers usable in Wikipedia". We could get view counts or subscriber counts directly from the sites in many cases, e.g., YouTube; we don't, though, because those numbers are trivial to inflate. So even if SocialBlade don't fabricate the numbers, they can't connote notability. I definitely wouldn't call them an "RS" in Wikipedia jargon, because that term does rather more work than that - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it can’t be used for notability, but that’s mostly owing to the fact it provides no substantial information. We can’t write an article based on “X is a YouTuber with Y many subscribers. Last month, he had Z many subscribers.” ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the website is reliable. I've looked at it before and I can't answer the questions: who owns the website, who works on it and how is the information checked for accuracy? What is the process for correcting errors that people notice? It doesn't have to be malicious for a complicated programming tool to be buggy. To be reliable, a source has to demonstrate a basic degree of trustworthiness and a fact-checking process. It doesn't matter how much we believe the information is accurate if they cannot demonstrate this. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a reputation for accurate historical data. Their data is cited by The New York Times (and again), Vogue, The Washington Post (and again), Dexerto, Press Gazette, etc. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per USEDBYOTHERS "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims.” USEDBYOTHERS is not a trump card, we still need to apply the whole range of guidelines and policies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? In particular, what is the main evidence of unreliability, or of the information being "unduly contentious or minority claims" (for example)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that they’re a small for-profit business with no reputation for fact checking and opaque policies? We wouldn’t source wheat production figures to a comparable small for-profit wheat market analytics/consulting/farm management firm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being for-profit relevant here? The New York Times is also for-profit. Most sources are for-profit.

It does have a reputation for fact checking. WP:USEBYOTHERS is a way of determining the reputation of a source for fact checking. In fact, I think it's the only non-topical way of determining this, that is explicitly codified in policy. Social Blade is used and cited by top-tier RS sources that I listed above. There is no evidence presented here of Social Blade ever fabricating data. There is no evidence presented of them failing to meet a specific PAG. AFAICS there's no good reason to prohibit its use on Wikipedia or consider it unreliable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The business and news side of the NYT and comparable papers are separated by Chinese walls, editorial independence policies, etc. I see no evidence that this source does that. WP:USEBYOTHERS is a way of finding evidence about the general reputation of a source, it isn’t specifically about fact checking. Also again on its own you can’t determine anything from USEBYOTHERS. If I had evidence that they had fabricated data then I would be arguing for deprecation not simple unreliability. Also note that this appears to be a discussion about the whole site not just their data, are you saying that their company blog is a WP:RS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable, Social Blade is a business which provides some of its “statistics” to the public but there is literally no reason to believe that they are a WP:RS and they fulfill basically none of our criteria for a reliable source. We don’t use niche commercial companies for this sort of information for any other topic area that I’m aware of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their reliability also appears to have been in question in 2016 when this Kotaku article was published "SocialBlade says their metrics are reliable. They pull data directly from YouTube’s API. But over Twitter on Monday, YouTube accused some third party apps of poorly representing subscriber activity, pointing directly to SocialBlade. SocialBlade fired back that they don’t make up data, adding that “our data is only as good as what we’re able to get from you:).”” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be an edit made to the 2019 Pentagon Videos section under the Pentagon UFO article which adds the words: "the object flickered on their screen" before "before it eased into the water"? Because that's what it seems to do when you look at the video towards the end.106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15[reply]

This site is used in a number of articles.[90]. If you look at this subpage[91] it appears to be a hate site, and IMHO should be both deprecated and blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez we should not be using them, they are most certainly an anonymous hate site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, no that is A) not a reliable source and B) we shouldn't be giving them any more publicity. They're blatantly anti-Islam. We should be actively removing those links and as you say, blacklisting the site. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

answering-islam.org   shows that it is used in 41 mainspace articles. Someone should probably clean up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started. Is there anyone here who is able to get it added to the blacklist? Canterbury Tail talk 22:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger:, who'd done a lot of work here, and might know the process. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having skimmed a few uses, it would seem that they are hosting work by very many authors unaffiliated with them, and so the sources may not all be bad; however, it also might be a copyright concern in some cases. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to about 20, all gone now anyway – for now, I'm sure they will be back :-( Yes, WP:LINKVIO says that we can't link to copyright theft sites. Either way, it is not a wp:RS and should be on the blocklist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the sites using it as a source and the first one I looked at, Muhammad in Islam, also uses Answering-Christianity.com which also looks terrible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) I also found and deleted one citation of answering-Islam.com. I presume these sites are all related. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the very front page of that Answering-Christianity is terrible. I'm not even going to quote what it says. Yes that should all go as well and be black listed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deprecate and blacklist all above mentioned "answering-XXX"-sites. These are obvious hate sites, and provide nothing but caricatures both of their own self-declared faith, and of the faiths they attack. –Austronesier (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deprecating the whole bunch.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of clearing out, I've come across a few that looked like probable good faith, so I wonder if the domain registration lapsed and has been recycled? I certainly found a site (muslim-canada.org) mentioned in the same sentence that goes to some football page. Not that it really matters, we can't let non-RS links stand. (btw, they hadn't all gone, {{duses}} has just turned up a bunch more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Whoops, the "bunch more" was because I used .com second time round. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've known "answering-islam.org" for more than 10 years, and no, I don't think they have been hijacked. It's always been a mixture of sexed-up descriptions of the ugly face of Islam that undeniably exists, classic Islamophobic tropes, and self-praise for Christianity as the noble and peaceful antithesis of Islam (yeah, sure). –Austronesier (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly someone tried to blacklist Answering-Christianity 11 years ago and it didn't get carried through. So it's been going on for some time. We should get every one of these variations blacklisted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just found one using a German version of the site, www.answering-islam.de. It's clearly the same group, down to the logo and layout, just in German. So there may be others. Additionally I've found a load of pages using the book "Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross" as sources, and this book appears to be more of the same, using made up stuff about Islam and again is not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just looked at Answering Christianity.com, and I'm seeing 9-11 truther bullshit on the front page. Kill it with fire. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to ask advice in a quite complicated case.

To say it in layman's terms:
This is about some rocks that are 91+ millions of years old.
There is a single mining company that exploits and sells the deposit.
For some reason they have repeatedly claimed that their product is purely mineral and has a purely mineral origin.

The contention is about the last part: purely mineral origin
Some employees have published expertises, studies and articles propagating the purely mineral origin claim,(see article) a few apparently independent authors have repeated those claims, citing the company's pulications. (Lüttig, 2007; Römpp, 2015)
The recent, independent, scientific sources we used in creating the article all unanimously state and emphasize the biogenic origin for which this geological formation is special and known.

To illustrate how far the contention and confusion goes in this case, you may for example look at this source: Groteklaes, Michael (ed.). "Kieselerde, RD-11-01037". RömppOnline. Retrieved 2 January 2015. This German geology glossary first gives a definition of Kieselerde (diatomaceous earth) as being generally of a biogenic origin, but then has an extra paragraph for making an exception only for the deposit at hand, claiming it has purely mineral origins. They cite the company's website (with a date of 2005) for this statement.

On the talk page of Wellheim Formation I have proposed a sub-section that clearly states this contention and puts it in relation to independent mainstream research.
In other words: The company's claims about a purely mineral origin have no serious scientific support.
I have little experience in these matters and this case appears special to me.
What do you think would be a proper approach that is least misleading to the interested reader?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is a complicated matter for me, as I am not a studied geologist. One our studied geologist supporters already explained to me on the talk page what the full picture is. I didn't want to mislead you, I'd just forgotten the following:
The origin of these rocks is mixed. Over millions of years there were several additions of new biogenic material (dead animals and plants) which were then mineralized over time. So it is more correct so say:
The origin of these rocks is of a mixed biogenic and mineral nature. Just wanted to be complete, here. Insisting on a purely mineral origin is still misleading in this case, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added two unsigned templates for my own posts. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short addition:
I do not want to embarass the producing company, but I also do not want to mislead our readers. Do you think it would be okay to include a disclaiming note (perhaps within a footnote) that clarifies the sources situation, as explained above? --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor on the List of political parties in Cuba page has been edit-warring in the article over the last few days (along with a string of blocked IP editors[92][93][94]) to remove peer-reviewed academic publications. This is reminiscent of a dispute a few weeks ago when now-blocked editors on the Elections in Cuba page engaged in the same behavior. I brought it up on this noticeboard[95] and there was overwhelming agreement that the sources in question were reliable and valid. In the newest dispute, the editor is edit-warring out these sources[96]:

1. Hyde, Susan D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Cornell University Press. p. 123.
2. Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2019-10-03). "Who wins the most when everybody wins? Predicting candidate performance in an authoritarian election". Democratization. 26 (7): 1278–1298.
3. Domínguez, Jorge I.; Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2017). "Authoritarian Regimes and Their Permitted Oppositions: Election Day Outcomes in Cuba". Latin American Politics and Society. 59 (2): 27–52.
4. Domínguez, Jorge I. (2021). "The Democratic Claims of Communist Regime Leaders: Cuba's Council of State in a Comparative Context". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 54 (1–2): 45–65.
5. Smyth, Regina; Bianco, William; Chan, Kwan Nok (2019-04-25). "Legislative Rules in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Hong Kong's Legislative Council". The Journal of Politics. 81 (3): 892–905.
6. Schedler, Andreas; Hoffmann, Bert (2015). "Communicating authoritarian elite cohesion". Democratization.
7. Miller, Nicola (2003-01-01). "The Absolution of History: Uses of the Past in Castro's Cuba". Journal of Contemporary History. 38 (1): 147–162.

The editor's rationale is that these scholarly publications are "primary sources" and thus can't be used as sources. Is that a correct reading of Wikipedia's RS guidelines? Are peer-reviewed publications in top journals and academic presses unreliable sources on Wikipedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quit edit warring Snoog. Even here you cannot seem to help yourself. I will note at the article you broke 4RR on the 21st. Then edit war here for your click bait title that does not describe the issue. The question is not are RS reliable it was about primary sources. This is a content dispute from what I can see and should be closed. PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre response. 1. I didn't break anything. WP:NOT3RR clearly exempt reverts of sockpuppets. 2. You've changed the title so that it's as nondescpiptive and missable as possible. The dispute is at its core about the use of academic sources on Wikipedia and it relates thematically to a discussion from a few weeks back. 3. The dispute in question is whether any of these sources can be used at all in the article. It's directly a question about Wikpiedia's RS guidelines: are peer-reviewed academic publications allowed as sources or are they considered to be primary sources and thus prohibited/constrained under Wikipedia's WP:OR guideline? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN allows section headers to be changed, but whenever a change is likely to be controversial you are supposed to discuss it first with the editor who created the section, if possible - certainly when your change was reverted (making it clear it was controversial) you should have stopped instead of revert-warring over it. Also, both versions of the header are non-neutral - the first one focused exclusively on them being peer-reviewed and not on the allegation that they are primary, while the rewritten one presumes that they are primary (which they are flatly, unequivocally not) and omits the core thrust of the question being asked, which focuses specifically on whether academic sources are automatically primary (yes, I know that question is bizarre, but go read the linked thread; that is literally what we are being asked to resolve here; the other editor argues that academic papers are automatically considered primary sources. They are not saying these specific papers are primary sources, or presenting any specific reason why they would be; they are saying all academic papers are primary sources and should not generally be used in Wikipedia.) I have rewritten it to reflect the actual point at issue - the other editor alleges that Academic papers are primary sources and are not generally acceptable sourcing. And to answer that core question, obviously no. --Aquillion (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be arguable Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual academic sources (like any other source) can be primary in specific contexts, but that's not what the other user is arguing in this case - they're saying that academic papers are primary sources as a matter of course, which is clearly absurd. Their sole argument is "those are academic papers and therefore primary sources." --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are an idiot and can be safely ignored. Its such a nonsense argument that the likely reason is they just dont like what the sources say and want to exclude them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, no they are not automatically so. For example, an academic paper (published last year) looking a the economic impact of the Napoleonic wars could not by any stretch be a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that argument is nonsensical. An academic paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is almost by definition not a primary source. I'm sure we could find an exception, but that would be a source-specific query. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm admittedly not a very experienced editor on Wikipedia, the argument as posted by Cbpoofs that academic resources are inherently primary is absolutely bonkers. Academic resources might be, but this is an exception and not a rule; from what I could see, all of these are secondary. Please close the topic per snowball clause. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Szmender for finally tagging me here. As seems to be typical for him, Snoog has decided to create a message board thread with a straw man to complain that other people disagree with him. However, since Snoog clearly has no interest in defending his use of those sources to support verifiably false information, I will instead engage with his straw man argument: “are peer-reviewed academic publications allowed as sources or are they considered to be primary sources and thus prohibited/constrained under Wikipedia's WP:OR guideline?” I will first note that the initial sentence I used in the discussion pages was incorrectly worded, the following working should have been used - “Original research articles are primary sources and not generally acceptable sourcing.” The statement remains simplistic but I will expand further.

Academic papers can be both primary and non-primary sources depending on the level of analysis. Peer review does not automatically qualify a source as secondary nor does it automatically make the claims true.

Consider an original research article that describes the discovery of a new species of dinosaur, the Snoog-asaur. The event being described, the discovery of a fossil, was experienced first-hand by the authors. Further, the authors proposed the hypothesis “this is a new species” and no external entity evaluated this claim. Thus, when used to answer the questions “was a new fossil found?” or “is there a new species of dinosaur?” this original article would be a primary source. With respect to the question “did dinosaurs exist?” this would be a non-primary source. It is important to recognize here that the same source can be both primary and non-primary depending.

Next, remember that original research articles do not comprise all academic publications. Most journals also publish review articles, meta-analyses, and editorials. The first two are non-primary sources while the latter is a primary source.

The reason it eventually matters as to whether or not original research is considered a primary source in a specific context is to determine whether or not it should be used only to support verifiable statements. To return to the above example, it would be unacceptable to use the original research article to support a claim such as “the Snoog-asaur could kill a T-Rex” unless the authors explicitly made such a claim. It would be acceptable to use the article to claim “there is a new type of dinosaur, the Snoog-asaur.”

To summarize, not all peer-reviewed academic publications are secondary source. Some are secondary, some are primary, and some can be either depending on the specific context. If an editor chooses to use an original research article as sourcing, they should consider whether it is primary with respect to the statement it is being used to support. Cbpoofs (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will first note that the initial sentence I used in the discussion pages was incorrectly worded, the following working should have been used - “Original research articles are primary sources and not generally acceptable sourcing.”

Please correct it, because the assertion that Academic papers are primary sources and are not generally acceptable sourcing does not withstand even the slightest scrutiny. That doesn't help you though, because, at least the word "original research" (by which you might have meant WP:OR) does mean the same thing by definition but such determination is not a reason to exclude the source, because such scholars are supposed to make original research. We aren't. Besides, not all original research articles are primary sources, as in fact, researchers may make conjectures about, for example behaviour of some politicians, based on the evidence they accumulate. The difference is that they can do so and their opinions is gold but we can't and our personal opinions are worth jack shit.

Academic papers can be both primary and non-primary sources depending on the level of analysis. Peer review does not automatically qualify a source as secondary nor does it automatically make the claims true.

Let's start from the elephant in the room: if a resource is peer-reviewed, it means it has passed appropriate editorial safeguards and conforms to some predetermined standards and is therefore considered among the WP:BESTSOURCES because a scholarly journal has published a peer-reviewed article (exception: predatory journals or known journals of bad quality or pseudoscientists, which is not the case here). The only better thing that we could find is a peer-reviewed review article, but scholarly articles are normally better than press reports, which are by themselves considered reliable. At this stage, the question of primary vs secondary is only relevant for WP:MEDRS-level of sourcing, which is not needed here. And even if that doesn't convince you, primary does not mean bad.

Another elephant in the room is that verifiability, not truth matters, which I very much recommend you to read. We do not establish The Truth®©™, we only report what the sources say, and the consensus among scholars is such as presented in that short paragraph.

Next, remember that original research articles do not comprise all academic publications. Most journals also publish review articles, meta-analyses, and editorials. The first two are non-primary sources while the latter is a primary source. Even if that were the case, which of these articles/books are primary AND not written by recognised subject-matter experts? (And even there you are wrong because examples of editorials that are secondary sources are rebuttals, which may carry no new information but which use previous knowledge to comment on, for example, other researcher's mistake(s)).

In short, this analysis presents no policy-based reason to remove the sourcing. I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure what your argument is here Szmender. Snoog made this post with they strawman of “are peer-reviewed academic publications allowed as sources or are they considered to be primary sources and thus prohibited/constrained under Wikipedia's WP:OR guideline?” I responded to that and only to that. You and I appear to agree that at least some academic publications are original research (as in the widely accepted term in science, not WP:OR) and are primary sources. The appropriate place for further discussion of the specific sources for the Political Parties in Cuba page is in the article talk page, not here. Cbpoofs (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly we recently had a deletion discussion for CirKis that ended with no consensus. Probably the key point was that NemesisAT found two foreign language sources that may help to prove the notability of the game: xgn.nl and reich-der-spiele.de. If we cannot establish notability, then I or Piotrus will probably re-raise the AfD.

The second issue relates to the newly created page Evolution (board game). Notability is not in doubt because we have sources from Ars Technica, The Guardian, The San Francisco Chronicle and the science journals Nature and Evolution. None of these were adequate to source a description of how the game is played. So I used some posts from the Opinionated Gamers site which I found very helpful for describing game play and some of the background history. ICv2 provided a bit more about the history, but quite frankly I am not sure how reliable they are because they seem to be just rehashing press releases to me. I believe Opinionated Gamers is probably pretty reliable, but as it is essentially a collective of blogs (and I think received free copies) I would not trust it with regards with regards to notability. To keep things simple in the telling, I have mixed up the order in which sources were applied and not mentioned some, but the key question is that our use of Opinionated Gamers was challenged in the new page review process, and I would like a second opinion on that.

More generally we are trying to systemize our evaluation of the reliability of sources, which is a particular project of Blue Pumpkin Pie. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is an area where it's really challenging to work out what's a usable hobbyist review site vs a non-usable hobbyist review site. Personally I'd agree that Opinionated Gamers and ICV2 are not great sources and would not normally consider them 'reliable', but also I don't object to using them to flesh out some uncontroversial details. Indeed most places where Opinionated Gamers is used as a source, you could just as well use the game manual as a source. However, this does point to something which is really a content issue rather than a sourcing issue - does an 8-point gameplay summary really belong in one of our articles? (The two non-English sites I can't comment on the value of). Thanks, The Land (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, the board game industry is still very closely attached to the board game community/fanbase. I sometimes believe that certain industries recognize Wikipedia and will provide more sources. It hasn't grown or had a huge market. ICv2 is recognized as a valid source in other Wikipedia such as WP:VG and WP:ANIME. I don't know if reliable sources need to have. I know we have to be more strict when it comes to adding review/opinions. Either way, the industry is slowly growing and more reliable sources may become available with more higher quality creentials. I admit Opinionated Gamers and ICV2 aren't the most high-quality articles, but they may be situational sites to use.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG/RS (and RS in general) can be useful here. In general, foreign language sources are fine, the problem is that not all game review sites are reliable. We have to check if they are not just blogs. Are authors anonymous or not? Is there evidence of an editorial control? Any indication that they reviewed the game positively for compensation? Do they acknowledge how they acquired a copy of the product? Honest reviewers often will.

As for 'how to play', frankly, game manual will do just fine. It's a primary and not independent source, for we accept such sources for claims about entities, nobody should cry foul here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:sps if out side RS consider the persons view notable than hey would be an "aknowlgded expert" otherwise no theyc are not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the game rules and gameplay, the game manual itself is sufficient sourcing. There's no need for third party sourcing here; indeed the best source is the game rule book itself. --Jayron32 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. What however may be useful on a case by case basis would be including as an external link one of the sites above if they give a good breakdown of how a game actually plays in practice. (a how-to guide for example). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• biographypedia.org  

I have an aversion to any websites that claim to know an individual's net worth, so when I saw https://biographypedia.org/who-is-helene-joy-biography-husband-net-worth-family/ added as a reference of a subject's age to the article on actor Hélène Joy by АРК9367 (talk · contribs), I was suspicious. The article has an author, Benjy P., but then it seems that all of the site's content is from that author. There is no statement to indicate if there is editorial oversight. There is no board and it seems no way to correct any errors that may be in the articles they publish. Most concerning, there is no indication how the information is gleaned. Can the source be used for BLPs? It is currently only being used in one article: the one I saw it used in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No indications of reliability and looks like an ad-infested tabloid site. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for any article, much less a BLP. (Note that the single author, Benjy P., used to write for Daily Mail.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb: any article that is entitled "Who is/The truth about/what happened to X, biography, net worth", or similar is an unreliable source, it's the same kind of headline you find in chumbox ads, and is a sign of low quality clickbait journalism. There are loads of websites like this, and they're all totally unsuitable for a BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First a reliable source for Wikipedia, and in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? It seems obviously so, with rave reviews everywhere, but two new editors disagree. See here. Third party input is required.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that he caught at least on one inaccuracy [97] . He writes about Wagner that he was in Germany during WW2 and apparently that not true. So I am not sure if we can trust him on other stuff Shrike (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here is that Bergman -en passant- mentions things which happened in the early 1940s; but he never (AFAIK) interviewed those who were involved then (I assume most are long since dead). IOW: he would have to rely on third hand accounts. When it comes to what happened in Lebanon in the 1980s, we have a completely different situation: Bergman inteviewed those who were directly involved. Did they lie to him? Possibly, but AFAIK: no WP:RS has claimed that. Huldra (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone be able to do that, when at least with regards to the claims made about the FLLF, he doesn't name those who spoke to him? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Bergman spoke to Meir Dagan, among others. (Yes; he has since died; but that is hardly Bergmans fault), Huldra (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Dagan strenuously denied that the FLLF was targeting anything but military targets, a fact that was completely missing from the article until I pointed it out, and even now does not get equal weight to the accusations against him. But I was referring to the other quotes in the relevant passages - "One Mossad officer of the time said", "Another Mossad man who was in Lebanon at the time said,". Anonymous sources we know nothing about, so obviously neither they nor 3rd parties could step up and confirm or deny. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC) "[reply]

Lol, "military targets" had a rather wide meaning for Dagan, when we see what FLLF actually targeted, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC),[reply]

Shrike. What happened there is that you accepted - and it is pretty obvious - Bergman as a reliable source for one particular datum, and cited him. You had zero problems with him as a source. On that particular point, Bergman, as Zero's edit indicated - happened to be wrong. Every diligent reader know that errata crop up in the best historical works. That's what reviews show. If a review can list a large number of errors, then that makes an RS's automatic reliability questionable. By that criterion, Walter Burkert's magisterial Homo Necans would be unusable because he made an error in citing a Greek verb on p.76. RidiculousNishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I thought he was reliable source and was mistaken and I accepted my error. These source was not used for citing some Greek verb Its historical fact that you want to use it for. Shrike (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Shrike wrote, but there are also other issues: Bergman is a published in a popular, non-peer-reviewed press, and relies extensively on anonymous sources so there's no way to ascertain his claims. At a minimum, any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact. Contrary to what's stated by the original poster, that's not currently the situation in the article mentioned above - Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners - For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true" Inf-in MD (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inf-in MD what you did above is called a self-goal. You stated:-

any claim based on his book should be qualified as "according to Bergman", not stated as fact . . For example, the following is stated as fact without attribution - 'An officer chosen by Yehoshua Sagi determined the truth of the gravamen of the complaint – that Eitan together with the head of Israel's northern command, Ben-Gal, Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer, and Dagan had deceived the government by hiding Israel's role in FLLF operations – was true".

That has nothing to do with Bergman (though he endorses the fact). In our article that paraphrasesanother source by Amir Oren, and refers to a well known fact attested by other scholars.

The complaint named four people who it said were partners in deceiving the government (and Military Intelligence): Eitan, then the IDF chief of staff; Avigdor “Yanush” Ben-Gal, the head of Northern Command; his intelligence officer, Shlomo Ilya; and Dagan. The head of Military Intelligence, Yehoshua Saguy, appointed an officer to look into the matter, and the accusations made in the complaint proved true. Begin didn’t want to believe it, especially on the eve of an election. *Oren, Amir (20 May 2016). "Meir Dagan's Most Daring War Was the One He Helped Prevent". Haaretz.

So, stop sowing confusion here: the talk page is bad enough. Let's wait for third party input.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is sourced to Bergman in our article as well, and is of course not the only example. The entire first paragraph of the article, after the lead

"The FLLF was set up in 1979 in the wake of the massacre of an Israeli family at Nahariya by militants belonging to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF).[2] To that end, Maronite Christian, Shiite and Druze operatives were recruited in 1979. The operations which it carried out against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon were coordinated by Meir Dagan, reportedly without informing the IDF, the Israeli Defense Ministry, the Israeli government and its various defense agencies.[a] David Agmon at the time head of Israel's northern command was one of the few people who were briefed on its operations[2]. The aim of the series of operations was to: cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill them with a sense of insecurity.[2]"

is sourced exclusively to Bergman, but is provided as fact, unattributed, in the encyclopedia's voice. That does not square with your presentation of the issue, above as if it was "in particular for Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, where he is cited with attribution? " Inf-in MD (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable Reviews NYT, Intercept, JPS. Best seller, prize winning author, yada yada, self-evidently reliable so I think it is better to ask whether the source is reliable for something specific.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Has Bergman been criticised by other reliable sources, were any major inaccuracies found? If not we should assume it's okay to cite him. Given the nature of his sources I would attribute his claims rather than stating them in wiki-voice. It seems that it's more of a due weight issue: Bergman's claims should be used alongside other reliable sources (I have no idea if they confirm or contradict his account). Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, Bergman himself acknowledges that not only could there be inaccuracies in the book that he is unable to verify, but that he was likely being used by his interviewees to promote possibly fictional narratives:

"Perhaps most strikingly, Rise and Kill First is in certain ways a postmodern masterpiece. Because his work is unauthorized, Bergman candidly acknowledges its potential inaccuracies and the motivating biases of his sources. “It is clear,” he writes, “that some politicians and intelligence personnel—two professions highly skilled in manipulation and deception—were trying to use me as the conduit for their preferred version of events, or to shape history to suit themselves.” While Bergman made efforts to verify those accounts independently, it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished.

[98] Inf-in MD (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, trying to throw sand in editors' eyes. Michael M. Rosen is a San Diego attorney. He wrote a view of Bergman, criticizing Bergman for subscribing to ‘the dated and dubious conventional wisdom that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law.’ Since when? That is the default position of the ICC and international law. Perhaps he hasn't heard that in San Diego. In his review Preemptive Self-Defense? Israel uses controversial, extrajudicial tactics to target its enemies. Claremont Review of Books 14 January 2019 he states that Bergman was aware some of his (1,000+) Israeli insider/informants might have tried to manipulate him, and that Bergman strove therefore the verify their accounts independently. I.e. he was subject to a risk of informant bias, and did what historians or anthropologists or journalists are trained to do, read for spin, and sort out the facts by cross-checking to avoid potential inaccuracies. It’s Rosen’s spin that what he admits is a ‘meticulously researched intelligence tell-all’ is 'postmodernist'. Nothing to do with postmodernism except in the attorney's imagination. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) stop the personal attacks (2) a request was made for reliable sources criticizing the book, and that is what I have provided. That you don't agree with the criticism is immaterial. The gist of the criticism is "it’s impossible for the reader to know whether any particular story is real, fictional, or embellished." - and that has nothing to to with the critic being a lawyer, or what the ICC says about Israeli settlements Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis No to your first question. No to your second. If you click through the edit sequence at German Templer colonies in Palestine beginning here, you should begin to grasp the double standard here used by User:Shrike and User:Inf-in M (who by the way was editing a page he had no right to per ARBPIA3 at the time). In brief, both editors never challenged the use of Bergman for citing the idea that the German assassinated by Jewish militants was a Nazi. However, once the topic changed, when Bergman was used to document Israeli terrorism in Lebanon, both Shrike and Inf-in M changed tactics. There, they said, Bergman wasn't reliable? On what grounds? Because Zero had initially challenged his reliability for the specific datum re the German Templar. So this objection is frivolous, well, frankly, cynical. They accept Bergman if he documents a murdered German was a Nazi, but not if Bergman quotes Israeli operatives admitting they organized a proxy terror group in Lebanon in the 1980s.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Don't move my comments so that you can place yours ahead of them. (2) Don't misrepresent my editing (or zero's) on German Templer colonies in Palestine. As anyone can see, What Zero removed was the well known fact that Wagner was a Nazi collaborator, while leaving Bergman in as a source, - [99]. I did not add nor remove Bergman, or argue for or against his inclusion, but simply sourced the contested materiel from other sources - JTA[100] and the BBC[101]. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from changing a request for external input into a polemic. No one will read this if you or I keep intervening. Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you just want external input, eh? What this all about then - [102]? "Rules for thee but not for me"? Inf-in MD (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Use with care. Thanks for responding to my questions. I think the right thing to do is to use it with care, Specifically, I mean explicit attribution and cross-checking each claim with other reliable sources. If, for a given claim, there are no other sources it's probably better to refrain from adding it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It has been used parsimoniously, with care. The specific material on the FLLF is sourced by quotes and paraphrases directly from eyewitnesses or insiders directly privy to the operation. We also use attribution. We use three sources that confirm that operation existed. An official prime ministerial investigation confirmed it in 1981. Your remark is being interpreted as a warrant to exclude 'material for which he is the only source.' You'd better clarify that: because it gives a new wikipedian support for his idea that our remit extends to excising anything not directly supported by multiple informants in a book that won the National Jewish Book Award as the best publication of the genre of historical writing about Jewish history published in 2018. Attribution is the norm here, not the concession of a right by editors to judge, which the above comment suggests, where a passage here or there in a book, is adequately sourced. On two occasions in the past Israeli journalists reporting this episode had their work suppressed by the military censor, not because it was false, but because it was an embarrassment. We are not supposed to arrogate to ourselves as editors a similar role on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While all this back and forth is mildly interesting, it remains the case that the best way to "refute" a source is to bring contradictory sources for balance rather than attempting to shoot the messenger. The source is very well known, if there are things in it that are controversial, I am certain that someone, somewhere will have written about that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable if used with care as all books of this genre should be. Bergman is a well known and highly respected journalist, considered to be one of Israel's premier journalists on security matters. Unfortunately, the book contains background about the 1940s that relies on uncited material that is not always accurate. One case identified by me is mentioned above and I know of another case that I have communicated with Bergman about. On the other hand, the content which is relevant to this present case is the result of Bergman's interviews with military/intelligence people in a position to know the truth and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that Bergman has misrepresented what his interviewees told him. Also note that the key point was confirmed even earlier by another respected Israeli journalist (Oren, see the article). The proper response for those who don't like to read this stuff is to find reliable sources that dispute it, not to argue endlessly for its suppression. Zero^talk 02:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also mention that Bergman's revelations are really not all that extraordinary if one knows the history of the conflict. There wasn't much shock and horror at the news, more of a yawn actually. Zero^talk 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is www.greatadventurehistory.com (GAH) a reliable source by Wikipedia standards?

A discussion back in 2017 resulted in no consensus. The self-published website is self-described as an "unofficial Great Adventure fan site". It was recently brought to my attention at Talk:Batman & Robin: The Chiller#Unsourced or poorly sourced changes that the site's creators, Harry Applegate and Thomas Benton, are both published authors (example). Their book was published by Arcadia Publishing, which has apparently been scrutinized for quality concerns in the past (see this discussion).

So in light of this new information and taking Arcadia into account, should we reconsider allowing GAH to be cited for claims about Six Flags Great Adventure? I have used caution with this source in the past, allowing it to be cited in tandem with a more reputable source serving as its complement, but I generally don't allow it to exist as the only reference for a claim. The site lacks a professional presentation (it is stuck in a GeoCities late 90s design), and it doesn't really state who is overseeing and managing its content at this point. Does it even have any kind of editorial oversight? You have to dig into its public forums to gather any insight into site maintenance, and even that is still a challenging endeavor. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging AleatoryPonderings, Mackensen, Myk Streja, Slatersteven, Oddjob84, First Light, and DIYeditor who have commented on either GAH or Arcadia in the past.

It concerns this edit in particular, concerning various assertions related to Putin and various schemes. Our article describes The eXile as a gonzo-journal satirical/tabloid site. This is a piece by Matt Taibbi, which an IP claims is a reliable because it's not satire and "has correct translations in English of statements made in Russian".

I find that stretching the definition of reliability, but I figured I'd check here first to see what the rest thinks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm stating that the "article" is reliable. I am not defending every article from The eXile which does have articles that are satirical. To give a universal statement that every article from The Exile is satirical is not correct. This article is well written. The wikipedia article about The eXile and Matt Taibi asserts that investigative journalism occurs from the two as well as satirical articles.67.53.214.86 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, why do you think it's not reliable (in general or in this case specifically)? This article is obviously not satire, Matt Taibbi isn't known for fabricating stuff. Regarding their political reporting, Rolling Stone wrote that their "political reporting [is] read seriously not only in Moscow but also in Washington." Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See above. "gonzo-journal satirical/tabloid site" raises a ton of red flags as a source for reporting on Putin and his schemes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was really one-of-a-kind newspaper which can't be easily categorised. They definitely did satire, and tabloid journalism, and high-quality investigations, as noted by the Rolling Stone. Anyway, do you have specific concerns? I can cross-check their article against Russian-language sources provided in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 09:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source is almost certain not to be reliable to post by itself, but apparently it is a copy of the Novaya Gazeta article (not available on their webpage even as far back as 2001 on Wayback Archive machine for some reason - 404 redirect all through 2001), and I'd suggest it to be a faithful copy of such material (a further cursory look on that material confirms my view that this page simply reposts articles from elsewhere, but does so without omissions). The translation of the quote provided by Matt Taibbi from Russian is accurate, and the article looks like a serious piece of investigative journalism. Since this is the only quote provided directly from a Russian source, I have no reasons to deny inclusion of the article as regards reliability. Whether the whole eXile must be somehow categorised is not a question I can answer because I'm unfamiliar with this resource. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use Taibbi or eXile as a source without attribution: scurrilous, sensationalist, opinionated, fringey. Given our article on him says that stuff he published as non-fiction at the time he later claimed was actually fiction written when he was on heroin, needs massive pinch of salt added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Cryptids

Entry: Loveland Frog

Sources:

• Brian Dunning, Skeptoid
• Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra... By Michael Newton
• Offut, Jason (2019). Chasing American Monsters. Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-0-7387-5995-1.
• Misc news coverage e.g. Cincinnati.com, Fox19.com

We're having a bit of a disagreement on sourcing for List of Cryptids. Several entries were recently removed (diff 1, 2, 3, 4) on the basis of sourcing. On the talk page, Bloodofox has alleged that, since this article concerns a pseudoscience, we need to meet a high burden for our sources and only use academic works by folklorists. They have alleged that published works by Cryptozoologists are not acceptable, per WP:FRINGE, and have similarly objected to entries with news coverage, and a source by Brian Dunning of skeptoid. (Bloodofox, please correct me if there's nuance I'm missing!)

I don't believe this is a correct reading of our guidelines. This RSN discussion about Dunning was from only 4 months ago, and appears to conclude that Dunning (and skeptoid) are a reliable source for this kind of content. WP:PARITY also seems to indicate that we can use sources from adherents to cite the beliefs of those adherents when the subject matter is not covered in academic works.

I also believe that, as a list page, we're only citing the existence and notability of the entry, and that can be done without appealing to our policies on promulgating pseudoscience and quackery. Each of these entries have their own wikipedia article which should have higher sourcing standards than just listing them on what amounts to a category page. Input would be appreciated, as I don't feel we're making progress as is. Pinging User:Elmidae and User:Nayerb as other participants.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe proponents do not make for reliable sources and, further, do not misquote me. This again? First, I have at no point said we require sources solely from folklorists, so go ahead and strike that out. While adherents of the subculture fixate on a handful of monsters (like Bigfoot and Mokele-mbembe) that folklorists do write about, the subculture also bumps into fields like biology, as the writings of biologist Donald Prothero make very clear (his well-known Abominable Science! is dedicated to the subculture/pseudoscience). Folklorists, biologists, and anthropologists write about cryptozoologists and their subculture/pseudoscience. That is, when adherents and the subculture are notable enough to draw their attention. It's a tiny but Very Online subculture that has historically attempted to coop English Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for its purposes, as fringe subcultures so often do.

For readers unfamiliar with this subculture, cryptozoology is quite closely connected to Young Earth creationism (cf. Cryptozoology#Young_Earth_creationism) and a variety of other fringe movements. Like other fringe subcultures (such as, topically, anti-vaxxers or Flat Earthers), it has long had a reputation for its aggression towards mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (you'll see examples of this aggression from adherents associated with these articles on Wikipedia, too), and misrepresentation. Cryptozoologists have historically frequently presented themsleves as pith hat-wearing experts to media outlets and in turn media sources have also long uncritically echoed claims from adherents (cf. Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Cryptozoologists are also notorious for "hunting" for monsters they've read about in works like The Monster of "Partridge Creek". There are no standards in these circles.

So, as anywhere else on the site, and in particular regarding fringe and pseudoscience topics, it's obviously of high importance that we require commentary from experts and fortunately that's exactly the case (cf. WP:FRIND, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:PROFRINGE, etc.). In fact, let me go ahead and quote WP:FRIND here:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

In fact, we cite scholars throughout our coverage of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology, including on our coverage of topics like the Loveland Frog. They don't treat monsters as Pokémon to be hunted but chart the often complex reasons for their development and explore the broader cultural landscape surrounding them. As anywhere else, if there's reliable no coverage, it's just not notable enough for inclusion.

The big issue with list of cryptids has always been that literally every entity in the folklore record is perceived as (or at least described as) a Pokémon-like critter to be 'found' by a small circle of cryptozoologists somewhere on the internet (who referred to them internal to the subculture as "cryptids", a term coined by the subculture to avoid the word the rest of us use—"monster"), with a significant amount of subculutre members hellbent on finding "proof" that those darned atheist are so very wrong about evolution. This is why it's important to keep that list restricted to the creatures the subculture has historically particularly fixated on, like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. It's a magnet for poor sourcing and drive-by edits. The list is also a focal point for subculture adherents, who have historically attempted to organize off-site to change it and related articles to what they'd prefer (again, typical for these kinds of articles).

Now, editors all too often pop up out of the blue and attempt to lower our sourcing standards on fringe articles on the site. They often want us to cite adherents for 'balance'. One wonders why they're not instead asking for higher standards rather than lower—for which there is an obvious answer. But maybe a better question is why do we still have list of cryptids when the entire topic can simply be handled better in a paragraph or two at cryptozoology?

As for the podcast website from a 'skeptic', this is an obvious WP:RS fail. Pinging editors who have extensively edited articles I've mentioned above (and mother others in this space): @Tronvillain:, @Dlthewave:, and @LuckyLouie: :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree that we should preference scholarly articles but Disagree that we should exclude sources like Skeptoid. We need to trust consistency and follow consensus. RSN discussions have said Skeptoid is an RS. It's not in-universe, therefore it is also independent. News sources which are not directly relying on cryptozoologists would also apply as independent RSes. Just because we preference scholarly sources does not mean we don't use non-scholarly independent RSes. We can avoid using the sources of adherents, but still use non-scholarly sources for determining what is WP:DUE. Scholarly sources are better, and it matters that these monsters are not mentioned in them. But that is not the only thing that matters.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Shibbolethink. I don't think the list concept is particularly helpful, and agree with Bloodofox generally. But Skeptoid is a data point that can be considered; even having said that, I don't think a reference there is enough to establish notability, though it could be part of the picture. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go ahead and point out that Skeptoid, a podcast, has absolutely no editorial board or any kind of fact-checking, and its driving force, Brian Dunning (author), appears to have no background in anything relevant. In terms of reliability, this may as well be Uncle Randy in Boise's podcast. This looks like a pretty obvious WP:RS fail to me and the above linked discussion never went anywhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors like to keep these types of RS-failing sources around to cite when it's convenient. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are a number of RSes that seem to treat him as an expert...Smithsonian Magazine[103], Popular Mechanics, on several occasions, e.g.[104], LiveScience[105], Snopes, for whatever that is worth now. Again, if consensus is against me, that's fine. But though he's not an A+ source, he strikes me as enough of an expert in the weird and woo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Note that Skeptoid is not just a podcast. It's a website containing a print article on the topic which may have been derived from the podcast [106]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are apparently several sources beyond the ones mentioned that are used in the frog article, including a folklorist. I don't see why the sources that justify the article don't also justify the list inclusion? Can't you just replace the questionable sources with the folklorist/news media coverage to justify the inclusion on the list? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that the sources in question do not mention the subculture, which is ultimately pretty obscure. (Note however that here's long been a push by subculture members to insert references to cryptozoology—and the subculture's word for monsters, "cryptid"—into every nook and cranny of the English Wikipedia.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it looks like the issue is about suppressing this interpretation "Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is unsubstantiated." in favor of the "Pokemon hunter" version. But if the definition is ambiguous, it makes sense to include the frog thing on the monster list, rather than exclude on the basis of favoring one interpretation, in my view. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term in reality means, as OED puts it, "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". FYI, scholars don't use the subculture's emic term, "cryptid", except when discussing the subculture: See extensive discussion at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach. This is because "cryptid" implies a monster is 'hidden' (and therefore waiting to be found). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Bloodofox that cryptozoologist and WP:SENSATIONAL "news of the weird"-flavored sourcing be avoided in this list and legendary creature articles in general. But I agree with Shibbolethink and Dumuzid that Brian Dunning is a good WP:FRIND source, and is especially usable when folklorists and people like Donald Prothero have not commented on a topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with LuckyLouie: We need to use quality sources, and Skeptoid is acceptable if better sources can't be found. I would add that the distinction between "cryptids" and creatures of legend/myth/folklore is important. We can't just add any and all folkloric entities to the list; they have to be of interest to people who are searching for them in earnest. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are beginning to remove information cited to the WP:METRO as it is considered generally unreliable. However, I'd like to propose a carve out on their soap opera coverage. The soap sector of Metro has a full editorial team which must follow strict embargoes on content; these embargoes are set by the production companies of the soaps themselves. They also get details about the articles from the production companies from press events (like here) and often interview the cast members of the soaps, meaning the information they put out on their soap articles is verifiable and correct. I can't speak for the reliability of Metro as a whole, but their soap editorial team are reliable, and losing the source as a whole would severely damage the WP:SOAPS community on here. – DarkGlow • 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that rarest.org calls itself an entertainment site.[107] Both are members of "Mediavine home". Doug Weller talk 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[108][reply]

I added Largest.org as its in the same mediavine “-est" family. The biggest issue I’ve encountered with these is COPYVIVO, much of their content appears to be poached or semi-aggregated from other more reliable sources often without any attribution. It feels a bit like a clickbait site crossed with a low tier business news source which just rephrases press releases as stories. The only thing that really throws me is the .org handle, can’t really figure that out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am considering creating an article for a director. I want to use this source: [109], but I am not sure if it's reliable under Wiki policy. Specifically, would I be able to use said source for the director's date of birth? And if not, would I be able to use it for any other purpose (e.g. establishing notability)?

Thanks for the help. Koikefan (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, please see [110]. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sightseeing guide, and this is the mass murdered of hundreds of Ukrainian civilians in the Pawłokoma massacre. Some Polish tour guide is not reliable. There is some denials of this massacre by Polish hard liners, but Polish government apologized and scholars are in consensus over Biss. Just search for Biss and Pawlokoma in books and papers.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?

Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".

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

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 at least anecdotally, I've used the site and found the writing to be pretty good on culture topics. That doesn't mean every article is suitable for Wikipedia per other rules and guidelines, like NOTNEWS. For example this article might be suitable in gaslighting or influencer. It's journalism that quotes academic experts. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]