This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 285 | ← | Archive 287 | Archive 288 | Archive 289 | Archive 290 | Archive 291 | → | Archive 295 |
Apologies if I'm not following correct procedures here, RSN isn't one of my usual haunts. I searched the RSN archives and RSP, but I didn't see any official determination of what kind of source Spotify is. I often see musician biography drafts (nearly all of which are autobiographical) source to artist pages on Spotify. As far as I can tell, Spotify artist pages are submitted by the artist or label, so they're self-published sources and usually full of puffery anyway ("so-and-so took the world by storm with their chart-topping first album 'We're Notable! Really!'" or something like that). Does this seem reasonable enough? creffett ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
A spot check confirms that Spotify uses the same artist bios as AllMusic ( RSP entry), e.g. Spotify vs. AllMusic for Michael Jackson. In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews. If there are more reliable sources available (especially if the artists are living persons), I would prefer those. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources we have Daily Express being quoted as being similar to the Daily Mail. Well I think that needs to be slightly adjusted, as a newspaper they have in fact been more reliable than the Daily Mail, how often have you ever heard the Daily Express being shammed or getting in to trouble?
Also I don't even know why you have Daily Mirror being more reliable than the Daily Express and other papers, they really are the same as The Sun. I don't think Daily Mirror sources should be allowed on wikipedia. I have much more respect for the Daily Express over the others I've mentioned. Govvy ( talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your second link, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Media Bias/Fact Check ( RSP entry), since it is self-published by Wikipedia's standards. No comment on the rest. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail." I really feel that needs to be improved, explain more what the Daily Express is about, not just tag it the same as the Daily Mail when it's run differently. Govvy ( talk) 13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? This started at the WikiProject Film talk, where Erik ( talk · contribs) answered the following:
"You can ask here and/or at WP:RSN. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)"
I thought it belonged better here, where more people can state their opinion. El Millo ( talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Kolya Butternut says, "I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...)." [Kolya Butternut, 21:28, 31 March 2020, Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?] [5]
Is that how the policy should be interpreted?
TFD ( talk) 22:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
As most know, David Gerald ( talk · contribs) has been working steadily to remove Daily Mail refs per the result of WP:DAILYMAIL in that it fails RS for fact checking. No issue at all with that (though I believe there's better ways of handling "deprecation" than rushing removal unless it is dealing directly with BLP issues.)
This removal came up today [6] where the DM was being used strictly under an RSOPINION - it is a DM staff writing, providing their opinion of the episode. I have no idea how critical the opinion is, and whether it actually is needed is the topic of a separate discussion. The issue here is that outright removal of a DM reference being used as a RSOPINION appears to fail the reason to remove DM links from the previous RFC, as its not being used to support any thing factual, just opinion. -- Masem ( t) 02:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
generally prohibited, not "generally prohibited except for non-notable writers saying something in passing about Dr Who" - David Gerard ( talk) 10:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."Because of this, questionable publications like the Daily Mail have low weights for their published opinions. Their opinions gain weight if they are mentioned in reliable sources; if this is the case, the original publication might be citable as a primary source (although this is subject to editorial discretion). Opinions published by notable people are more likely to meet the weight threshold, especially if the publication has high circulation. — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.") in two different ways.
I've always interpreted
WP:RSOPINION as a guideline that restricts the use of opinions in sources that are otherwise "recognized as reliable"
for facts. Specifically, it requires
in-text attribution for these opinions, which prevents these opinions from being "asserted as fact"
. Opinions from the Daily Mail are a different case, because they are published in a source that is otherwise considered questionable for facts. Under this interpretation, these opinions are not considered reliable, and they are generally excluded as
undue weight. They can still be included if they are also mentioned in reliable sources.
The first sentence in
WP:RSOPINION can also be interpreted to mean that sources which are considered questionable for facts can still be used for their opinions. I never used this interpretation, because it works against the
due weight policy and allows unreliable sources to bypass the
verifiability policy's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
requirement by labeling their assertions as opinions. —
Newslinger
talk 06:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited.
Instead of creating a broad exception for opinion pieces in all questionable sources, I think the most straightforward option would be to hold a discussion/RfC on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews. If there is consensus that the Daily Mail can be used for these reviews, then we'll carve out an exception to the 2017 and 2019 Daily Mail RfCs for them. Exempting all opinions from the verifiability policy would distort articles on less popular topics that don't have enough opinions for due weight to be assessed, by allowing opinions from unreliable sources for those topics. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source"and that
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."The neutral point of view policy states that
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."Just because an opinion is published on a high-traffic medium does not necessarily make it due in an article (especially if it is not mentioned by reliable sources). Using a previously mentioned example, Breitbart News ( RSP entry) has an Alexa rank of 255 (which is comparable to the Daily Mail's Alexa rank of 263), yet we regularly exclude its views as undue weight because it is a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And
Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.Masem's addition of the deprecated source - for nothing more substantial than a non-notable writer's passing opinion on Doctor Who - was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION.
"viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you think the Daily Mail should be considered reliable for entertainment reviews, then we can start a separate discussion/RfC to see if there is consensus to establish that. — Newslinger talk 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Opinions published in reliable sources don't need to be mentioned in other reliable sources, since they already constitute the "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"
that are required by the
due weight policy. Any source can theoretically be used as a
primary source regardless of its reliability if its claims are
attributed in-text, and the due weight policy exists to ensure that opinions covered in reliable sources (including opinions originally published by reliable sources, and opinions originally published by questionable sources and then covered in reliable sources afterward) are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"
. The due weight policy does not make any space for opinions published in questionable sources that are not also mentioned in reliable sources. Otherwise, editors would be able to, for example, add opinions from
InfoWars (
RSP entry) on any topic solely on the grounds that
Alex Jones is notable and that InfoWars has a large audience. The opinions of unreliable sources are not due even if they happen to align with the majority opinion in reliable sources, unless they are also covered by reliable sources. —
Newslinger
talk 04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles". The statement also says that
"if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". For the purposes of the current discussion, I am only referring to non-
"historical"uses of the Daily Mail, as this discussion started as a question about a 2015 Daily Mail article. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
So then it is banned, right?Certainly not. I've reviewed more Wikipedia usages of the Daily Mail in the past six months than anyone, I'm pretty sure - about 8,000 so far, I think - and I have so far found at least ten or so that are arguably indispensable. But it's definitely the case that if you want to use the DM, you need an overwhelmingly convincing reason. It's not clear what your difficulty with understanding this is - David Gerard ( talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? Also, should any other types of coverage in the Daily Mail (e.g. sports reporting) be specifically assessed for reliability? — Newslinger talk 04:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"Tomatometer-approved publication"that is counted in scores from Rotten Tomatoes ( RSP entry), which is a favorable indicator of the Daily Mail's reliability for movie and TV reviews. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.This was the result of a broad RFC, that was ratified again in 2019. This is what we're talking about in this section - David Gerard ( talk) 13:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Past Discussions
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews
(1) Citation to https://israelunwired.com/most-controversial-polish-holocaust-movie-ever/ gets added: [9] for:
According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine.
.
(2) The narrator of the film does not exactly say that, but I remove per WP:RS alone: [10]
(3) My removal gets reverted [11]
(4) I take it to the Talk page, quoting what https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/ says about itself:
"Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people." [12]
(5) Source and content remains in article.
Cheers, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, FDW777, Rosguill, thanks for the speedy reply. NB will be referring to this discussion on the Talk page, for informational purposes. I appreciate the point about being now justified in reverting the revert, but have now been told you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim. [13] So given this is getting personal I'd rather pull that punch and have short community input from you guys as a longer-lasting, constructive solution.
To conclude this efficiently and not to bother you here again, would also appreciate your comment on the knock-on effect of your advised removal of the citation. Because it will leave two other citations, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8668248/ and https://vimeo.com/104504131. Another editor on the Talk page has already pointed out WP:IMDBREF, which would inform removal of the first. That leaves the Vimeo citation. So that it's crystal clear for everyone:
1) Would you extend the same rationale to texts at Vimeo as not WP:RS? 2) May videos linked to Vimeo be treated as WP:SECONDARY or WP:PRIMARY in themselves? 3) In either case, how should an hour-long documentary be summarized in one sentence if there are no WP:RS discussing it and an editor (in this case me) raises a WP:REDFLAG/ WP:FRINGE about the piece of content that has been filleted out to support a line of article content? 4) As a side note, are there any WP:COPYVIO issues putting video linked to Vimeo in the 'See Also' section? 5) Another editor has questioned the video's noteworthiness as we can't find any WP:RS discussing it. That's a pity because the video seems to be an interesting contribution to the subject. So for the final word, would Wikipedia policy or guidelines require outright removal on notability grounds?
Phew, hopefully that comprehensively covers everything so that this will be resolved immediately.
Thanks again, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Two Barns - English Version" was uploaded to Vimeo by an account with the name Roy Mandel, the person who co-produced the film. Since the website roymandel.co.il links to "Two Barns - English Version" and other videos on the account, there is a good chance that the Vimeo uploads are authorized by Mandel. A link to the video would not belong in the "See also" section, but it can be included in the "External links" section (subject to editorial discretion) if there is consensus to do so. I would not include a link to the video if it represents a fringe view.
The reliability of the documentary depends on the reputation of the producers (Roy Mandel and Ron Berstein). I'm not familiar with them, so you may want to ask some related WikiProjects to offer their opinions on this discussion. The film is probably a secondary source, and it should not be cherry-picked to support a claim that is not representative of the entire film. IMDb ( RSP entry) is unreliable because it is user-generated. — Newslinger talk 06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to present additional background on this issue. This particular entry is in the "documentaries" portion of this Wiki article. This particular documentary is directly relevant to the topic of the article as it deals precisely with this subject and interviews multiple relevant people. The OP reverted an entire paragraph which detailed the content of the documentary for which these three sources were used, one of which being israelunwired. Those sources were used solely to present the documentary's content and that particular last sentence starts with "According to the film, etc etc...". The paragraph didn't discuss the merits of that conclusion, it just presented the documentary and that is what the sources were used for.
In the Article Talk page the OP repeatedly claims that the documentary actually says something else than what is quoted in those sources without providing any sources for his claim except for his own analysis of the movie, which basically represents original research. Moreover he also appears to conflate between a description of the docu which should be straightforward and his own critique of its conclusion which could be discussed after presenting what the documentary actually says.
In any event, the discussion on israelunwired reliability is moot since I just found out that the documentary was broadcast several times on mainstream TV stations including the 2014 premiere on the largest commercial TV station in Israel (Channel Two / Keshet/Mako) and I found several other sources (news portals/newspapers) which mention it which can be used as references. Please also bear in mind that generally it's difficult to find sources for documentaries as opposed to theatrical releases and book releases. And since there was a question of the filmmaker's reputation, he is a known TV entity (including a Wiki article) and has a long list of programs under his name on that TV station as mentioned in the Article's Talk page N1of2 ( talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"three sources"you added in Special:Diff/947279965 were IMDb, the Vimeo upload of the film itself, and Israel Unwired. As explained above, IMDb and Israel Unwired are unacceptable as sources for factual claims. It does not matter if they are used to
"present the documentary's content"; they are still unacceptable. Any sources that describe the film's content must be reliable, as the verifiability policy requires all claims in articles to be backed by reliable sources. Also, according to WP:BURDEN,
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If Chumchum7 challenges content in the article that you want to keep, it is your responsibility to prove that the content is fully supported by reliable sources. Any editor may remove the content if you are unable to show this. — Newslinger talk 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Are census records reliable in the context they are used on Annie MacDonald Langstaff? See Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1. My initial concern was:
The response by SusunW (below) convinces me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience in this aspect would chime in
Some folks here are confusing the reliability and verifiability of WP:PRIMARY material with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. These are two totally different issues. Primary source material, particularly for people who were notable in the pre-google era, is perfectly fine for verifying information like someone’s birthdate, just as a modern celebrity’s web site is a useful place to find out their birthday. Both have to be taken with a grain of salt (multiple Mary Smiths in census data or the celebrity knocking a year or two off their age) but where they are the best available evidence, can be cited (stylistically, it’s wise to say “census data states” or “the celebrity states”...) It’s true we often cannot use primary sources to prove notability (most everyone is listed in a census, most everyone is at Find-a-grace), bit for simple facts, it’s not OR. To do a bit of analysis, such as to determine if one Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875 is the correct Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875, is not SYNTH, either. In this context, so long as due diligence is used and caveats are noted, the example above is fine. Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Bestoftheyear.in calls itself an Indian news portal. It appears to have been started in 2016 according to their About Us page. It's spread has grown over time at Wikipedia. It appears to be a site run by a small group of people, none of whom have admitted to having any journalism education, despite calling themselves journalists. I suspect that it does content aggregation in some form or another. For instance, here a film's budget is listed as 26 crore rupees, which is identical to what Box Office India says, but Box Office India includes print and advertising figures in their budgets, which nobody in their right mind would do, since a film's budget is, across the globe, typically considered the straight cost of production.
They have the first day gross figure at "8.15 crores", (should be "crore") which I find here also phrased "crores". The rest of the figures are about the same, minus two slight discrepancies, 5.40 vs 5.50 and 6.6 vs 6.5, bestoftheyear.in vs bollywoodcat.com respectively. Indian film articles are prone to exaggerated or deflated financial figures depending on the submitter's agenda. There is no official outlet of film finances in India, all figures are estimates that reliable sources arrive at through their proprietary journalistic methods, which might include having relationships with theatre owners and getting figures that way, etc. So having figures this close to another source is questionable. There are a number of sources that are already considered reliable and unreliable in the context of Indian entertainment. (See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources if you are interested.) I don't see how this site materially differs from any of the other small-time Indian news portals and I personally think it's not suitable for inclusion in articles as a reference. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
CONTEXT for this thread is found in these threads: [14] [15] -- Valjean ( talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Source: CounterPunch with source taken down, link to archive [16]. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CounterPunch
Author: Taken from end of the source, about the author section. Looks like contributor content.
Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached at frankmenetrez@yahoo.com.
Article: BLP Alan Dershowitz
Content: Diff with text:
In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue".
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly good content and attributed properly. I suggest that anyone who does not know the history of this thread should read the two links I have provided for "CONTEXT" above. While bringing this here isn't technically forum shopping, we are dealing with this quite well on the talk page, and this just creates another venue for the OP to vent. Attempts to delete this long-standing content have been rebuffed. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:
Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source (in the above three books)--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched. I am not aware of any glaring errors in his work. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The Frontiersmen is one of my favorite books. It is embellished, where history ends and fiction starts is hard to gauge. It seems accurate in the spirit of the thing, and big picture it gets events right the conflicts described did happen. The personal history of the main character are not so reliable. One could use it as a starting point to investigate other more reliable sources. If I read an article mostly sourced to Eckert I'd probably think it wasn't well sourced - in fact I recall seeing this very thing years ago but don't remember which article it was. -- Green C 13:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the recently-created Mototaka Nakamura article. A source came up published at the Carnot-Cournot Netwerk, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book.
Anyway, the specific article here appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.
The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!
Jlevi ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Source:
https://iupac.org/100/chemist/clarice-phelps-es/
Text:
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC; which, among other responsibilities, coordinates with laboratories and the public for the naming of new chemical elements), recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.
Other than the fact it is the IUPAC website, and in recognition of all the controversy and indeed fraud that has surrounded previous attempts to get this claim included in Wikipedia, what reason is there for anyone to really believe that this one single web page is meant to be seen as the definitive resolution to the question of what role Phelps has played in the history of element discovery? No other reliable independent sources state this first claim as an unqualified fact, all cast some level of doubt or uncertainty. I am unconvinced that something that wasn't even fact checked was meant to carry such significance, and believe it is more likely that either the text has been lazily accepted simply on the basis of who submitted it without being fact checked, like so many of the press releases around this issue have been, or worse, the fraud has extended to this website somehow. Which is why it would be helpful if it named names, because nobody is named here at all, not the nominator or anyone who might have fact checked their submission. Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a journal or book, but it doesn't even really meet the same standards as say, a news release. All of which shows the IUPAC couldn't possibly have meant it to have the same significance that Wikipedia editors apparently attached to it, first using it to recreate the article, then using this exact claim to promote her on the Wikipedia front page. Crash Dennis ( talk) 05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams.That's using "wrote the book" in the sense of "I've done the research", not "if you look at page 216 of my book you will see a verbatim statement of the following claim". He goes on to elaborate (it's an interesting bit of science history, and a glimpse back to when experimental teams were small; not the worst use of Twitter, actually). And his book does mention Phelps in the context of African-American researchers in the field. No deception, no fraud, no grounds to think the IUPAC were less than conscientious. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The attribution argument is totally irrelevant. I don't even need to look to know I won't find a single word of advice on Wikipedia that tells me to use a source I know is inaccurate for a specific claim, if I simply state their name and rest on their overall record of reliability. I would be expected to do what is required to remove unreliable information from Wikipedia, the same way I am expected to use my judgement to fix the more minor issue of known innacuracies, such as typos. If this argument held any water at all, if attribution was the only reason people here are deciding this claim for this purpose is reliable, they would be able to explain the contradiction in the early history of this very article. Kit Chapman is, as far as I know, still generally considered a reliable source. His specific claim about Phelps however, no longer appears on Wikipedia, because it has been found to be innacurate, or rather, unverifiable, which for Wikipedia, is assumed to be equivalent, much to the annoyance of the activists. But because he said it in a Tweet first, it's still out there, Wikipedia can still include it with attribution. Maybe some people did argue that it could still be included in the article if the text attributed Chapman as the source, but thankfully for the reputation of Wikipedia, they don't seem to have prevailed, and he has been removed as a source for that specific claim, because they know what he said about his book wasn't true. Critical thinking in action. In short, you do not knowingly mislead readers, or fall back on attribution when what you're supposed to be considering is reliability of the specific claim and the source in general. For the purposes of this noticebaord, thinking about whether or not this specific claim has undergone the fact checking you would assume to be applied by IUPAC, is part of that critical thinking process. I await arguments that speak to that issue, rather than trying to avoid it, including the circular argument that says it is reliable because it is the IUPAC. Crash Dennis ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked Crash Dennis for harassment and making implicit threats against an editor (on another page but involving this same issue). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
60 Minutes Australia ran a segment on 29 March, in which it states that the doctor Ai Fen has disappeared. This claim has been disputed by Fan Wenxin, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. He tweeted that he has been in contact with a 60 Minutes Australia producer, and that the producer promised to amend the program. The program aired without the corrections Fan Wenxin asked for. See this thread. Complicating this is the fact that Ai Fen continues to post on her social media, including pictures of herself, and that she participated over video in an online conference this Thursday ( [26]), after her supposed disappearance. The claim of her disappearance has been picked up by a number of tabloids, including The Daily Mail and the The New York Post (ironically, the New York Post put a picture of her posted to her social media on 1 April, after her supposed disappearance, at the top of the article). It's also been picked up by Radio Free Asia, which is funded by the US government and was founded by US intelligence.
I personally think this claim is quite doubtful, given that it's disputed by a WSJ reporter and given that Ai Fen has appeared publicly (at the online conference) since her supposed disappearance. I have to admit that this is a somewhat awkward situation, given that the claim made by 60 Minutes Australia appears to be false, but that the sorts of information that cast doubt on it come from the Twitter feed of another journalist and a video recorded from an online conference. Then again, 60 Minutes Australia doesn't provide any details on how they know that she's disappeared. My impression, in general, is that 60 Minutes Australia tends to be a bit sensationalized. I'd really like to see a reliable newspaper pick this story up before including it at Ai Fen, but I want to hear what others think about this situation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are www.islamicstudies.info, jstor.org, politicalislam.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com reliable sources for the Wikipedia article on Kafir? Can we cite any of them as a reference? Which of them are unacceptable?— Souniel Yadav ( talk) 04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article on Melbourne's $6 billion West Gate Tunnel project has a section on its Business Case and another on its Environment Effects Statement (EES), a mandatory inquiry process prior to government approval. The article contains a summary of key points in the 10,000-page EES produced by a government body (the Western Distributor Authority) plus several submissions by local city councils. Its accuracy has not been challenged, but almost all of that material cites the official documents and submissions themselves (see here) as a PS rather than any secondary sources, of which there seem to be few. The tunnel project is the subject of hundreds of news stories, therefore supporting notability for the overall topic, but there is disagreement on the talk page about whether those sections on the EES and Business Case should be retained if they lack secondary sources. External guidance would be appreciated. BlackCab ( TALK) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a many website which was used as a reference for Italian football stats. However, i wanna ask , the site content itself probably reliable, but the site also flagged by anti-virus for a possible javascript related problem. So, how should treat this site? Matthew hk ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the verified Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland ( [27]) reliable for COVID-19 statistics (confirmed cases and deaths) attributed to the Ministry of Health? ( example). We are using their Twitter updates as a source to update case counts on {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}} or 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland. However, at least one user states that it cannot be used because they are published in a California-based server, using proprietary software, the feasibility of tampering by a third-party, etc. Here's the main discussion for context: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland § Table New confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Poland by voivodeship. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it can be assumed that the information is valid.That is disputed. But that is not a practical problem. It is independent of using the MOH as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology; a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable in the ordinary sense of the word. It has a Wikipedia-specific meaning. You also wrote
The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched, while what I wrote was
we can assume is ... that hidden editing of individual tweets is unlikely (I've never heard claims of Twitter doing that).Since we agree that tampering is unlikely, there's not much point debating whether it's an event with a 10^{-3} or 10^{-6} Bayesian probability. Boud ( talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of KPRM.[28]
PL - we have no serious evidence that the Ministry of Health data are "reliable"; what we do know is that they are regular and frequent and well-formatted, but published in California instead of in Poland[29]
psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception.That's a violation of WP:AGF: it seems that you are accusing me of having negative intent by pointing to uncontroversial facts and that I am psychologically abusing other Wikipedians. The uncertainties of obtaining knowledge may be psychologically uncomfortable to some people, but in Wikipedia, as in scientific study of the real world, these uncertainties are inevitable, and we have to live with them. Referring to context is the contrary of making people doubt their memory and perception. Being suspicious of knowledge managed by authoritarian organisations is healthy for encyclopedic and scientific knowledge. I do not say that the context is irrelevant in judging whether the MOH tweets qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. What I do say is that overall, keeping the context in mind, it is reasonable to let the MOH tweets have the Wikipedia status of a reliable source. You might also wish to withdraw your accusation that by talking about Twitter as a secretive authoritarian organisation that is in California, not in the EU, I have tried to psychologically abuse Wikipedians. Boud ( talk) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not rehash this argument here. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Axios.com has been used many times in Wikipedia. [30] However, it has only been discussed on RSN a little, once. [31] [32] I also brought it up here, but there was approximately zero discussion. My opinion is Axios.com should be avoided because the Axios_(website) uses Native_advertising, which is a deceptive practice, and Wikipedia should avoid being complicit in sending users to be subjected to that practice. Their About highlights "Smart Brevity®" with mission: "Axios gets you smarter, faster on what matters," and says (long) "Stories are too long or too boring." [33] As promised, their articles (really more like short blog posts) lack depth, and as a result provide little useful insight. (Aside: However, because of the site practices, the site causes my slower devices' CPUs to be overloaded, and my network traffic to stay high the entire time the site is viewed. So they fail on the "faster" promise.) -- Yae4 ( talk) 07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns. Pikachu6686 ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
>>
BEANS X2
t
13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)What if the fact was how many likes a video had? Like if you were stating how many likes a video had, it would be reliable, right? Pikachu6686 ( talk) 04:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a discussion about YouTube, I wonder if it's okay to say that you can add an external link in articles to a documentary video produced by a reliable source. For example, this Video on YouTube in Jambiya article.- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Again less of an RS than an undue issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
While creating the biography of living person I have found that there are few interviews on television with expert advice on the news. But the news become older and miss placed on Google. I found that it is on YouTube not on Google is the source called reliable? and those source are from best tv channel. Kashish pall ( talk) 14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Plant Based News is a promotional vegan website. I believe it fails WP:RS. The website described itself as "The very latest plant based vegan news from around the world" [35].
I removed it from the Vegan school meal article, but it is used on a few other articles as well. Thoughts? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Demographia [36] is a website run by one person, Wendell Cox and is used as the source of urban population of cities in List of largest cities among others.
I'm wondering if it is reliable, as Cox is an anti-public transit lobbyist and generally creates research articles that favour car-based development (like suburbs). In itself, this doesn't disqualify the source, however, in determining what constitutes an "urban area", there is criticism based largely on his unique definition of density. Articles such as "Why demographia is fundamentally wrong" have been published [37] online with a similar criticism for his unique definition of density. His work is not peer reviewed, and his definitions are his own creation. One specific example of what I would call bizarre: he lumps Providence, Rhode Island as part of Boston, Massachusetts. I would say that those are two difference cities, as would most people, I assume. He would say, I imagine, that because they are drivable in an hour they are the same city, because of his car-centric bias.
What do you think? I'm not an expert in this field, but the lack of peer review and single person determination of standards such as density is fishy to me. Mattximus ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Spiked is currently used in
268 articles
, the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant.
Media Bias/Fact Check
rates their fact checking record as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also
recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. The source has been discussed a couple of times before
1
2. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}}
No comment on Spiked ( spiked-online.com), but I need to point out that Media Bias/Fact Check ( RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable because it is self-published. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge Spiked's reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Several editors have been adding ridership data to Metro-North Railroad station articles (for example, East Norwalk station). The source is an internal document that was obtained with a FOIA request; it was never officially published, and the only publicly-available copy is hosted on a personal Google Drive account. I believe that this does not meet WP:PUBLISHED, and as an unpublished source with no official public availability it is not a reliable/verifiable source and should not be used in articles. Pinging @ Lent and Kew Gardens 613: who have been adding these over my objections. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
<!--117180 daily weekday arrivals, 116160 daily weekday departures, 48960 Saturday arrivals, 48470 Saturday departures, 36950 Sunday arrivals, 40700 Sunday departures. This gives us a yearly total of ((117180+116160)*5+(48960+48470)+(36950+40700))*52 = 69,722,560-->
@ Pi.1415926535 and Masem: I went back to the email I received and just realized that the files are also on an mta sub website here:
These are from an MTA sub-website, and unless you hacked into the website, there is no way to alter the documents. Given that this is hosted on the MTA website, is it okay to use this as a source? Thanks so much.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? Specifically, at Yuz Asaf an article by "Alexa Brand" which doesn't seem to have been cited [50] but can be downloaded, used for the statement "These views are considered to be blasphemous by the majority Sunni Islamic scholars and authorities who assert that Jesus is presently alive in Heaven." Her article is also source 110 at Prophets and messengers in Islam. It might be used elsewhere linked through Semantic scholar. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that this was used in around 77 articles lately (an example at Orthopoxvirus), and saw this question by Ancheta Wis when investigating. Since there never was an RSN discussion yet about it, I decided to create an entry. My initial impression is that it seems usable: the publication is not anonymous (Macallan Communications) and also has a team of qualified editors. More input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Is http://www.jadovno.com an RS? OyMosby ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I keep coming across the Tennessee Star and its sister papers, Michigan Star, Ohio Star, and Minnesota Sun. We cite more than a few times in our articles, and there's a lot of cause for concern here. For starters, they seem to have connections to, and reprint material from, a couple other sites that are already deprecated: the Daily Caller and Breitbart. This Politico article mentions that "The site doesn’t have the traditional separation of editorial and business interests". This Snopes investigation characterizes them as basically fake local sites that really just push content by ideologically aligned national sites with a lot of problems. Is this worth an RfC? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is
"The Firing of Bo Winegard: When Academic Freedom and Outrage Collide" from
Areo magazine (areomagazine.com) a reliable source for the
Bo Winegard article? After I added
in-text attribution, the source is currently being used to claim that "Christopher Ferguson of
Areo contended that the talk explicitly denounced racism and urged people to treat others as individuals, not tokens of some group or another."
—
Newslinger
talk 03:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"an opinion and analysis digital magazine focused on current affairs". The editor-in-chief, Helen Pluckrose, is best known for her involvement in the grievance studies affair, and none of the listed staff members have disclosed any academic credentials. Based on this, Areo does not appear to be "an academic online magazine, run by academics"; that kind of description is reserved for sites like The Conversation ( RSP entry), which features articles from actual subject-matter experts. Buidhe makes an apt comparison between Areo and Quillette ( RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The
Bo Winegard article also cites
"Evolution Working Group on hosting Bo Winegard: ‘It was our mistake’" from
The Crimson White for the claim "The talk, which addressed the possibility that human populations may have evolved different psychological tendencies, stirred a controversy at the University because of the perceived “racist implications” of the research."
Is this student newspaper article reliable for the claim? —
Newslinger
talk 04:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Professor fired from his tenure track job for wrongthink" from
The Post Millennial (thepostmillennial.com) is used in the
Bo Winegard article for the single word "wrongthink"
in the context of the claim "Some sources suggested that Winegard may have been fired for his [...] 'wrongthink'"
. Is this website a reliable source for this claim? —
Newslinger
talk 04:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
NY Daily News seems to have broken a story about nurses infected with COVID-19 working at several NYC hospitals due to insufficient paid sick leave policies. [52]
I believe we can cite the Daily News in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City, although in my experience (and per WP:RSP) I know it has a less-than-stellar reputation. I generally would avoid the source for anything of political significance. On the other hand, I believe in this case the Daily News would not publish this local story without sufficient strong evidence; in fact several sources are identified in the article, some by name.
I believe this would be OK to include with attribution, e.g. "According to the NY Daily News reporting on 04/08/20, several nurses at different New York City hospitals stated that nursing staff were not allowed sufficient paid sick leave and that nurses presenting symptoms of coronavirus continued to work."
Comments? Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's been deleted here. [53] The actual source involved is this. LiveWire is part of The Wire network. I'd attribute it if I reinstated it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"space for young writers and creators", and contains both staff-written and contributed content. This particular piece was written by "LiveWire Staff", which might inherit the reliability of The Wire under WP:RSOPINION. Some articles from LiveWire are syndicated to The Wire, although this one is not. I am not certain whether the contributed articles on LiveWire are reliable, because I am unsure of the quality of the editorial process for contributed articles. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
As a crowd-sourced website, Seeking Alpha may be listed in WP:deprecated sources?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding WP:REFSPAM to a predatory journal to Integer complexity. More eyes on this would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know but this time its serious.
There is one (and they appear to be preparing for more) lawsuits over deliberate misinformation over the corona virus [ [54]]. Given this I think it is our duty to only use the best and most respected sources over this issue I would like to propose a (at least) temporary and partial ban on Fox as a source for any news relating to the Corona Virus. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We really need to work on following WP:MEDRS more. One should not use the popular press for medical content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I question the reliability of the Money Inc website. One of its articles is currently being used by a reference that cites it in the Mariah Carey article: "The level of her success is evident when you consider her estimated personal net worth of $300 million." There is currently a discussion on the talk page about this. This Money Inc website seems to be a collection of articles disguised as advertisements, but also contains a net worth section with figures for numerous public figures. However, there is never any information as to where the (what I assume are) freelance writers get the figures from. The website's "contact us" email address is "uncoached@gmail.com" I found that there is even a network of these websites all run by "Uncoached Corporation", including tvovermind.com. I found this twitter thread about how these websites might be infringing copyright as well. Perhaps these should be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? Heartfox ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Benjamin Smith is one of the managing editors of Moneyinc. He has a strong interest in sports, video games and acting his age (and he's not even in college yet!) but we love him over here because he's attentive, detailed, and knows how to make an article look great."Some of the articles (e.g. "Max Hazan: A Visionary Artist Building Exceptional Motorcycles") look like sponsored content without disclosure. If there is a pattern of sites from Uncoached Corporation being inappropriately cited in Wikipedia articles, this should be investigated on the spam blacklist noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 09:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
ive found this website being used for info on a bunch of pages but until being curious about the source of some of the info on pages and seeing "The Futon Critic" ive never heard of it before. ill put one example below but ive found it in a lot of places.
thank you. ToeFungii ( talk) 06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. why isnt it listed at link or am i just missing it? ToeFungii ( talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the following articles appear to cite Eupedia, some including trivia like the number of castles in Belgium, but a number concerning human genetics. Specifically, many citations from Eupedia appear to connect specific Haplogroups with specific ethnic groups. My question, prompted by a discussion here, is whether Eupedia is a reliable source or whether this sourcing should be removed. It's unclear to me whether the website is user-created content or not. -- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Tow reports, one from foreignaffairs and another for MEPC were used in the Ali Sayad Shirazi#Controversy. Are they reliable? Saff V. ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
A clash and disagreement over strategy to be adopted in the Iran-Iraq war emerged between Shirazi and Mohsen Rezaee, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, in July 1986.When this rivalry became public, Ayatollah Khomeini met them in his residence on 19 July 1986 and urged them to "seek unity", telling them "You must endeavor, not to think in terms of being members of the Armed Forces or those of the Guards Corps or of the Basij forces. ... We must understand that if there were to be any disputes among you ... not only are we doomed here and now, but we also are guilty before God." It remains unclear why, Mohsen Rezaee, who had little military experience was in a technical dispute with a senior general.
Shirazi used harsh counterinsurgency methods against the rebellious Kurds. Many within the regular army did not like the idea of suppressing Iranians, even if they were minorities from the periphery. Some army personnel deserted from the front in the Sanandaj region during the battles with the Kurdish irregulars. 14 A senior army aviation officer was tried and executed in Isfahan for his refusal to participate in the war against the Kurdish insurgents; several others were tried and imprisoned.
At Media blackout#Contemporary I added sources for the following claim. (The claim was already in the article; I just added citations). Because this involves a BLP, I would like to ask that the citations I added be reviewed here so that I can remove any that don't meet our standards for reliability. Here is the claim and the citations:
References
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
generally unreliable for factual reporting. Linking to such a site in a BLP would be unadvisable, and I do not think that particular reference belongs in this spot either, since what we have is basically a slice of BLP under a topic heading. Even if all we are doing is noting that an opinion has been voiced, we are implicitly saying that the site is worth reading, and as it stands the text is not providing any cautions that claims of fact made in the source should be taken advisedly. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
...aaaand now we have an edit war at Media blackout. :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There is what looks more like a political argument than anything else at Media blackout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over allegations that Biden sexually abused someone. The text is: "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout. [9] [10] [11] However, this issue was covered in 2019 by The Union, a local Nevada paper, in which Tara Reade made a different claim. [12]"
References
So there are three sources for the term "media blackout". One, the Guardian, doesn't use the term, just says it's been largely ignored by the news. I can't see the Economist source. The third is the Libertarian Reason (magazine) which also doesn't use the term. WTF? Doug Weller talk 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
See:
Samp4ngeles ( talk) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An argument at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust:_The_Poles_Under_German_Occupation,_1939-1944#Davies by User:François Robere questions the reliability of Hippocrene Books. The context is whether we can provide a (positive) assessment of the book from a foreword of the book. The author of the foreword is Norman Davies, a reputable historian. Removed content can be seen here. I argue that it should be sufficient to clearly attribute the quote to the author and state it comes from the book foreword. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions.Hippocrene Books - a publisher of general purpose prose, dictionaries and cooking books [69] - so it does not qualify as a "reputable publisher" for that purpose. If it was a university press like UPKY, which published the first edition, or a specialized imprint like Basic Books, it would've been another story. François Robere ( talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I found a short biography of Melanie Clegg, but I am not sure this qualifies her as a reliable source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 285 | ← | Archive 287 | Archive 288 | Archive 289 | Archive 290 | Archive 291 | → | Archive 295 |
Apologies if I'm not following correct procedures here, RSN isn't one of my usual haunts. I searched the RSN archives and RSP, but I didn't see any official determination of what kind of source Spotify is. I often see musician biography drafts (nearly all of which are autobiographical) source to artist pages on Spotify. As far as I can tell, Spotify artist pages are submitted by the artist or label, so they're self-published sources and usually full of puffery anyway ("so-and-so took the world by storm with their chart-topping first album 'We're Notable! Really!'" or something like that). Does this seem reasonable enough? creffett ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
A spot check confirms that Spotify uses the same artist bios as AllMusic ( RSP entry), e.g. Spotify vs. AllMusic for Michael Jackson. In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews. If there are more reliable sources available (especially if the artists are living persons), I would prefer those. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources we have Daily Express being quoted as being similar to the Daily Mail. Well I think that needs to be slightly adjusted, as a newspaper they have in fact been more reliable than the Daily Mail, how often have you ever heard the Daily Express being shammed or getting in to trouble?
Also I don't even know why you have Daily Mirror being more reliable than the Daily Express and other papers, they really are the same as The Sun. I don't think Daily Mirror sources should be allowed on wikipedia. I have much more respect for the Daily Express over the others I've mentioned. Govvy ( talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your second link, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on Media Bias/Fact Check ( RSP entry), since it is self-published by Wikipedia's standards. No comment on the rest. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail." I really feel that needs to be improved, explain more what the Daily Express is about, not just tag it the same as the Daily Mail when it's run differently. Govvy ( talk) 13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Is DiscussingFilm a reliable source? This started at the WikiProject Film talk, where Erik ( talk · contribs) answered the following:
"You can ask here and/or at WP:RSN. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)"
I thought it belonged better here, where more people can state their opinion. El Millo ( talk) 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Kolya Butternut says, "I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...)." [Kolya Butternut, 21:28, 31 March 2020, Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?] [5]
Is that how the policy should be interpreted?
TFD ( talk) 22:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
As most know, David Gerald ( talk · contribs) has been working steadily to remove Daily Mail refs per the result of WP:DAILYMAIL in that it fails RS for fact checking. No issue at all with that (though I believe there's better ways of handling "deprecation" than rushing removal unless it is dealing directly with BLP issues.)
This removal came up today [6] where the DM was being used strictly under an RSOPINION - it is a DM staff writing, providing their opinion of the episode. I have no idea how critical the opinion is, and whether it actually is needed is the topic of a separate discussion. The issue here is that outright removal of a DM reference being used as a RSOPINION appears to fail the reason to remove DM links from the previous RFC, as its not being used to support any thing factual, just opinion. -- Masem ( t) 02:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
generally prohibited, not "generally prohibited except for non-notable writers saying something in passing about Dr Who" - David Gerard ( talk) 10:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."Because of this, questionable publications like the Daily Mail have low weights for their published opinions. Their opinions gain weight if they are mentioned in reliable sources; if this is the case, the original publication might be citable as a primary source (although this is subject to editorial discretion). Opinions published by notable people are more likely to meet the weight threshold, especially if the publication has high circulation. — Newslinger talk 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.") in two different ways.
I've always interpreted
WP:RSOPINION as a guideline that restricts the use of opinions in sources that are otherwise "recognized as reliable"
for facts. Specifically, it requires
in-text attribution for these opinions, which prevents these opinions from being "asserted as fact"
. Opinions from the Daily Mail are a different case, because they are published in a source that is otherwise considered questionable for facts. Under this interpretation, these opinions are not considered reliable, and they are generally excluded as
undue weight. They can still be included if they are also mentioned in reliable sources.
The first sentence in
WP:RSOPINION can also be interpreted to mean that sources which are considered questionable for facts can still be used for their opinions. I never used this interpretation, because it works against the
due weight policy and allows unreliable sources to bypass the
verifiability policy's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
requirement by labeling their assertions as opinions. —
Newslinger
talk 06:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited.
Instead of creating a broad exception for opinion pieces in all questionable sources, I think the most straightforward option would be to hold a discussion/RfC on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews. If there is consensus that the Daily Mail can be used for these reviews, then we'll carve out an exception to the 2017 and 2019 Daily Mail RfCs for them. Exempting all opinions from the verifiability policy would distort articles on less popular topics that don't have enough opinions for due weight to be assessed, by allowing opinions from unreliable sources for those topics. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source"and that
"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."The neutral point of view policy states that
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."Just because an opinion is published on a high-traffic medium does not necessarily make it due in an article (especially if it is not mentioned by reliable sources). Using a previously mentioned example, Breitbart News ( RSP entry) has an Alexa rank of 255 (which is comparable to the Daily Mail's Alexa rank of 263), yet we regularly exclude its views as undue weight because it is a questionable source. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. And
Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.Masem's addition of the deprecated source - for nothing more substantial than a non-notable writer's passing opinion on Doctor Who - was not reasonably supportable by WP:RSOPINION.
"viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". If you think the Daily Mail should be considered reliable for entertainment reviews, then we can start a separate discussion/RfC to see if there is consensus to establish that. — Newslinger talk 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Opinions published in reliable sources don't need to be mentioned in other reliable sources, since they already constitute the "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"
that are required by the
due weight policy. Any source can theoretically be used as a
primary source regardless of its reliability if its claims are
attributed in-text, and the due weight policy exists to ensure that opinions covered in reliable sources (including opinions originally published by reliable sources, and opinions originally published by questionable sources and then covered in reliable sources afterward) are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"
. The due weight policy does not make any space for opinions published in questionable sources that are not also mentioned in reliable sources. Otherwise, editors would be able to, for example, add opinions from
InfoWars (
RSP entry) on any topic solely on the grounds that
Alex Jones is notable and that InfoWars has a large audience. The opinions of unreliable sources are not due even if they happen to align with the majority opinion in reliable sources, unless they are also covered by reliable sources. —
Newslinger
talk 04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles". The statement also says that
"if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". For the purposes of the current discussion, I am only referring to non-
"historical"uses of the Daily Mail, as this discussion started as a question about a 2015 Daily Mail article. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
So then it is banned, right?Certainly not. I've reviewed more Wikipedia usages of the Daily Mail in the past six months than anyone, I'm pretty sure - about 8,000 so far, I think - and I have so far found at least ten or so that are arguably indispensable. But it's definitely the case that if you want to use the DM, you need an overwhelmingly convincing reason. It's not clear what your difficulty with understanding this is - David Gerard ( talk) 12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? Also, should any other types of coverage in the Daily Mail (e.g. sports reporting) be specifically assessed for reliability? — Newslinger talk 04:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
"Tomatometer-approved publication"that is counted in scores from Rotten Tomatoes ( RSP entry), which is a favorable indicator of the Daily Mail's reliability for movie and TV reviews. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.This was the result of a broad RFC, that was ratified again in 2019. This is what we're talking about in this section - David Gerard ( talk) 13:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Past Discussions
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews
(1) Citation to https://israelunwired.com/most-controversial-polish-holocaust-movie-ever/ gets added: [9] for:
According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine.
.
(2) The narrator of the film does not exactly say that, but I remove per WP:RS alone: [10]
(3) My removal gets reverted [11]
(4) I take it to the Talk page, quoting what https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/ says about itself:
"Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people." [12]
(5) Source and content remains in article.
Cheers, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, FDW777, Rosguill, thanks for the speedy reply. NB will be referring to this discussion on the Talk page, for informational purposes. I appreciate the point about being now justified in reverting the revert, but have now been told you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim. [13] So given this is getting personal I'd rather pull that punch and have short community input from you guys as a longer-lasting, constructive solution.
To conclude this efficiently and not to bother you here again, would also appreciate your comment on the knock-on effect of your advised removal of the citation. Because it will leave two other citations, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8668248/ and https://vimeo.com/104504131. Another editor on the Talk page has already pointed out WP:IMDBREF, which would inform removal of the first. That leaves the Vimeo citation. So that it's crystal clear for everyone:
1) Would you extend the same rationale to texts at Vimeo as not WP:RS? 2) May videos linked to Vimeo be treated as WP:SECONDARY or WP:PRIMARY in themselves? 3) In either case, how should an hour-long documentary be summarized in one sentence if there are no WP:RS discussing it and an editor (in this case me) raises a WP:REDFLAG/ WP:FRINGE about the piece of content that has been filleted out to support a line of article content? 4) As a side note, are there any WP:COPYVIO issues putting video linked to Vimeo in the 'See Also' section? 5) Another editor has questioned the video's noteworthiness as we can't find any WP:RS discussing it. That's a pity because the video seems to be an interesting contribution to the subject. So for the final word, would Wikipedia policy or guidelines require outright removal on notability grounds?
Phew, hopefully that comprehensively covers everything so that this will be resolved immediately.
Thanks again, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Two Barns - English Version" was uploaded to Vimeo by an account with the name Roy Mandel, the person who co-produced the film. Since the website roymandel.co.il links to "Two Barns - English Version" and other videos on the account, there is a good chance that the Vimeo uploads are authorized by Mandel. A link to the video would not belong in the "See also" section, but it can be included in the "External links" section (subject to editorial discretion) if there is consensus to do so. I would not include a link to the video if it represents a fringe view.
The reliability of the documentary depends on the reputation of the producers (Roy Mandel and Ron Berstein). I'm not familiar with them, so you may want to ask some related WikiProjects to offer their opinions on this discussion. The film is probably a secondary source, and it should not be cherry-picked to support a claim that is not representative of the entire film. IMDb ( RSP entry) is unreliable because it is user-generated. — Newslinger talk 06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to present additional background on this issue. This particular entry is in the "documentaries" portion of this Wiki article. This particular documentary is directly relevant to the topic of the article as it deals precisely with this subject and interviews multiple relevant people. The OP reverted an entire paragraph which detailed the content of the documentary for which these three sources were used, one of which being israelunwired. Those sources were used solely to present the documentary's content and that particular last sentence starts with "According to the film, etc etc...". The paragraph didn't discuss the merits of that conclusion, it just presented the documentary and that is what the sources were used for.
In the Article Talk page the OP repeatedly claims that the documentary actually says something else than what is quoted in those sources without providing any sources for his claim except for his own analysis of the movie, which basically represents original research. Moreover he also appears to conflate between a description of the docu which should be straightforward and his own critique of its conclusion which could be discussed after presenting what the documentary actually says.
In any event, the discussion on israelunwired reliability is moot since I just found out that the documentary was broadcast several times on mainstream TV stations including the 2014 premiere on the largest commercial TV station in Israel (Channel Two / Keshet/Mako) and I found several other sources (news portals/newspapers) which mention it which can be used as references. Please also bear in mind that generally it's difficult to find sources for documentaries as opposed to theatrical releases and book releases. And since there was a question of the filmmaker's reputation, he is a known TV entity (including a Wiki article) and has a long list of programs under his name on that TV station as mentioned in the Article's Talk page N1of2 ( talk) 13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"three sources"you added in Special:Diff/947279965 were IMDb, the Vimeo upload of the film itself, and Israel Unwired. As explained above, IMDb and Israel Unwired are unacceptable as sources for factual claims. It does not matter if they are used to
"present the documentary's content"; they are still unacceptable. Any sources that describe the film's content must be reliable, as the verifiability policy requires all claims in articles to be backed by reliable sources. Also, according to WP:BURDEN,
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If Chumchum7 challenges content in the article that you want to keep, it is your responsibility to prove that the content is fully supported by reliable sources. Any editor may remove the content if you are unable to show this. — Newslinger talk 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Are census records reliable in the context they are used on Annie MacDonald Langstaff? See Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1. My initial concern was:
The response by SusunW (below) convinces me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience in this aspect would chime in
Some folks here are confusing the reliability and verifiability of WP:PRIMARY material with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. These are two totally different issues. Primary source material, particularly for people who were notable in the pre-google era, is perfectly fine for verifying information like someone’s birthdate, just as a modern celebrity’s web site is a useful place to find out their birthday. Both have to be taken with a grain of salt (multiple Mary Smiths in census data or the celebrity knocking a year or two off their age) but where they are the best available evidence, can be cited (stylistically, it’s wise to say “census data states” or “the celebrity states”...) It’s true we often cannot use primary sources to prove notability (most everyone is listed in a census, most everyone is at Find-a-grace), bit for simple facts, it’s not OR. To do a bit of analysis, such as to determine if one Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875 is the correct Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875, is not SYNTH, either. In this context, so long as due diligence is used and caveats are noted, the example above is fine. Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Bestoftheyear.in calls itself an Indian news portal. It appears to have been started in 2016 according to their About Us page. It's spread has grown over time at Wikipedia. It appears to be a site run by a small group of people, none of whom have admitted to having any journalism education, despite calling themselves journalists. I suspect that it does content aggregation in some form or another. For instance, here a film's budget is listed as 26 crore rupees, which is identical to what Box Office India says, but Box Office India includes print and advertising figures in their budgets, which nobody in their right mind would do, since a film's budget is, across the globe, typically considered the straight cost of production.
They have the first day gross figure at "8.15 crores", (should be "crore") which I find here also phrased "crores". The rest of the figures are about the same, minus two slight discrepancies, 5.40 vs 5.50 and 6.6 vs 6.5, bestoftheyear.in vs bollywoodcat.com respectively. Indian film articles are prone to exaggerated or deflated financial figures depending on the submitter's agenda. There is no official outlet of film finances in India, all figures are estimates that reliable sources arrive at through their proprietary journalistic methods, which might include having relationships with theatre owners and getting figures that way, etc. So having figures this close to another source is questionable. There are a number of sources that are already considered reliable and unreliable in the context of Indian entertainment. (See WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources if you are interested.) I don't see how this site materially differs from any of the other small-time Indian news portals and I personally think it's not suitable for inclusion in articles as a reference. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
CONTEXT for this thread is found in these threads: [14] [15] -- Valjean ( talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Source: CounterPunch with source taken down, link to archive [16]. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CounterPunch
Author: Taken from end of the source, about the author section. Looks like contributor content.
Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached at frankmenetrez@yahoo.com.
Article: BLP Alan Dershowitz
Content: Diff with text:
In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for CounterPunch, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue".
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly good content and attributed properly. I suggest that anyone who does not know the history of this thread should read the two links I have provided for "CONTEXT" above. While bringing this here isn't technically forum shopping, we are dealing with this quite well on the talk page, and this just creates another venue for the OP to vent. Attempts to delete this long-standing content have been rebuffed. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been reading a number of Allan W. Eckert's books, in particular:
Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source (in the above three books)--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched. I am not aware of any glaring errors in his work. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The Frontiersmen is one of my favorite books. It is embellished, where history ends and fiction starts is hard to gauge. It seems accurate in the spirit of the thing, and big picture it gets events right the conflicts described did happen. The personal history of the main character are not so reliable. One could use it as a starting point to investigate other more reliable sources. If I read an article mostly sourced to Eckert I'd probably think it wasn't well sourced - in fact I recall seeing this very thing years ago but don't remember which article it was. -- Green C 13:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is some discussion of the recently-created Mototaka Nakamura article. A source came up published at the Carnot-Cournot Netwerk, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book.
Anyway, the specific article here appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.
The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!
Jlevi ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Source:
https://iupac.org/100/chemist/clarice-phelps-es/
Text:
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC; which, among other responsibilities, coordinates with laboratories and the public for the naming of new chemical elements), recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.
Other than the fact it is the IUPAC website, and in recognition of all the controversy and indeed fraud that has surrounded previous attempts to get this claim included in Wikipedia, what reason is there for anyone to really believe that this one single web page is meant to be seen as the definitive resolution to the question of what role Phelps has played in the history of element discovery? No other reliable independent sources state this first claim as an unqualified fact, all cast some level of doubt or uncertainty. I am unconvinced that something that wasn't even fact checked was meant to carry such significance, and believe it is more likely that either the text has been lazily accepted simply on the basis of who submitted it without being fact checked, like so many of the press releases around this issue have been, or worse, the fraud has extended to this website somehow. Which is why it would be helpful if it named names, because nobody is named here at all, not the nominator or anyone who might have fact checked their submission. Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a journal or book, but it doesn't even really meet the same standards as say, a news release. All of which shows the IUPAC couldn't possibly have meant it to have the same significance that Wikipedia editors apparently attached to it, first using it to recreate the article, then using this exact claim to promote her on the Wikipedia front page. Crash Dennis ( talk) 05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams.That's using "wrote the book" in the sense of "I've done the research", not "if you look at page 216 of my book you will see a verbatim statement of the following claim". He goes on to elaborate (it's an interesting bit of science history, and a glimpse back to when experimental teams were small; not the worst use of Twitter, actually). And his book does mention Phelps in the context of African-American researchers in the field. No deception, no fraud, no grounds to think the IUPAC were less than conscientious. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The attribution argument is totally irrelevant. I don't even need to look to know I won't find a single word of advice on Wikipedia that tells me to use a source I know is inaccurate for a specific claim, if I simply state their name and rest on their overall record of reliability. I would be expected to do what is required to remove unreliable information from Wikipedia, the same way I am expected to use my judgement to fix the more minor issue of known innacuracies, such as typos. If this argument held any water at all, if attribution was the only reason people here are deciding this claim for this purpose is reliable, they would be able to explain the contradiction in the early history of this very article. Kit Chapman is, as far as I know, still generally considered a reliable source. His specific claim about Phelps however, no longer appears on Wikipedia, because it has been found to be innacurate, or rather, unverifiable, which for Wikipedia, is assumed to be equivalent, much to the annoyance of the activists. But because he said it in a Tweet first, it's still out there, Wikipedia can still include it with attribution. Maybe some people did argue that it could still be included in the article if the text attributed Chapman as the source, but thankfully for the reputation of Wikipedia, they don't seem to have prevailed, and he has been removed as a source for that specific claim, because they know what he said about his book wasn't true. Critical thinking in action. In short, you do not knowingly mislead readers, or fall back on attribution when what you're supposed to be considering is reliability of the specific claim and the source in general. For the purposes of this noticebaord, thinking about whether or not this specific claim has undergone the fact checking you would assume to be applied by IUPAC, is part of that critical thinking process. I await arguments that speak to that issue, rather than trying to avoid it, including the circular argument that says it is reliable because it is the IUPAC. Crash Dennis ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked Crash Dennis for harassment and making implicit threats against an editor (on another page but involving this same issue). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
60 Minutes Australia ran a segment on 29 March, in which it states that the doctor Ai Fen has disappeared. This claim has been disputed by Fan Wenxin, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. He tweeted that he has been in contact with a 60 Minutes Australia producer, and that the producer promised to amend the program. The program aired without the corrections Fan Wenxin asked for. See this thread. Complicating this is the fact that Ai Fen continues to post on her social media, including pictures of herself, and that she participated over video in an online conference this Thursday ( [26]), after her supposed disappearance. The claim of her disappearance has been picked up by a number of tabloids, including The Daily Mail and the The New York Post (ironically, the New York Post put a picture of her posted to her social media on 1 April, after her supposed disappearance, at the top of the article). It's also been picked up by Radio Free Asia, which is funded by the US government and was founded by US intelligence.
I personally think this claim is quite doubtful, given that it's disputed by a WSJ reporter and given that Ai Fen has appeared publicly (at the online conference) since her supposed disappearance. I have to admit that this is a somewhat awkward situation, given that the claim made by 60 Minutes Australia appears to be false, but that the sorts of information that cast doubt on it come from the Twitter feed of another journalist and a video recorded from an online conference. Then again, 60 Minutes Australia doesn't provide any details on how they know that she's disappeared. My impression, in general, is that 60 Minutes Australia tends to be a bit sensationalized. I'd really like to see a reliable newspaper pick this story up before including it at Ai Fen, but I want to hear what others think about this situation. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are www.islamicstudies.info, jstor.org, politicalislam.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com reliable sources for the Wikipedia article on Kafir? Can we cite any of them as a reference? Which of them are unacceptable?— Souniel Yadav ( talk) 04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article on Melbourne's $6 billion West Gate Tunnel project has a section on its Business Case and another on its Environment Effects Statement (EES), a mandatory inquiry process prior to government approval. The article contains a summary of key points in the 10,000-page EES produced by a government body (the Western Distributor Authority) plus several submissions by local city councils. Its accuracy has not been challenged, but almost all of that material cites the official documents and submissions themselves (see here) as a PS rather than any secondary sources, of which there seem to be few. The tunnel project is the subject of hundreds of news stories, therefore supporting notability for the overall topic, but there is disagreement on the talk page about whether those sections on the EES and Business Case should be retained if they lack secondary sources. External guidance would be appreciated. BlackCab ( TALK) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a many website which was used as a reference for Italian football stats. However, i wanna ask , the site content itself probably reliable, but the site also flagged by anti-virus for a possible javascript related problem. So, how should treat this site? Matthew hk ( talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the verified Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland ( [27]) reliable for COVID-19 statistics (confirmed cases and deaths) attributed to the Ministry of Health? ( example). We are using their Twitter updates as a source to update case counts on {{ 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data}} or 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland. However, at least one user states that it cannot be used because they are published in a California-based server, using proprietary software, the feasibility of tampering by a third-party, etc. Here's the main discussion for context: Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland § Table New confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Poland by voivodeship. -- MarioGom ( talk) 12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it can be assumed that the information is valid.That is disputed. But that is not a practical problem. It is independent of using the MOH as a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology; a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable in the ordinary sense of the word. It has a Wikipedia-specific meaning. You also wrote
The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched, while what I wrote was
we can assume is ... that hidden editing of individual tweets is unlikely (I've never heard claims of Twitter doing that).Since we agree that tampering is unlikely, there's not much point debating whether it's an event with a 10^{-3} or 10^{-6} Bayesian probability. Boud ( talk) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of KPRM.[28]
PL - we have no serious evidence that the Ministry of Health data are "reliable"; what we do know is that they are regular and frequent and well-formatted, but published in California instead of in Poland[29]
psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception.That's a violation of WP:AGF: it seems that you are accusing me of having negative intent by pointing to uncontroversial facts and that I am psychologically abusing other Wikipedians. The uncertainties of obtaining knowledge may be psychologically uncomfortable to some people, but in Wikipedia, as in scientific study of the real world, these uncertainties are inevitable, and we have to live with them. Referring to context is the contrary of making people doubt their memory and perception. Being suspicious of knowledge managed by authoritarian organisations is healthy for encyclopedic and scientific knowledge. I do not say that the context is irrelevant in judging whether the MOH tweets qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. What I do say is that overall, keeping the context in mind, it is reasonable to let the MOH tweets have the Wikipedia status of a reliable source. You might also wish to withdraw your accusation that by talking about Twitter as a secretive authoritarian organisation that is in California, not in the EU, I have tried to psychologically abuse Wikipedians. Boud ( talk) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not rehash this argument here. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Axios.com has been used many times in Wikipedia. [30] However, it has only been discussed on RSN a little, once. [31] [32] I also brought it up here, but there was approximately zero discussion. My opinion is Axios.com should be avoided because the Axios_(website) uses Native_advertising, which is a deceptive practice, and Wikipedia should avoid being complicit in sending users to be subjected to that practice. Their About highlights "Smart Brevity®" with mission: "Axios gets you smarter, faster on what matters," and says (long) "Stories are too long or too boring." [33] As promised, their articles (really more like short blog posts) lack depth, and as a result provide little useful insight. (Aside: However, because of the site practices, the site causes my slower devices' CPUs to be overloaded, and my network traffic to stay high the entire time the site is viewed. So they fail on the "faster" promise.) -- Yae4 ( talk) 07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns. Pikachu6686 ( talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
>>
BEANS X2
t
13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)What if the fact was how many likes a video had? Like if you were stating how many likes a video had, it would be reliable, right? Pikachu6686 ( talk) 04:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a discussion about YouTube, I wonder if it's okay to say that you can add an external link in articles to a documentary video produced by a reliable source. For example, this Video on YouTube in Jambiya article.- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Again less of an RS than an undue issue. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
While creating the biography of living person I have found that there are few interviews on television with expert advice on the news. But the news become older and miss placed on Google. I found that it is on YouTube not on Google is the source called reliable? and those source are from best tv channel. Kashish pall ( talk) 14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Plant Based News is a promotional vegan website. I believe it fails WP:RS. The website described itself as "The very latest plant based vegan news from around the world" [35].
I removed it from the Vegan school meal article, but it is used on a few other articles as well. Thoughts? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Demographia [36] is a website run by one person, Wendell Cox and is used as the source of urban population of cities in List of largest cities among others.
I'm wondering if it is reliable, as Cox is an anti-public transit lobbyist and generally creates research articles that favour car-based development (like suburbs). In itself, this doesn't disqualify the source, however, in determining what constitutes an "urban area", there is criticism based largely on his unique definition of density. Articles such as "Why demographia is fundamentally wrong" have been published [37] online with a similar criticism for his unique definition of density. His work is not peer reviewed, and his definitions are his own creation. One specific example of what I would call bizarre: he lumps Providence, Rhode Island as part of Boston, Massachusetts. I would say that those are two difference cities, as would most people, I assume. He would say, I imagine, that because they are drivable in an hour they are the same city, because of his car-centric bias.
What do you think? I'm not an expert in this field, but the lack of peer review and single person determination of standards such as density is fishy to me. Mattximus ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Spiked is currently used in
268 articles
, the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant.
Media Bias/Fact Check
rates their fact checking record as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also
recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation. The source has been discussed a couple of times before
1
2. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)}}
No comment on Spiked ( spiked-online.com), but I need to point out that Media Bias/Fact Check ( RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable because it is self-published. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge Spiked's reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Several editors have been adding ridership data to Metro-North Railroad station articles (for example, East Norwalk station). The source is an internal document that was obtained with a FOIA request; it was never officially published, and the only publicly-available copy is hosted on a personal Google Drive account. I believe that this does not meet WP:PUBLISHED, and as an unpublished source with no official public availability it is not a reliable/verifiable source and should not be used in articles. Pinging @ Lent and Kew Gardens 613: who have been adding these over my objections. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
<!--117180 daily weekday arrivals, 116160 daily weekday departures, 48960 Saturday arrivals, 48470 Saturday departures, 36950 Sunday arrivals, 40700 Sunday departures. This gives us a yearly total of ((117180+116160)*5+(48960+48470)+(36950+40700))*52 = 69,722,560-->
@ Pi.1415926535 and Masem: I went back to the email I received and just realized that the files are also on an mta sub website here:
These are from an MTA sub-website, and unless you hacked into the website, there is no way to alter the documents. Given that this is hosted on the MTA website, is it okay to use this as a source? Thanks so much.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? Specifically, at Yuz Asaf an article by "Alexa Brand" which doesn't seem to have been cited [50] but can be downloaded, used for the statement "These views are considered to be blasphemous by the majority Sunni Islamic scholars and authorities who assert that Jesus is presently alive in Heaven." Her article is also source 110 at Prophets and messengers in Islam. It might be used elsewhere linked through Semantic scholar. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that this was used in around 77 articles lately (an example at Orthopoxvirus), and saw this question by Ancheta Wis when investigating. Since there never was an RSN discussion yet about it, I decided to create an entry. My initial impression is that it seems usable: the publication is not anonymous (Macallan Communications) and also has a team of qualified editors. More input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Is http://www.jadovno.com an RS? OyMosby ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I keep coming across the Tennessee Star and its sister papers, Michigan Star, Ohio Star, and Minnesota Sun. We cite more than a few times in our articles, and there's a lot of cause for concern here. For starters, they seem to have connections to, and reprint material from, a couple other sites that are already deprecated: the Daily Caller and Breitbart. This Politico article mentions that "The site doesn’t have the traditional separation of editorial and business interests". This Snopes investigation characterizes them as basically fake local sites that really just push content by ideologically aligned national sites with a lot of problems. Is this worth an RfC? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is
"The Firing of Bo Winegard: When Academic Freedom and Outrage Collide" from
Areo magazine (areomagazine.com) a reliable source for the
Bo Winegard article? After I added
in-text attribution, the source is currently being used to claim that "Christopher Ferguson of
Areo contended that the talk explicitly denounced racism and urged people to treat others as individuals, not tokens of some group or another."
—
Newslinger
talk 03:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"an opinion and analysis digital magazine focused on current affairs". The editor-in-chief, Helen Pluckrose, is best known for her involvement in the grievance studies affair, and none of the listed staff members have disclosed any academic credentials. Based on this, Areo does not appear to be "an academic online magazine, run by academics"; that kind of description is reserved for sites like The Conversation ( RSP entry), which features articles from actual subject-matter experts. Buidhe makes an apt comparison between Areo and Quillette ( RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The
Bo Winegard article also cites
"Evolution Working Group on hosting Bo Winegard: ‘It was our mistake’" from
The Crimson White for the claim "The talk, which addressed the possibility that human populations may have evolved different psychological tendencies, stirred a controversy at the University because of the perceived “racist implications” of the research."
Is this student newspaper article reliable for the claim? —
Newslinger
talk 04:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
"Professor fired from his tenure track job for wrongthink" from
The Post Millennial (thepostmillennial.com) is used in the
Bo Winegard article for the single word "wrongthink"
in the context of the claim "Some sources suggested that Winegard may have been fired for his [...] 'wrongthink'"
. Is this website a reliable source for this claim? —
Newslinger
talk 04:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
NY Daily News seems to have broken a story about nurses infected with COVID-19 working at several NYC hospitals due to insufficient paid sick leave policies. [52]
I believe we can cite the Daily News in 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City, although in my experience (and per WP:RSP) I know it has a less-than-stellar reputation. I generally would avoid the source for anything of political significance. On the other hand, I believe in this case the Daily News would not publish this local story without sufficient strong evidence; in fact several sources are identified in the article, some by name.
I believe this would be OK to include with attribution, e.g. "According to the NY Daily News reporting on 04/08/20, several nurses at different New York City hospitals stated that nursing staff were not allowed sufficient paid sick leave and that nurses presenting symptoms of coronavirus continued to work."
Comments? Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's been deleted here. [53] The actual source involved is this. LiveWire is part of The Wire network. I'd attribute it if I reinstated it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"space for young writers and creators", and contains both staff-written and contributed content. This particular piece was written by "LiveWire Staff", which might inherit the reliability of The Wire under WP:RSOPINION. Some articles from LiveWire are syndicated to The Wire, although this one is not. I am not certain whether the contributed articles on LiveWire are reliable, because I am unsure of the quality of the editorial process for contributed articles. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
As a crowd-sourced website, Seeking Alpha may be listed in WP:deprecated sources?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has been repeatedly adding WP:REFSPAM to a predatory journal to Integer complexity. More eyes on this would be welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know but this time its serious.
There is one (and they appear to be preparing for more) lawsuits over deliberate misinformation over the corona virus [ [54]]. Given this I think it is our duty to only use the best and most respected sources over this issue I would like to propose a (at least) temporary and partial ban on Fox as a source for any news relating to the Corona Virus. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We really need to work on following WP:MEDRS more. One should not use the popular press for medical content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I question the reliability of the Money Inc website. One of its articles is currently being used by a reference that cites it in the Mariah Carey article: "The level of her success is evident when you consider her estimated personal net worth of $300 million." There is currently a discussion on the talk page about this. This Money Inc website seems to be a collection of articles disguised as advertisements, but also contains a net worth section with figures for numerous public figures. However, there is never any information as to where the (what I assume are) freelance writers get the figures from. The website's "contact us" email address is "uncoached@gmail.com" I found that there is even a network of these websites all run by "Uncoached Corporation", including tvovermind.com. I found this twitter thread about how these websites might be infringing copyright as well. Perhaps these should be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? Heartfox ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
"Benjamin Smith is one of the managing editors of Moneyinc. He has a strong interest in sports, video games and acting his age (and he's not even in college yet!) but we love him over here because he's attentive, detailed, and knows how to make an article look great."Some of the articles (e.g. "Max Hazan: A Visionary Artist Building Exceptional Motorcycles") look like sponsored content without disclosure. If there is a pattern of sites from Uncoached Corporation being inappropriately cited in Wikipedia articles, this should be investigated on the spam blacklist noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 09:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
ive found this website being used for info on a bunch of pages but until being curious about the source of some of the info on pages and seeing "The Futon Critic" ive never heard of it before. ill put one example below but ive found it in a lot of places.
thank you. ToeFungii ( talk) 06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. why isnt it listed at link or am i just missing it? ToeFungii ( talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the following articles appear to cite Eupedia, some including trivia like the number of castles in Belgium, but a number concerning human genetics. Specifically, many citations from Eupedia appear to connect specific Haplogroups with specific ethnic groups. My question, prompted by a discussion here, is whether Eupedia is a reliable source or whether this sourcing should be removed. It's unclear to me whether the website is user-created content or not. -- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Tow reports, one from foreignaffairs and another for MEPC were used in the Ali Sayad Shirazi#Controversy. Are they reliable? Saff V. ( talk) 10:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
A clash and disagreement over strategy to be adopted in the Iran-Iraq war emerged between Shirazi and Mohsen Rezaee, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, in July 1986.When this rivalry became public, Ayatollah Khomeini met them in his residence on 19 July 1986 and urged them to "seek unity", telling them "You must endeavor, not to think in terms of being members of the Armed Forces or those of the Guards Corps or of the Basij forces. ... We must understand that if there were to be any disputes among you ... not only are we doomed here and now, but we also are guilty before God." It remains unclear why, Mohsen Rezaee, who had little military experience was in a technical dispute with a senior general.
Shirazi used harsh counterinsurgency methods against the rebellious Kurds. Many within the regular army did not like the idea of suppressing Iranians, even if they were minorities from the periphery. Some army personnel deserted from the front in the Sanandaj region during the battles with the Kurdish irregulars. 14 A senior army aviation officer was tried and executed in Isfahan for his refusal to participate in the war against the Kurdish insurgents; several others were tried and imprisoned.
At Media blackout#Contemporary I added sources for the following claim. (The claim was already in the article; I just added citations). Because this involves a BLP, I would like to ask that the citations I added be reviewed here so that I can remove any that don't meet our standards for reliability. Here is the claim and the citations:
References
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
generally unreliable for factual reporting. Linking to such a site in a BLP would be unadvisable, and I do not think that particular reference belongs in this spot either, since what we have is basically a slice of BLP under a topic heading. Even if all we are doing is noting that an opinion has been voiced, we are implicitly saying that the site is worth reading, and as it stands the text is not providing any cautions that claims of fact made in the source should be taken advisedly. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
...aaaand now we have an edit war at Media blackout. :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There is what looks more like a political argument than anything else at Media blackout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over allegations that Biden sexually abused someone. The text is: "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout. [9] [10] [11] However, this issue was covered in 2019 by The Union, a local Nevada paper, in which Tara Reade made a different claim. [12]"
References
So there are three sources for the term "media blackout". One, the Guardian, doesn't use the term, just says it's been largely ignored by the news. I can't see the Economist source. The third is the Libertarian Reason (magazine) which also doesn't use the term. WTF? Doug Weller talk 05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
See:
Samp4ngeles ( talk) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An argument at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust:_The_Poles_Under_German_Occupation,_1939-1944#Davies by User:François Robere questions the reliability of Hippocrene Books. The context is whether we can provide a (positive) assessment of the book from a foreword of the book. The author of the foreword is Norman Davies, a reputable historian. Removed content can be seen here. I argue that it should be sufficient to clearly attribute the quote to the author and state it comes from the book foreword. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions.Hippocrene Books - a publisher of general purpose prose, dictionaries and cooking books [69] - so it does not qualify as a "reputable publisher" for that purpose. If it was a university press like UPKY, which published the first edition, or a specialized imprint like Basic Books, it would've been another story. François Robere ( talk) 13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I found a short biography of Melanie Clegg, but I am not sure this qualifies her as a reliable source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)