Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 340 ← Archive 344 Archive 345 Archive 346 Archive 347 Archive 348 → Archive 350

Croatian source for for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil

The source: NAPHTHALAN – A NATURAL MEDICINAL PRODUCT Pero Vržogiæ, Želimir Ostrogoviæ, Anða Alajbeg Naftalan Special Hospital for Medical Rehabilitation, Ivaniæ Grad, Croatia

The URL: [ https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/131453 ] (starting on page 178)

Relavent policies: WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE

A quote: "Naphthalan has long been known for its medicinal properties and beneficial effect in inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and psoriatic dermatitis."

Note: Naphtalan is a crude oil known for its high naphthalene content.

The page where this citation is used: Naftalan oil

What the science says:

So, is this a reliable source for claims about the medical effects of bathing in high-naphthalene-content crude oil? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Kind of in that gray area between reliable and not reliable. The authors appear to be legitimate medical professionals and Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica the (somewhat pretentiously-named) journal of the Croatian Dermatovenerological Society. On the other hand, dermatovenerology is not a specialization that is widely-recognized in much of the world, being apparently mostly limited to the former Eastern Bloc. That isn't a red flag or disqualifying but it makes evaluating such a source more difficult. It appears to be concerned with the intersection between sexually-transmitted diseases and skin diseases, with a side order of other infectious diseases of the skin. The article concerns itself with treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic or atopic dermatitis, none of which are sexually-transmitted or even infectious. Publishing a journal article that is outside the core of your specialty or the specialty of the journal but related is sort of a yellow flag. What is a definite red flag is that the corresponding author is on the staff of a clinic set up specifically to use this wonderful treatment. Overall, I would say that it can't be used as a source for the statement as it currently is. It could be used as a source for a statement like: "Some medical professionals in the former Eastern Bloc prescribe topically-applied high-naphthalene oil for certain dermatological diseases." I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I just removed the source and the WP:FRINGE claims about bathing in crude oil being good for you. I am expecting some pushback regarding this edit:[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, a source that talks about topically-applied high-naphthalene oil might be appropriate at Naphthalene#Health effects but not in an article about bathing in the stuff. For that, I think the sources about the effects of inhaling Naphthalene are far more relevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you could keep the conversation about this topic less disjoint, and focus on the facts. I've already asked at least a few times on the talk page that we actually define the topic better. I've also presented numerous bits of context both in that article and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naftalan oil, and you're now insisting that because these people may have conflict of interest that we outright remove the entirety of the mentions of them, saying reasonably factual things, and that this actually improves this article? Notice that I explicitly did not copy their statements about medical effects - I only included a handful of statements saying briefly what kinds of things they did and what they say they observed. Let's actually work on a compromise wording, and *find* actual better scientific articles that help reader understanding, as opposed to dumpstering this because it *may* be construed to support tourist traps in Azerbaijan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Eggishorn, I agree, and this is why I explicitly did not cite that source to say that. I only cited their factoids that are less likely to be in dispute. I would like us to have a claim saying "there's this hospital and they raise red flags", but let's do that with an actual source saying so, as opposed to us just making editorial decisions. Yes, these people's claims about the carcinogenic nature of something could be obsolete. That's why the sentences explicitly say they did their research in the 1970s. Etc etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Grouping dermatology and venereology is not specific to the Eastern bloc. It is also common practice in Switzerland. Also, the language "medical professionals in the former Eastern Bloc" is not compatible with WP:WORLDVIEW: the Eastern bloc doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced with independent, fully autonomous countries with distinct cultures and characteristics. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the reliability of the source, though. JBchrch talk 11:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I am from one of those places and I took no issue with the mention of former Eastern Bloc - it is indeed completely within the realm of possibility that the authoritarian governments of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia during whose reign this has started - had indeed intentionally promoted something bad, and they should be scrutinized for it. The trouble is, if we don't even mention what they did and when they did it, and if we summarily remove the 2003 description of what they did just because it's possibly related to these actions, while at the same time keeping a few elements of the same story that were sourced to that description, merely sprinkled with citation-needed tags - we're not actually substantially improving the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic. I've posted more about this specific series of edits and the content dispute in general at Talk:Naftalan oil. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I have a problem with using a source that trumpets fringe science with the title "NAPHTHALAN – A NATURAL MEDICINAL PRODUCT" for non-biomedical claims such as "After the oil boom at the turn of the 20th century, the Baku naftalan started to be extracted in higher volumes, and exported to Germany". Could it possibly be the case that such basic facts are only found in a WP:PROMOTIONAL source by the staff of a clinic set up specifically to provide this particular alternative medicine? If so, I question whether the claims have enough WP:WEIGHT to be included at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a reason to tag those citations with {{better source needed}}, not remove them. I still think the proper way to address their "trumpeting" of their "fringe science" is to provide any citation to a more clearly reputable scientific source that addresses the topic. Surely there's something somewhere saying something relevant about a purported medical treatment that's been happening in Azerbaijan since 1933 and in Croatia since 1989? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
e/c You are wasting your time trying to pretend that bathing in crude oil with a very high Napthalene content is a reasonable thing to do. Wikipedia will never say such a thing, as no science supports it at all. Please stop. -Roxy . wooF 15:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Why would you say that I'm actually advocating this position, have you not read what I wrote so many times now? (Also, this is really a violation of WP:Casting aspersions - Guy just warned me of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so tread lightly.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: "Why would you say that I'm actually advocating this position [that bathing in crude oil with a very high Napthalene content is a reasonable thing to do]", "We're spending a lot of time in the article talking about the underlying chemical substance, instead of addressing the idea that it has positive medical effects."[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well yeah, that sentence is not me saying that it actually has them, it's me saying that there's an idea that it has them and this idea really should be addressed if we want to inform the readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would really "take issue" with the wording, as it is historically correct. However, we can certainly do better than choosing a terminology based on a geopolitical division that stopped existing 30 years ago (Croatia is now part of the EU) and on the assumption that central Europe is the geographical centre of the world. Regardless, I have now taken a more thorough look at the document, and I think Eggishorn made a mistake in evaluating the document: demato-venereology is not a specific medial specialty (i.e. the treatment of skin conditions caused by STIs), but the "grouping" under one umbrella of two medical practices: dermatology and venereology, which does not seem like a new or fringe nomenclature. So I don't really understand why they considered the article would be considered out-of-scope or out-of-specialty? See also the PDF of the journal on p. 3 Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica (ADC) aims to provide dermatologists with up-to-date information on all aspects of the diagnosis and management of skin and venereal diseases.. See also European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, not a fringe organization. JBchrch talk 15:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC) As the debate develops, I should note that I agree with Guy Macon's argument that the article has a promotional tone and is written by proponents (and beneficiaries) of this treatment and should therefore be given very little (if any) WP:WEIGHT. JBchrch talk 16:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Note also the angle that I'm advocating here - to describe the topic in terms of what's out there in real life. The core source of notability of this particular 'Naftalan oil' isn't the simple fact it contains naphthalene, rather it's that folks think it can help skin conditions and whatnot. If the encyclopedia just says "the thing inside the sludge probably causes cancer" that's actually less useful than saying "people tested whether the sludge helps skin conditions and the result was bad/meh/complicated/something else". (After all the news media coverage in the last few years about how eating meat causes cancer, I suspect there's a fair few readers that aren't automatically dissuaded by simple carcinogenicity.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The real life is that people appear to be advocating Napthalene baths as a good thing to do, healthwise, without evidence that it is a good thing to do. We would be crazy, in a reality based project such as this, to echo those claims, so we try not to, in all sorts of areas. That is POLICY. You wont find any reliable sources that support "Naptha Bathing" as a cure for say, "Yaws" or a reasonable treatment for anything else. -Roxy . wooF 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
See TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS From the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry[3]. And that's just regular crude oil. The fact that this particular oil has a high Naphthalene content, that people in Croatia are bathing in it, and that this necessarily involves breathing in high concentrations of Naphthalene fumes just makes it worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems so obvious to you guys, so why can't we simply find a reliable source that spells out the contradictory claim like "There is no evidence that this thing happening here is a good idea" or even "This thing here is not a good idea" and reference that? The CDC TPH profile says among other things "Very little is known about the toxicity of many TPH compounds. Until more information is available, information about health effects of TPH must be based on specific compounds or petroleum products that have been studied." and after listing a lot of toxic stuff, also "Other TPH compounds, such as some mineral oils, are not very toxic and are used in foods." Their description of naphthalene isn't entirely conclusive either. Which in turn leads to the obvious question - goodness knows what is actually in those specific "naftalan oil" baths? How much naphthalene or anything else is in there, really? This is also something I found curious in the 2003 article, it mentions how a number of substances are removed from "their" naftalan oil, but doesn't go into too much depth. There should be some sort of an explanation for at least some of this that is properly spelled out in sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that literally everybody but you agrees that there are no health benefits and serious health risks to bathing in crude oil. If anyone thinks that it is harmless or beneficial, now would be a good time to speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, I am absolutely not advocating the position that there are these benefits, or that there are no risks! I'm simply wary of a situation where we somehow have no proper sourcing for this after such a long time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: "I am absolutely not advocating the position that there are these benefits,", "We're spending a lot of time in the article talking about the underlying chemical substance, instead of addressing the idea that it has positive medical effects."[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Also (from the above discussion) "The CDC TPH profile says among other things 'Very little is known about the toxicity of many TPH compounds.'" (ignoring the fact that a lot is known about the toxicity of other compounds found in all crude oil) and "also 'Other TPH compounds, such as some mineral oils, are not very toxic and are used in foods.' " (just because some TPH compounds are not very toxic, that doesn't change the fact that other TPH compounds are known to be toxic.) I am not buying it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You're assuming a lot of deductive power from the readers. I still think it would be much better if we had something describing this behavior in no uncertain terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought i'd jump in here. While the majority of miracle cure claims about the oil are obvious BS, the ones relating to psoriasis and other skin-related issues (such as those discussed in the academic articles) might actually have some basis regarding the damage naphthalene has on cells. It would still be a stupid way to go about it, but it might have some sort of impact that could then be claimed to be helpful for the related conditions. SilverserenC 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that those sources discussed a topical treatment of Naphthalene. That tells us very little about taking a bath in crude oil containing Naphthalene and many other toxic components and breathing high concentrations of Naphthalene fumes along with other volatiles found in crude oil. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Law & Crime

Are there any thoughts on the reliability of Dan Abrams' Law & Crime? I don't think the source has been brought up at the Noticeboard yet, and here's their about page. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Law & Crime (previously known as LawNewz) has been brought up a few times: [5], [6], [7]. The discussions haven't been very thorough, but it seems most editors agree Law & Crime shouldn't be used for contentious BLP edits. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Doc. When searching, I must have used "Law and Crime" instead of "Law & Crime". Carelessness/lack of thoroughness on my part, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem. The search box isn't very user-friendly. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: - what you write about most editors is actually a sample size of three editors, from your links. GRuban says questionable in 2016. Newslinger said Marginally reliable in 2019. R2 said one of those borderline outlets in 2019. The others didn't give direct comments. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I meant "most editors" within the context of those three discussions. As far as I see it, no one has argued that Law & Crime is a RS, but you're more than welcome to make that case. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Dylanchords.com.

There has been some disagreement about using dylanchords.com as a reliable source. Firstly, it appears to be WP:UGC. Users can log in and post. Admittedly, all the posts appear to be from one person, who apparently has a "PhD in musicology", but it still appears to be a blog with someone posting what they think the chords are. I could start my own blog and post my own interpretation and be no less reliable.

I also imagine the same copyright restrictions would apply as linking to an unauthorised lyric page.

Discussion has taken place here. [8]. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The above information is incorrect. It is untrue that "users" can log in and post at Dylanchords (which falsely indicates that it's a social media-style site to which multiple people have access). The site's owner and primary author is Eyolf Ostrem who is responsible for publishing all of the tablature, which is what I'm linking to. There's also no need to put "PhD in musicology" in quotes. You can easily verify his credentials online. He's a well-respected musicologist and published author who established his site in the 1990s. It is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative sites of its kind. Finally, as I've pointed out in our conversations elsewhere, a site that uses blogging software does not necessarily make that site a blog. - Tbonefrank
Some examples of claimed problematic use would help; I personally would have no problem using the site, with attribution, for broad, simple statements about a song ("Shelter from the Storm" is in the key of E Major, for example), but much beyond that I would get antsy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I can agree that something like pointing out the key would be fine unless disputed. I can't see how using as an external link is any different to an unlicensed lyric provider, which is considered a copyright violation. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think Doctorhawkes is correct here. While a fair use argument could certainly be mounted, there's no indication that there is any dispensation from any copyright holder to the site. Therefore discretion is the better part of valor, and we should avoid using it. I'd say it's largely broadly reliable, but unfortunately in s copyright danger zone. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we possibly link to the page and have some information about what the disagreement is about? If the author is a published musicologist, I suspect we are ok for simple statements of fact. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And same for the copyright issue. If it's just saying what cord a song is in, I don't see how that could rise to being a copyright issue. But without examples/context we've got little to discuss. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, the site would have the the entire lyrics of the song. I've since found this "External links to copyright violations should also be avoided. Many archives and collections of lyrics on the Internet are not licensed and are likely to involve copyright violations." here at WP:LYRICS. An example is here: [9]. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with all the relevant policies, but I think if the copyright issue allows then there may be a case for Ostrem being OK under WP:SPS. His analysis of songs is discussed in Gezari, J., & Hartman, C. (2010). Dylan's covers. Southwest Review, 95(1), 152-166,348-349; and in Negus, K. (2010). Bob Dylan's phonographic imagination. Popular Music, 29(2), 213-227. (both available via ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library). His site is also mentioned (in passing) as a source consulted in works like Timothy Hampton's Bob Dylan's Poetics: How the Songs Work and Oliver Trager's Keys to the Rain: The Definitive Bob Dylan Encyclopedia, and he gets a shout-out in Michael Gray's The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Totally agree with this. The source is reliable, and while in real-world copyright terms, it may well be okay, I think it is not for Wikipedia purposes. Kind of a shame. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Request more involvement/input

There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains quotes from unreliable source directly or indirectly through citation of reliable authors, venue for discusssion [[10]], your input is welcome. Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria

Phyllida Barlow

I kind of know the answer to this, but here goes: is this source:

  • [intentionally left blank] (<––– you may want to highlight this ... )

sufficient for a statement at Phyllida Barlow that; "Barlow was awarded of art prizes: the Aachener Kunstpreis in Germany in 2012, Hepworth prize, the UK's first prize for sculpture in 2016 and Maria Anto & Elsa von Freytag-Lorignhoven Art Prize, first International Art Prize in Poland dedicated to woman artists in 2019."? I've already removed it twice, which is indisputably at least once too often. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

-You didn't give us an actual link or URL of the source, so unless you provide one, we can not comment. --Dial (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no source, so I've removed it. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Was this post made as some sort of joke? Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously. A good one, IMHO. -Roxy . wooF 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Not entirely; it was a serious question, to which however I already knew the answer. I couldn't act on it without further edit-warring, so brought it here. Please excuse me if I've tried your patience; thanks to Woodroar who took the point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
You got it. You already had the answer. HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A very shrewd form of canvassing, eh..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

UK Defence Journal

Is this a reliable reference? Their about us page describes the website as written by ordinary people in their free time, with contributors such as George Allison who has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval defence technology and cyber security matters. George also works part-time for NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde. FDW777 (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The opinion of notable contributors might carry weight but in general I don’t think theres much we can use a rather loosely organized group blog like UK Defence Journal for. This is one of those cases in which everything thats important enough to put on wikipedia will have been covered by a more reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I won't give it much weight especially since it states that its written by ordinary people during their free time. That part itself looses credibility. Just my 2 cents.HaughtonBrit (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

I found [this source] How reliable do y’all think it is?CycoMa (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability is context-dependent. Can you please provide the information that's requested in the instructions at the very top of this page (links, source, article, and content)? Thanks. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It’s for sex, male, female, and isogamy.CycoMa (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Content? ElKevbo (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a good source as far as it goes, but "A little learning is a dangerous thing", as the poet said; it is not safe to draw general conclusions from any one paper. Best is to use a wide range of review articles and recent textbooks to get an overview of the subject, i.e. preliminary study and reading is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Its an OK source. But if you have another to back it up, would give more weight to the content. HaughtonBrit (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

rulers.org

Hello, RSN,

I searched the archives and there isn't a definitive answer about whether rulers.org is considered a reliable source or not. I've found pages, like List of rulers of the Bariba state of Paraku and List of rulers of the Bariba state of Kandi, where this is the only source of information. The website information is extremely detailed but no sources are provided for its tens of thousands of entries, at least not for the few pages that I looked at. Liz Read! Talk! 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Comparing a random entry on that website to the corresponding Wikipedia article (Ma Fuxiang), I find it quite likely that the website's entries are actually derived from Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, if that's true, that's problematic for the articles I mentioned where rulers.org is credited as being the only source for the information in the articles. Much of the information the site contains is very obscure, they'd need an extensive reference library to track down these local leaders. It might be worth an email to the website owner. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Per startpage, it seems like a one-guy thing. Does this [11] or this [12] help at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Those links are interesting, I couldn't read the article at ResearchGate (you must need to be a member) and the second link is to a site that quotes a deleted Wikipedia article that we used to have about rulers.org. I'll go into the article that was deleted in both a 1st AFD and a 2nd AFD. Maybe it will have some information on the source of data for this site. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the deleted content, the only information that was not at the Wikipedia mirror site is that the owner's name is Benjamin Schemmel. But it continues to be identified as "a political database" without disclosure of where it gets its information. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

More involvement/scrutiny

There is a discussion about Amhara people NPOV which possibly contains unreliable sources, the venue for discusssion is [[13]], your input is much welcome! Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Starship Campaign

Wonder if we might get some experienced eyes on a question. Is the website, "The Starship Campaign", a WP:RS for purposes of verifying statements about various bits of prototype rockets being built, partially built, or final disposition.

Source: https://starshipcampaign.com/ The site seems to be a fan site of some person or persons who are interested in following the detail of SpaceX iterative development design and build process for their Starship very large (9-meter diameter) new launch vehicle at the SpaceX Starship build and test site in South Texas. The site provides a great deal of detail on every prototype rocket, from the time people first spot a new subassembly or tank part to the time a ship is built, through ground test, and if flight occurs, through test flights. I was unable to locate a "masthead" or other information about the person(s) operating the site, or learn about their editorial process.

Links to past discussions: I searched and have found no prior discussion of this site on WP:RSN.

Article: This website is currently (18 June 2021) cited six times on the article SpaceX Starship development history, in each case to support statements about a prototype ship that had a descriptor assigned, some subassembly weldments were spotted by site watchers, and then SpaceX apparently has decided not to continue to build/construct these large prototypes. I did not do a search to see if the site is used on other Wikipedia articles. Perhaps someone here has a good tool to do this?

Content: Six statements in that article are sourced with the starshipcampaign.com website. Three are in article prose, and three support the table statement "Scrapped" in a wiki-table.

SN17 scrapping is in progress[1][2], SN18 and SN19 may be cancelled,[3][4]

Name First spotted Rolled out[a] First static fire Maiden flight Decommissioned Construction site Status Flights
SN17 December 2020[5] — — — — Boca Chica, Texas Scrapped[1][2] 0
SN18 January 2021[6] Not yet Not yet Not yet Not yet Boca Chica, Texas Scrapped[3] 0
SN19 February 2021[7] Not yet Not yet Not yet Not yet Boca Chica, Texas Scrapped[4] 0

I have endeavored to follow the guideline for starting this discussion. If I've missed something, please let me know and I'll try to fix it. N2e (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That website says SN18 and SN19 were "Decomissioned" (sic!) in 2018. Prototype that were started in 2021. Nonsense years and spelling error - not a sign of a high quality source. --mfb (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The site is self contradictory and appears to be complete speculation and personal opinion. It's someone's fan blog at best and very clearly not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I initiated the discussion, by asking the question above, but haven't really provided my own view. So will state it explicitly: I believe the website https://starshipcampaign.com/ is a fan site, and the quality of the observations and info reported on it are quite uneven. I would concur with User:Canterbury Tail that is not a reliable source, and also with mfb's more measured view that it is not a high-quality source. It should thus not be used for sourcing details of various Starship prototype vehicles. N2e (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Bergin, Chris (6 June 2021). "OLS grows ahead of Super Heavy debut – Raptor test capacity increases". NASASpaceFlight. Retrieved 6 June 2021.
  2. ^ a b "SN17". The Starship Campaign. Retrieved 2021-05-31.
  3. ^ a b "SN18". The Starship Campaign. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
  4. ^ a b "SN19". The Starship Campaign. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
  5. ^ SpaceX Boca Chica: From Super Heavy to Starship SN17 - new vehicles point to exciting future. NASASpaceFlight (YouTube). 17 December 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  6. ^ SpaceX Boca Chica: Super Heavy BN2 Forward Dome Spotted - Damaged Raptor Loaded onto Raptor Van (YouTube). 19 January 2021. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
  7. ^ "Starship SN10 Static Fires twice – Super Heavy waiting in the wings". 25 February 2021.

Notes

  1. ^ moved from build site to launch site

RfC: PressTV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is being restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE because this RfC was not concluded and a close request lingers at WP:AN/RFC. It is very clear from the discussion below that the participants overwhelmingly feel that PressTV is not a reliable source. The only question is whether this discussion demonstrates an agreement to WP:DEPRECATE this as a source. While a clear preponderance of discussion participants favored Option 4, it is strength of argument and not polling that determines outcomes in the RfC process. Those proposing deprecation felt that PressTV is a government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including holocaust denial, and a host of other problematic content. The opposing arguments that it could be used with caution, for example, to convey the official position of the Iranian government, were not accepted by the majority. This discussion therefore results in a clear consensus to deprecate PressTV as a source on the English Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the reliability of PressTV?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

(t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PressTV)

If we deprecate all Iranian state channels, then isn't that basically banning all viewpoints of the Iranian government and its supporters from Wikipedia? The POV of the Iranian government need not be treated as fact, but should be given due consideration on Iran-related topics per WP:NPOV.VR talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, I saw your vote above to give option 1 to MEMRI. Does MEMRI not routinely publish conspiracy theories and extremist content? For example consider this article from MEMRI and this from Press TV.VR talk 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that MEMRI is just providing a translation and does not vouch for the truth value of everything it translates. Similarly, non-conspiracy outlets sometimes report on faleshoods and conspiracy theories without stating that they are factual. PressTV on the other hand is actually promoting a conspiracy theory as fact. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
buidhe I'm talking about how they would be used here. The current PressTV guideline requires attribution, and does not consider PressTV as a source of fact. How is maintaining this statusquo worse than allowing MEMRI as a source? Both allowing MEMRI as a source and allowing PressTV as a source with attribution have the exact same consequences for wikipedia.VR talk 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
buidhe MEMRI does produce original reporting, thats actually the vast majority of what they produce. Just go to their home page [14] and look. MEMRI and PressTV are extremely similar in their unreliability, not so much in most other ways. They are in the same class of source, I consider them both deprecation worthy for publishing disinformation with few upsides to their use. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and holocaust denial 1 2 3 recently claiming that “Zionist elements developed a deadlier strain of coronavirus against Iran" 4 Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the arguments about Press TV representing the sole mouthpiece of the Iranian govt are convincing. Russia has TASS, which in the 2019 RfC was found to be usable as as source of the Russian govt's views. Iran has other news agencies including Islamic Republic News Agency, AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA), Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency and Iran Press some of which have also recieved similar criticsm over antisemtism like Press TV, like Mehr News Agency. Ultimately, we shouldn't be citing a source that publishes stories like Two-thirds of UK adults dispute number of Holocaust victims: Study when there are less odious alternatives. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: Then you need to take a look at this survey by Holocaust Memorial Day (UK). Just to tell you how this appeared. --Mhhossein talk 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The Press TV report states:

More than 65 percent of adults in Britain believe that the Holocaust, the alleged genocide of Jews during the Second World War, has not taken place in the way that historians claim, a new study shows

While the actual text of the study states:

It shows that 64% of people polled either do not know how many Jews were murdered or grossly underestimate the number

Press TV's wording is a gross distortion of what the study was actually says, some other quotes from the article:

According to some historians, around six million Europeans were killed by the Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.

Many in the UK and other European countries have constantly rejected claims that around two-thirds of European Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany during the Second World War, saying Holocaust was a historic fabrication which helped Israel occupy Palestine under the banner of protection of Jews.

Under immense pressure from Israel and other Semitist lobbies, many European governments have outlawed the denial of holocaust and continue to impose fines and prison sentences on those denying the incident.

The (implicit) suggestion of these quotes is that there is good reason to doubt the Holocaust, referring to it as an "alleged genocde" and stating that "some historians" have claimed it had happened, when the concensus among mainstream historians is unanimous, and the claim that this recognition is pushed by Zionist lobbies is an antisemitic canard. This article from 2008 states:

The West punishes people for their scientific research on Holocaust but the same western countries allow insults to prophets and religious beliefs

Press TV was banned in the UK in 2012 (and remains so) after airing forced confessions of journalist Maziar Bahari. Given that Iran has one of the world's lowest press freedoms, like China, essentially all media outlets from Iran are quasi-official government mouthpieces anyway. But like China, I would expect that that this would vary between outlets, for example Xinhua and the People's Daily closely represent the government line, but Global Times is more jingoistic than the official government position, even though it is ultimately controlled by the PRC. Can you name me something especially valuable on Press TV that isn't in other Iranian news agencies or newspapers like the Tehran Times? We should never be citing something that calls the Holocaust an "alleged genocide", end of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Press TV is certainly not reliable on issues relating to antisemiitism. But it is a major source for the viewpoint of many in Iran, including the government. It should be used with attribution and only on articles related to Iran and the region.VR talk 00:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 I'd rather cite the Daily Mail. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. This is already on WP:RS/P, I think. This is Iranian state propaganda that promotes conspiracy theories and antisemitism; I don't see any need for it. If the views of the Iranian government are necessary in an article, that can be reflected using other, independent sources. Neutralitytalk 00:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 - It's state propaganda, no different than RT, KCNA, OANN, etc. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4. Can't think of legit uses. Readers of Wikipedia are meant to have some confidence in the quality of underlying sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Alexbrn: there is a legit use: to be used, with proper attribution, to present the view of the Iranian government respecting the guidelines in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.VR talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
No. If such a view was due it would be mentioned in a good secondary sources which should then be used. By voting "4" I am voting for deprecation. There may be some theoretical edge-cases where the source can be used, but as I say, I can't think of one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4, This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 3 based on the Consensus we reached few years ago: The consensus is, as far as I can ascertain it, the traditional Wikipedia fudge. There are precedents for this in treatment of other government-controlled news organisations and other news sources with a long history of ideological bias (e.g RT, the Daily Mail). In general they are sources to be treated with caution and the default should be not to include: they may be acceptable, subject to prior consensus, for uncontroversial facts or as a reflection of the views of the government in question, but are rarely, if ever, appropriate for contentious claims where the ideology of the source may be in conflict with neutrality. It's especially important where the subject is a living person. It is wiser, overall, to avoid using these sources: genuinely significant information will generally be available from a less biased source and claims which are uncorroborated - especially if they have failed active attempts at corroboration - should be clearly identified by attribution and certainly not treated as fact. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [15]--Seyyed(t-c) 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sa.vakilian: While that conclusion may be valid at the time, in the intervening years both examples quoted - RT and the Daily Mail - have both been deprecated and should not be used for such purposes by common agreement. PressTV should be no different. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 in bold, underlined, italic and ideally in a large font. Holocaust denialism is a bit of a red flag. Guy (help!) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
JzG No one is saying that it should be used for statements of fact. But PressTV can be used, when properly attributed, for Iran related topics to present the view of the Iranian government.VR talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, no, I don't think so. Let's link the government press release directly, not a cesspit that repeats it possibly unmodified. Guy (help!) 22:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Jzg I am not following you here. Are you saying that Iranian government press releases are OK sources but Iranian state TV is not an OK source? That sounds like a contradiction.VR talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: taking many of the "4" votes to their natural conclusions, we will end up banning most viewpoints coming out of Iran (a country of 80 million people). This is because all media in Iran is state-regulated to some degree, and the degree of that interference can change quickly. In the end, current Iranian affairs will solely be presented through sources outside of Iran, some of whom are openly hostile to its people and their culture (e.g. 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy). This will have negative implications for both WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR talk 21:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Iran has banned most viewpoints comming out of Iran, wikipedia is just acknowledging that. Adding a theoctratic regimes propaganda doesn't do anything for neutraility or systemic bias.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 Once an organization starts dabbling in holocaust denial you really can't trust much of anything they say. What ever small gain there may be from using their content for direct comments from the Iranian government, doesn't make up for the damage of sending users to an antisemetic website.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3: The source can be used with proper attributions for Iran related topics. There's a recent consensus over its usage for expressing the Iranian voice. Moreover, deprecating this major Iranian state channels clearly goes in line with promoting Systemic bias. I still see no valid argument as to why this source should not be used with attribution for Iran related topics. --Mhhossein talk 14:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I oppose blacklisting major newsorgs on principle, even unreputable ones like PressTV. Blacklisting newsorgs means that you lose major perspectives that wouldn't otherwise be represented. PressTV is the only English-language neworg based in Iran, so blacklisting it means you lose the whole Iranian perspective.
For example, here is an interview with international human rights law expert Alfred de Zayas. De Zayas isn't a nobody - he's like one of the top 10 experts in the world. But he is a vocal critic of US involvement in Venezuela, Bolivia, Yemen (by proxy) and other places so he is not interviewed very often on American news networks. So if you want to add his opinions about, say Yemen, to his own Wikipedia article you have to source it from PressTV (or Russia Today or some equally "shady" newsorg). Except, you can't! PressTV is #4 and verboten so even though you have both the video and the quotes from the interview in front of you, you are forbidden from adding it to Wikipedia. Same for Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza who also isn't welcome in American TV. ImTheIP (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing deprecation and blacklisting. Using an interview of de Zayas with PressTV would still be possible if there is a local consensus for that particular citation, per WP:DEPS. Imo it would be equivalent to citing de Zayas' blog, assuming he has one, according to WP:SPS. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Deprecation pretty effectively discourages the use of the source and there is also an automatic revert bot for ip users. Yes, you can argue for an exception if you have read up on all the latest WP:RULES and if you dare to argue why a link to an antisemitic conspiracy site is warranted (with the risk of being sanctioned if your argument doesn't hold up). Most people won't bother or will just add whatever they wanted to add without sourcing it which is even worse.ImTheIP (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, yes, it does. And given that PressTV has a history of holocaust denial, conspiracy mongering and bullshit, that is exactly how it should be handled: with a strong presumption against use, subject to exception by local consensus. That's option 4, by the way. Guy (help!) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Propaganda mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought you have something to add based on the RS policy. But wait, you're exactly asking to censor the Iranian government POV. I think ImTheIP is better than me at explaining this.--Mhhossein talk 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: for Holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. We should also be weary of other similar state propaganda agencies; they should not have a place in Wikipedia. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Unreliable for areas with demonstrated bias by the Iranian government e.g. fringe views on the Holocaust, but reliable in general non-political matters or for views of the Iranian government and their allies. Examples of their recent articles [16][17][18] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Press TV is a state sponsored media outlet of the Iranian government. In my opinion, it publishes false and fabricated information. It is a highly biased pro-Iranian news outlet. I would advise to avoid using it in almost every possible case; however, there might arise a situation where an editor who specializes in the field of Iranian politics and government affairs will feel that its usage is justified. An example of possible usage would be reporting that the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers met in Moscow in July to discuss the ongoing Iran nuclear deal. However, it is preferred that this foreign minister meeting were reported using a generally reliable source. If Press TV is used, it should be attributed. (as an aside: I cannot support deprecation, option 4, because it is equivalent to a ban) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Holocaust denial gives an idea of the type of false propaganda outlets like Press TV spreads. I love Iranians and they have an incredible history, but if we introduce the Iranian regime's practices into Wikipedia (ie. using sources like Press TV), we are lending to an agenda that has no problems lying and spreading fake news. I acknowledge that our system in the West is by no means perfect, but here our governments don't openly execute journalists for their ideas. There is a MAJOR difference. Ypatch (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 Though it's a state sponsored outlet but has some good coverage of the region. It can be used as reliable source other than of Iranian government stances where it should be attributed to government. USaamo (t@lk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 3 Blacklisting of that or other similar Iranian official media outlets does not make sense originally, because they cover Iranian domestic news which are absence in non-Iranian media outlets. Benyamin (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3, allow with attribution as a source for Iranian state perspectives (status quo) PressTV is a very biased source. However, its perspective is crucial to all Iran-related articles as the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and its level of detail is rarely met in non-Persian-language sources. Consider this PressTV report today. Its level of details about Khamenei's speech yesterday, with a direct video of Khamenei's address for cross-reference and checking by any Persian speaker, is simply not matched by the more generally reliable sources (see corresponding AJ English, Reuters article). For example, from AJ we only know:

Khamenei said, "But the smart Iranian has made the best use of this attack, this animosity and benefited ... by using sanctions as a means to increase national self-reliance."

From PressTV we know:

Ayatollah Khamenei said the Iranian people are smart and have taken advantage of the enemy’s sanctions, gaining achievements against the enemy’s will.

He went on to say that the US’ secondary sanctions led the Iranian scientists and producers to indigenize what the country could not provide because of Washington’s bans.

He pointed to the production of the advanced homegrown jet fighter Kowsar, the spare parts produced inside the country, the establishment of thousands of knowledge-based companies, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery built by the IRGC, and the major energy projects in southern and Western Iran as examples of the Islamic Republic’s achievements under the sanctions.

“Had they sold us a jet aircraft, we would not have produced the jet trainer Kowsar inside the country,” he said.

“They [enemies] have admitted that Iran managed to manufacture so many defensive products at the time of sanctions.”

Same for another of today's articles, "Iran's largest industrial livestock farm opens near Tehran". I see absolutely no reason that PressTV would fabricate anything about this, and as far as I have found this is the only English-language source that talks about this sheep farm at Fashafoyeh. Deprecating PressTV at large is a disservice.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 Propaganda mouthpieces, such as this one, do not provide "coverage". They are not designed to provide facts, they are designed to influence. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 and 3 - this is the state press of the Iranian government. As such, sometimes the reporting will be accurate, sometimes it won't be, but it is a reliable source for the views of the Iranian establishment. Quite obviously, then, it should be used with attribution. Statements that it should be deprecated because it includes propaganda are worthless from our perspective, as all national media include propaganda. Deprecation on this principle would cause us to shut out viewpoints of major governments and peoples who are not politically aligned with the US or UK, doing a disservice to our readers and contravening Wikipedia's status as an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I think if an article relied entirely on Press TV or similar coverage we would need to either find better sources or think about deleting it. However the point has been made above that the Iranian government has views and positions on things that we can use Press TV to verify. If Holocaust denial is the issue that concerns people then perhaps we ought to refuse to give any space to any mention of Iranian government views, since they are the source of Holocaust denial in Iran; the editorial decisions of an individual channel are secondary. Also Press TV makes a habit of interviewing Western politicians from outside the mainstream, and these interviewees sometimes make comments in Press TV interviews that they have not made elsewhere. The verifiability of those comments depends on our being able to source them to the relevant interview. If we just source to what someone else claims the person said in a Press TV interview, we’ll go wrong again. Finally, most national news in most countries is not entirely independent and reliable. All public media in China deny or ignore large-scale punishments and incarceration in Xinjiang. Most Japanese media deny or downplay the Shanghai Massacres. I doubt you would get much from sources close to the Serbian government on the topic of Srebrenica that wasn’t bluster, deflection and conspiracy theory. Does a single Russian news outlet cover the war in the Ukraine honestly? If we start knocking off sources close to unpleasant regimes or sources that share in their country’s blind spots we will be left with ‘the sum of all human knowledge according to the New York Times’ and that’s not really viable. We have to exercise our judgement in using sources, and look for the most reliable ones we can, but we have to work with what’s out there. Even KCNA can tell us what Pyonyang claims/thinks, even if it is pretty much useless for anything else. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 as an infamous disinformation outlet. There is almost no upside to keeping them around, any reporting we could use would still be of their regular low quality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (or Option 4 as alternative), per Guest2625. Most people in this RFC have cited PressTV's Holocaust denial as the basis for depreciating the source; while I agree that it is a significant red flag, I think PressTV is usable for the Iranian government's viewpoints only (hence it should not be deprecated); the source should be used with in-text attribution (or attributed to the Iranian government) if it is used in any Wikipedia article. For everything else that PressTV reports, I would think that other (much better) sources should be available to cite instead; if PressTV is the sole available source, its probably undue. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 and 3 Generally, I presume that PressTV is an appropriate source for the users to use it particularly in the news which are related to Iran --for example, concerning Iranian government's viewpoints--. On the other hand, it seems to be useful/trustworthy in regards to the Middle-East issues, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4. State media famous for disinformation. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - Holocaust denial should be enough, let alone the disinformation. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As an editor that has extensively covered the Syrian Civil War, I'd like to give my two cents. Finding non-biased sources that cover that conflict's more intricate details is nigh on impossible. Practically all publications that cover the war in any significant detail are either pro-government or pro-opposition. PressTV falls squarely in the first category, with a notable pro-Iranian twist. Though biased, publications like these are often used in the SCW community in addition to some other source with the opposite bias covering the same subject matter, in order to avoid bias and to provide additional information in terms of Iranian deals or troop deployments. For that reason, I'd suggest an Option 2/3 to allow PressTV only when used either with attribution for a claim made by Iranian or pro-Iranian groups or when used in addition to another source with an opposing editorial viewpoint. Option 4 when reffering to Jews, Israel, the Holocaust or other very contentious topics. Goodposts (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Clear as daylight state propaganda by the IRI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Wikipedia is not an outlet for state media produced by the IRI, a dictatorial regime. Similar propaganda agencies funded/created by states who do not acknowledge the concept of "freedom of press" should likewise be banned from Wikipedia. If people need to present the viewpoint of the Iranian regime more appropriate sources can be chosen. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for being an outlet controlled by a dictatorship. Then there is the holocaust denial [19], not to mention the "interview" with Maziar Bahari where he had been told he could face the death penalty if he didn't say the right things [20]. All of that said, I think the fact that they are an outlet controlled by a dictatorship should be sufficient reason, without any need for the rest. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I agree with JaventheAldericky. While there are obvious examples of misstatements and disinformation, there may be certain situations where PressTV's content does accurately describe the viewpoint of the Iranian government, and could be cited. Anything included on WP from the source should be scrutinized thoroughly on a case by case basis. Comatmebro (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4, seeing as this is neither independent nor reliable. Essentially a propaganda outlet, which even promotes holocaust denial among other things. If there is any significant views of the Iranian government that might need to be mentioned in an article then other reliable sources would cover it. If there is such a need to cite it in an article then it can be whitelisted, leaving it without any sort of filter just leads to excess work in constantly monitoring its usage. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: the holocaust denial puts it squarely in the class of sources that cannot be trusted to provide accurate information. The flaw in the argument that "it might be accurate for the Iranian government's viewpoint" is that the only way we would know it was accurate is if that same viewpoint were reported in a different, reliable source. In which case we still don't need PressTV as we have the different, reliable source to use. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    RexxS, would the holocaust denial not just put it option 2 where the additional consideration is that it can't be used for articles about the holocaust? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Emir of Wikipedia: Absolutely not. A source which denies the holocaust is patently peddling false information of the most extreme kind. Once we have found that a source habitually engages in that activity, it cannot be trusted for its views on any topic. Your argument is that we should trust that liars are telling the truth, except for when they have been found to be lying. The word "gullible" was invented to cover those circumstances. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4: May I remind that just a few years ago Iranian State Press TV’s license was revoked in United Kingdom.[1][2]. Later google blocked press TV’s accounts on You tube[3] As the loudspeaker of the Iranian Government, Press TV ‘s news and programs are Iran’s POV, that is why its license was revoked in UK[4]. Option 4 will keep Wikipedia safer. Bahar1397 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To the contrary, Iran’s government POV is something we need—certainly, on Iran-related topics, it matters much more than the Western POV—and censuring it on Wikipedia makes Wikipedia that much more dangerous as a putatively neutral and inclusive source of information. Whether PressTV is the best way to discuss Iran’s POV is up for dispute, but IMO this line of thinking—that the perspective of one side (and one side with enduring popular appeal in Iran and Shi’a populations throughout the Middle East!) is “dangerous” and must be disregarded out of hand—has problematic implications. It’s ultimately no different than the stated rationale for the Great Firewall.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • status quo (option 3) I don't think it should be used generally, but as the English language state-sponsored media of Iran, it is frequently cited by other news organizations and deprecating it as a source on Wikipedia would harm building NPOV in many articles. Enough systemic bias already exists on Wikipedia. If it is used, the content should (almost) always be attributed in text. Pahlevun (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 4' Completely unreliable source who switches sides depending on the Iranian propaganda. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PressTV)

Comment and Question Apparently, those who have participated in this RFC, took position based on their political and ideological tendencies and at least 5 of those who have considered it as totally unreliable referred to antisemitic and holocaust denial contents. Even if this allegation is true, is there any policy or guideline which says antisemitic and holocaust denial contents will lead to total unreliability of a source?!--Seyyed(t-c) 07:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PressTV's reliability as a source seems to have been discussed before but seems not to have been entered on the Perennial Sources board. Should such a major state broadcaster be omitted from scrutiny? There are citations on such pages as State of Palestine, for example, where such referencing might be considered contentious. Our article on them is not shy of denouncing them in various ways, so shouldn't there be a consensus attempted? GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Press TV indeed has an entry on RSP, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Press TV Press TV has been cited roughly 2,000 times combining presstv.com HTTPS links HTTP links and presstv.ir HTTPS links HTTP links. I was thinking about calling a deprecation RfC considering their repeated promotion of Holocaust denial, but you beat me to the punch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh! So there is! My ctrl+F didn't find it because I was writing "PressTV" without the space. And yes, that's the way I would like it to go; I don't see how they're better than Sputnik. GPinkerton (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think sources should be deprecated unless in very special circumstances. Furthermore, I don't think the consensuses on this page really represent anything more than the opinions of those who like to vote a lot. It appears to me that a lot of people vote based on their opinion of the source rather than whether the source is reliable or not. I think people should use their own judgement rather than these kind of blanket bans. ImTheIP (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand this for some sources, but Press TV promotes and advocates for conspiracy theories, which makes it akin to something like Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Can't people just exercise caution? A while ago I wanted to use an article from Russia Today as a source and the stupid filter stopped me. In that case, I knew the source was correct because other news sites articles said the same thing but the RT one was more to the point. I don't see the problem of linking to Breitbart either if it is for uncontroversial stuff.ImTheIP (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Who decides what is uncontroversial? GPinkerton (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, if other sources say the same thing, use other sources. If they don't, well, it's probably not true. Guy (help!) 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I don't think editors should have to use other sources. If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate. Blanket ban of sources are wrong because it cuts off minority perspectives. For example, if a famous Iranian general wrote an op-ed in PressTV, we wouldn't be able to cite it unless that op-ed was republished in other sources. That is not fair. ImTheIP (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
"If the fact is corroborated by multiple sources, editors should be free (within reason) to choose the source they think is most appropriate". You said it - "within reason".
If you deliberately use an unreliable source such as RT where alternative reliable sources are known to be available, all you're doing is creating work for whoever later comes along, finds the unreliable source, and has to redo the research to replace it. That puts it well outside the bounds of "within reason". Kahastok talk 22:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has to clean Wikipedia of links to RT. ImTheIP (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
ImTheIP, but most Wikipedians do, because RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
JzG Iranian viewpoints are often not presented in other sources, or those sources might distort Iranian viewpoints. This doesn't just apply to Iranian politics, but they could simply misrepresent what's happening inside Iran. We already have the 2006 Iranian sumptuary law controversy and I can't tell you the amount of times I have seen Fox News openly attack the culture and religion of the Iranian people.VR talk 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Like it or not, WP is supposed to reflect the major viewpoints represented in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Iranian media being conspiratorial and fake news does reduce the number of reliable sources which reflect Iranian perspectives. Maybe they could clean up their act. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, we don't reduce our standards to include shitty sources because they are the only ones that repeat what shitty people say. Guy (help!) 22:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a reasonable assumption that the views of the Iranian government also reflect the views of a substantial portion of the people of Iran (although how many Iranians agree with their government is controversial, see this example). So saying "shitty people" is really uncalled for. Consider what implications your comment has for WP:Systemic bias.VR talk 02:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent Iran is a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship; there is absolutely no reason to assume any such thing. Just the opposite, in fact. GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, so there is a Canadian National Post article/op-ed that is filled with bunk and within days other sources like the AP, Reuters, AFP, and an Israeli at the National Post show it too be bunk. If anything your example shows we don't need PressTV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the legitimacy of this approach: Apparently, the community has changed its position on WP:UNDUE and WP:Biased, so that the media which runs or supports by nonliberal-democratic states are considered as unreliable sources even for representation of the position of those states. First, Russia Today[21], now Press TV and later many Chinese as well as Arab media. So this trend will undermine the current explicit terms of WP:NPOV and it needs a broader consensus. I mean the community should not follow an approach which clearly contradicts with the main policy, unless after revision of that policy.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so why should there be any reliance placed on sources that are not only censored, but openly embrace chanting out the party line? If we need to take a government's word for something, or represent their views, we can quote their own websites and press releases. There's no need to apply the distorting lens of that state's pet media organizations. GPinkerton (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you have not got the point and your argumentation is absurd. From the beginning, Wikipedia has declared that it does not believe in an orthodox or main stream narration, thus it has chosen to narrate all of the viewpoints, even the viewpoints of Fascists. Thus if we want to write a neutral article about Benito Mussolini, we should cover his own viewpoint as well, no matter how Fascist he would be. In addition, your argumentation is based on self-contradiction. If wikipedia policy is WP:NOTCENSORED, then it should not censor anything.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with GPinkerton here. If we need to quote the Iranian regime for their POV, we can go directly to their websites rather than having to weed out all the rubbish that these state-sponsored publicity outlets publish. I've come across so much of this recently and it's been very time consuming going through endless RfCs and talk page discussions trying to show what we already know about these outlets. The problem is that the Iranian regime's disinformation has spread beyond Iranian media:

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A good strategy, so take this:
Hahaha...--Mhhossein talk 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mhhossein: Funny, using Scottish Nationalist paper to attack the BBC (!) and then using a Labour Party blog to ... try to deflect criticism of the Labour Party and harp on their eternal victimhood and then using an oil company's denials to ... prove the unreliability of the BBC ...? What's next, using PressTV to attack the legitimacy of Israel? Using RT to say how wonderful Putin is? Please ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Be serious please. I tried to show how absurd the editor's argument is. You can discredit The Guardian, France 24, Times of Israel and etc using your own labels. Who cares? --Mhhossein talk 05:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The first link involves a mistaken report for which there was a settlement and an acknowledgment. It is the conduct that makes a source reliable since all sources are wrong from time to time. The second was an acknowledgment that a host said "Scottish spending" when he should have said "Scottish and UK spending in Scotland," which they corrected promptly. Third, petroleum extractor claims reporting on their extracting is wrong, with no evidence it is wrong.???? Fourth, personal blog, who cares. Fifth, politician claims errors, with no evidence there are errors. So???. You compare this to holocaust denial and aggressive antisemetism?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...and who asked to use PressTV for holocaust denial? Most of the users are puzzled here and even don't care what the discussion is. --Mhhossein talk 07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Iran's Press TV loses UK licence
  2. ^ Iran's Press TV loses UK licence
  3. ^ Google Cuts YouTube Access For Iran's Press TV And Hispan TV 'Without Any Warning']
  4. ^ The Iranian propaganda machine faces the specter of closure
The discussion above 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.

Information and sources ok? Can the information be used in Aegean dispute?

Hello. I have added [22] to the article Aegean dispute the following information: 

On 17 June 2020, classified documents of the Turkish Armed Forces were leaked to the public amid an ongoing Turkish court's investigation on the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt. These official reports revealed that Turkey had developed a plan to invade 131 of the Greek islands. Experts do not believe any tensions and conflicts between the two countries over their disputes will result in military actions. However, according to Albawaba, it is unlikely that Greece would heel to Turkey's calls to demilitarize the islands in light of the newly leaked reports, as that would not be safe. On 20 March 2021, more documents were revealed by the Stockholm-based Nordic Monitor.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ Abdullah Bozkurt (22 June 2020). "Turkey has a plan for the invasion of Greece, secret documents reveal". Nordic Monitor. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  2. ^ "Leaked: Turkey Developed Plan to Invade Greece and Armenia". albawaba. 17 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  3. ^ "Turkey drew up plans to invade Greece and Armenia - secret documents". The Jerusalem Post. 16 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  4. ^ "Αποκάλυψη: Η Τουρκία διαθέτει σχέδιο εισβολής στην Ελλάδα τουλάχιστον από το 2014". Capital.gr. 15 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  5. ^ "Απόρρητα τουρκικά σχέδια για εισβολή σε 131 νησίδες και βραχονησίδες στο Αιγαίο". Ta Nea. 20 March 2021. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  6. ^ Abdullah Bozkurt (20 March 2021). "Turkey planned to invade 131 Aegean islands, islets, formations that were considered disputed". Nordic Monitor. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
  7. ^ "Turkey had plan to take over 131 Aegean islands, formations, report says". Kathimerini. 20 March 2021. Retrieved 13 June 2021.

However even though the sources have been provided, my edits have been reverted by another editor as "rv tendentious nonsense": [23]. Normally, I would discuss the matter in the article's talk page, however, considering that the particular editor who reverted my additions often had shown a valuable insight on the Aegean affairs which is easy to miss if one doesn't learn to read past their chronic WP:CIVILITY problems, and considering the lack of more healthy third-party input in the article's talk page, I am tentative to open another talk page section and argue with them over it - at least not before getting a third opinion about the sources and making sure they can be used.

Also I would like to note that the sources are in English language, but the documents are in Turkish, so I would also appreciate some input about the documents as well. I do not know to understand/read Turkish myself, but if any participants here can, then even better. (If that is not the case, then perhaps fellow editors who are capable of reading Turkish, such as respected fellow editors @Visnelma: and @Buidhe: who actively participated in Turkish topic areas can provide some insight on the matter?) My thanks to everyone in advance! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident failed to notify me of this discussion – given that it was I who reverted them, they clearly should have.
These claims are sourced to "Nordic Monitor" [24], a single-purpose web outlet run by some exiled Turkish opposition journalists associated with the Gülen movement. The sole purpose of this website is to criticize the Turkish government – which is fine, of course, but I'd argue it's not a reliable source. Some other newspapers, mostly Greek ones, have picked up this report, mostly just uncritically reprinting it.
The report is based on a leaked presentation from a Turkish military event, which indicates Turkey has is some kind of military planning regarding possible conflict scenarios with Greece, just as it has other contingency plans regarding possible conflicts with other neighbors. The report cites one page from that presentation that contains a list of "islands of questionable sovereignty", evidently implying they might be focal points of potential military crises (just as Imia/Kardak was 25 years ago). The existence of these "disputed" sovereignty claims is old news; it's an issue that has been around for a quarter of a century; the only noteworthy thing is that the military is now apparently keeping a concrete list containing a specific number of geographic formations, something that the official government line has never publicly committed to. In any case, spinning this into a claim that Turkey was preparing a concrete "invasion plan" for these islands is nothing but speculative interpretation on the part of the Nordic Monitor authors.
Even if there was something worth reporting about this, these claims would obviously have to be hedged – since they are not reported facts but somebody's opinions. Plus, the material is blatantly misplaced, as it has only the most tenuous, speculative relation to the topic of the section where it was placed, the legal status of demilitarization of the Greek islands. As such, it's a rather crass instance of "WP:COATRACK" editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I would be dubious as no reputable (third party) source seems to have picked this up. Not sure if Nordic Monitor fails RS (what is their reputation) but it may well fail wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Future Perfect, you said "SilentResident failed to notify me of this discussion – given that it was I who reverted them, they clearly should have." and I am sorry you had the impression that I had to notify you but I came here for an independent, third party opinion on the sources; not about discussing the dispute or your reverts. None here cares about the disputes behind sources. For that, there is the article's talk page and/or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Simple as that. After all, it is your past insight into the Aegean dispute affairs that have caused a doubt -by me- to my addition (info and sources), as you can tell from the fact I didn't rush to revert your revert nor open a new discussion in the Aegean dispute's article talk page (yet). However I appreciate your analysis on the information nevertheless. If the others here agree with what you said, then I will accept it and save you from the trouble of ever discussing about it in the article's talk page or something. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, the use of Jerusalem Post in Wikipedia was never been questioned before, and is known for being a high-quality fact-checking news website. For the other website, the Albawaba one, I haven't found anything in the RSN that would suggest they are not WP:RS either. Regarding the Nordic Monitor: it is one of the last remaining independent Turkey-related news websites left anymore, with various of its investigative journalists narrowly escaping the Erdogan government-sponsored press suppression and media censorship in Turkey, by self-exiling to Sweden. Nordic Monitor appears to be aligned to the Gulen movement, and its leaks include the background of military operations in neighboring countries, the Erdogan government's ties with islamist militant groups in Syria and more. Information leaked by it, was later confirmed either by subsequent events or other international reports, as is the case of the military operations on Syrian territory. The Nordic Monitor's leaks were often cited by numerous regional newspapers and news websites as well, especially regarding events related to/in the Middle East. Last, the think tanks and institutes from US and the EU (Germany, Norway, Sweden and France particularly), as well as the Middle East, have used/referred to the Nordic Monitor's leaked information in their reports/analysis too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
And they are clear, this is directly attributed to Nordick, by them. So the only source we have that this is real is Nordick.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and this is no different than what was done in the case of Wikileaks: Wikileaks is just one source, with everyone else referring to its leaks in their reports. For the RS to cite/refer to it, means they consider it to be worthy or reliable. Had been not the case, they would just avoid them or question them altogether. I am not saying that Nordic Monitor IS reliable. But that it is mentioned by RS which attributed it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hence why I said this is more of an Undue issue, not an RS one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Had this been solely copy-paste of the initial report instead of being covered by the RS which cite the original sources, then yes. If being covered by RS and attributing to original source ever was a problem in Wikipedia before, then any Wikileaks reports across Wikipedia would have to be reverted and removed altogether as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Visnelma

  • I have never heard about this before. I did a quick research and saw that Turkish media almost never mentioned this with some exceptions. What storke me was that an Islamist, pro-government newspaper mentioned this event as "...the website named Nordic Monitor published military plans of Turkey against Armenia." Although it is pro-government, the news site did not deny the claims and actually said that these were the plans of Turkey.[25] The event was also mentioned by pro-Armenian newspaper Agos. However it states that the Greek media interpreted the news as "sensational".[26]
  • In conclusion regardless of whether it was published by people linked to the Gülenist movement (which is likely) and it is "sensationsal", it seems to have a factual basis.--V. E. (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Important Add: The sources I shared were published in late 2019 and cover the military plans of Turkey against Armenia whereas sources published by Silent were published in 2020 and 2021 and mostly cover the Turkey's plans against Greece. I'm a little bit confused right now. Did they revealed Turkey's plans twice? Even if so, since the earlier claims were not denied by Akit newspaper, we can assume that these claims have factual basis too.--V. E. (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I know about the 2019 revelations against Armenia too. If my memory does not fail me, none had disputed or challenged the leaked information, not even the pro-government media in Turkey, nor the Erdogan government. The contrary - the Erdogan government-controlled courts appear to have asked from Twitter to censor the tweets and block the account associated with them, for leaking the classified documents regarding Armenia and Greece: [27]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that multiple other newspapers reported on it, I don't see a problem with mentioning it with proper attribution. This information must be given due weight, as all militaries prepare contingency plans all the time. Alaexis¿question? 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, thank you. And like how Visnelma had said above, the information has a factual basis and is the reason I tried to add it. Of course, I don't mind at all if it has to be trimmed and given due weight and placed elsewhere on the article. That is not my concern here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading the above comments, personally i don't see an issue for the inclusion of the content. On the question of Nordic Monitor, i can accept the position that it might be biased, but this doesn't affect the reliability of a source per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, or the content being presented. From what i understand, the main objection for its inclusion is the description of whether the aforementioned plans were invasion plans or contingency plans, and presentation according to WP:WIKIVOICE. Even if they were contingency plans, like the reference to The Jerusalem Post suggested, it would still be worthy of inclusion in my opinion, but per WP:WIKIVOICE guidelines. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Demetrios1993, Yes I agree. thank you and everyone here very much! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Daily Mirror

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

What is the reliability of Daily Mirror? It is cited a lot, and it has been discussed here repeatedly, but a clear consensus has never been reached.

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw the RFC. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Bad RfC. No hint what article has an issue, no hint what was unresolved on its talk page. If it's true that there's no consensus, good. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC "clear consensus has never been reached" What makes you think one will be reached now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Apple Daily shutting down

Per BBC News. End of an era, though not exactly suprising. The Apple Daily website has been taken offline, which means that all currently used links hk.appledaily.com HTTPS links HTTP links will need to be converted to archived versions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

To what extent is the content paralleled on the Taiwanese Apple Daily site? Is this a possible source to rescue some of the live links? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Taiwan Apple Daily is a separate publication with different content. Given how popular HK Apple Daily was, it is likely that all of the stories linked have been crawled though on the Wayback Machine and other archive sites. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Archive Team had a scraping project going from time of the last raid up to some time after the site went down (it appears some perpheral domains/CDNs remained up and serving content for awhile after the main site shutdown). I believe they got almost everything, and will be uploading it to the wayback machine. - GretLomborg (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Vyasa

Which ones of these do you consider reliable sources?


Author Bruce Sullivan - [28]

Edited by Arvind Sharma - [29]

Author B.G. Ramesh -[30]. Section of the page Veda Vyasa Gurudeva states that Vyasa was founder of great religion.

Author Vettam Mani - [31]

Author Roshen Dalal - [32]. This reference doesn't show any proof of the content added to the article because their is no way to view the reference.

Author Devdutt Pattanaik - [33]

And then there are references like these that we have absolutely no idea as they are not viewable or reliable.

Skanda Purāṇa, Nāgara Khanda, ch. 147 There is no link to view.

Strauss, Sarah (2002). "The Master's Narrative: Swami Sivananda and the Transnational Production of Yoga". Journal of Folklore Research. Indiana University Press. 23 (2/3): 221 . Again no link to view.

What are your thoughts on all the above references and especially the ones that have absolutely no link to view. Please share your thoughts on what should be and shouldn't be considered reliable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 10:33, June 21, 2021 (UTC)

As you will see at Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS, there is no requirement that a source be viewable online to be considered a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
NatGertler, what about the rest of the references? Do all of them seem ok to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 21, 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like others to please take a look at the references as well and provide your inputs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 21, 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a highly important topic for Hinduism, which is widely researched at universities around the world, so I see no reason why we shouldn't limit our sourcing to the best-quality peer-reviewed journals and books from university presses. But it's not clear what the context is: are we to take the "birth+date+of+Vyasa" in the first URL as meaning that your intent is to put Sullivan's factual claim regarding the dating of Vyasa's birth in Wikipedia's voice? It appears to be an "Indian edition" of this book published by Brill, but it's not clear what page you intend to cite as the GBooks preview of said Indian edition, from where I'm sitting, does not include this information. Context is everything here, and you have provided none. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hijiri88, Thank you for feedback. One of the content on the page that I added was that "In his own day, he was looked up to as the Gurudeva and the founder of religion." This content is based on this reference. So do you see any issue with this? Do you think this is controversial in any manner? Because one of the other user keeps reverting the changes.

Author B.G. Ramesh -[34]. Section of the page Veda Vyasa Gurudeva states that Vyasa was founder of great religion.

I think that, regardless of whether some passage in the book in question verifies some part of the above statement, given that we have no written records from anywhere near the time at which Vyasa purportedly lived, a scholarly book discussing the MBh as a work of literature and Vyasa as a character within it should not be cited as though it were explicitly affirming his historicity or making definitive statements about how he "was" perceived in "his own day" unless such a book explicitly does so within the context of history. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
B. G. Sharma was a painter. I guess you are talking about the English translation of a book by B.G. Ramesh. –Austronesier (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Austronesier:, Sorry, you are right, I meant B.G. Ramesh. –AtmaramU (talk)
  • This source [35] is reliable from reputed publisher and translated by a professor, Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and written by well known Indian author Sri B. G. Ramesh. Does anyone's opinion differ? –AtmaramU (talk).
@AtmaramU: I have seen that B. G. Ramesh authored several biographies, apparently for a general audience. Can you give us some background information about his credentials in this topic? This topic requires scholarly sources, especially for such weighty statements added to the lead. Additionally, when did the original version of the book appear? Thank you. (And btw, I urge you to stop edit warring in Vyasa). –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Source Reliable?

  • This source [36] is reliable from reputed publisher and translated by a professor, Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and written by well known Indian author Sri B. G. Ramesh. Does anyone's opinion differ? Would you consider the source reliable?

–AtmaramU (talk).

An unknon author from an unknown publishing house. Not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I have already mentioned in the talk page that the source is reliable but the question is about the "great religion" content which is very vague. You just needed to remove that. HaughtonBrit (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Simply stating that a source is reliable won't suffice. Chariotrider555 and User:245CMR have also questioned this source. The source in question is Sri B. G. Ramesh (2012, first publ. 2003), VYASA. A biography of Vyasa. Immortal Lights 49, published by Sapna Book House, Bangalore. It's some sort of religious biography, pulled from traditional sources. The section on "Vyasa's Age" concludes that he lived ca. 3000 BCE. That's about the time the Indo-European migrations started, and a millennium before the advent of the Sintashta culture. So, where do you want to situate Vyasa, somewhere at the Ukrainian steppes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Its suffice enough after looking at the references, publisher, author and the translator who translated the book. Based on that the opinion was made. HaughtonBrit (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The author does not appear to be a subject matter expert, the translator's area of specialisation is in literature neither would a translator have oversight over the material itself. This is just a pop history book and likely not reliable, the publisher is not unknown but it's a non-academic commercial publishing house. Vyasa is a topic for which there should be ample academic sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Toytales on Show'N Tell article

 Resolved
Hi, there's a current AfD running for the Show'N Tell article [37]. @FormalDude: very helpfully did a source assessment, but there's some disagreement over whether a particular source should be considered reliable in support of satisfying the GNG. The source is: https://toytales.ca/show-n-tell/

Can we get some additional opinions about this? ♟♙ (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the specific source assessment in question:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Coopee, Todd (August 3, 2020). "Show 'N Tell from G.E. (1964)". Toy Tales. Retrieved June 25, 2021. Yes It is a profile from a website that covers vintage toys and games. They only provide factual content and it appears to be neutral. Yes The author Todd Coopee is a well published toy historian so this seems very reliable. Yes The "Show N' Tell" toy is the sole focus of the source. Includes a photo and detailed description. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
—FORMALDUDE (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the source in question, it is an online equivalent of a specialty magazine for collectors. Similar in nature to, e.g., Railfan or similar hobby-focused sources, if not quite as glossy and professional-looking. In the context of toy collecting, I would consider it a reliable source. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It does, thank you. ♟♙ (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming magazine article on this noticeboard and The Daily Mail

I have been working with a reporter from a legitimate publication (yes, I confirmed the identity) on an upcoming article about the deprecation of The Daily Mail. They had this question:

"The editor I'm working with at [publication] made this comment. 'I think around here we need a little more info on why English Wikipedia made this decision. Were there any particular precipitating events? Can you give some examples of times when Daily Mail links were used that pointed to bum info? I think setting up the problem a little more clearly will help!'
Do you by chance know of any examples that precipitated the 2017 RfC? It's hard because I see a number of examples of Daily Mail posting incorrect news stories, but it's hard to show how that damaging to Wikipedia. I would welcome any advice or suggestions you might have!"

I would like to open this up for discussion.

My first thought was to start with discussing the fact that we have always had deprecated sources -- we don't use The Onion or Infowars as a source for anything -- then talk about how for years we have had to deal with well-meaning editors (and a few trolls) trying to use The Daily Mail as a source, how we had a legitimate question about whether they were reliable for some things (Sports scores? direct quotes? Articles published a hundred years ago? Photos?) and how this led up the the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC.

Or should I go back to discussions such as

Or is there one incident that pushed us over the edge? Amanda Knox, perhaps? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

    • The 2017 RFC was started by (now banned) Hillbillyholiday, and came after this diff about using DM on an astronomy article (diff on 6 Jan 2017), prompting Hillbillyholiday to start the RFC the next day [38] with a "worth a shot" edit summary based on the comments from that prior discussion. I would argue based on that, we (community) were ready to deprecate it, but just needed someone to kick the formal process into gear, there wasn't any last-straw type thing since it was building over at least 9 years. --Masem (t) 22:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • And to that end, I would just point to any RS/N or equivalent board discussion that showed that DM was a bad source and why it should not be used, prior to the 2017 RFC. --Masem (t) 22:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I think what triggered it was the 2016 U.S. primaries and elections that led to the defeat of the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump. The Daily Mail had run a number of articles that were critical of the Clintons. You might also want to read the discussion pages for the Daily Mail for some insight into how Wikipedia editors viewed it. TFD (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I think re-writing history to make it fit into a long-time political agenda is a bad idea, myself. If the journalist is reading this, my advice would be to ignore this attempt to crowbar in a chunk of political spin. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thats an interesting take, especially given how there isn’t even a single mention of “Clinton” in any of the five reliability discussions. Perhaps your memory of the situation is faulty? I know you’ve had issues with that in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
There *is* something to be said about the political climate up to and predating the 2016 US election (around 2014, so that this would include Gamergate), in which we saw the rise of the alt/far right agenda, having an influence on conservative media, and leading a majority of editors here on WP to start becoming dubious of the more extreme sources like DM in how they handled themselves among all these. Trump + Brexit did not help at all in how conservative media handled themselves in our eyes in terms of losing any respect as reliable sources, and thus by 2016/2017 we were ready to simply wipe our hands with them, regardless of what possible redeeming values had been brought up before. However, this is my own view from a distance and near impossible to point to anything that demonstrates how that all ties together. I would agree we can just say, the political climate in 2016/2017 and its effect both on how the DM behaved, and how Wikipedia became more critical of dubious sources, were all contributors towards that. --Masem (t) 03:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, could you please avoid personal attacks when replying to me. Five discussions at RSN since Wikipedia was set up is not a huge amount. The first one actually has only one person saying it isn't rs based on its publication of the forged Zinoviev letter in 1924. The reason that there was no mention of the Clintons in RSN discussions (and contrary to your insinuation I never said there were) is probably that none of their stories were challenged and in fact often picked up in other sources. I find it interesting too that someone with your political views would be hostile to the Daily Mail.
I note also that none of the discussion were about specific edits, although two were about specific articles, namely, the now deleted "Romanian crime in Europe" and Barack Obama, both in 2008. Can you explain why it came up at RSN in 2016-17, although no one had complained about using it as a source for almost a decade?
Masem, I think that is my point. What triggered the ban was the run up to the 2016 election resulting in the election of Donald Trump. The ban discussion was in the month Trump took office. Whether or not it should have been banned, it's odd that it was the first one.
TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That was why I looked to what prompted the RFC, and it was simply a reaction to "hey, DM's being used on this astronomy article , should it be" and getting back a resounding no, prompting the RFC to see if that is what stuck. By end of 2016, I think we all accepted that DM shouldn't be used, the RFC simply was formalizing that groupmind decision on paper (to speak). It wasn't any specific incident but moves toward that accelerated from the 2014-2016 period and rise of extreme conservative ideological mantras in the political landscape (external to WP). --Masem (t) 15:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Or to add to this (and maybe to spur others) - we as society were dealing with a culture war as well, this prior too but in the formulative years of #MeToo, and before the so-called reactionary "cancel culture" aspects were in place. I recall but am not that well versed here that Daily Mail was rather participatory in that area at that time (2014-2016), coupled with the stuff happening on the alt/far right (Trump, Brexit reactions, etc.) which I think fueled Wikipedia editors' distrust of the work more in this period than ever before. I know from my experience in the Gamergate area that we became very critical of sources that were off the mainstream and into the extremes on Ad Fontes Media Bias chart (or similar) in terms of their use , so I wouldn't be surprised to have seen that replicated in reviewing the Daily Mail in other areas. --Masem (t) 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m merely asking whether or not your memory of what happened is accurate, I have a hard time recalling many of the things that happened site wide during my early years and I’m a post DM deprecation join. Now of course this means that I’ve only ever experienced wikipedia post DM but I must say that I’ve found the more solid reliability lines of recent years to be comforting. You are correct that The Daily Mail and I probably inhabit the same area of the political spectrum, I’ve always worked hard to separate my personal biases from reliability discussions but its obviously not easy. That being said The Daily Mail being too unreliable for our use is not exactly a hard call regardless of their political affiliations, but I don’t wan’t outside observers to get the impression that the Daily Mail was deprecated because it was the worst of the worst (its obviously not HispanTV, Occupy Democrats, Breitbart, RT, or CGTN)... Thats not my understanding at all from my research into the history of reliability on Wikipedia, I think it was a case of right source right place right time and any number of sources could have taken the place that DM now fills. Instead of the DM itself I wish people would focus on the larger deprecation infrastructure and norms that have evolved since then which I think have been an immensely positive for Wikipedia. I don’t think we could have built that infrastructure with a state media or relatively unknown source as our bar, DM works because its so well known throughout the english speaking world and is also clearly on the wrong side of the line. Most of the sources that have been deprecated using that infrastructure have not been sources that look like DM, they’ve been state media, self published, and obscure niche outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
While the question was raised about using the Daily Mail in an astronomy article as a source for a claim that the exoplanet Gliese 581g was discovered at the Keck Observatory, no one questioned that the information was accurate. The DM article was written by David Derbyshire, a freelance science writer who also contributes to The Guardian.[39] The claim is now sourced to NASA, the New York Times and The Daily Telegraph. The claim is not particularly controversial, considering that the lead astronomer, Steven S. Vogt, works at the Kech Obervatory. Hillbillyholiday, who had not contributed to the article, said "There's been much discussion of this paper over the years" and linked to User talk:Hillbillyholiday/Tabloid Terminator. Their antipathy to the tabloids appears to be their coverage of celebrities. They thought personal information should be omitted from articles. Having lost the argument to exclude personal information about them based on weight, they tried rs.
I note that the Me Too movement and cancel culture both date from after the Daily Mail was banned and the articles of course did not exist at that time. There is no discussion of the Daily Mail in the talk pages of the Gamergate controversy or Brexit. I am not a regular Daily Mail reader, so don't know how they covered these topics, although I can make an educated guess. But AFAIK there were no problems caused by using it as a source for articles. A number of editors are working to replace all Daily Mail cites with those considered rs. It would be interesting to hear from them on whether they found any problems. I note also that in many cases in the RfC where problems were found in Daily Mail reporting, the same problems appeared in the broadsheets. if a false or misleading story is reported in one publication, it often finds its way into all of them.
TFD (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying DM was tied to Gamergate or any of that, only that in the larger scope of everything (outside of WP), leading up to 2016 was this culture war, which is during the period where here on WP our growing apathy towards DM. In general, I think the conservative media grew more unhinged during this time in response to the more mainstream media that had become more sympathetic to women/minority/LGTB/etc. issue, which is why we can probably cite more cases of where the DM came up as we move towards 2016. So going back, it wasn't any one single incident that created turning point, but simply a situation that was building over a handful of years, one driven by (as I believe it was) the DM's reactionary behavior to a world view that was leaving it behind. --Masem (t) 23:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems strange though to explain deprecating the Daily Mail as a reaction to the American culture war, when it left U.S. sources alone. Personally, I only read these questionable sources when they are discussed on Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Something I would point out (which, looking back, I pointed out at the time) is that we had that RFC specifically because the Daily Mail was a controversial source. There were clearly lower-quality sources out there; but we didn't need to go through an RFC for them and have a big formal process, because most people agreed that eg. Infowars or WND shouldn't be cited. Since then things have changed; RSP has become slightly more comprehensive, and both those sites ended up getting uncontroversially depreciated and blacklisted, respectively. But I don't think we would have bothered to create the process we use today just for sites like those - the Daily Mail required an RFC and the creation of the concept of formal depreciation specifically because most users felt it was clearly unreliable, but a small minority of editors strongly disagreed, while random editors kept adding citations to it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't remember though any disputes over specific claims cited to the Daily Mail or any discussion about it in general except the question whether it should be used as a source for the observatory where an exoplanet was discovered. Can you point out any examples? I would suggest that The Sun, which has a higher readership (or viewership) was an even more questionable source. It was only deprecated in 2019. Similarly the New York Post and the Washington Times have huge audiences, yet are only rated "no consensus" and that was only done 3-4 years after the Daily Mail. And last year the Daily Express which is similar to the Daily Mail was rated generally unreliable, but not deprecated. TFD (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Press TV's website

The website of WP:RSP-listed Press TV appears to have been seized by the U.S. government. The U.S. has previously seized sites owing to U.S. sanctions, Justice Department documents say.

The seizure hasn’t been covered very much as of yet by reliable sources (all I can find source-wise is Twitter, the website itself, Insider Paper, RT, Sputnik, and Iran International).

The seizure may be worth noting on the RSP entry, but owing to the lack of non-primary RS I am not sure quite what to do. What do you all think? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: The AP and AFP have also reported on the sites being seized. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't assess reliability based on a specific Government blocking or seizing. Just as we use sources that are blocked in China, having a domain seized by the US Government does not affect per se our reliability assessment. A different question is whether we are forbidden by law from linking to new domains, but I doubt that is the case at this point. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
presstv.ir (another english language domain) is still online. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Has PressTV been confirmed to be an Iranian government mouthpiece? if that is the case, maybe it could be used to represent the views of the current government in Iran. Barca (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The degree to which state-funded news media are "mouthpieces" for their governments varies in subtlety around the world - see propaganda model for the way that market-advertising-funded news media are "mouthpieces", to some degree, in Western democracies, as measured quantitatively. We nevertheless use a variety of "mouthpieces" as reliable sources, because there's no practical alternative, and because there is some degree of fact-checking, and some degree of independence in the journalists who pass the selection filter for having the appropriate points of view.
In the case of Press TV, I don't think there's any doubt that it's an Iranian government mouthpiece, but that's not really the question. The references in the article Press TV overwhelmingly show problems with antisemitism and holocaust denial, and problems in accuracy, so a deprecation by default seems reasonable.
However, "Context matters tremendously": I see no evidence to exclude the objective content of Press TV reports on street protests or executions of prisoners in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen, or other objective information that the governments of those countries may wish to hide. Boud (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
the objective content of Press TV reports see, that's the problem - it's a source that was deprecated with excellent reason. We cannot trust the content is objective, or indeed that it's not completely fabricated propaganda. This is what deprecated means. You need more than to repeatedly assert that it's good for something, and call the removal of claims from deprecated sources, that you admit have no other sources, "wikilawyering" - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
By the word "objective" here I was referring to "factual-type" content, such as "Ten people demonstrated at location X" in Saudi Arabia. This is unrelated to Holocaust denial and antisemitism, which were among the main issues discussed in the deprecation discussion. I see no prior discussion in RSN about Press TV's reliability for the issue of factual-type statements on protests in Saudi Arabia. I have not got into a specific discussion on individual incidents, because I'm assuming that others here agree with the "Context matters tremendously" phrase. Boud (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be a lot of work to confirm what is fabricated content and what isn't. In that respect, would support making PressTV an unreliable source for Wikipedia. Barca (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Unclosed RfC

Last year there was a robustly attended RfC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_311#RfC:_PressTV that to my eye had a firm consensus to deprecate, but that was never closed. Maybe worth putting it at WP:RFCLOSE? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Good find. I think it's worth deprecating. Press TV is currently in over 1200 articles Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I've placed a request on the noticeboard. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: Where is the new "request on the noticeboard"? On the limited context of protests in Saudi Arabia (or Yemen, Bahrain), reports from Press TV generally seem to match those of the (few) other sources available. Removing Press TV sources on protests in Saudi Arabia would strengthen our existing demographic bias. Here is an example that I just had to fix. In this case, for the 14 July 2012 protest, the other source of info is Al Arabiya, the Saudi government mouthpiece. In this situation, having info from both governments is better than none at all: we're not going to pretend that nothing happened in Saudi Arabia while the rest of the Arab world was marching in the streets. Boud (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Boud: a request for closure was placed on the appropriate noticeboard. The closure was made by Eggishorn, and the RfC was restored to this page while by the user when they closed it. Their promotion of Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories seems to have been a bridge too far for most folks. HispanTV, the Spanish-language analogue to Press TV, has been deprecated since 2019 on similar grounds to those presented in the Press TV RfC.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Context for the above: Boud has been edit-warring Press TV cites into Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012), saying only "context matters" and calling the removal of claims he admits there are no other sources for "wikilawyering", despite this source literally being deprecated as liars we can't trust a word from - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
No. I did not add cites into Press TV, I restored a cite to Press TV and to a 14-page human rights report by another organisation. I also pointed out what is clearly stated at the top of WP:RSP - "Context matters tremendously". Absolutist statements such as "being deprecated as liars we can't trust a word from" do not help. I did not enter into debate for specific sources, but generally the Press TV statements on protests in Saudi Arabia are consistent with other sources, in the cases where there are other sources, especially if you take into account that Al Arabiya and Press TV will generally interpret events per their respective governments' points of view. When they both talk about an event with their opposing interpretations, it's generally reasonably to infer that the event took place, and to NPOV the factual-type elements of the opposing reports. Please also take into account the Wikipedia demographic bias. Boud (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I restored a cite Per the wording of policy WP:BURDEN - which it appears you still haven't read - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. That's you, and you keep refusing to satisfy that burden.
RSP is a respected guideline, but it's not policy; BURDEN is. "Context matters" is not the all-purpose excuse you're trying to use it as - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: To get back to procedural issues. Are we supposed to edit the "restored" RfC (currently below on this page) that says that it may not be edited (I assume "No"), or do we discuss in the second-level header that contains this third-level header Unclosed RfC discussion? I've browsed through the technically closed RfC below, and I see that several people did argue for "Option 3", i.e. generally unreliable, rather than formal deprecation. The role of Press TV in reporting on dissidence in the region (outside of Iran) was not brought up.
Alternatively: @Eggishorn: It looks like you technically closed the RfC, so unless you re-open it, does that mean we'll have to be pedantic and call for an incorrect closure? I would propose that you take into account the incompleteness of the discussion - nothing about Press TV's reporting on the Saudi Arabian protests - and re-open it without having go through the heavy process of questioning a closure. Boud (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Boud:: No, do not edit the discussion. The discussion in question was open for 51 days between its creation on 7/23/2020 and its archiving on 9/11/2020, a time period you were actively editing and the discussion was available in a prominent location. That you didn't comment then is no reason for it to be re-opened, nor it that you think a particular point of view was not represented in that discussion. The job of a closer is to summarize the discussion that happened, not to find the most-perfect-world outcome of the initially presented question. If you disagree with that, you can open a new RfC or challenge the close at WP:AN. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Thanks for the clarification and proposals in terms of procedure. I think a new RfC is the procedure with the best chance of convergence, and the best chance of obtaining consistency with the WP:RSP phrase "Context matters tremendously". I've started the context-specific RfC on Press TV below. Boud (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

IJESRR

Is the International Journal of Education and Science Research Review reliable for the details about 19th-century India? It seems that this journal is mostly cited for science-related content: [40]. I noticed its following article while looking for sources about a 19th-century rebel (Shah Mal):

I don't want to cite this source in that biography, but I still want to know about its reliability, as someone else might want to cite articles from this journal for some British India-related details. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb, thanks. There doesn't seem to be any previous discussion about it at this forum. It isn't listed at WP:RSP either. So, is there any other page which lists these type of predatory journals? - NitinMlk (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
https://beallslist.net/ is a good starting point, with the usual caveats that comes with Beall's list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
See also WP:UPSD, which will highlight a lot. Although would not have highlighted that one, since I added it after your question here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. BTW, how did you find about the reliability of this particular journal? I mean it isn't listed at https://beallslist.net/. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
See the journals page. The homepage is for publishers. In general, search the journal's publisher first, and if you don't find it, search for the journal individually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Given the strength of opinion in the original deprecation discussion and the near-unanimous agreement below, there is no need to run this question through a full RfC. There is a clear consensus to not carve out exceptions in the deprecation of PressTV on this topic. The discussion further suggests that attempts to carve out exceptions for other topics would have a similar outcome but since that wasn't the question asked, there were not enough opinions stated to evaluate a consensus on prohibiting all carve-outs to this source's deprecation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Press TV for factual-type information on protests in Saudi Arabia? Boud (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual-type information on this particular topic
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual-type reporting on this particular topic
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated factual-type information on this particular topic, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Boud (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests)

  • Option 1 or Option 2. On the particular topic of Saudi Arabian protests, the factual type information presented by Press TV is broadly consistent with that found in other reports. (The endless repetition of a single photo in many of these looks ridiculous, but doesn't invalidate the factual type claims.) At 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests, about 37 of the 201 sources are currently from Press TV, and the info used from these articles is generally consistent with the other sources, but provides details that are often not present in the others. The situation is similar in the timeline articles. In Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (January–April 2011), there are about 9 Press TV sources out of 89; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (May–December 2011) there are about 7 Press TV sources out of 63; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (January–June 2012), there are about 28 Press TV sources out of 105; in Timeline of the 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests (from July 2012) there are about 23 Press TV sources out of 137. Some of the sources (from these articles) that broadly agree with Press TV on the protests include Human Rights Watch (HRW), March 2011, BBC, The Independent, HRW, Dec 2011, The Guardian, Amnesty International. I've proposed either Option 1 or Option 2, because broad consistency doesn't mean reliability. Having third party in-depth studies of Press TV's reliability on this particular topic would make it easier to distinguish between Options 1 and 2. I've done quite a bit of editing on these articles, and I don't remember any Press TV reports whose factual-type content (what, when, where) on these protests was later found to be misleading or outright false, so I see no evidence in favour of Option 3 or Option 4. Boud (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Boud: I mean... how do we expect to view as generally or even marginally reliable a source that reports that US officials assert that the September, 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3000 people in the US, were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but independent analysts say it was a false-flag operation and that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was just a bogeyman for the US military-industrial complex. They believe rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda? There's also this article, which states that US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but many analysts say it was a false-flag operation and that Osama bin Laden was just a bogeyman for the US military-industrial complex. They believe rogue elements within the US government orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to boost the US economy and advance the Zionist agenda. And there's this article from 2019, which states that US officials assert that the September, 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account. They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda. If the source is pushing whacko conspiracy theories that there was "Zionist" involvement in orchestrating 9/11 and alleging that the Saudi royals are crypto-Jews that sell their fabulous oil wealth at a fraction of its true value in order to prop up the usury-based New World Order empire in general, and the Zionist dagger in the heart of the Middle East in particular, then I see evidence against considering it to be in any way reliable for verification of information on the Saudis, in addition to what I've presented in my top-level comment below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep this Holocaust-denying disinformation source deprecated. Press TV is currently deprecated, and for good reason. There is no question that Press TV is a biased source; it is state-controlled and run by a chief opponent of the Saudia Arabian government. WP:BIASED states that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. In light of this guideline, Press TV spectacularly fails to be a reliable source that can be used to verify facts.
    • Regarding a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: in general, its reputation is extremely poor. Press TV has repeatedly promoted Holocaust Denial, and published the flagrantly false claim that the killings at Auschwitz were scientifically impossible." In 2020, it pushed blatant conspiracy theories that blamed Israel for COVID-19, writing that SARS-CoV-2 has been perhaps released and developed by the Israelis to target Iranians. Press TV has also aired forced confessions of a journalist as if they were legitimate and genuine confessions. Quite possibly the piece (with coverage from JPost) that is most emblematic of the problems with reliability at the station is one that reported that The US mainstream media is owned by Zionists dedicated to achieving a New World Order and that New World Order Zionism is also targeting the USA for destruction. The Zionist bankster elite staged a coup d'état on September 11th, 2001 aimed at turning the USA into a police state – and sending American military forces to the Middle East to smash Israel's enemies into pieces. The same piece (archived here), states that The Zionists murder or otherwise disable people they deem an actionable threat. Anyone they believe may seriously threaten Zionist New World Order interests in the future is a potential target for elimination. Another similarly unhinged piece reiterates that there is a Zionist New World Order and argues that ISIL is not a real “radical Islamic” group at all, but a Zionist false flag group and that The House of Saud may also be a family of crypto-Jews – a theory which, if true, would help explain their foreign policy and lifestyle choices. If a website repeatedly spreads Holocaust denial, baselessly claims that Israel was responsible for COVID-19 in Iran, publishes forced confessions of journalists, reports that there is a "Zionist New World Order" that "launched a coup" on 9/11 against the United States, argues that ISIS was a false flag group created by Zionists, and claims that the Saudi royals are "crypto-Jews", then we're seeing a source that's way out there conspiracy-land, and this extensive list of antisemitic conspiracy theories demonstrates that the conspiracy-promoting nature of the network's operation runs even deeper. There is absolutely no reason why the source should be considered to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, particularly when and issue may involve an party that they are not sympathetic to.
    • Regarding independence, it is overwhelmingly clear that Press TV is not independent of the government of Iran. It is the prime English language Iranian state-affiliated media outlet that has been described an "Iranian State-owned news channel" by The Washington Post and as "Iran state television’s English-language arm" by the Associated Press. There is no indication of editorial independence from Iran's government; Al Jazeera reports (in the link I have provided above) that the board which controls the network has been controlled by pro-government hardliners since the Iranian Revolution. There is no reason to think that they are providing independent coverage into these Saudi Arabian protests; they are certainly independent from the Saudis, though they are absolutely not independent from Iran.
In light of the above, the agency is clearly not independent of the Iranian government, and has been shown to have been flagrantly unreliable through its promotion of Holocaust denial and the publication of forced confessions. The paper does not appear to do enough to establish reliability for any facts; the use of Press TV simply does not provide us any sort of verification on what facts are true. This is clearly an Iranian version of the already deprecated RT, and there is no reason to admit it as "reliable" for reporting on events in Saudi Arabia when it has so many glaring issues in its fact-checking, generally. If reliable sources happen to present similar events to Press TV, then cite those sources, but citing information that is only found in Press TV seems like a formula for allowing disinformation to creep onto Wikipedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, just to make this point clear: this RfC's formulation does not present the typical rationale given for deprecation in Option 4. Instead, it unnecessarily and non-trivially attempts to restrict the scope of evidence that can be used to determine whether or not the source should be deprecated; it assumes a particular framework around deprecation that doesn't appear to be in line with how deprecation works. When a source is deprecated, it is deprecated in a general scope; we typically don't require a source to be shown to be bad within some narrowly constructed topic area for that topic area to be lumped in with the deprecation. For example, even if we wanted to cite The Daily Mail for information on the reported weight loss of Oman Thaher, we wouldn't do so under the current deprecation consensus (WP:BLP considerations aside), even though we have never shown The Daily Mail to have provide disreputable reporting on the topic of the guy's reported weight loss journey. It's the general reputation (or lack thereof) for fact-checking and accuracy that leads us to find the use of The Daily Mail as a citation for facts to not be consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. General reputation for fact-checking and accuracy almost certainly plays a role in determining whether a source is reliable within a more narrowly constructed topic, especially when a source doesn't appear to have issued retractions for blatant and proven falsehoods within its reporting. There's clearly evidence here of the unreliability spilling into Saudi-related contexts (i.e. "crypto-Jews"), but the source should certainly be evaluated holistically. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. I could just say "per Mikehawk10", because that covers the problems with the source quite thoroughly, but I also want to explicitly disagree with the premise of this RfC - namely, that a potential source can be deprecated... except for one particular niche topic, where it's fine. If a source is bad enough to be deprecated by the community, that means it is exceptionally untrustworthy, as can be seen by all the entries at WP:RSP that are only light red yet still say things like There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics or There is consensus that The Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. or Republic TV was criticized for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, and other fabrications and factually incorrect information. If something's gotten to the point where it's considered worse than that, we don't need to have RfCs popping up arguing that "The Daily Mail is fine for X" or "RT is fine for Y". It would be such a timesink. Attempts to propose removing a source's deprecation should be for everything (or at least very wide swaths, such as how Fox News is split (news excluding politics and science)/(politics and science)/(talk shows)), not just for one thing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Iran and Saudi Arabia engaged in the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, a cold war involving major conflicts like the Yemeni Civil War (2014–present). Iran is absolutely not an impartial party when it comes to Saudi Arabian protests, and therefore neither is PressTV. If the information is "broadly consistent with that found in other reports", then why not use those? Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Hemiauchenia: BBC, New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, The Independent are not completely impartial in terms of the economic and political interests of Western governments and corporations in reports on non-Western countries. This is well modelled and quantified in propaganda model. But we don't exclude these sources. They don't promote Holocaust conspiracy theories, but few of them are using the expression "Tigray genocide" to describe the war crimes in the Tigray War that are happening right now, despite the overwhelming evidence for an ongoing genocide (genocide by starvation is one of the key techniques). But we still accept these as sources for Wikipedia rather than deprecate them as apologists for the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments. "Why not use those?" Relying on those uniquely for this particular topic is insufficient because to some degree they give vague statements with less details, making them less falsifiable in the Popper sense, e.g. "20 people held a protest in city X on 23 June" is more falsifiable than "protests were recently held". Boud (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing the BBC, New York Times, The Guardian, CNN and The Independent to a state propaganda outlet that promotes holocaust denial? Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Your comparison is specious, and not an example of serious sourcing debate - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Apart from the comments above, this framing pretends that the issues raised in the previous RFC don't exist, e.g. This isn’t even really a news website, it’s state sponsored conspiratorial lies dressed up to give it an air of legitimacy. We have literally no reason to trust that anything in this source is true, and no evidence to say it is. If it's "broadly consistent" with other sources, then use those. If your only source is Press TV, and not those other sources, then you don't have a source. If you're working this hard to justify using a deprecated source, then you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    There is no pretence that the Holocaust denial by Press TV is inexistent. The term "Context matters tremendously" is currently a consensus framing. If we had to have purely yes/no decisions on sources, than we would have no sources at all. Denial-by-omission of human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by most of Wikipedia's news sources are realities that we have lived with for two decades. Boud (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Boud: Here's what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

    The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

    This is, supposedly, a news agency that focuses on international topics. Its principal topics would therefore be international news. We've shown, both through the previous RfC and the arguments presented in this RfC, that it promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories in its coverage. This so-called news agency states alternatively that "independent analysts," "many analysts," and "many experts" say that 9/11 was an inside job done for "Zionist" purposes. They publish unfounded speculation that the Saudis are "crypto-Jews". If we're going to use this, in any capacity, as a reliable source used to verify facts, then I think we'd all struggle to see it. There may be occasional good reporting from the source, but the fact that we can't rely upon the source to actually provide accurate information without digging to other sources to verify a particular claim made by Press TV would indicate that we can't actually use the source itself to verify claims. Deprecation formalizes this as a community consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2. Press TV's often publishes propaganda and false information to prevent disparaging the Iranian government. However, that isn't to say everything it publishes is incorrect. On the Saudi Arabian protests, I can't find much problems with the coverage, like Boud. Press TV's coverage in other areas if open to question, however I think it's okay to use as a source for this specific topic, thought I do think when available, more reliable sources should be used instead. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 12:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Attribute is the thing. Press TV is definitely not the greatest source but it's OK for some stuff.Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep deprecated. Note that it does not mean automatic removal of all content sourced to it, so if indeed there is valuable information on the Saudi protests it can be tagged and replaced with more reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The trouble is, we have no way of knowing what is and isn't just made up by them - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. per the above arguments and other discussions about this source. JBchrch talk 19:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for holocaust denial and being controlled by Iran generally. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Press Tv is a state owned controlled by Iran that can't be rely on. Sea Ane (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 If a source is generally so unreliable that it is deprecated, then there is no reason to make an exception for this topic. In fact, this is a topic it may well be particularly unreliable on, given the hybrid geopolitical conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Bobfrombrockley: do you mean “so unreliable that it is deprecated” and “particularly unreliable on”? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Thanks Mikehawk10. Editing myself now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep deprecated, the appropriate thing to do with respect to the topic is to find reliable sources for material sourced to it. If something can only be found on Press TV then we can't ascertain if it is accurate or not, in which case it's not verifiable and should be removed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4, keep deprecated Blaming the Jews for 9/11 was literally a Borat joke, back in the day... And carving out a narrow niche where a deprecated source can suddenly be trusted is just, well, silly. XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 no exception for niche topics where some happen to like the coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Mikehawk10 and Headbomb, it is unreliable period.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Press TV can be used to cite two claims: the year it was founded and who works there (though, I would still be rather hesitant to use Press TV as a source for the latter claim). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Press TV on Saudi Arabian protests)

The discussion above 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.

Biology of sex

I found this source it’s called biology of sex. I think y’all see and what articles I want to use it. Aka sex and sexual reproduction. I have mixed feelings other this sources reliability. I looked up online and it’s published by University of Toronto Press which is owned the University of Toronto. Which is one the best universities in Canada.(also checked its in the top 25 universities in the world on some sites.) So appeared to be reliable.

Unfortunately finding information on the author is hard. The best I could find on this guy is what I believe may be his LinkedIn. So what do you guys think, how reliable do y’all think this source is?CycoMa (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It says it's Intended primarily for readers without a science background. If we rely upon sources like that to write science articles, we're basically gathering up whatever has fallen to the bottom of the cliff. On rare occasions, popularizations will include interesting material that more serious books don't, like biographical details based on interviews (The Man Who Loved Only Numbers comes to mind, for example). But for the most part, they're one more link in a game of telephone. XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
So basically it’s not an ideal source.CycoMa (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
But any way do any of you guys think it would be okay?CycoMa (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
CycoMa, no, it's very unlikely that it would be usable as a source. There are much better sources we can use for information about sex and reproduction, and our aim is to summarise the best sources on any subject. Girth Summit (blether) 05:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
It says it is a textbook for students who don't have a science background. Without citing line and verse of rs policy, I would say that you should not use texts written for non-science students when texts written for science students are available. TFD (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Please don't take this amiss, but you keep coming to RSN repeatedly with random sources that support a particular view on this topic, many of which it should be obvious are not reliable sources under well-established Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It's possible you should consider that this may not be a good way to proceed in a contentious editing area, and understanding why people keep telling you these sources aren't very good may be an idea before continuing on this path - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS has an RFC

WP:MEDRS has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, thank you for writing this very excellently worded RFC. Its narrow scope and potential for less overall headache is appreciated. I have personally done it both poorly and slightly better in recent history, and greatly value the model to work from.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion should probably be added to Template:Centralized discussion. I don't have enough experience with templates to make this change. JBchrch talk 23:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added it [41]. Thanks for the heads up --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

mainlinediesels.net

Ten articles use references to mainlinediesels.net. The site's about us page makes it clear that this a trainspotter fan-site full of self-published information by the site owner and her contributors. I have tagged the references in all ten articles with the {{Unreliable source?}} template. One such example is Direct Rail Services. I can provide the others here if you wish. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is clearly self-published. It's probably accurate and the uses I spotchecked were not exactly controvserial but better sources should be used where possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Some reliable sources

Withdrawn and closing. Chompy Ace 22:27, 30 June 2021 (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.

1. Article: Inside Out (2015 film)

2. Sources:

Are GMA Network, ABC News, Gizmodo, Nerdist Industries, Adweek, and Game Informer reliable? It is possibly considered to be an FA per Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)/GA1. Chompy Ace 21:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Adweek is one of the two major US advertising industry trade publications alongside AdAge, definitely reliable. Gizmodo and ABC News are also reliable sources. No opinion about the rest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Chompy Ace Not sure why you pinged me, as I don't usually work on film articles, and I don't have a lot of experience with FA and GA reviews. That being said, I'm not too good to take a look if asked politely, and this certainly seems polite enough.
The only one of those sources I'm really questioning is GMA Network, and only because I have no experience with the Philippine television market, so I'm not sure how to evaluate it. ABC News is obviously an RS, Gizmodo and the Nerdist should be just fine, as they have editorial oversight and a good rep, and I'm pretty sure that applies to Adweek and Game Informer as well, from what I can tell with a quick look. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chompy Ace:, I don't see what the issue with the reliability of these sources is or why there is anything in the GA review that provoked this. Could you be more specific in what you are asking? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: six of those sources' reliability to be used for a potential, possible FA (note it can be a very tough process), even for a such review does mean for such reliability, as for "What makes [...] an high-quality RS?" Chompy Ace 22:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
@Chompy Ace:, I'm not an expert in FA's and I'm not sure why you asked me in particular but I'll try to answer. I'm guessing that, "even for a such review does mean for such reliability." means something like, "are these acceptable as reliable sources for a FA review." Reliability of a source is not judged abstractly but in the context in which its used and I'm sorry but I still don't see that here. That said, I don't see that any of these articles would automatically be rejected, but how some of them, the AdWeek and Game Informer ones particularly, would depend on what the sources said and what part of the article they were used to support. Determining if that was appropriate for this article is what the FA process is for, though (at least in part). It's not really the type of question that this noticeboard handles. I'm sorry if that's not a helpful as you would have liked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I withdraw it. Chompy Ace 20:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

"Titles, Styles, and Honors" sections/articles are inundated with garbage sources

Almost every vaguely-noble person has a section listing their titles, styles, and honors. These are invariably riddled with awful sources (the most common are bare images posted on royalty forums where someone has identified the sash being worn (or worse: <ref>For the sake of identification of the Order of the Golden Heart, here is a page about another recipient</ref>, but there are also tons of blogs, tumblr, pinterest...even just bare statements like <ref>King Carl XVI is a known worldwide supporter of scoutism</ref>) that were introduced in the early 2010s by a now-inactive editor. Each of these "honors" also has its own page listing all recipients, with the same trash sources. I've managed to rid wikipedia of references to noblesseetroyautes.com (a glorified blog) and am working through theroyalforums.com, but this is a problem across probably tens of thousands of articles and involving hundreds of different sources. And since each article contains at least a dozen honors etc. it takes a lot of time to comb through their references -- for example, the above Swedish honours article featured 15,000 bytes of bad refs, and Princess Benedikte had 10,000. Even the reliable sources for many of these honors are problematic -- see the refnote here with the instructions <ref>Portuguese Presidency Website, Orders [http://www.ordens.presidencia.pt/?idc=154&list=1 search form] : type "RAINHA SÍLVIA" in "nome", then click "Pesquisar"</ref>.

As an aside, it's not clear to me that these honors sections are actually DUE, especially since 99% of the good references are primary with zero coverage outside the awardee's website and/or the awarding government's database of recipients. But that's an issue for another noticeboard.

Anyway, I'd like to know if there is a more automated way of dealing with this junk, and if not I would request some help clearing it out. I have a small list of the worst blog/forum offenders here, which I do insource: searches on to find articles, and then manually go through all the references to get rid of the "s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com"-type refs and images hosted on reliable sites that would return a lot of valid uses if searched. JoelleJay (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, listing all the titles and honors is a form of WP:NOTCV, in the very same way that exhaustive lists of all the awards received by scientists and academics are not acceptable. This is especially the case in this context since the titles and honors do not recognize any achievements are just empty medals that they award to each other. 95% of them are WP:UNDUE, so we can dispense with finding and evaluating reliable sources. JBchrch talk 22:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning these up! I try to help when I notice this type of things, but I don't have great ideas for a systematic way of finding them. German "nobility" is especially terrible, as the concept of German nobility has been abolished 100 years ago, but many editors still like to decorate Mr Prinz von Preussen with various fantasy titles and styles. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
these are as official as Wikipedia Barnstars Love it. JBchrch talk 01:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Kusma, I am definitely considering just deleting those sections when I come across them, but since they're so widespread I have to wonder whether they're considered basic, primary-sourceable biographical information in the same way we include where an academic went to undergrad etc. sourced only to their university website. I suspect deleting outright would warrant an RfC, but if you haven't encountered any pushback on this maybe the only editors who really cared retired long ago. Pinging Dr.K. who would have more background. JoelleJay (talk) JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: Not sure whether there are any conventions there, but given that defunct titles shouldn't be used (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)), I don't quite see why defunct styles and honours should be used. You've already posted at WT:ROY, probably the best place for the question. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Kudos to you for cleaning these up. --JBL (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship

Is the Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship a reliable source? Found here online. Epachamo (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Generally unreliable: This journal's self stated purpose is scholarship that increases faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known colloquially as Mormons. A major focus is on finding ancient sources and evidence to support fringe ideas such as a group of Native Americans are descended from Israelites per Book of Mormon, that other translations of Joseph Smith such as the Book of Abraham is a legitimate Egyptian translation derived from an ancient source, that the Book of Moses was written by Moses and revealed to Joseph Smith later. The Interpreter Journal is a great source for noting Latter-day Saint beliefs, pronunciations of Latter-day Saint themed material, and other narrow defined topics. In various rankings of Journals such as SJR, JQRS or Google Scholar rankings. I could not even find it listed in JSTOR. Epachamo (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable with caveat: The journal's self stated purpose is to act as an "independent, educational [source] focused on the scriptures" of the Church. Nowhere is the above claim verified. The framing as written above is incorrect. The author states that the conclusions drawn by Interpreter are "fringe." Fringe would be relative though. If the author means that the conclusions drawn by scholars writing for Interpreter are fringe to the broader academic communities of Egyptology, for instance, in regard to the Book of Abraham, then this framing is correct. If the author means that the conclusions of Interpreter are fringe to those that have actually become familiar with all the scholarship relevant to the Book of Abraham, then he/she is incorrect. Wikipedia would be more interested in placing the work of scholars who have actually studied the relevant primary and secondary sources up front. Interpreter's authors are most frequently those that have studied both the primary and secondary literature relevant to their topics and have been publishing on those topics for decades. Interpreter is sympathetic to and does occasionally publish responses to critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Interpreter is best used as a source when the literature referenced comes from credentialed scholars (whether members of the Church or not) who have been publishing scholarship on their respective topics for a long time. The framing above seems to be working from a place of prejudice towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those that believe in its claims.

The Sportster

Would The Sportster be considered a reliable source for professional wrestling or court case articles? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Last I looked, it was being rejected as reliable in the few discussions where it came up. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Unreliable_sources. --Hipal (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

International Confederation of Art Critics

A new draft points the reader to "analyses" such as this on the website of the "International Confederation of Art Critics" (based in "Unicorn House", Potters Bar). The ICAC hawks Artist Promotional Packages. The whole business smells to me as if selling a service to bedazzle the befuddled (eg the more naive among Wikipedia editors). Am I too harsh? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not! The befuddled and well-off collector seems the main target. Certainly not RS; the site is clear that these analyses are paid-for PR. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Not reliable. Please see Pay to play#In the visual arts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal website as a source for Linux "missing GUI API standardization"

A certain user is insisting on using a personal website as a source for the claim that "Linux" lacks standardization on "GUI API" (whatever that exactly means is left for users to wonder about). I do not, however, see how the author would be an expert on the subject of GUI programming, let alone an established one. I do not see how any sane college professor would accept that page as a source on a this kind of issue. Wikipedia does not need to document every online drama. --213.216.211.142 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

BGlobal

Over at Talk:Britannia (TV series) a request has been made based upon a story published in something called BGlobal. I have no idea what it is (and am having trouble finding it). So is it in fact an RS for (what are) claims of Plagiarism and Fraud?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please see previous discussion on this board. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
So is britannia-news.org (which seems to be the actual source for the article being cited) an RS for the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
BY the way the claim is it was in BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Britannia-news.org is Ben Krushkoff's personal website on which he posts content in support of his claims. As I said in the previous discuss (that I linked above), I found BGlobal's website but was unable to find any evidence on that site that there was such an article published. If it was in a paper-only publication, I don't know how we could go about verifying that. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
But we can access it general reliability, what is its over all reputation, is it good enough for what is a claim of criminal action?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
It is talking up a huge amount of time and effort, and it would be best if we could give an answer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Take a look:BGlobal. It's a Bulgarian business magazine. I would not accept it as sufficient WP:WEIGHT for a WP:BLPCRIME claim. I haven't even found unreliable sources (WP:DAILYMAIL etc) that give even the briefest mention to this claim. Everything goes back to Ben Krushkoff's personal websites. There is no independent recognition of his accusations of fraud and plagiarism. As he has apparently been unable to get any media attention to his claims, he's been trying for over a year to get it documented on Wikipedia. As you can see from the previous discussions here and on the article talk page, multiple editors have gone through this whole thing before. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Taht would be my take, but the user is not listening to me, so thought I would get a few more opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Engaging in that talk page discussion is basically entering the suck zone. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This shit again? Really? Looks like Arbcoms decision to unblock was a mistake. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I could not agree more, Hemiauchenia. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Not the place for that discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
For an actual discussion of the source, it fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL criteria #1. Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this, which I admit could be used as a valid argument against my point. However, I'd counter it by pointing out that the Bglobal is a mainstream source (magazine) in its country of origin, that the University of Westminster is mainstream and reliable (in the context of academia), and that Industrial Scripts are considered mainstream, in the context of being recognised subject experts by the majority of people who know about scriptwriting and editing. If it's the British or American mainstream print and televisual media that are only to be considered as a mainstream source, then fair enough, but to me that wouldn't seem to be the case and would not be considered inclusive for a global website. Furthermore, if multiple mainstream media sources do write about this, then surely it would warrant an article on its own? Please confirm SethRuebens (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Same small clique of editors trying to stop the article accurately representing all significant views on the subject. Hmmmm....

It, the article, was featured in the printed version (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611), which meets Wiki guidance on being WP:PUBLISHED. I believe there is an exchange board here that I could post it on for you (even though it's been republished elsewhere online). The fact that nobody has asked to see a copy tells me enough, in spite of the fact it comes from a respected magazine with a strict code of ethics.

You can group together and trash the sources myself (in the past) and now others are using to fairly justify inclusion of this dispute in the article, all you like. But they exist for the world to see and come from highly reputable experts. Have any of you written an Academy Award nominated script? Ran the Scriptwriting course at the UK's pre-eminent Creative Writing University? Owned the world's leading script editing company? Worked at a faculty that specialises in IP Law training future IP lawyers? I'm seriously interested. SethRuebens (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the arguments, only to access the reliability of the source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Same small clique of editors trying to stop the article accurately representing all significant views on the subject ignores the fact that WP:NPOV actually says 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, and the objection is that the viewpoint is one that's completely ignored by reliable references. Personal websites are no use. Even if this magazine article is deemed reliable, there are WP:WEIGHT issues. I'm unsure why they even bothered to unblock a single purpose account with an axe to grind that's only ever edited one article that they are now banned from editing. FDW777 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The academic opinion, from what was the nation’s leading course of its kind (run by one of the world’s most highly regarded Creative Writing faculties), is that Britannia was based on an unauthorised copy of my work. Fact. The letter from the Head of Scriptwriting there (an internationally recognised subject expert) is significant and reliable unto itself.
1. Why are you suggesting that source isn’t reliable?
2. Who wrote and published the letter in the first place? (clue, not me).
The expert opinion of others (the world’s leading script editing company and a number of other academics and subject experts) also agree.
3. Why are you suggesting these are not reliable, even when Wiki’s own guidance says they are?
The fact that I have collated and republished them on a website does not mean I was the person who originally published them. You can check the links I provided there myself.
In the past, I’ve had several editors saying that if I could produce one reliable, independent media source, featuring news of this case, then it should be featured?
4. Why, having done so (the BGlobal article), is it now being ignored?
If/as/when this is picked up by other media sources, then surely it would warrant an article of its own (which I’m not arguing for).
You have said I am a single purpose account. Naturally, when I read a Wikipedia article that says somebody else has created my work (certainly on this scale), I am going to object to it. Who wouldn’t, in my shoes? I have proved that it is not just me that thinks this Britannia was based on my work, but a growing number of academics and experts, and now thousands of other people. Either way, I’ll happily edit other articles, and have started to do so, to avoid more WP:LAWYERING but having this article correctly represent the truth, remains a major focus.
The Arbitration Committee looked at the case and my arguments and agreed to let me continue the debate on the talk page and that’s what I’m doing now. Perhaps they could see what I could see is happening here? The fact that a small group of editors are seemingly intent on trying to discredit me, get me banned and hide the truth from the article - what hundreds of thousands of people already know about - speaks volumes.
I’m quite certain that this dispute will continue to go on in the real world and therefore talking about it on the talk page is pertinent to the article. The sources, including a reputable business magazine with a strict code of ethics, is one of them. It is reliable. If you don’t want to join in the debate or read my comments, then don’t. SethRuebens (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Using an anonymous Twitter account that translates announcements by the Taliban as a source for a live situation map of the war in Afghanistan

1. Source: An anonymous twitter feed (@RisboLensky) that (apparently) translates announcements by the Taliban as to which towns/villages it has taken in Afghanistan. I say "apparently" as it itself is not clearly attributing these announcements to the Taliban - it's not clear who it is attributing them to. See here for an example: https://twitter.com/RisboLensky/status/1409930228261085185

2. Article: This is used as a source for creating this situation map on Wiki Commons that is in turn used on the page Taliban insurgency and others.

3. Content: The map shows specific territory as having fallen to the Taliban. For example it shows the city of Balkh near Mazar-i-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan as having entirely fallen to the Taliban (this seems to have been added to the map in this edit dated 23 June 2021). Reports from Reuters date 22 June 2021 do not match this, instead referring to Taliban sources as saying that the Taliban entered the suburbs of Balkh before retreating (the most recent news report from the area). FOARP (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's not reliable and the creator(s) of the map should review WP:RS. Even if this map was created on Commons, our sourcing requirements are enforced as soon as it is used on an article here. This isn't even acceptable in an WP:ABOUTSELF sense of "the Taliban claims..." because there's no assurance of who or why the account is being operated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I would not consider this a reliable source even if we knew for a fact that the translations were accurate and the source was unquestionably Taliban announcements. Propaganda is a weapon, and not exactly an uncommon one, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There is some usage of their tweets by other media such as India Today, ANNA News, however I'm not sure if the use sufficiently widespread to apply WP:USEBYOTHERS. Alaexis¿question? 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Even if it were that widespread, I'd still not trust it. Propaganda can be newsworthy, after all.
Note that I'd say the same if the original source were the US Army. Trusting a military (professional or otherwise) to be publicly honest about its actions and successes in the moment (as opposed to 20 years later) is a recipe for disappointment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If the account was verifiably representing the Taliban in some official capacity, then I would be fine for using it a SPS to verify that what we report they are claiming is something they actually claimed (e.g. "Taliban sources claimed on date that they had captured the city of Balkh" [cite: representative-on-twitter]) (whether such our reporting such claims is DUE will vary and is anyway outside the scope of this board). As the connection to the Taliban is uncertain in this case we can't use it even for that though, as we don't know whether the Taliban are actually claiming that. If the tweets are reported in reliable sources though we could use phrasing like "India Today reported Taliban claims that ..." or better yet "Multiple sources reported Taliban claims that..." to make it clear we aren't saying the Taliban claimed the thing, we're just saying India Today (or whoever) are claiming the Taliban claimed the thing. Directly verifiable sources though are obviously preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I think Twitter would be an SPS, so are they an acknowledged...Ohh no we do not know who they are. No it's not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Like Slatersteven, these may be used some, but we know nothing of the Tweeter's process and oversight.--Hippeus (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. Spudlace (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Skift

This has been used on many pages. The Wiki page of this has a paid tag which is clearly a bad sign. But, that shouldn't necessarily mean that it can't be considered a reliable source at all in any case (I guess). This has stemmed from a discussion with an editor who wants to use this [42] as a source. Since there is no existing discussion on Skift, I thought would be good to start one and have it archived for future references. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for initiating this Nomadicghumakkad. As I suggested on your talk page, I think there is an overall need for us to (perhaps) redefine what is acceptable as a source. Shiji and a great many other businesses operate in a niche that is not so well covered in mainstream newspapers etc. Also, Forbes and nearly every other media source in the world now rely on either sponsored content or native advertising to get revenue. Skift, and just about every other hospitality and tourism resource on Earth, monetize in these, and other more "creative" ways. For us, especially less experienced editors like me, it is important to learn to differentiate without limiting the scope of Wikipedia. (I hope that made sense). Anyway, thanks in advance, for everyone's advice/input on this. Philbutler (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"This Week in Virology" (TWIV) Podcast

  • Source: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
  • Article: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
  • Content: The Podcast regularly hosts experts in Virology commenting on news and recently-released scientific papers and reports about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 . For example, a recent episode (No. 774) hosted Kristian Andersen, who said it was important to "get more data from full-length genomes from early cases in Wuhan" when discussing a recent preprint about early unearthed viral sequences from Wuhan.

Please discuss whether the statements and opinions of experts hosted in this podcast's episodes are reliable as sources. In particular, comment on how high this source would rank vs: newspapers, scientific journals, other non-science podcasts, etc. Forich (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey (This Week in Virology)

  • Reliable for attributed statements to content experts. On the same level as journalistic outlets without an editorial board.
Personally I would categorize this like other secondary sources that are only useful for attributed statements. I think we can and should use quotations and paraphrases from these episodes. I actually love this show, and listen to it whenever I get the chance. I've seen him record it a few times, like when Vincent Racaniello (the host) was invited to give the keynote at the annual American Society for Virology conference in 2017, and was the president of ASV in 2015. He's a very well respected expert, and writes some of the most important textbooks in the field.
That being said, as far as I know, TWIV does not have an editorial board, or any kind of peer review, etc. So it should not be put on the same level as, say, Science-Based Medicine, which does have those things, and definitely not as high as peer-reviewed publications.
It's very widely listened to among young virologists and those in training, but not really among practicing professor-level virologists in my experience. That has changed during the pandemic, when its clinical update episodes have become a staple of discussions among my fellow virus-people and have been cited by several primary care docs I know as key to staying up to date on the literature. Anecdotally, I would say the majority of its listeners are non-experts, but that experts who are aware of the show, on the whole, do respect the show and its guests.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (edited 20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC))
  • Comment. I had not heard of this show up until now as it's not something I would listen to. Having said that, with regard to its use as a source, IMHO it should be treated as we would an editorial in a journal or a press interview. It's okay for quotations, but should not be used to support any (contentious) factual statements. Graham Beards (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a podcast run by highly respected virologists, and for topics related to virology, it is probably far more reliable than popular media like newspapers (including newspapers of record like the New York Times) or TV news. However, it is still a podcast. These are long discussions in which people speak rather freely, and they possibly express themselves much less precisely than they would in a written medium. They do also, at times, think out loud, discuss speculative ideas, and so forth. That's the problem with these sorts of natural, largely unedited formats. So while the people talking in these podcasts do know what they're talking about when it comes to virology (as opposed to, say, most journalists covering the pandemic), I would be wary of picking out a statement from a podcast and including it in an article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable per WP:EXPERTSOURCE. These guys really are experts, so their views matter. But this is a podcast, not a peer-reviewed publication, so we need to bear in mind that they might make off-the-cuff statements or express opinions, both of which would need to be attributed if found the be DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

File/image sources

Not sure if this is the best place to ask (and if there's a better place, please chime in) but there's been some discussion about whether or not to use IMP Awards (worth noting that that is, currently, and likely to remain, a redlink) as a source for movie posters/images. Specifically, at File:Black Widow (2021 film) poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Initially a Twitter source from the official Marvel Studios account was used (https://twitter.com/MarvelStudios/status/1409919596736356354/), but this was removed and replaced with an IMP Awards link (http://www.impawards.com/2021/black_widow_ver21.html) with the justification being WP:SOCIALMEDIA. It would seem that nobody involved has actually read WP:SOCIALMEDIA, specifically that it says (notes I've added in red/superscript):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;A movie poster is hardly an "exceptional claim" and certainly not "unduly self-serving"
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;definitely not
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;definitely not
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticitythese types of tweets track with other tweets made by the account in the past; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.definitely not, the article where the image is used is filled with a variety of secondary sources

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

I discussed this on the talk page of the reverting editor, however they protested that IMP Awards is used as a source for a large number of other posters in movie-related articles. This rings of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and my feeling is that these are actually WP:LINKSPAM (which gets us to WP:OTHERSPAMEXISTS). Clearly the images are high quality, likely from media/press kits from the studios, and the actual source of the image would correctly be (in this instance) "Marvel Studios" (no need for an IMP Awards link or a link to the @MarvelStudios tweet). IMP Awards is filled with banner ads and even with ad-blocking turned on, they have affiliate links to Amazon and eBay to "search for posters" prominently displayed. Alexa rankings has them ranked at #31,742 of all sites (and part of me wonders if that high ranking is because of all the inbound links they get from Wikipedia), and there's no indication they are used anywhere else. One argument has been that IMP Awards has higher quality images, however, per our fair-use criteria, at the resolutions we work with, the Twitter source still exceeds that. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not just go to the studios website and use their poster?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
True, they have a variation on the poster here. The bottom section of the poster mentions Disney+ and theaters, but it's still technically a "poster". I'm more concerned with what status IMP Awards has here given the spammy-vibe it gives off. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing for non-free content - that is, where the image was originally obtained to show previous publication - does not need to follow RS sourcing rules. It should be from a source that either would have likely copyright ownership or would be a reasonable entity that would distribute that work. For example, if I used a movie posted from an article posted at Variety, that would be fine as Variety would be expected to be reasonable distributor.
That said, whether the image shows what is actually being described may require an RS-type source. We're not going to doubt the movie poster case, for example. However, if we are talking a picture of a long-dead person, who's appearance wasn't well known, a random source likely would not work, we'd want a source that is reliable that affirms this person's identity (like a historical society). --Masem (t) 04:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. Any source that would reasonably be expected to be republishing posters would be fine. SOCIALMEDIA doesn't really apply in this instance. The official Marvel Studios twitter account would absolutely be a reliable as a source for an official movie poster. If that is where the uploader got the image from, then that is what the source should be documented as in the file description. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Masem and Whpq: Thank you both for your responses. Any thoughts on the IMP Awards source in particular in so far as it's reliability (and is my assessment that it seems to be self-promoting/spammy is accurate)? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: Unless you believe that the posters are fan-made or hoaxes, I don't see why the site would be unreliable for the purposes of getting a movie poster. As for its spammyness, that's a separate issue and I have no opinion on that. -- Whpq (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
No, definitely not fanmade or hoaxes, the spammyness has to do with the bit at the top of this page that suggests an RFC can be used to add a site to the site blacklist if editors believe it is being used in an abusive/spammy way. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If you have a "more official" source that is otherwise clearly the same image, I would use and/or add that (no reason we can't have two or more sources for the same image). But I definitely would be concerned wholly separate if a user is going through to replace sources to one specific website if that's a COI-type editing issue, which is beyond the scope of this original question. That would be a problem if they were doing that wholesale across dozens of images. --Masem (t) 15:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's a user conduct issue to this, the additions appear to be out of a desire to provide a link to the highest quality source possible. My question was to see if there was any support for potentially getting this site added to the spam blacklist if it truly is not notable/relevant as a source. At the top of this page it's suggested an RFC to blacklist such sites is a possible step to take for problematic sources, I just didn't want to waste time with the process if I'm the only one that thinks this site might qualify. =) FWIW, it seems the site is used ~126 times on the English Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

News Guard + Media Bias Fact Check Redux

- Wikipedia:MBFC and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsGuard (The news guard entry needs updates to reflect the below sources)
- Current consensus: "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings."
- Most recent noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#Media_Bias/Fact_Check_at_Toronto_Sun (Aug 2019)
- Reason for this noticeboard post: I am new and do not want to make sweeping changes to a topic like this without consensus. Since the last noticeboard, NewsGuard has partnered with the World Health Organization, Microsoft, and 800 public libraries in cities around the United States. This makes News Guard notable, reliable, and trusted by local governments and global health organizations like the WHO to certify credible and reliable sources. NewsGuard certifies Mediabiasfactcheck.com with their highest credibility rating of 100/100 (Example of badge here) which indicates "Green: A website is rated green if it generally adheres to basic standards of credibility and transparency. (If the site adheres to all nine of our criteria, we note that in the rating. If it has significant exceptions among the criteria, we note that too.)". The only source that exists for the claim that MBFC is unreliable is the one currently in the Wikipedia entry for MBFC via RS/PS and that source is this article from the Columbia Journalism Review from 2018 located here. I feel that as though WP:RS/MC and WP:USEBYOTHERS, and WP:MEDORG applies based on this new information.

I am re-posting some of the sources I originally posted on the MBFC Perennial sources article:
1. The World Health Organization is the strongest source I have located thus far: https://www.newsguardtech.com/press/newsguard-statement-world-health-organzation-partnership/ or https://strategichcmarketing.com/health-care-marketing-healthguard-fighting-disinformation specifically: "In late August, the company announced a partnership with the World Health Organization (WHO). Dr. Sylvie Briand, director of WHO’s Infectious Hazards Management Department, stated in the press release: “It is vital that people everywhere get the right information at the right time to protect themselves and their loves ones. That’s why we are looking forward to working with NewsGuard and other platforms to fight misinformation and disinformation.".
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/wikipedia-who-coronavirus-health.html
Mr. Pattison said he had a staff of only five, although the agency subscribes to NewsGuard, a service that hunts for new rumors springing up on the internet. His staff examines NewsGuard alerts, consults medical experts, posts accurate information on the W.H.O. website and then calls its contacts at social media agencies and asks them to link to it.
3. https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
"Adding this service on computers used by our patrons continues the long tradition of librarians arming readers with more information about what they are reading,” Stacey Aldrich, the state librarian of Hawaii, said in a statement.". Wired is a strong source according to RS/PS. This led me look for more sources and I found that NG has partners with many libraries and public education organizations. For example, Library.Alaska.Gov links to it here: https://lam.alaska.gov/covid-19.
4. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/08/23/defending-against-disinformation-in-partnership-with-newsguard/
Earlier this week, we launched Microsoft AccountGuard, a new service designed to help political campaigns and other organizations that underpin democratic processes protect themselves from cyberattacks. Today, we are further broadening the work of our Defending Democracy Program by announcing a new partnership with NewsGuard Technologies, which will empower voters by providing them with high-quality information about the integrity and transparency of online news sites.

Your thoughts?

Thank you. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

NewsGuards Front Page states "750+ Libraries Globally" that they partner with, how do you get 800 in the United States alone? All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, the claim is here and actually says "Microsoft’s Defending Democracy program—through which more than 800 public libraries provide NewsGuard to their more than seven million patrons in the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy. NewsGuard plans to expand the program into new countries, including Australia and Canada, later this year.". I have been reading about NewsGuard all day and its hard to keep it all straight. FrederickZoltair (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Please review WP:RSN very carefully. Press releases are not the type of sources that demonstrate reliability. --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for pointing that out I was unaware. Alternative source: (Politico) "Microsoft was the first technology company to offer our ratings and labels by integrating them into its mobile Edge browser, and providing users of the Edge desktop browser free access. Internet providers such as British Telecom in the U.K., health care systems such as Mt. Sinai in New York and more than 800 public libraries and schools in the U.S. and Europe provide our ratings and labels through access to a browser extension that inserts red or green labels alongside news stories in social media feeds and search results.". This source also indicates it is not just public libraries. It is an opinion piece but valid per WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:RSEDITORIAL FrederickZoltair (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed so extensively here that it would be an encumbrance to relitigate it entirely. However, the crux of the argument to change the reliability of Newsguard in this latest iteration seems to be that it is now "trusted by local governments". Whether a government agency authenticates a source or not is irrelevant to whether WP considers a source reliable. A government stamp of approval is neither required for us to use a source, nor is the lack of such a stamp preclusive of that source's use. Chetsford (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I can appreciate issue fatigue and you are correct it has been discussed to death in the past, but not recently or with the recent new information in mind and noting that on WP:CCC that previously closed issues are primarily re-classified by discussion. I would like to draw attention to the fact that WP currently maintains consensus on the Poynter Institute and Politifact being extremely strong sources typically because of the Poynter Institute's own International Fact-Checking Network reviews and certification (and they are not free of [| controversial mistakes] either). Also keep in mind, we currently have several entries with sections claiming Covid medical misinformation is being spread and to certify those claims we are using VICE Motherload as a reliable second hand source which has no standing consensus on WP per Wikipedia:RSP and are currently live on entries as of this minute. Other extremely strong sources that are counted among the gold standard for reliable wikipedia sourcing like Reuters and the BBC cover and link to the WHO both as a source of news and as a reliable source for authoritative medical and scientific claims consistently. This lends itself again to WP:MEDORG and WP:USEBYOTHERS and I think that it is generally safe to assume the WHO is reliable regarding medical claims and misinformation. Microsoft is notable within the Healthcare sphere per Forbes and has been certified as a healthcare provider by the Hitech actand separately certified and audited by Fedramp for NIST security compliance which they maintain certification for. These factors combined make both Microsoft and the Who's use of NewsGuard specifically for combating health and political misinformation notable and verifiable. The WHO using it for real-time alerting and for identifying misinformation and for assistance with disseminating correct and recommended health information instead on social media per the New York Times and local governments that run public libraries and schools also trusting Microsoft and news guard further drive home the reliability of the information provided by NewsGuard in my opinion. I appreciate your commentary! FrederickZoltair (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Your are saying that Reuters quotes a government agency, therefore, said government agency can determine which media outlets WP considers reliable? That doesn't make any sense. It's just the reverse of this argument which advanced the position that, if a U.S. Government national security agency disapproved of a media outlet, it should be banned from WP. You can go through that door in either direction, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on WP to recognize or derecognize the reliability of media outlets based on the decrees of government authorities. And, frankly, I'm very concerned that we have editors who keep pushing the notion that the state should be a partner in determining which sources are usable on WP. Chetsford (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I should have done a better job of clarifying as I can see where you are coming from and that was not what I was trying to communicate. My overarching point is twofold. Reuters is partnering with WHO (is what that Reuters link showed) to combat misinformation specifically medical and political categories of it and this after all is Reuters bread and butter and what their reputation is hinged upon and we are currently using news articles it publishes as authoritative non-bias sources on many many entries across Wikipedia and is generally understood to even be reliable when dealing with extremely controversial information and recent events. The same goes for BBC who was a major player in the Who's Stop the Spread campaign detailed here. NewsGuard partners with WHO for the same goal and furthermore is a tool used by parts of the WHO's teams internally both to directly identify misinformation and secondarily to disseminate corrections on that information using WHO provided and certified information in return. Reuters is extremely reliable (both in my experience and per existing WP consensus), and the world health organization plays a pivotal role in public health and is generally reliable per all linked sources thus far and is in fact a multi national health cooperation initiative created by the United Nations with its recent prominent goals being emphasized as to counter misinformation and disseminating reliable and trusted medical information to the public by scientists and scientific consensus and is funded by governments across the globe. Their methodologies are known and their credibility is not generally in question especially in regard to medical claims, research, and treatments and additionally by Wikipedia's own policies is reliable (unless there is evidence to call that into question, which I do not feel there is here). WHO, Reuters, and NewsGuard are all working toward the same goal using the same tools and relying on sources they feel are credible, and using a mix of AI and experienced journalists to vet and verify claims and to respond accordingly not unlike SNOPES/Politifact/The poynter institute etc and other sources we currently certify as extremely strong per RSPS for fact checking and misinformation verification. Microsoft is a large player both with regards to healthcare, technology for healthcare professionals and is itself a certified and audited healthcare provider and this is not new or controversial and as evidence of this I reference how the federal government of the USA who enforces the Hitech act, HIPAA, and NIST compliances (all which Microsoft are compliant with and externally audited on and also provide as a service to their own customers) are evidence of Microsoft's notability in the field and their reliability as a trusted source to manage misinformation specifically political and medical categories of it. When you take into account Microsoft makes Windows, internet explorer, and the Edge browser which are the default web browsers included with Windows that most people use (I am using it to type this reply to you) it makes a great deal of sense why federal (not just the USA) and local governments(Also not just the USA) are interested in partnering with Microsoft who has based this feature they offer on NewsGuards licensed data and methodology, the same as the WHO. That was long winded but hopefully I have provided the relevant associations and evidence to support it regarding all involved sources. I am not saying we run all sources through media bias fact check or NewsGuard before we allow or disallow use, merely that NewsGuard should be upgraded to a level of reliability at least on par with Politifact/The Poynter Institute and other fact checking organizations that WP cureently certifies and additionally that MBFC whom NewsGuard has certified with a perfect credibility rating regarding factual and fair information should be as well. If not equal to existing sources that are generally reliable, then at least as a potential to be valid rather than immediately discounted because of RSPS. None of this inherently changes our guidelines or policies nor does it suggest favoring one source over the other that is not already subject to consensus changes and reasonable discourse via talk page to work out specific useful context based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline. On a personal note I find the abundant use of sources like VICE as reliable and bias free sources detestable, yet we work with a Wikipedia that apparently has no issue in doing so. This is in my opinion is a step toward more fact oriented coverage of entries and certified reliable information in general which I believe is very much in line with our standing policies and guidelines and a good thing overall as sinister media bias continues to infect and influence global health and politics. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey there!, I'll be honest that post above has kinda thrown me for a loop. Putting Newsguard aside for a second, I'm not sure but I don't think even if Newsguard was a trusted source that would change MBFC's rating, just because of the weight of other mentions of it. Also not to be pedantic but far and away most people Google Chrome, not Microsoft Edge or IE (which I think isn't supported anymore). All the best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Not pedantic at all and I appreciate your comment. I meant to imply that Windows is the most common desktop operating system and Edge is the default browser hardcoded into it and thus has many local and federal government sector and enterprise users that can take advantage of NewsGuard easily. Chrome is definitely the most popular browser. As for your other point, sources being generally regarded reliable and credible leads to their frequent use with very little resistance almost to a fault (like in the case of VICE above imo). If a credible sources links to another credible source especially for fact checking/combating misinformation (like if the BBC sends you to WHO for a medical claim, or even if Wikipedia send you to WHO as we do now on many scientific articles like Saturated Fat for example) its generally understood that they both are credible by association unless there is reason to suspect not in that context and if there is it can be challenged easily and a consensus can be reached. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_346&oldid=1144963937"