Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 412

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 405 ← Archive 410 Archive 411 Archive 412 Archive 413 Archive 414 Archive 415

RfC: Public Art in Public Places

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the website Public Art in Public Places?

I'm advocating for Option 3 or Option 4. In 2020, when a discussion led to the article on PAIPP being deleted, the closing admin suggested that "the question of whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source" be raised here. (At the time, there were some 80 cites. Currently there are 34). This is that. At the time, there was no discernible coverage of the organization itself.  That still appears to be the case.

PAIPP says it collaborates with "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations" but none are named, either in the overall material or the specific references. Hence it seems to be a secondary source in which there appears to be no way to confirm where the information is coming from. PAIPP also claims "Partnerships with Google Cultural Institute, Google Maps and Google Search". Perhaps that confers reliability? I'm not sure.

It seems to me that the information contained on the PAIPP would be better referenced sources that are more clearly vetted: mainly from the institutions that feature the art under discussion.

--Barte (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 3 - generally unreliable or Option 4 - deprecate source
This is based on the same criteria as I wrote above, and the issue that Barte raises, that there is no way to verify if the information is actually vetted, and that better sources exist.
1) it's a database with no editorial oversight;
2) it seems to glean some of their information from other sources like news reports or Google, then reposts that information on their database/website;
3) they (their director and director's assistant) have repeatedly used wikipedia for self-promotion, and have not complied with our COI and UPE guidelines/policies despite numerous warnings; therefore are NOT here to help build an encyclopedia. They have not been truthful when asked about their COI editing (Diffs can be provided).;
4) it's basically an office consisting of one or two people, their database/website is a self-published source with user-submitted content, not an independent published source (like a book or magazine or newspaper, nor is it like a reliable primary source for information on public art works such as the agency funding the artwork like 1% for art or General Services Administration), therefore, much better sources exist that are indeed reliable.
5) it is uncertain if the information on their database/website is accurate.
6) They spam-linked their website across the 'pedia; after being warned repeatedly, they continued to spam-link their site while editing logged out as an IP (most of this has been cleaned up, but as Barte states, there still are 34 articles remaining with these links.
Netherzone (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Torn between 2 and 3, leaning 2 Option 2 It seems neither obviously reliable, nor obviously not reliable. I would definitely like to see more information on where they get their information from. On the other hand they write "Established in 2006, Public Art in Public Places is a non-commercial and not-for-profit arts organization publishing official public art data as a free and open public benefit."[1] (emphasis mine). It seems that they get their information from "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations". Unfortunately it is not completely clear whether they get all their data this way. If it really is official data it should be fine, at least for straightforward facts. The news and editorial section[2] seems unreliable to me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not clear where they get any of their information: no specific source of any kind--art organization, news site, technology company--is listed anywhere I can find. Imagine Wikipedia with no sources cited, just a general statement. How much credibility would we have?. Barte (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
We should certainly use better sources whenever possible and we should not use PAIPP for anything that could be considered contentious in any way. But I get the impression that this is more an issue of presentation and they really get their information from appropriate sources. Given the low stakes nature of the information I think it should be used with care, but declaring it generally unreliable feels unnecessary. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I think they may "scrape" Google for information. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Something about the site strikes me as a bit off, they make lots of claims about partnerships but when you look further it's all paper thin. It could just be that the way it's presented, but I would try find another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 or 3: There have been a couple of mentions from Delta College, APA Los Angeles, the City of Cerritos, and Google Arts & Culture. It's hard to tell where they obtain all information, primary or secondary. There's no review process mentioned but neither are there mentions of inaccuracies or controversies. I would encourage the use of a better source if possible but would not say they are categorically unreliable. CurryCity (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The APA Los Angeles mention was written by the director of Public Art in Public Places, it is not an independent source. The others aren't independent SIGCOV about PAiPP, they are simply mentions, possibly from press releases. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying this to show it's accurate, just pointing out that it has received some coverage because another editor raised questions about it and the PAiPP's partnerships. A public college or government website would not mention an organisation solely because there is a press release. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 - This is a small non-profit organization for public art that claims to have worked with Google Maps to help them set up their procedures for listing "cultural landmarks". They are a Google Arts and Culture partner [3]. All their work, including photos, is listed as strictly copyrighted, no use without direct permission from them first, and their website has updates from July 2023, so it's clearly active. Can anyone, with a straight face, really propose: "This source has been added to our list of sources "discussed multiple times" and found to be a problem when it's so non-notable it's never been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard before"? I think this source shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless it were genuinely controversial, and saying it is "Not a reliable source" when it's an obscure non-profit whose entire goal is to provide free, reliable information to the public on an obscure topic we haven't fact checked and shown to be wrong would be a miss-step. Denaar (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The organization may be small, but the number of times it has been cited over the years has been disproportionally large. As I noted above, there were about 80 cites at the time of PAIPP deletion discussion and I count over 30 as of now. The reason, as User:Netherzone notes, is that the organization seems to persistently cite itself. (IP editors geolocate to PAIPP's own location: Pomona, Calif. And the first wave of cites came from an account with the same editor name as the PAIPP's director before the the name was changed: User:K. M. Williamson). The result has been a continuing violation of WP:V: cites that could have linked to a reliable, vetted source--an art museum, say, or press coverage--instead link to an intermediary source that masks where the information actually came from. Barte (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like an argument about the reliability of the source at all though. Reference spam should be addressed as a behavior not by deprecating a source. Jahaza (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree that if that's the issue - this isn't the right venue for it. Denaar (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
That is not the only issue. Please see the above for the other issues in addition to the COI/UPE/SPAM:
1) it's a database with no editorial oversight;
2) it seems to glean some of their information from other sources like news reports or Google, then reposts that information on their database/website;
4) it's basically an office consisting of one or two people, their database/website is a self-published source with user-submitted content, not an independent published source (like a book or magazine or newspaper, nor is it like a reliable primary source for information on public art works such as the agency funding the artwork like 1% for art or General Services Administration), therefore, much better sources exist that are indeed reliable.
5) it is uncertain if the information on their database/website is accurate. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Is there actual evidence that they host user-submitted content? While the presentation is far from clear their self-characterization ("publishing official public art data", "collaborations with local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations") strongly suggests that they get their information from proper sources. It is not entirely clear whether their database consists only of that kind of information, but at a minimum it seems to be the core. And I have found no way to submit information, let alone publish it directly. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 - I don’t think this qualifies as a “generally reliable” source due to all the concerns listed above, so option 1 is out. Deprecation (option 4) should be reserved for sources that fabricate or intentionally mislead, and there is no evidence that this is the case. That leaves options 2 or 3 by process of elimination. Don’t really care which.
That said, this source has in no way been “perennially discussed”… so no matter what the consensus of this RFC might be, I don’t think we need to add it to the list of sources at RSP. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree that listing it at RSP would be undue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Is a source considered unreliable (option 3) only if it demonstrably produces false information? Or does it otherwise qualify if its own sources are opaque? I agree that PAIPP has not been the subject of controversies with regards to its content, and if that's the sole criteria, I guess it falls under the vaguer option 2. But as a Wikipedia editor thinking about citing it, I would want much more transparency about this source's sources and methods. Where is the info coming from? Diligent first-hand research? Working relationships with named art institutions? Web searches? Chatbots? (not likely here, but that dilemma is upon us.) I take the point that the reference spam issue doesn't belong here. But the dearth of specifics on the PAIPP website concerns me, just as a Wikipedia article tagged "More citations needed" would. I'd call that article "unreliable". Barte (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
@Random person no 362478479, respectfully, may I ask what your evaluation criteria is based on? I noticed that you only have made 162 total mainspace edits, none of which are in visual art or public art. And so am wondering what specific criteria you are using that would put this source on par with other readily available sources such as Los Angeles Times, the General Services Administration, Percent for art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, City of Santa Monica, Smithsonian Institution Research Information System (SIRIS), Los Angeles County Arts Commission, Americans for the Arts, etc. etc. We have here a non-notable organization run by one person who has overtly made non-truthful statements to Wikipedia and an assistant. Why should that source be trusted at all? Therefore, I'm sincerely curious why you believe they have credibility. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
According to their self-description PAIPP is a database of "official public art data". They also claim to have collaborations with "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations". I see no evidence that the information in their database is not official information. I see no evidence that they collect information themselves, be it via scraping google or other ways. I see no evidence that they publish user submitted information. In fact I see no way for users to sumbit information.
PAIPP is a partner of the Google Cultural Institute.[4] I see no evidence that the GCI partners with unreliable sources.
While their news and editorial section should be considered WP:SPS for the simple fact that there is no indication that it has editorial oversight, I see no reason to consider their database WP:SPS.
In sum, they claim to publish official information from collaborations. There is no evidence that this is not true. There is no evidence that they have other sources of information. There is no evidence that they have published inaccurate information. Their behavior on Wikipedia should not be a factor in evaluating their reliability. After going over the available evidence I am actually upgrading my vote to outright Option 2. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Sources are by default option 3. You get to options 1 or 2 by having a reputation for reliability, usually either by fulfilling our requirements for being some known category of reliable source (like a newsorg or an academic journal) or by other reliable sources relying on you for information.
One thing we don't do here is cherrypick how sources get their information. Most sources are not especially clear about this, and it doesn't matter that they're not. We don't and shouldn't require sources to adhere to our standards for information gathering: e.g. original research isn't allowed on-wiki but our sources can and arguably should do it. Loki (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I can't think of a secondary source I've ever cited here that didn't disclose who the reporter or author was, usually with their credentials. As as well as one or more editors providing oversight. That basic reportorial function is absent here. Barte (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Newspaper articles are published without author attribution all the time. Government reports often have no attributed authors, etc. etc. Things that are attributed to an author may use anonymous sources. Reliability isn't a chain of information custody where we have to identify each link in the chain. Jahaza (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Government reports are primary sources--just as would be an art museum press release. I'm referring to secondary sources, which is what the PAIPP claims to be. These days, newspaper reports without a byline are rare, and even then, the publication has a masthead, reporters in the field, and a visible editorial process. When a credible newspaper cites an anonymous source, they explain how the source is informed and why the name can't be revealed. Otherwise, the reporting is attributed to specific people and organizations. None of that is the case here. All we have is a vague claim of official sources with not a single one named. In my view, that's a long way from WP:V. Barte (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I would treat the PAIPP database as WP:PRIMARY given that they say they publish public information. The news and editorial section is secondary, but I would consider that part unreliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
They claim their content is based on information that originated elsewhere. That makes them a secondary source. Barte (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not a primary source in the normal sense. But given that they merely take the public information, put it in their database, and publish it it falls under WP:PRIMARY. "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (WP:SECONDARY) The content in the database section of PAIPP has none of these characteristics. That also means that inclusion in PAIPP does not contribute to notability and that other, WP:SECONDARY sources should be used where available. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, but there's a significant difference. If I'm working on Levitated Mass and cite LACMA's website, I know where that information comes from. If I cite PAIPP, I don't. I guess we disagree on this, but I therefore think the former is a reliable source and the latter is not. Barte (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Levitated Mass is actually an interesting case here. LACMA lists its height and width at 21 1/2 feet. PAIPP lists it as "approx. 22-foot by 25-foot". However on google arts and culture it is listed as 21.5 x 21.5 ft (same as LACMA), despite the fact that the data apparently is provided by PAIPP. That means PAIPP seems to contradict itself here. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Sources default at option 3, and can be higher if we have some reason to believe they're more reliable. I'd argue that Google Maps is enough of an endorsement in this context to bump them up a level, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to them being option 3 either. Loki (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • As an addendum to my earlier comment. Their Google "endorsement" was part of what gave me pause. On the "What we do" page they give further details Public Art in Public Places is a primary data contributor and verifier for Google Maps public art features as "cultural landmarks." As a pioneering contributor since 2008, Public Art in Public Places established Google Maps public art feature protocols.
    Google Maps public art features allow for transit navigation as well as the posting of public comments, reviews, and images    . Their partnership with the Google Cultural Institute is described as In partnership with Google Cultural Institute, Public Art in Public Places continues to contribute virtual public art exhibits that utilize the advanced digital image technology of the Google Arts & Culture* platform. With a link to their exhibits. Agains it's unclear exactly what this partnership is worth.
    Their homepage claims appear much more nebulous when you actually read and see what they do. I'm still not going to bold vote but exactly what they claim and what exactly they do should be looked at carefully. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
<revised> I looked for the reverse: Google Arts and Culture referencing PAIPP. The GAaC website does does list PAIPP as a partner (as noted by-- Random person no 362478479 above). There's no details about how they work together, but I agree it's an endorsement of a sort. I can find no mention of PAIPP by Google Maps. Barte (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Also just wanted to mention that their database information in addition to the geographic coordinates, such as measurements and a description. The descriptions seem to be written by the director or their assistant (who made such edits to our articles) and in at least one case (a mural) the dimensions differed from another source. I'll see if I can find the latter. Perhaps they should only be used if the coordinates are needed in an article, although generally I would imagine it's fine to simply describe the location of a work as (for example): "on the corner of Hollywood and Vine", or "in front of the LA County Museum", or "on the Venice Beach Boardwalk at Ocean Avenue". I still think they are generally unreliable, and that there is a multitude of better sources available. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
If you could find a case where they published false data (or at least data that contradicts other sources) that would indeed help. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll look for it @Random person no 362478479, it's been a few years. Netherzone (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Random person no 362478479, I found it. PAIPP's database describes Levi Ponce’s 2015 mural, Luminaries of Pantheism (also known as Visionaries, which is the artist’s preferred title), as being 75’ long, x 25’ high,[5] whereas the artist’s own website states that the mural is in fact, 120’ long x 34’ high.[6]. So both the title of the work and the dimensions are incorrect in PAIPP's database. WP's article on the mural still has the wrong info for the length of the mural and the wrong title. Netherzone (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for digging that up! All but one of the sources used for Luminaries of Pantheism use the title "Luminaries of Pantheism" (one source uses no name). So does the Paradise Project which commissioned the piece for its headquarters.[7] So far I have found no sources other than PAIPP and Ponce that make statements about the dimensions. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
So if the artist claims one set of dimensions and PAIPP, offering no further evidence, claims another, which source is more reliable (I ask rhetorically?) Barte (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Obviously the default assumption is that the artist's page has the correct dimensions. (Although, to be honest, from looking at it the proportions of 3:1 given by the PAIPP seem to fit better than those of 3.5:1 given by Ponce's page.) I was mainly searching to see if I can find a newspaper article (or other source) with the numbers the PAIPP lists. That could have shed some light on where they get their information from. But I found nothing. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Marginally reliable to unreliable Third time's the charm? PAIPP claim to publish public data, but is rather opaque about where they get their information with no individual references. There have been two cases (Luminaries of Pantheism and Levitated Mass) shown where the accuracy of their data is in question. I would say: avoid if possible. Try to find better sources. Where no other sources are available it may be usable as WP:PRIMARY for straightforward information. If the information involved was not so low stakes I would probably vote for unreliable at this point. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I largely agree with your take. In advising editors, I'd put it this way: "Public Art in Public Places' listings are difficult to verify because the organization does not reveal its sources. Where possible, substitute sources that offer more transparency, such the website of the artist, sponsor, or host institution." Thoughts? Barte (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC).
Perhaps this such the website of the artist, sponsor, or host institution needs to also include major press, and also things like the Smithsonian public art archive, the Getty public art archive (and similar) and other state and national organizations. Also it they have some incorrect information in their database, which editors should be aware of. So it is not just about transparency but also accuracy. Netherzone (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
How about: "Public Art in Public Places listings are difficult to verify because the organization does not reveal its sources. Where possible, substitute sources that offer more transparency, such a work's artist, sponsor, and host institution; major press coverage, and archives from the Smithsonian and elsewhere."
Re: noting the presence incorrect information, do we have other examples beside Luminaries of Pantheism? If not or just a few, I'd prefer to rest the case on WP:V, where we have a strong argument and which is, after all, one of the three Wikipedia core content policies. Barte (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This has already been such a huge time-drain that I don't feel like going through the listings on their website yet again. I do recall another discrepency in the size of a sculpture with a reflecting pool (that in addition to the LACMA Heiser rock). The other discrepencies are the year for works....sometimes they use the year of commissioning, sometimes they use the year of install, sometimes creation date. It seems very arbitrary. Please feel free to ahead and check these yourself comparing what is on their website and to the dates from the various artists themselves or commissioning organization. Should we not be encouraging editors to use the most rigorous sources rather than a source that we know to be problematic? Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I've checked some PAIPP listings, and not found any discrepancies so far. I'll check some more. And yes, I think whatever we do in wrapping this up, we should encourage editors to look for more rigorous sources. If the wording above doesn't quite do that, let's find wording that does. Barte (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think we all agree that where possible people should use better sources. I don't think we should add PAIPP to WP:RSP (it hasn't been discussed much and it is not widely used), so there's no need to come up with a specific wording. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree. But given the aggressive reference-spamming that has been ongoing for years now, I want to close this discussion with a succinct recommendation we can point to if need be. If it continues enough to warrant a new discussion, then I think a WP:RSP listing would then be in order. Barte (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I cross-checked six PAIPP listings, as noted below. No obvious errors. Some information I couldn't confirm (which doesn't mean it's wrong). Unless we have more, we don't have evidence of widespread inaccuracy on the PAIPP site. What I did notice is that PAIPP listings are sparse compared to other sources. The most notable features of the listing are the photos (copyrighted) and map location. In other words, there is usually scant reason to cite PAIPP unless <ahem> you are trying to promote it.

To get these, I started with the Wikipedia category "Outdoor sculptures in Greater Los Angeles". Then cross-referenced with the PAIPP site to see if the work was listed.

--Barte (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The sparseness of information is exactly what I would expect from a database of official information. And I would say that any art object that qualifies for its own article won't need a reference to PAIPP (except maybe for the exact map coordinates, but I don't see how those are encyclopedic anyway). I think it may be of use where passing mentions of an art object that is not itself notable may be warranted, like in an artist's article ("their work X is at Y") or some location's or institution's article ("near the entrance is work X by artist Z"). BTW is the ref spamming an ongoing issue? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It has been an issue over the years, not sure how recent, and I've long wondered how the site should be considered as an RS. I've found this discussion useful in figuring that out. Barte (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to close this RfC with the summary I posted above. I see no consensus for Option 3 and no support whatsoever for Option 1. So going with Option 2. Barte (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no consensus for Option 2, and believe it should be closed as Option 3. I think in this case an uninvolved *editor or* administrator should close the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't object to the summary, but if there is a formal closure it should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an administrator) per WP:RFCCLOSE. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCCLOSE: "Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." And per WP:CR: "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline." Seems to me the consensus is pretty clear and the issue has been far from contentious. But if you or someone else disagrees, I'll request formal closure. Barte (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I read that sentence from WP:RFCCLOSE as depending on the ones preceding it: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (bold in the original) In my reading it refers to cases where a formal closure and a closing statement are not necessary and the RfC tag is removed either manually by an editor or automatically after thirty days by the bot without a closing statement. If you want a formal closure I think it is better to request an uninvolved closure. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I tried, but the procedure is beyond my abilities. (I'm not even clear how to link directly to this discussion.) I'm removing the RfC tag and will let this be archived automatically without a formal closure. Barte (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Barte, I fail to understand how you determined this should be closed as Option 2 "additional considerations". The link above goes to a list on the RSP page - Legend section, that doesn't mention "additional considerations" at all. What does "additional considerations" actually mean?
When I review the discussion here is how I understand it:
Barte: 3
Netherzone: 3
Random person: "marginally reliable to unreliable"
Actively disinterested: "try to find another source" no !vote that I could find
Curry City: 2 or 3
Denaar: 2
Blue Boar: 2 or 3
Loki: 2
Outcome
Option 2: has two !votes
Option 3: has two !votes
Option "2 or 3": has two !votes
Comments that did not designate a number:
"marginally reliable to unreliable";
"try to find another source"

Could you please explain your rationale in more detail how you determined the outcome as Option 2. And also define what Option 2 actually is. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers you present, I don't see how Option 3 has a consensus, even though that remains my preference. Option 2, Additional considerations, to me means that editors should still look for alternative sources that are more transparent, which is what I would have liked to have seen in the summary. But per the above, I'm not going to attempt to close this discussion, so my reasoning here isn't particularly relevant. Barte (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Teslarati

Shortcut

Teslarati is cited as a source in a number of articles related to Elon Musk and his companies. A lot of articles are fairly harmless, but there's also stuff like uncritical articles on single Twitter posts of Musk, articles that read like Tesla fanboyism, or articles that appear to be largely unmarked opinion pieces. At least one of their writers is also a Tesla shareholder (see previous link), but that is not mentioned in her bio. Lastly, the outlet also states they offer ad space in "each individual post", but it's not clear to me whether that means that they have sponsored content. I don't think Teslarati is reliable, but I'd be happy to get some input. Cortador (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of current usage of this source in articles that you think is questionable? I see a usage on Mercedes-Benz Group that's already been flagged for removal, but others on my search seem mostly to be in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. Apart from that, if there's problematic use, you hardly need the permission of people here to remove it -- who's complaining? SamuelRiv (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
It's used a number of times in the article about The Boring Company. A bunch of uses have already been removed, but since that article relies on a number of fringe sources anyway, I wanted to get some feedback before removing all of that. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Refs 21, 28, and 46 can all be correct uses of a WP:ABOUTSELF quotation or publication. Also, let me give you an example of how to critically examine usage of this source in the article: Prufrock was under development by May 2018. They may have started production earlier, but for a public company to themselves report starting production it has to indeed be in production (otherwise they can get into a lot of trouble). Thus "by May 2018" is a fact that can be accurately verified by a promotional quote in a self-indulgent publication like Teslarati (arguably) is.
The difficult task is not to evaluate whether to delete a source uncritically, but rather to check whether the citation actually supports the words of the article text. Since you are interested in this article and source usage specifically, I will not spoil the surprise. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
For WP:ABOUTSELF to apply here, none of the of the sources would have to make claims about a third party, which is all they do. None of the sources is used for information about Teslarati. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess from your initial post I was under the impression it was a company-sponsored publication. That means you have to do more work -- check the articles that they are quoting spokespeople or press releases at the company for such citations. And again, in the case of The Boring Company, the problem is not the source, it's the use of the citation.
I hope when you removed this blurb cited to a LinkedIn post, for example, you checked the LinkedIn post. Because a LinkedIn post from a public company executive or spokesperson is definitely AboutSelf, and as a public statement about the company will be under a certain level of accountability. The problem is not the source, the problem is the article text. "Wynn said in a blog post that..." would be fine usage, for example. And again, you should check the other citations on The Boring Company, because they are about the text more than the source. There's no shortcut here -- nobody's going to push a button and deprecate a no-name source so that you don't have to check citations.
And if you're strongly opinionated on Tesla-related companies, well, company statements work both ways They're an easy way for execs to generate noncommittal early buzz from fans for a product, that pays off with if the company meets its targets. But if they fail, then such statements were the execs providing the rope to hang themselves, and those same fans will come saying these sources are unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Since you neither bothered to check what Teslerati even is (as evident by you thinking it's directly affiliated with Tesla), didn't read what I posted above, and apparently aren't aware that a statement solely backed by a primary source isn't notable, I sincerely doubt that you are in a position to tell other people that they have to "do more work". Cortador (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Your initial post offers no background, no context, and no example usage in articles. Your statement about Crider's COI is completely misleading as she is identified as a Tesla shareholder in clear equal-sized italic text at the end of every article of hers. You post here asking for feedback, and the nature of your post demands that respondents do legwork in return. I did such legwork, and am telling you that you did not do sufficient diligence in the articles you call into question. From all of this I had a single mistaken impression about the source. Also, "notable" is a different concept, and a secondary source quoting a primary source uncritically would be exactly where WP:ABOUTSELF comes into effect (if indeed that is what is happening, but you give no specifics). Your general impression of some rule about "a statement solely backed by a primary source isn't notable" seems meaningless without context. What statement, and cited for what text? That you should be asking that question every time is the entire point I'm trying to make. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a request for feedback on a source, not a request to scrutinise article quotes. Your "single mistaken impression" was you not even bothering to look at the source we are talking about. If you want to constructively participate here, you need to start doing at least the basics. Cortador (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I would view it as a fan site rather than an objective source for news. It might be OK for basic, factual claims but I wouldn't use it to establish weight or support anything remotely controversial or that could be seen as promotional for any of the Musk related companies. Springee (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a blog or a fan site I would not really use it at all, use better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
No editorial policy, no use by other reliable sources, and comes off as a fan site for Musk. I agree with Springer, probably OK for factual details but not much else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. For the reasons stated above but I'd be a little stronger about even using it generally for facts given its apparently non-independent nature and potential conflict of interest. Andre🚐 01:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Not reliable because mouthpieces like these are not going to write neutrally about Elon Musk or anything related to him. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Gala (magazine) and Paris Match

Hi, is Gala (magazine) a reliable source? It does portraits of many celebrities and I would like to use one of them in an article if possible: https://www.gala.fr/stars_et_gotha/juan_branco Neo Trixma (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Our article describes Gala as a "celebrity and gossip magazine", which makes me dubious about its reliability. I'm not sure that we should be using gossip magazines to source claims about living people at all: anything which it is important for us to include in our article should be sourceable to an obviously reliable source. Looking at the history of Juan Branco, it seems as though you want to use Gala to support Branco's date of birth; per WP:DOB Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Even if we consider Gala a reliable source, a single source does not meet the "widely published by reliable sources" threshold, and I would suggest erring on the side of not including the DOB. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Paris match which is the same type of magazine is currently used multiple times for claims in the article, should we let it? Regarding date of birth, it seems to be on "Wikidata" but I don't know how to use it or connect it to the article Neo Trixma (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Is Paris Match the same type of magazine? My understanding is that Paris Match is more of a news magazine than a gossip magazine: in an English language context, closer to Life and the Picture Post (more reliable) than Hello! and Us Weekly (less reliable). The final citation to Paris Match currently in the article (regarding Branco's on-Wikipedia activities) is the sort of thing which certainly requires a high-quality reliable source, so if PM is less reliable than I thought it was then it should certainly be removed or replaced with a better source.
Re. Wikidata: it isn't a reliable source, so you can't use that to support Branco's DOB. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I never read it because it's seen as a gossip and 'celebrities on the beach' photo magazine, not really different (except it seems a bit bigger) from Gala, Voici etc, so I was surprised to see it called a 'news magazine' on its article, but maybe it's my mistake Neo Trixma (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
In fact, if you look at the French article, there is a whole section called "Decade 2020", which shows strong changes and criticism of the new direction of Paris Match, with fake news and politically oriented articles being published: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Match#Les_ann%C3%A9es_2020 Neo Trixma (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

OTCEditions

Any opinions on whether OTCEditions is a reliable publisher or imprint? – I'm not seeing anything much about it. Specifically, is this book a reliable source for the early history of the American Angus? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I can find next to nothing about the publisher. Their homepage is down. And the trademark seems to have expired in 2020 (and only existed since 2010).[8] The parent company Orion Trading Company UK Limited seems to no longer exist and to have been very small.[9][10] (There is also an Orion UK Trading Limited, but that seems to be a different, newer entity.) So it probably comes down to the author. I'll see what I can find. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually it seems that the book was really published by Canongate Books which is a decent publisher.[11][12] I'll still try to find out more about the author. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't find much about the author, Jim Hewitson. But he has written several books on Scottish history and the history of Scottish emigrants.[13] They all seem to fall into the category of "popular" history (as opposed to academic books), but they all contain a list of sources. According to the back cover of another of his books Tam Blake & Co.: the story of the Scots in America got some good reviews in Scottish papers (that I couldn't find online).[14] I see no reason not to use it. BTW the book is available for borrowing at archive.org (free registration required). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
Thank you, Random person no 362478479, that's very helpful – you did much better than I was able to! The book is not essential to the article, but an extra reference never hurts. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Jaimoukha

Hello. Is this source Jaimoukha, A. M. (2005). The Chechens: A Handbook. Psychology Press. pp. 1–320. ISBN 0415323282. a WP:RS? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The book was actually published by Routledge. The author seems to have been a respected scholar: "Amjad Jaimoukha is a director and senior consultant at the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan. Educated in England, he has written a number of books and articles, including The Circassians, Kabardian-English Dictionary, The Cycles of the Circassian Nart Epic and Circassian Proverbs and Sayings. He is also a member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University."[15] Seems fine. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The source is absolutely reliable. You should also mention why you are assessing the credibility of the source and for which information. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, forgot to mention why I'm assessing the source's credibility. The thing is, that a lot times in the work, Jaimoukha makes serious claims (that earlier, have never been mention by any historians) but doesn't back up them with any sources. Here's some examples:
    • P. 31, Sassanids failed to subjugate Nakhs. No source cited here for this claim.
    • P. 32, invasion of North-Caucasus by Hunns and the occupation of Vainakhs lands. No source cited here either.
    • P. 33, Vainakhs participate on the side of Sviatoslav I against Khazars. No source cited again.
    There's many moments like this in his book, which again, makes me doubt it's reliability. Also, does he have a Ph.D. in history? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    He is referred to as "Dr." here [16], so presumably he's a PhD in something... that said I'm not sure a PhD is a necessary qualifier for an expert on regional history and customs, particularly for a former president of the RSS. He seems to have been a well-respected academic. I use past tense because he's deceased as of 2017. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    Judging by his bibliography, his primary focus of research was the Circassian culture. The book you are asking about has received generally positive reviews, but he's not an expert in medieval history. George Hewitt, in his generally positive review of Jaimoukha's another book, The Circassians. A Handbook, notes a few inaccuracies, one of them having to do with the medieval history of Georgia.
    Since the claims you refer to are not in his immediate area of expertise, if they are not backed by other sources then I think we should remove them. Obviously if someone contests this they should be given time to find supporting sources, in the meantime we can use the bettersourceneeded tag. Alaexis¿question? 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. He seems to have been an expert in languages, culture, and folklore of the North Caucasus, not necessarily of history. I couldn't find what his degree was in, but I would guess anthropology or language studies, not history. Where he makes historical claims without citing sources that can't be supported independently I would omit them or only use them with attribution. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

ICC, Paris Match, Seneweb

Hi, following my previous message: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gala (magazine) and Paris Match I feel like there is a double standard for sources on this article e.g. this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=prev&oldid=1171351221. Could an independent editor give his view on this? Neo Trixma (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're questioning the use of the ICC court documents it's covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY, specifically Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I don't believe it should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that was my question, along with the use of Paris Match to source controversial claims, and also in this article I had trouble adding reliable sources/content while also having trouble taking out primary or single source claims, which makes one think of double standards. I don't know what to do in this situation, maybe it's not the right place to say this Neo Trixma (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Paris Match appears to be the French equivalent of Life magazine, so at least partially reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes okay, so I guess we can keep it for general info about the subject, but to what extent does this "partially" go? Is it enough for claims in the middle of a biography if it is the only source? Thanks, Neo Trixma (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I would not use Paris Match for controversial claims or allegations of misconduct. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

GlobeNewswire

I was recently alerted to edits (diff) made by a new user who cited sources (Bitter Winter/CESNUR) that are considered unreliable based on our consensus. I have been researching the third source used by the new user, namely GlobeNewswire, but have been able to find very limited information about it. Currently, this source is cited in approximately 50 articles on the English Wikipedia. Upon initial examination, the website seems to be lacking transparency about its background. It merely states that "GlobeNewswire is one of the world's largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases, financial disclosures and multimedia content to media, investors, and consumers worldwide." This description provides minimal information. In my personal opinion, I find this website to be unreliable. However, I am seeking input from other editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a press-release distributor, which means that it's essentially the same as PRNewswire, which is considered generally unreliable per WP:RSP, due to the fact that it publishes all manner of press releases without editorial oversight. In this case, the addition is very undue, as it's a press release from Bitter Winter magazine itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like just another press release distribution service, barring some evidence that they are either inventing fake press releases or commonly distributing mis-attributed releases. As such, the content there is considered as published by the releaser of the press release, and in general WP:ABOUTSELF applies -- they are fine for non-boastful, non-exceptional information about the organization which releases the press release, but useless for comments about others, and in no way contributes to inclusion being WP:DUE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Same as any major press-release site. Should avoid using it in controversial areas. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
We do have an article for GlobeNewswire; I have corrected the name in the heading, which previously was “GlobalNewswire.” Press release services like this and PRNewswire are actually quite high quality sources for WP:ABOUTSELF claims. They show that the claim was actually made, publicly and at a given time, and legal liability may attach to intentionally false claims. But they are useless for the kind of scholarship at issue here. John M Baker (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Treat like other press release sites, reliable in as much as it can be assumed that the press releases are genuine... But you're still limited to what you can use a press release for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, one of the advantages of a press release service is that it does provide reassurance that the press release really did come from the party stated. Not that that helps here. John M Baker (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
It provides some assurance, but not as much as a statement released directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
If by “released directly” you mean something on a website in the name of the issuing company, then no, that is not as reliable as a press release. John M Baker (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe the issue here lies in the lack of upfront or transparent disclosure by GlobeNewswire regarding whether their articles are "press releases" from a third party or independent reports. The (reverted) citation in question evokes a distinct sense of undisclosed paid content provided by CESNUR. (While Masumi Fukuda has been acknowledged for her previous contributions, she is also a conspiracy theorist who cited sources from the Unification Church which accuse the BLM movement receives financial aids from Chinese communist/Maoist organization.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The press release in question is appropriately explicit that it is a release from CESNUR. It is not undisclosed paid comment, it is disclosed paid comment. In this case, that is not something we want. John M Baker (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Um... I'm sorry but I can't find any word in the article suggesting anything close to press release or paid content. If providing Introvigne's contact at the end of the piece constitutes disclosure of paid content, it is an extremely vague one I must say. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Where it says Source: Center for Studies on New Religions, "Bitter Winter" -- that's the statement that CESNUR is the source of this article. It's their release. That's not vague. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Right. As for “paid,” it is well known that press release services do receive a payment from the source for carrying the press release. But actually, since the press release service only distributes the press release and is not the source, “paid content” is probably not the best way to refer to it. John M Baker (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
My concern is that the text featured in GlobeNewswire is "unique" in the sense that it doesn't appear to be a carbon-copy of any articles found on Bitter Winter or CESNUR websites. The inclusion of "Washington, DC, July 03, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE)" adds to the suspicion that GlobeNewswire is attempting to present this press release as an independent report. From my perspective, Bitter Winter and CESNUR do not maintain a physical office in Washington. I'm inclined to believe that merely declaring the source doesn't necessarily make it evident that it's a press release. In a similar vein, we don't classify Wikipedia as a distributor of press releases for listing the sources of our citations. Regardless, it seems reasonable to conclude that this source is unsuitable for use on Wikipedia since its bold claims lack substantiation from a reliable third-party source. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that GlobeNewswire is doing anything nefarious here. Whether CESNUR is is a different and, in my opinion, irrelevant question. The key point is that this is a press release, and press releases can only be used for ABOUTSELF statements. In other words, your conclusion that the source is unsuitable for use in this article is absolutely correct. John M Baker (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I think you've radically misinterpreted what I wrote, take another shot at that bad boy (maybe go all the way back to the beginning, it seems you've actually misunderstood my point from the beginning). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you express your point more clearly? John M Baker (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
We can assume that the press releases are genuine if they are published here or on the handful of similar sites. That is all such sites do for us, from there we go to how to use a press release. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Documentary Films

This is kind of a two part question about documentary films as sources. Firstly, would a documentary film be at all considered a reliable source in an article that is not a BLP? If yes, are there any circumstances under which it should not be used or which would disqualify it? One example I'm considering is the use of factual statements made in The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart regarding Disco Demolition Night. Someone asked a question about it on the talk page a while back and the response provided seemed to indicate this source in general is unacceptable, but I'm not sure I agree. Interested in other opinions. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Casual opinion... If its in a documentary but you can't find it in print (including in coverage of the documentary) its not due even when reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Why would the same narrative statement made in a documentary and a book on the same topic not carry the same weight? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think mention in a documentary makes something less due than mention in a different kind of source. It would depend on what sort of documentary - some would carry more weight than others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
A documentary can be a primary source if it depicts the events themselves or contains eyewitnesses' testaments (see WP:PRIMARY for the implications). Alternatively, if a subject-matter expert is interviewed for a documentary, their words would have exactly the same weight as if they were printed. Alaexis¿question? 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see an issue citing a documentary but I can see some limitations. As an example, I see no reason to think a claim that the [rock band name] was founded in the lead singers basement would be more or less accurate if it were cited to a Rolling Stone magazine article or RS's Behind the Music TV documentary. Generally documentaries are less able to provide good citations/references but we often cite books/magazines/news media that also lack references. I don't see how one is better or worse than another. Springee (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Asking if documentaries are reliable is like asking if magazines are reliable. It's just a medium. It depends on the documentarian, reputation, production company, whether claims are from interviews, whether claims are synthesized by documentarians, whether it's just pointing to existing published sources, etc. Yes, a documentary can be RS; also no, sometimes they're not. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the "it depends" responses. My only issue with documentaries in general is that (as with news video versus news articles) they are typically harder to verify than printed text, as it they are hard to search or cut and paste from. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

How to cite atypical journal

See: "Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura", Nature Reviews Disease Primers

Where in the citation do I add the "Article number: 17020"

The volume is 3, and the pages are already labelled 1 thru 17, so is the issue 17020? Thanks. BhamBoi (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal lists parameter "article-number: For journals that provide article numbers for the articles in a journal issue; rendered between volume/issue and page(s).". Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I missed that parameter. That’s what I was looking for, thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Socialist Lawyer, one sentence picked out from Le Point, and Libératioin Investigation

Hi, in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1171720385&oldid=1171718327 Is Socialist Lawyer's interview reliable and secondary? Is the sentence in the middle of a Le Point article due? Is the Libération investigation secondary and due if no other source backed it up? Thanks, Neo Trixma (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Would this happen to be "Socialist lawyer and serial Wikipedia sockpuppeteer" Juan Branco, by any chance? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Socialist Lawyer appears like a reliable source and secondary, as is Libération. Whether content is due is something you should discuss on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
OK for the reliability of Socialist Lawyer, but from my understanding a sentence from an interview is primary, isn't it? Is there another noticeboard like this one for due or to discuss primary/secondary? Neo Trixma (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The only thing it's being used for is that those filing the lawsuit included students at Science Po, so even if it were primary I don't see why it would be unreliable. Shatz is reliable for the fact that their students where involved in the court case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok so it's only a matter of wether it is due or not Neo Trixma (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Vice News

Should Vice News (RSP entry) be considered unreliable, for politics and culture or more generally, from 2023 onwards or across its history, in the wake of news reports about its bankruptcy and collaboration with the MBC Group with alleged ties to the Saudi Arabian government?

  • "Vice has repeatedly blocked news stories that could offend the Saudi government", The Guardian says, with examples of a piece on oppression of Saudi trans activists and a deleted video critical of Mohammed bin Salman; more from The Guardian here and here
  • "The wide-ranging deal will see the financially ailing youth-focused digital media company create Arabic-language content exclusively for MBC" Variety
  • "In April [2021], the company’s decision to open a commercial office in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, became a point of contention. In a call with the staff to discuss the new office, one producer called the decision 'morally bankrupt.'", The New York Times
  • "Vice Media filed for bankruptcy on Monday [May 2023]", The New York Times; similar stories in Reuters and NPR
  • "Vice Media secretly organised $20m Saudi government festival ... Saudi Arabia is desperate to spend big money to rebrand itself in the eyes of western youth – and Vice, despite its counter-cultural roots, is now an ageing business that needs to improve its financial position fast", The Guardian

— Bilorv (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's probably unreliable for anything to do with Saudi Arabia from 2020 onwards, but I do not see how this effects its other coverage or historical coverage of politics and culture, which in my opinion is reliable, even if it's coverage of culture is often purient. Much of news work that Vice does is solid and referenced by other organisations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean puerile? Their coverage is indeed "youth-focused", per above cites. -- GreenC 21:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I did mean purient but puerile works as well too, Vice News is notorious for running articles on topics like sex dolls, which I guess is part of their "edgy" appeal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with the nuance presented by @Hemiauchenia. I'd say Vice is generally unreliable for Saudi Arabian politics post-2020, but could still be used there with very strict and uncompromising standards of in-text attribution. Outside of that, generally reliable for politics and culture, but when in doubt, should probably be attributed for statements about politics or anything remotely relating to 'culture war' issues. They make no pretense of being above the fray, which is part of the edgy, authentic appeal that they have (or once had). I'd be uncomfortable using Wikivoice for anything from Vice that's not verifiable through other sources. Pecopteris (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: From what source do you justify unreliability on KSA "from 2020 onwards"? Also, apart from the pulled stories, no source has said that Vice stories on KSA have been altered, so I'm not sure where we can say, based on news from only within a few months, that Vice stories on KSA are not going to be factually reliable (any more or less so than Vice stories anywhere else, that is). Going forward, it seems that their KSA office is an independent entity, so while it seems likely they'd continue to axe stories, we can't say how much, if at all, they would instead choose to modify under political pressure stories of the news division on KSA. The difference is that in one case stories aren't published at all, while in the other case a story is published, but that may be misleading or have errors of fact or omission.
@Pecopteris: Per culture war issues: Vice tends to have a bias. That's not the same as reliability for purposes of RSN. And the final sentence about Wikivoice is correct, but per existing policies should read something like: "Do not use Wikivoice for any primary sources, including news articles and research, regardless of the reliability of the source, that's not verifiable through other sources." SamuelRiv (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The 2020 date refers to the festival. I don't get your point about "culture war", most reliable sources probably lean the same way vice does on culture war issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the general sentiment, use a lot of caution list 2020 when it relates to Saudi Arabia. But we shouldn't pre-judge any changes in other yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
If collaborating with the Saudis or taking their money is disqualifying would we have any sources left? NYT, WSJ, WP, BBC, AP, AFP, SCMP... All have done it. IMO no change is necessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue here is The Guardian article, saying that the investment has effected editorial decisions on content. Obviously many other reliable sources have Saudi investors, but the article shows some caution might be deserved in the case of Vice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something the editorial decision would be to not cover certain stories, something which has zero bearing on general reliability because it doesn't actually effect the stories which are told. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Input on BLP Quality Reliable Sources for confirming that an exhibition, award, or event occurred.

Hi! I edit living artist and designers pages and have questions about reliable sources and referencing that an exhibition or event occurred, that an artwork was in a certain museum or collection, or that an award was granted. I would appreciate other editors opinions on if I (and other editors who are doing the same practice) are referencing correctly.

Once it has been established that the article itself has reliable sources, and I want to establish or add to an exhibition or collection list, can a museum website (like MoMA NY), their collection catalog, a museum book, or press release be a source/reference to document that the show occurred when a 3rd party independent reliable source is not available?

For example on these pages:


I'm looking at: WP:REPUTABLE: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.", WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "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.... and Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article" & WP:RS & WP:BLP


What do you think?

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be concerned about whether the information is WP:DUE when no independent sources have taken notice of it. The purpose of an article isn't to catalog everything, but to summarize the significant aspects of a topic/person/event. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:Schazjmd This is for a mention or line item, like 'Laarman's work is in the permanent collection of the MoMA(source), Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum(source)' or on an exhibition list...
Wondering if it a significant aspect worth including if it is as a prominent / notable museum - or if it must also be covered by independent sources?
Also, What if the museum source is coupled with an art world source like ArtNet or ArtFacts?
Looking to get a clear idea of the editing ahead...
ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Art/artist articles aren't my area of expertise, but I would consider a permanent collection in a prominent museum worth mentioning and (IMO) the museum would be a reliable source for that. I found one RSN discussion of ArtNet, and editors viewed it positively.[17] Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree: a museum's own publication is a reliable source for what works are in their collection or they have exhibited. Due weight is always an issue, but if a major museum holds an artist's works in its permanent collection, or held a solo exhibition of their work, it probably merits mention in the article – unless this is such a major and prolific artist (e.g. Picasso, Henry Moore) that it would simply be impractical to mention every single solo show and major museum collection. I wouldn't consider less major museums, group shows, or minor works (which I know is vague and subjective, but e.g. preparatory sketches which were not intended to be exhibited in their own right, and graphics from large editions) automatically worthy of inclusion unless independent sources discussed them. I'm not familiar with ArtFacts, but I would certainly consider ArtNet generally reliable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Gauchoworld?

What do people think about Gauchoworld as a RS for statements related to the sex life of the subject in a WP:BLP? I'm referring to Piri. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on this it looks like only three persons are involved. I would not use it for potentially controversial WP:BLP content. On the other hand, judging from the way the content is presented at Piri it seems that the article is at least partially an interview in which case WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. There is also the question of whether it is WP:DUE if this is the only source for it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
This is their 'about' page - I'm not seeing much there about editorial policy. I clicked on one of their articles at random - this one. It reads very much like an advertorial/press release, written by someone called Kennedy Wilks. Clicking on the author's name seems to indicate it's the only piece they've written on the site, and it doesn't tell me anything about who they are (and whether they are independent of the subject they're writing about). I'm not getting 'RS' vibes from the site on the whole. Girth Summit (blether) 17:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I hate these "we're too hip for boring editorial information" about pages. They make evaluation of sources unnecessarily hard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Marie Steiner-von Sivers

This is about [18]. The IP claims that Büchenbacher is not reliable—I find that a straw man repeated ad nauseam. I would never WP:CITE Büchenbacher—he is not the authority making the claim. A PhD thesis from the Ivy League, print-published by the Royal Brill Publishers is making the claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on that talk page is clear and the statement is quite nuanced in the linked revision. Source in question is reliable for that statement (opinion of Büchenbacher), inclusion is a question of due weight well handled on the article talk page. Pavlor (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Clearly Brill is a reliable publisher for this topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Human Heridity

[19] Is this journal any good? I'm always suspicious when I see that phrase. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks perfectly respectable to me. It is published by Karger Publishers, a Swiss academic publisher. Articles are peer-reviewed.[20] It is included in relevant bibliographic databases like PubMed, Medline, Scopus.[21] The people on the editorial board work at respected scientific institutions like Inserm, Mayo Clinic, University of Michigan, University of Leicester, King's College, London.[22] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholars under police investigations

Two Indian scholars of Manipuri tribal origin, Jankhomang Guite and Thongkholal Haokip are facing police investigations in India, for charges such as "distorting history", "falsifying history", "telling lies", "inflaming communal relations" and such like. Another scholar Kham Khan Suan Hausing has already been charged and he is contesting it in the Supreme Court of India. All these scholars are widely cited on Wikipedia. The question is, what effect should these charges and accusations have on Wikipedia editing?

An editor has recently commented: I am not telling you what to do, but maybe next time try not to give too much weight to historical narrations by someone who didn't even major in History. Especially when that someone [Thongkholal Haokip] has an active FIR case against him for distortion of historical facts.

Should we downgrade these scholars because they are facing police charges or investigations?

Here are some sources discussing the matter:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the current political climate in India, I don't think that being charged should necessarily be counted against them, but at the same time I don't think it necessarily vindicates their scholarship either. We would really have to assess their work against the broader scholarly consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with @Hemiauchenia. We should ignore the First information report, but take into account the scholarly consensus. As regards T Haokip, I find it interesting that even the security establishment considered him reliable---Saikia, who is a security expert close to the establishment quotes Haokip explicitly and also takes his analytic approach from the cited work before the FIR was filed:

    Prof. Thongkholal Haokip who teaches in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi has noted in his paper, “The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur” that “To that hill tribal people of Manipur, the demand for ST status (by the Meiteis: Author) is a ploy to attenuate the fervent political demands of the Kukis and Naga in, as well as a tacit strategy of the dominant Valley dwellers to make inroads into the hill areas of the state.” It has been already highlighted above that the Meiteis are not permitted under the state’s “Land Reform Act” to settle in the hill districts.

    Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
No. A First information report (FIR) should not be a legitimate process under WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It looks to me that the charges against them are flimsy, politically motivated and counter to academic freedom, and that even if carried (which seems unlikely) we should not use them as grounds for assuming unreliability. Guite in particular is a serious scholar at a major university with publications in peer reviewed journals that have decent numbers of citations. There may be POV concerns (and therefore might be sensible to attribute and possibly to note any political commitments if relying on them), I don't see RS concerns. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Police forces are not historians and their investigations should have no bearing on whether or not we consider historians reliable. The question is: do academic institutions and other historians think that they are distorting history? If not, then it doesn't matter what police investigation they are under. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Politically motivated charges alone, short of conviction and the conclusion of the appeals process, should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, particularly in a country as riven by political abuse of the courts as India. In the meantime, it almost confirms the academics are speaking sufficient truth to power to have riled the powers that be. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately contentious areas of scholarship have been hugely politicized for decades in South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with all my colleagues above; police investigations have nothing to do with reliability, which must be determined (as with all scholars) by what they publish in and how their conclusions match up against scholarly consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Of course not, Indian FIR are essentially worthless for that purpose as anyone can file them and their filing is widely abused (especially in politics)... They're a rather bizarre hangover from British colonialism which has no place in a modern society but persists nevertheless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Of course not. These allegations are political and have nothing whatsoever to do with reliability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"I don't think that being charged should necessarily be counted against them" Last I checked, political purges in police states can not be counted against the reputation of the victims. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Well said! Pecopteris (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Policy (policies) on using a defence blog as a reference.

Link to earlier discussion just as reference Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_(policies)_on_using_a_defence_blog_as_a_reference. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would like to ask about having a defence blog/website as a reference. I'm seeing this in Philippine military/police-related articles like List of equipment of the Philippine Army. I do replace them with non-DB/DW articles when I find same or similar info.

Examples are this and this, the latter being linked to this. Ominae (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  • First, when two or more sources could be used to support the same material, it is never “wrong” to replace one reliable source for another you think is more reliable. As to whether the blog is reliable, a lot depends on the author of the blog. Are they considered an expert in their field? Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    Since this conversation got moved from village pump, I'm going to repost my comment here.
    I see that the author of Pitz Defense Analysis used to work for the military and now has some undefined role in the government. On MaxDefense, I see a number of articles that are clearly opinion pieces about international events. On PhDefResource, I see mostly descriptive information about acquisition projects.
    I'm concerned about these sources having direct ties to the Philippine government. That is sure to color their analysis of geopolitics. There are also the general concerns about citing a blog on Wikipedia.
    My two cents: These sources could (and in the absence of better sources, should) be used for purely factual claims (i.e. the caliber of a rifle that the Philippine Army is acquiring), but anything even remotely resembling commentary should be avoided Pecopteris (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding my two cents that the person who does Max Defense is a security specialist, but has ties with the Philippine military. Ominae (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

bestmvno.com in particular and MVNO sources in general

On List of United States mobile virtual network operators I have some questions about the sourcing for claims that MVNO X uses MNO Y.

That page cites bestmvno.com 61 times. and a lot of the other citations are primary (AllvoiWireless.com cited for the claim that Allvoi Wireless uses AT&T, assurancewireless.com cited for the claim that Assurance Wireless uses T-Mobile, etc.) There are other dubious/spammy sources such as prepaid-wireless-guide.com, FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net, and bestcellular.com.

So besides asking about bestmvno.com in particular, my basic question is whether there exists any reliable source for claims about which MNO a MVNO uses. Is it even established that a particular MVNO doesn't use different MNOs in different regions and doesn't switch MNOs depending on who is offering the best price this week?

Or should we just give up and nuke the "Host Network(s)" collumn on that page?

Background (skip this if you don't care how I got here):

I am setting up two voice-and-text-messaging-only flip phones for the specific purpose of calling for help if a car breaks down, calling 911, etc. My goal is to have the two phones use different carriers and different towers so as to decrease the odds of not getting through. There are a number of low cost NVMEs that appear to be perfect for that purpose.

Searching the web, I ran into all sorts of conflicting claims about which MNO various MVNOs use. So of course I went to Wikipedia hoping for a link to a reliable source, only to find the dumpster fire / spam magnet that is List of United States mobile virtual network operators.   :(   --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The site seems to be operated by a single person with four "contributing authors".[23] They also have sponsored posts.[24] I would not use it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Initialisms fixed. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#NVMOs and NMOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I think in general it should be fine to use primary sources in this case, unless there is a reason to doubt the claim per WP:ABOUTSELF. If you actually have an active SIM, *#*#4636#*#* will show the MNC code of the connection to the tower, and that would probably be the most reliable ground truth possible, but of course, that is unpublished original research not suitable for use on Wikipedia, as it cannot be verified. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

WordPress – BrentTornado

Generally per WP:RSSELF, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. WordPress was deemed as "generally unreliable" in 2021. There is a specific WordPress website, The Brent Tornado 1973 for this discussion. The source is currently used on 1973 Central Alabama tornado and List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The source is linked to by the National Weather Service on on this webpage where they said, “Click here for website devoted to the damage in Brent (Bibb County) from this storm”, where the “Click here” links to the WordPress article. The website creator is John Brasher, a reporter for the Centreville Press. Given the U.S. Government (National Weather Service) links to this WordPress website to find more information about this tornado, would it be considered a reliable source for information? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The editor is trying to justify an off-handed non-scientific comment from a newspaper reporter made in 1973 to say the tornado is a possible F5 when no scientific evidence has been provided to support such a claim. United States Man (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
What does that have to do with whether or not the newspaper reporter, which is linked to by the National Weather Service, is a reliable source for information? This discussion isn’t about the reporters comment, but rather the source as a whole. Please stay on the topic for which this discussion is based on. A discussion about the reporters comment would be better suited at WP:WEATHER, where a more scientific style discussion can take place. This is a pure reliability discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
You started this discussion based on what was described in my above comment, so please don't try to act like you didn't. Also, what the NWS refers to as reliable doesn't necessarily match what Wikipedia refers to as reliable. Although, they could certainly agree in the instance. United States Man (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not proper to evaluate reliability of a source entirely separate from the claims it is used to support. A GENREL source is reliable in most cases in its area of expertise. We tend to try and avoid NEWSORG sources for scientific, and especially biomedical claims, for example, even if they're (for better or worse) mostly good enough for general statements of fact per NEWSORG. And we would, of course, generally not use a medical source as an RS on law, or vice versa, or that of a geologist on atmospheric physics, whether or not it has been through the academic peer review process. Whether it's a comment made in passing or the result of in depth research and analysis is also relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
When I was first using the source, I discovered: (1) scientific experts link to it, that being the National Weather Service, who conducted the damage surveys, (2), some photographs used by the National Weather Service on their webpage appear to have been to taken by this reporter/photographer, (3), this photographer interviewed several people, including James Spann, and at least 2 National Weather Service personnel. For those reasons, I lean that this source would be close to, if not passing the WP:SPS’s SME category. That is at least my thought process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
There are two reasons that a wordpress site could be used WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. For ABOUTSELF to be considered it would have to be referencing uncontroversial details about the author, as the author is not a tornado it doesn't apply. The other option is that the author is a recognised expert that has been previously published by other reliable sources, per SPS. The National Weather Service linking to the wordpress site for historic reporting of the storm doesn't seem to show that the author is an expert in climatology, so unless there are more sources using the work it doesn't seem that SPS applies either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to clarify to see if this source is allowed

I'm wanting to get the tour date list for the The Spicy Meatball Tour that has a couple missing dates (and one with the incorrect day listed) I was told reviews of concerts would be ok sources to prove the show happened (dates, venue, etc). In conclusion I'd like to know if this is a reliable source as I don't see it on amy list. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Before we explore whether the source is reliable, I have to ask whether the material is appropriate. Listing upcoming tour dates seems promotional. Reviews are fine for past dates. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    This is for a show that's come and gone, making it a past date. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    Perhaps I was vague the source is from a review of a Hellfest concert and the review was released a few days after the concert occurred. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites?

RESOLVED
There is a rough consensus in this thread that NewsGuard is not a reliable source.

Editors made statements such as, "It's one more opinion on who they like or don't like".

On the other hand, an editor brought fourth that it may be "good starting points for assessing the reliability of a site", and another pointed out to "examples of RS citing or describing NewsGuard generally as a credible source".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Finally, others retorted that such sources are a result of marketing or that there are "much better secondary RS compared to" Newsguard.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2023 (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.

I don't think this question has been asked, at least in full, and no entry exists on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for this, but this is something that might be helpful for the record. I have used NewsGuard for a while to separate potentially false/misleading sources from sources with a reputation of truth and fact checking. I don't notice any problems with NewsGuard's nutrition labels, but I wanted to ask to see what others think about the accuracy of NewsGuard. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have the information on NewsGuard's methodology or its current rankings to provide so we can review it? Andrevan@ 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Their criteria can be found here: Rating Process and Criteria - NewsGuard (newsguardtech.com) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
In general, no. It's one more opinion on who they like or don't like. That they rate MSNBC lower than Fox News is a reflection of exactly that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Of course, if you happen to agree that MSNBC should rate lower than Fox, that rating is a mark in NewsGuard’s favor. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I have done some digging in the dropping of the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC and it seems as if there were three or four blunders that were greatly highlighted by NewsGuard and were left uncorrected. Here is nontrivial coverage of NewsGuard in the press. If you actually look at the reason MSNBC is rated lower than Fox News, it is because of transparency and conflict-of-interests, otherwise they would be rated the same as Fox News. Transparency and credibility are a bit different from each other. I did a quick maths check and 75% of the score is credibility, 25% transparency. Also, I don't think 5 points is a significant difference in rating, but 22 points is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. It's not that the issues they highlight aren't issues, it's that the scores are magic puff numbers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think they weighted each based on the importance of it. They may seem arbitrary but not repeatedly publishing false content is an extremely important journalistic criterion that dictates whether a site is reliable or not. Some of their other ratings also seem to go hand in hand. For example, a site which "fails NewsGuard’s criterion for not repeatedly publishing false content"[8] may also fail the criteria for "gathering and presenting information responsibly". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
No, its a business not a reliable source... Their patented snake oil is no better than any of the other snake oils. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if NewsGuard, MBFC, etc. are just good starting points for assessing the reliability of a site, but should not be considered authoritative as some outlets treat it. Interesting, Daily Mail (a deprecated source) initially got a red rating, but it got changed to green after they modified some of their practices. Still, Daily Mail is rated very low green source. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think they're crutches for lazy editors who can't be bothered to actually evaluate a source because thats hard work. We already have a starting point for any discussion of reliability, the specific context its used in on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with others here that NewsGuard is no more authoritative than MBFC or Ad Fontes, and should be considered generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Hemiauchenia and Headbomb- this is a generally unreliable source. Its rating system is absurd, like MBFC and Ad Fontes, which we consider generally unreliable (please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). How is The Daily Mail and Fox News more reliable than MSNBC? Technically, there's an criteria, and an editorial policy. But this one is entirely ad-like for its company, Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable. So it's a good tool and starting point, but in no way IMO should it be used in a mainspace article commenting on a source's bias or reliability, or being used as the only source for downgrading in an RfC (e.g., for MSNBC). Besides, even The Daily Wire, albeit this is a dated PDF, is rated the same as MSNBC, which for me is even more indication of its bizarre criteria. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
After reviewing the posts from others above, I agree with VickKiang that we shouldn't use NewsGuard or at least, it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Andrevan@
It looks to me like it has a strong conservative slant and Wikipedia if anything tends the other way. And that division in America has unfortunately become more important than practically anything else in how people assess what they read. It's like knowing how the Supreme court will decide a case just by looking at the political aspects and ignoring anything to do with the law or constitution. So that's why MSNBC rates low and Fox News high. Actually I do think the Daily Mail has been rated too low by Wikipedia, it should definitely be allowed in some cases. NadVolum (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If you think most USSC cases are decided by politics then you don't see most USSC cases. And while you are correct that the court has swung, it is an extremely recent effect, only starting in 2020. I just feel that often needs clarifying. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There are a few cases where Daily Mail can be used, but they are rare and in general Daily Mail shouldn't be used. They have published misleading stories and attack articles. Even though what they publish on is now true, it is overly sensationalized, and thus not reliable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The Daily Mail ban does not apply to opinions, and there is an exception for old articles, and the WP:DAILYMAIL1 wording "use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" seems to me to be suggesting that leeway exists, but I know others see things differently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Should it be considered how RS have cited and discussed NewsGuard?[25][26][27] Perhaps more for its summaries than the color labels or scores. [28] Llll5032 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an "additional considerations apply", where descriptors for nutrition labels may be cited, but not the nine criteria itself. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Here are some more examples of RS citing or describing NewsGuard generally as a credible source, at least for some of its information: [29][30][31][32] Llll5032 (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I've been doubtful of NewsGuard's reliability for a long time and have been waiting to see some discussion on it. I've not seen anything that demonstrates it is reliable. The articles from Llll5032 (thanks for finding them), show that it's been good at marketing itself and it is now profitable. I don't see their relevance to whether or not it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think one thing we can probably agree on is we can try to apply the same nine criteria NewsGuard applies in RSNB discussions (if we are not already) to help evaluate the reliability of a source. Of course NewsGuard is in here for the money, but also worth noting that Wikipedia (which has a lot of verifiable information) is also not considered a reliable source. The other problem is NewsGuard is only available to those with the Edge browser on PC or Mac and requires a paid subscription on other platforms (though occasionally, they make it free on all platforms so that people have access to their ratings during an extraordinary circumstance like the COVID-19 pandemic). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As a Firefox on Linux user, that explains why I am unable to find their actual material outside of the general links. Andrevan@ 00:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, enabling the extension requires buying a subscription if you do not have Microsoft Edge. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Hipal. It might be okay for routine summaries (that are covered and cited in some RS) but you can find that in much better secondary RS compared to this. Besides, IMHO the scores are subjective and should be frowned upon in articles, or as the only ref challenging a source's reliability. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
As a Firefox on Linux user, I was able to find their current article re Daily Wire via Wayback, as discussed in thread NewsGuard cites on the article talk page, which I regard as the appropriate place. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I want to know if an uninvolved editor could consider adding the consensus to rsps because people might use newsguard in rsnb discussions. I have already done so as well, but I think this would be good to add and check. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.axios.com/2022/01/25/schools-misinformation-internet-newsguard America's kids get an internet librarian
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/09/08/covid-vaccine-misinformation-spread-websites-analysis-finds/5732789001/ COVID, vaccine misinformation spread by hundreds of websites, analysis finds
  3. ^ https://www.popsci.com/technology/misinformation-labels-newsguard/ The biggest consumers of fake news may benefit from this one tech intervention
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-newsguard-idUSKCN1PQ5FV NewsGuard's 'real news' seal of approval helps spark change in fake news era
  5. ^ https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/eu-strengthens-disinformation-rules-to-target-deepfakes-bots-fake-accounts/ EU Strengthens Disinformation Rules to Target Deepfakes, Bots, Fake Accounts
  6. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/21/tiktok-algorithm-directs-users-to-fake-news-about-ukraine-war-study-says TikTok algorithm directs users to fake news about Ukraine war, study says
  7. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20220712164920/https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/need-to-know/need-to-know-july-12-2022/ Need to Know: July 12, 2022
  8. ^ "Rating Process and Criteria". NewsGuard. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
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.

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS

can this source be used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1172499243 --FMSky (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I would wish for a better source, but unsure why this is political and not law enforcement or financial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says it can be used, but should be attributed, WP:VICE just has no consensus. Maybe a compromise can be made on the wording to add in attribution showhow, not sure how it would work with both Rollingstone and Vice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarship from Russian universities

I'm looking at the sources for Batal Hajji Belkhoroev, and it appears that two of them are published by Russian universities:

Do academic publications in Russia have the necessary editorial independence to qualify as reliable sources? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to use them in the article you're looking at. Perhaps in modern politics, Russian academic sources may require scrutiny to ascertain independence. But here, no. There is a rich intellectual and academic tradition in Russia. Pecopteris (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
As with any source, you'd have to exercise common sense. If you have specific concerns about the reliability or bias, it's better to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Alaexis¿question? 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

NK News

NK News has been challenged as "unreliable" in a discussion about the Otto Warmbier biography. I've found a couple of passing mentions of NK News in the noticeboard archives,[33] but no definitive conclusions. Thoughts? Muzilon (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly has the look of a generally reliable source, and what independent evaluation I can find online seems positive. I'd want to hear why it's was thought unreliable before saying anything conclusive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The dispute is in regard to a (relatively minor) detail concerning the "scene of the crime". I've started a discussion at Talk:Otto Warmbier. Muzilon (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I see the mention was propped up with a cite to The New American, which is WP:GUNREL. Perhaps we just don't have this fine level of detail in RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Google snippet?

Are Google snippets like this-[34] reliable. It was used to substantiate a troop figure (of 100,000) on the page Second Siege of Anandpur. The author appears to be a history professor, but there is only a Google snippet available, there is no Google preview & the book is not available on any other repository such as the Internet Archive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well as neither snippet seems to contain any number (of any kind) no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Obviously Google snippet can't be evaluated for reliability, it is just a site showing other sources thatay or may not be reliable. If you take 'Anandpur' out of the snippet search the figures are there. However at least in the snippet for the 1 million figure it's part of a quote and a rhetorical device, it shouldn't be used as a definitive fact. The 100 thousand figure comes from a line on page 71 of the other book, "On the other hand, the Mugal army was consisted of over a hundred thousand well-equipped men". The author of the second book seems reliable, but I can't put the sentence in context as I don't have access to the work. It doesn't seem that the editor who added it has actually read the book either, so it seems somewhat dubious to rely on the small part that Google snippet shows. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The source would be the book. So the question of reliability would have to be answered for the book. Obviously you should never ever cite information that you only got from a snippet. So it comes down to whether the person read the book and merely linked the snippet for convenience of those who want to look up the source or whether they merely read the snippet and decided that that is enough. You could contact the editor who added it and ask them how they obtained the information. Personally I would never link to a snippet, but as addition to a full citation I don't think it is completely unacceptable. "Addition to a full citation" being the operative phrase. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliability question on small fragment of an online source

On article Battle of Jalalabad (1710), this google page fragment or snippet [35] is being used to uphold the total number of strengths to be 12,000. The problem with this snippet that I find is, it has absolutely no mention of whether it's regarding the same battle during same year or it's a different battle during some other year, or were there actually a total of just 12,000 in the overall battle that were led by Jalal Khan? Because according to other sources on the page and the article itself, there were multiple commanders who had different number of forces under them. Another question that arises is that what was the background of the small fragment mentioned in the snippet? There is no way to do preliminary study of the book or even the whole page of the snippet as its not available anywhere online. Will this snippet be considered reliable? 2601:547:B05:429D:201D:489E:1CDA:4216 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Google_snippet? above for a similar question. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I saw that issue and from the understanding, the snippet I mentioned here would be considered unreliable because of the lack of info. is that right? Pinging @Slatersteven:, @ActivelyDisinterested: for your thoughts as well. 71.60.35.11 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Lack of context, as we can't tell form the snippet what it is talking about. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that the snippet that Google shows could be part of a quote, or be the end of a sentence that starts "The ridiculous claim that ". Without the surrounding context that frames that snippet nothing can be taken from it. If someone reads the whole book and adds the link for ease of access that's useful, but searching snippets to justify content is flawed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/44140730.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A733a55264fe9f2af7c49f2ff91c75cfe&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Needs JStor login Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier. The full context of the snippet is The same despatch refers to the report of Prince Jahandr Shah who, while stating that the Sikhs under the guru had approached Saharanpur, but Jalal Khan Rohilla, many Sadat and others numbering 6,000 sawars and the same number of foot had faced them near thana Jalalabad and Muzaffarnagar, referred to a popular belief that the guru was God Shankar himself. So this isn't Indian History Congress saying the numbers, or even Satish Chandra who wrote that particular part, but the figure reported by Prince Jahandr Shah in 1700s. Modern historical analysis should be found to support the figures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Economist Intelligence Unit

This Economist Intelligence Unit article is being used to back up a wide range of claims in the BLP about Javier Milei, amongst others also posted on BLP noticeboard.

The reference is found after these statements as of the article today;

  • he is characterized as a radical conservative.
  • expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and proposed to legalize the sale of organs.
  • Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.
  • skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,
  • Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,
  • alongside a crack down on crime and prohibition of the use of inclusive language, he has been characterized as socially conservative.

The article uses this reference to glue a story together in the BLP, and defend specific phrasing.

Can an article like this be used for statements of fact and storytelling in this way? This seems like misuse, as well as mixing of opinion statements from factual statements. It does not seem to be in line with BLP requirements. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My opinion: No, no, no. This is bad practice. We cannot treat articles from news outlets in the way we would treat, say, scientific analysis. This is a common mistake I see made on the politics and BLP fronts. In academic science journals, hypotheses, facts, theories, and conjecture are usually clearly delineated within the text. Almost all Western journalism, on the other hand, weaves together facts, educated hypotheses, innuendo, opinions, and speculation to create a compelling narrative that will get as many people as possible to "click" on the article, and will hopefully get them to keep reading long enough to read the ads.
Unfortunately, some editors aren't as aware of this as they should be, and naively think that if the article does not say "OPINION", it's safe to assume that purported "factual" claims in the article can be taken at face value. Others are gleefully aware of it, and use it as a thin excuse to enshrine their own opinions as encyclopedic facts ("they're not my opinions, I'm just repeating what the sources say bro").
While I'd have to read the article in question much more carefully to opine further (which I may do shortly), I am inclined to agree 100% with your above statement: "This seems like misuse, as well as mixing of opinion statements from factual statements. It does not seem to be in line with BLP requirements." Pecopteris (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Pecopteris is so right, I wish I could frame his answer. Oh, and by the way, The Economist ceased to be impartial decades ago. Too bad, as it was an English institution, now hardly credible on most topics. XavierItzm (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It is funny that I agree but you may have had a point if the subject was on the left. The fact that even The Economist, which supports a more moderate form of Milei's economic liberalism, should be telling; it is akin to the criterion of embarrassment. If you want us to not consider The Economist reliable, then you are free to open a discussion about it here. What you are missing is that all those claims are supported by other sources, we are using The Economist because it summarizes them. Davide King (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Their article didnt age well, and was already put to shame from the election result.
I have no problem with a radical news paper like this being used for opinion statements, but its crystal clear its a biased source. Their factual statements are typical chinese whispers claims, and omits fairly relevant information. E.g. that Argentinians used a lot of the Russian Sputnik vaccines, and that Argentinians have more cash in US dollar bills than Argentinian Pesos already today, all they need is someone to decriminalize using them. But who cares about factual accuracy anyways. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
https://www.cronista.com/economia-politica/finalmente-se-vacuno-javier-milei-y-estallaron-las-redes-por-que-cambio-de-opinion/ "In the end, Javier Milei was vaccinated for an economic reason. Despite having demonstrated against vaccination, the elected deputy Javier Milei was vaccinated against the coronavirus for an economic reason. Reactions on social networks. The deputy elected by La Libertad Avanza, Javier Milei, was vaccinated against the coronavirus, despite having publicly questioned the immunization campaign promoted by the national government, and social networks were flooded with ironic comments about the photo that shows the economist in the time he received the dose."
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/soy-re-provacunas-la-explicacion-de-javier-milei-de-por-que-decidio-darse-las-dosis-contra-el-covid-nid22112021/
Are those not reliable sources? That he vaccinated (Trump did too...) does not cancel out the fact he expressed hesitancy or skepticism, exactly as The Economist said. You are basically saying The Economist et al. are wrong because Milei said: "'Those who branded me as anti-vaccination expose themselves as liars and want to charge the issue [of vaccination] as a contradiction of mine. With this habit of putting everything in binary format, the easiest thing to progress is to say that it was anti-vaccination', he expresses. In turn, he relativizes the negative impact his vaccine statements could have had on the campaign against Covid [from La Nación]."
WP:SECONDARY says: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." We also do not take the subject's views at face value, that is why we rely on independent, secondary reliable sources (those you dismiss as "random"). Then you say those secondary sources are wrong because primary sources (e.g. Milei himself) said that he is not opposed to vaccines. But we do not even say that he is opposed to vaccines, just that he expressed scepticism to COVID-19 vaccines, as The Economist, La Nación, El Cronista show... If the issue is the sourcing, I just found out more sources that support what The Economist said. Davide King (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The issue is indeed the sourcing, those are much better sources, that includes actual verifiable information. I did not say The Economist was wrong, that is your interpretation. I wrote; "Their factual statements are typical chinese whispers claims", which are not useful for a Wikipedia article, and "omits fairly relevant information". There are, as you have found, much much better sources we can use. The reader will make their own interpretation, I don't think thats up to us to determine, or try to manipulate. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Except that most, if not all, of those statements are supported by a significant number of other reliable sources cited in the body... The problem seems to be that they want those sources, which more accurately reflect the wording we use, to be moved to the lead but that would risk WP:OVERCITE; in fact, refs are not even necessary for the lead, as long as they are cited in the body. They are there to avoid non-experienced users accidentally deleting them as "unsourced", and as the subject achieved a significant international popularity, it is a good way to build the article; usually, as a contributor to the article, I start the lead with refs, and eventually remove them as the article gets better and there are no discussions.
Personally, I would use only academic sources but when there are not much of them, news sources may be the best ones to build the article. WP:NEWSORG are accepted as WP:SOURCETYPES, and the sources used are reliable, nor they can be dismissed as left-wing. In fact, The Economist piece in question, as a supporter of economic liberalism, is positive towards Milei but even they cannot avoid mentioning those controversies, all of which are corroborated by other reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Uh oh. Looks like I stepped in the middle of a preexisting edit controversy.
I do see that the article says "Milei has been described as XYZ" rather than just saying "he is XYZ", so that's good. In my first reading of the article, I don't see any of the aforementioned claims being sourced only to this EIU piece, so that's good too. I do see some possible POV issues that could be explored, but it's not as bad as I feared. My above comment was in reference to using the EIU article in isolation. In combination with other sources, the pictures changes somewhat. I'll have to take a closer look, because now I'm intrigued about the article and its subject. Pecopteris (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There is indeed a lot of news sources in this article, and varying degrees of reliability. The person in the article is considered controversial, so he receives a large amount of criticism. Factual accuracy here is quite difficult to determine, because many sources are citing other secondary sources instead of a primary source, which makes it difficult to compare and validate claims.
Misquotations are rampant when you check the primary source directly. Such as "he is admiring Trump", which is basically just a chinese whipser train from an O Globo interview, where he said he allies with anyone who is anti communism and anti socialism, and in that context said "My alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural"; https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/meu-alinhamento-com-trump-bolsonaro-quase-natural-diz-fenomeno-eleitoral-do-momento-na-argentina-25216839 Bloomberg interview confirms; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqq3zDW6E0&t=699s&ab_channel=BloombergTelevision
As a result, edits are proposed to stick to sources as close as possible, avoid paraphrasing and simplifications that can lead to misinterpretations. E.g. stating he wants "legalization of organ trade", but its a big simplification; https://buenosairesherald.com/politics/milei-calls-for-market-mechanisms-to-solve-lack-of-organ-donors
I could go on like this for almost every paragraph in the article. The Economist Intelligence Unit is used to support a wide range of phrasing in the lead, where a lot of important details are missing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
If I may respond to those claims, I do not want to turn into another discussion like Talk:Javier Milei...
"The Argentine peso plunged Monday after an anti-establishment candidate who admires former President Donald Trump came first in primary elections that will help determine the country's next president." As WP:SECONDARYSOURCES says, my reading is that it is up to secondary reliable sources, such as this Associated Press article, to do the interpretation of the primary source (e.g. the interview), not us. And the Associated Press (of course there are many others, too) supports the claim that he admires Trump. In fact, we do say "especially their anti-communism and criticism of socialism" to reflect the interview, so I do not understand what Pedantic Aristotle is complaining about. But it is up to secondary sources to interpret them, and the overwhelming majority of such sources I have read support the claim that Milei admires Trump. The man himself said so. "My alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural." I do not understand what more is needed... And this is the same for many other claims Pedantic Aristotle complains about. They think the secondary sources made a wrong interpretation of primary sources, but my reading is that this is Pedantic Aristotle's personal opinion. They may well be right but WP:TRUTH says that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. So who knows, maybe Milei does not admire Trump beyond anti-leftism, but secondary reliable sources are clear on this.
But I will take a break now and let somebody else to say whether my reading of sources and guidelines is correct and appropriate or not. Davide King (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is indeed the problem. Chinese whispers ending up as facts, only because secondary sources have incorrectly quoted other secondary sources. First O Globo, then Infobae rephrased that to "affinity", then it become "supporter", then "admires", then suddenly "admiring Trump" is fact, and Wikipedia used it in some edits, and then news articles cite Wikipedia. It all becomes nonsense if you ask me. This seems like basic fact checking, and not interpretation, especially when the Wikipedia article uses these things as facts.
You need a lot of imagination to convert the original O Globo interview, or for that matter the Infobae article into a support of Trump. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that! :-) It is precisely the fact that we attribute them (e.g. "has been described as") that made me not understand the issue. I tried my best to attribute everything that was not strongly sourced (such as using "far-right" in the first sentence, which even I would oppose) and commonality that reliable sources generally agreed in describing Milei. Of course, I may have missed something and there is always something to improve but I reiterate that most of those statements have been corroborate by other sources. We may need to discuss whether a different wording could be better or more appropriate, whether it needs attribution, but not that it needs to be removed. Davide King (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Pedantic Aristotle, what makes you think that this article is *not* a RS? Are any of these claims contradicted by reliable sources? Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll attempt to clarify. For context, it's a broader issue within the article, that random sources are used to defend specific wording. Instead I have proposed to use the best sources for each topic, and use wordings from these sources with best effort accuracy, with the intention to limit the "chinese whispers" problem (which has been a big problem for this article).
The Economist is used to defend a specific framing of the lead, i.e. to summarize a list of controversial political positions. I'm referring to this one;
  • Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.[29][32] Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases,[33] his view of comprehensive sex education in schools as a form of brainwashing,[34] skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,[29] civilian firearm ownership support,[35][36] legalization of organ trade,[37] promotion of the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory,[38][39] and climate change denialism.[40] Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,[29][41] his victory in the primaries was deemed an upset,[42] and led to his characterization as a far-right populist.[7][8][9]
I've argued that there are big simplifications that removes important information, which should not be omitted. I have proposed edits, but those have been reverted with arguments that the edits makes the statements no longer controversial, and thus doesn't fit what was written in The Economist. This calls me to question how The Economist is used to defend the framing in the article. We have sources that elaborate in much better ways each of the topics, and I'm against presenting things in a way that makes them easily misunderstood.
The reason i posted on this board, is to call into question if The Economist can be used this way. There is also a large question if news articles like this can be used for factual statements. Multiple news articles of the same kind stating the same things, does not seem to improve the situation, these statements don't appear out of a vacuum, they must come from somewhere.
I will also list the various sourced statements in the article;
  • Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.
  • he is characterized as a radical conservative.
  • Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,
  • he has been characterized as socially conservative.
These are loosely based on opinion statements from The Economist, but using it this way seems questionable, and not like a neutral way to write the article. Policies and statements are also conflated, without clarification, also in the Wikipedia article.
  • skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,
  • expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines
For the COVID statements, I argue we should use secondary sources that contain the actual primary source this comes from. This is just poor sourcing when we have much better ones, and can use more accurate statements. The argument of Verifiability is being used, that its sufficient that we found this in some random news articles, instead of using proper articles that also includes the primary source (which we have).
There are also discussions on all the other topics listed in the paragraph, where The Economist is not directly added as source, but is used to defend writing the overall paragraph this way. E.g. "legalize the sale of organ" this comes from another source, but is also a huge oversimplification. Neither is there a political proposal to do that, but since The Economist wrote it that way, all these statements suddenly became political positions.
Overall i would argue that The Economist is not a RS for factual claims in a political BLP, its a commentary article, with a lot of opinion statements, and brief mentions of some factual claims without further sources. Neither should it be used to defend a style of writing in a BLP. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Alaexis — Of course, that is their side of the story, and I am not going to address each point because it would be too much to write. But if you have any doubts, you are free to ask me any question that you would like me to answer to understand more and whether their claims are accurate or not. What I would like to address, and this must be made very clear, is the fact that they were never reverted because "the edits makes the statements no longer controversial, and thus doesn't fit what was written in The Economist", as they claimed.
They were reverted because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and they made it unnecessarely wordy, among other non-improving changes.
  • For example, they whitewashed the far-right Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory and his climate change denialism (or scepticism, if one wants to be generous...) by changing the wording to "frequently uses the term Cultural Marxism" and "On global warming he said: 'Global warming is another of the lies of socialism'"; or
  • added things like "saying its naïve to think it will not be used for indoctrination" and "proposed 'market mechanisms' to solve the problem of lack of organ donor" that are unnecessarly wordly, are not supported by the given refs (according to another IP user), and in fact is the exact wording already used in the body, where it is discussed in greater detail and include Milei's quotes; or
  • in the case of abortion, even though El País, The Guardian, and Reuters literally described him as "anti-abortion", they continued to complain about the article misreading Milei's views, as if he is not opposed to abortion. I had an endless discussion with them about this issue, see "Disputed: Abortion" at Talk:Javier Milei.
The job of that part of the lead they are referring to and complaining about is to summarize why those views are controversial (it is not controversial his proposed market mechanisms but the organ trade itself he proposes to legalize); the body describes them in greater detail. In fact, that whole paragraph they cited is written because IPs questioned reliable sources describing him as far right, and we explain why those sources have called him that. Again, note that we never say that Milei is far right as a fact, just that he has been described as such, among other labels.

Ultimately, most of what they complain about is not stated as fact (e.g. we say "characterized"). They think the independent, secondary reliable sources that are used misread the primary sources (they do not, he said that his alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro, due to the anti-leftism, is "almost natural", so it is no wonder secondary reliable sources interpreted that as expressing support for Trump and Bolsonaro). To answer your question, none of these claims are contradicted by other reliable sources, they simply think they are wrong and misinterpret Milei's views, none of which is supported by reliable sources, as it is simply their own personal view, which may even be correct but "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". Davide King (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Please Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and avoid undue accusations.
  • The wordings were changed to match the inline sources, instead of editorial interpretation.
  • The wording "legalize the sale of organs" was not supported by the sources in the article, and a source was added from the body afterwards for the proposed edits.
  • Here we are discussing exactly the part about including context no longer makes them controversial.
  • Feel free read the abortion discussion, it should be clear we are not discussing him being anti-abortion or not, but how it should be written in the article to reflect the sum of sources in the best way possible.
  • The only comments on far-right has been to provide proper sources, not to remove it. News headlines are questionable, even if its "variously described as" there should be proper sources that readers can review.
  • All proposed additions had a source, and all removals was to remove unsourced or poorly sourced statements. Verifiability can not mean freedom to use any random news article as fact, when there are contradicting sources in the same article.
Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Please, let @Alaexis and other users to weight in rather than turn this into another back-and-forth discussion only between you and I as at Talk:Javier Milei. Hearing what other users say seems to be the best option to solve this dispute and move on to improve the article. Davide King (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A lot of issues seem to be conflated here and it really would help if everyone could be more concise.
In this thread I didn't see examples of statements made by EIU contradicted by RS (but I may have missed it, if that's the case please give one obvious example). It seems that the dispute is mostly about the choice of words, e.g. whether saying that Milei has expressed scepticism about the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines" does justice to his position. The relevant policy here is WP:DUE: we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
Since EIU is part of the Economist Group, with the Economist itself considered reliable, I think we can presume it's reliable unless proven otherwise. It's just one source though and the wording in the article should reflect multiple RS.
Finally, secondary sources are entitled to make their own interpretations, so the fact that they don't use the same words as Milei himself does not disqualify them. Alaexis¿question? 06:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Consise;
Viewpoints = opinions. No problem / with attribution.
Facts = WP:DUE can not be used for factual statements, we need WP:BESTSOURCES. Priority to secondary sources that include the primary source they have interpreted.
The Economist / EIU = Not RS for facts in this way, ok for viewpoints. WP:RSCONTEXT Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Whatever people here think of The Economist (and there's frankly a lot of silly takes on it here so far), this is just straightforward application of RS for BLP: he is characterized as a radical conservative. -- requires attribution; expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, -- attribution; proposed to legalize the sale of organs -- wikivoice if there's multiple independent RS verifying it, or some prosecution or conviction; Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion -- either attribution, or a set of 4 or 5 independent citations saying as much in different contexts; skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines -- attribution, or wikivoice if it's a self-identification, or maybe if there's multiple independent outlets with unambiguous conclusions of skepticism; he has been characterized as socially conservative attribution, or else a list of independent RS in multiple contexts giving full profiles about this person and making this characterization unambiguously.
This is existing policy. I know it gets heated on political pages, and that's just unfortunate for everyone, but going through RSN only makes the state of things worse. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree; Economist is reliable, and this is just a content dispute that is handled by regular policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is there to attribute? Do we really need to say "he has been characterized as socially conservative by [a bunch of reliable sources/news organizations, attributing each one of them]"? This is a clear case of attribution where "in practice, not all material is attributed"; in such cases, where there is a consensus among reliable sources, we simply use such wording (without implying it is a fact, since we say "described" or "characterized") without having to list and attribute every single source that supports that wording in the first place. In the article, we attribute quotes, things that the reliable sources themselves attribute, or where there is disagreement among them (e.g. we do not say "he is far right" but that he has been described as such, among other labels).

It is already attributed in that we say "characterized" and do not say "he is"; there is also more than one single citation throught the body that support the same thing, so it is not like they significantly disagree (if they do, they should be provided, not simply assumed); we just do not put them all together to avoid WP:OVERCITE but all the refs to support all these claims are already in the body and come from reliables sources. You say "a set of 4 or 5 independent citations saying as much in different contexts" but that is exactly what we do, we already have all the necessary sources (as noted by Alaexis, "In this thread I didn't see examples of statements made by EIU contradicted by RS (but I may have missed it, if that's the case please give one obvious example). It seems that the dispute is mostly about the choice of words, e.g. whether [that] does justice to his position"). In fact, they are complaining because the inline cites for the lead may not support that precise wording (I think they still do) but the lead does not even require refs if they are sourced in the body; in my view, the body already supports more or less everything that is in the lead and that is enough.

Ultimately, as noted by Alaexis, "Since EIU is part of the Economist Group, with the Economist itself considered reliable, I think we can presume it's reliable unless proven otherwise." It is not up to me to prove this, it is up to them to prove other non-primary sources disagree. The issue is that they fundamentally disagree with Alaexis that "secondary sources are entitled to make their own interpretations, so the fact that they don't use the same words as Milei himself does not disqualify them." If they do not use the exact wording Milei used, or if they disagree with the secondary source interpretation of Milei, they think they are wrong and must be reworded. That is the issue; I am not surprised since they are new to Wikipedia and have only edited this page, but they should be starting to understand how Wikipedia works, and that the claims they complain about are, in fact, all supported by independent, secondary sources. We may argue about the precise wording to use but the consensus is clear. It is up those secondary sources to make the interpretation for us, and the article more or less correctly reflects them.

P.S. As for vaccines, they seem to concede the issue was sourcing, and I have since provided and added more sources. I hope that at least this issue is solved and that The Economist claims about COVID-19 vaccine skepticism can be considered further corroborated. I also added to the body Milei's personal views and what he said. Davide King (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
-----
  • "a set of 4 or 5 independent citations saying as much in different contexts" but that is exactly what we do ... complaining because the inline cites for the lead may not support that precise wording ...
Disagree, not different contexts in all cases. Also not consistent use of WP:INLINECITE, makes it very hard to verify content. Too much editorial liberty in my opinion, which makes things look like WP:BF, but i assume and hope its not intended. Lead should include WP:INLINECITE, especially due to all edit warring and controversy here, correct me if I'm wrong.
-----
  • The issue is that they fundamentally disagree with Alaexis that "secondary sources are entitled to make their own interpretations, so the fact that they don't use the same words as Milei himself does not disqualify them." ... or if they disagree with the secondary source ... all supported by independent, secondary sources ... P.S. As for vaccines, they seem to concede the issue was sourcing
You keep repeating these strawmen, and missing the point.
-----
Please someone tell me that this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, where anything can be written as fact as long as it exists on a website considered a RS in some contexts. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I added this to WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Javier_Milei as this may be the more correct place for this discussion. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
How was that a strawman when you mentioned Milei saying that his "aligment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural", and complained about the secondary sources that interpreted it to mean admiration and/or support for Trump or Bolsonaro? What did I miss, is that not what you meant to say?
You wrote: "[W]here anything can be written as fact as long as it exists on a website considered a RS in some contexts." I say that I am still waiting to see something that is actually stated as fact when we use "described", "characterized", and other caveats, and have a set of independent citations that he indeed said he opposes abortion in cases of rapes, that he supports organ trade, etc.; and we have more sources in the body supporting the claim that all those controversies have been described as such by a significant number of secondary reliable sources.
"He believes selling human organs should be legal, climate change is a 'socialist lie,' sex education is a ploy to destroy the family and that the Central Bank should be abolished." (Associated Press) Davide King (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Equine-Man is stopping me from removing unreliable source (Peter Dekker) from several articles

Talk:Mongol_bow#Peter_Dekker_is_not_a_historian

Peter Dekker's Manchu archery website is not a reliable source. He is not a historian but is an amateur arms collector and auctioneer. He is not a reliable source for the history of archery and not even for archery mechanics (draw weight, poundage) because he doesn't have qualifications for those too.

Dekker is making false claims on Mongol archery history which is his own synthesis and original research.

Dekker does not have a degree in Asian history or archery history, he doesn't speak Chinese, Manchu or Mongol.

Equine-Man claims this doesn't matter and we need to keep this unreliable source, and he falsely accused me of not bringing other sources to replace Dekker's content.

Removing content doesn't require references to replace it, all that needs to be proven is that the content and source are unreliable which Dekker is since Dekker isn't peer reviewed. Otherwise I can start my own archery website and add it as a reference and threaten and revert anyone who tries to remove it. Secondly I did actually replace it with the old references that were removed and replaced by Dekker like Eric Brownstein. So yes I brought over reviewed evidence unlike Dekker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=1172467871

Dekker's website which totally lacks peer review was used to replace Eric Brownstein, which I put back after removing Dekker's website which has no peer review at all. Eric Brownstein's paper is hosted on a .edu website and he wrote it with the support of Mongolia National University and Mongol historians unlike Dekker's website which is basically his blog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=735775768

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=735777786

Dekker claims the Qing didn't violently replace Mongol bows with Manchu bows but Eric Brownstein says they did.

Equine-Man also reverted my first edit at Chinese archery where I deleted an entire paragraph that had no source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_archery&diff=prev&oldid=1172467307

Equine-Man has this on his talk page.

"Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform"

He has this on his talk page and he reverted me removing Peter Dekker's self promotional website which has no academic value, he knows what he is doing is against Wikipedia rules. (I'm striking this because I'm told user conduct complaints don't belong on this board)

Peter Dekker calls himself an "independent researcher", "collector" and "trader" in antique arms, aka someone with no academic qualifications in the topic he is writing about.

Hukris (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hukris, part of your post here is an RS question, which this board is definitely the place for. Part of it includes some user conduct complaints, which don't really belong here. Would you mind striking or removing them? If you chose to do remove them, please feel free to also remove this comment of mine, assuming no one else has yet responded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The Brownstein you're citing looks like a student report for a study abroad semester [36]. If so, it's an unreliable source. Geogene (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to remove both Dekker and Brownstein but Equine-Man isn't, and Dekker is infinitely more unreliable than Browstein. Equine-Man clalms it doesn't matter that Dekker has no qualifications (Dekker's website isn't peer reviewed itself while Equine-Man is demanding ot stay).Hukris (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to quote me, please do so correctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=1172472649
Where I wrote: "It’s not about if he has a PhD or not, that’s irrelevant. It’s about the fact we have references, which you are disputing, with no evidence from your side substantiating the claims you are making. Bring some peer reviewed evidence from your side and you can edit away."
This was in response to this edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_archery&diff=prev&oldid=1172468101
In this edit you had simply removed all references with the edit summary:
"Peter Dekker is an amateur arms collector and not a historian. He makes a lot of mistakes or outright lies and has no PhD or anything in this field. Selby isn't a historian either and his work contains major errors too."
I invited you to provide sourced proof to backup your edits. Equine-man (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me if he is not a recognised expert he is not an RS,. Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


Equine-man the onus is on YOU not me, to defend a source as reliable when I'm deleting it. Peter Dekker was used to replace two different references, Eric Brownstein and an interview in an Archery magazine. Those two sources already dispute with Dekker and Dekker is more unreliable than both.Hukris (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Dekker's website was used to replace an interview with Mongol archer in Instintice archer magazine AND Eric Brownstein years ago both of which disagreed with the content Dekker's source was used to back up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=735775768
Both of them are more reliable than Dekker since Dekker's website is a self published source, basically his own blog.Hukris (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
not about if he has a PhD or not, that’s irrelevant. It’s about the fact we have references, which you are disputing, with no evidence from your side substantiating the claims you are making. Bring some peer reviewed evidence from your side and you can edit away.
Can you tell him this is not how reliable sources work on here?
Complaints about users go here wp:ani Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Manchuarchery.org, which does appear to be a hobbyist site, is cited in 7 articles: Arrow, Korean martial arts, Mounted archery, Composite bow, Mongol bow, Chinese archery, and Battle of Bang Bo (Zhennan Pass). Arrow names Dekker in the body and calls him an "enthusiast". Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Tell Equine-Man here so that he fully understands, that unreliable sources like hobbyist sites need to be deleted and don't require another reference to replace them.Hukris (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


Dekker also replaced another source besides Brownstein, an interview by a Mongol archer in an archery magazine here [37] Hukris (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Could you for one minute read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
I understand reliable sources. I was reverting the edit where you had just removed references without adequately explaining why. I invited you to explain why, and to add your sources if you disagreed with the sources that had been there for years. My edits were done on the process of your actions, not if they were reliable sources or not. As you have a habit of adding edits to your own edits, I then noticed you had added another source to some archery magazine. Equine-man (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't add any of these sources. Peter Dekker was used to replace these sources and I brought back the old sources used before him.
I did adequately explain, Dekker isn't WP:RS and that's all that needs to be explained when removing him. I'm not even required to bring other sources to replace him (even though I did)
You also lied repeatedly and claimed I just deleted stuff, I literally added back the old sources which contradicted Dekker and were there before him.
but speaking of new sources The Mongolain ministry of foreign affairs themselves repudiate Dekker's claims that were used in the article
I also deleted a paragraph with no source on Chinese archery and you reverted that as well.Hukris (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Please take a minute to read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
My revert was in response to this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_archery&diff=next&oldid=1172467307
You had not given a proper reason for deleting. I invited you to add your own references if you disagreed with links that had been there for years. I was not looking at that stage at the source, but as you have the habit of editing your own edits, you then added a source with an archery magazine. Equine-man (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


Discus the reliably of the sources, not each other's actions. Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


Again Equine I am NOT required to bring up rival sources to replace unreliable ones. Wikipedia policy says unreliable sources need to be deleted and don't require replacement. Even though I did being back the old sources on Mongol archery which were there years before Dekker
That also wasn't my first edit on Chinese archery. My first wdit was deleting a paragraph with no sources and you reverted that as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_archery&diff=prev&oldid=1172467307 Hukris (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
My reverts were due to the editor deleting sources without giving a proper reason or alternative to the sources they removed. It was not based at the time on whether they were a RS or not. I had not looked at that.
None of the sources appear to be actually RS in hindsight. Equine-man (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Equine-man, their first edits that you reverted were to Chinese archery, and their two edit summaries were Remove paragraph with no citations and Peter Dekker is an amateur arms collector and not a historian. He makes a lot of mistakes or outright lies and has no PhD or anything in this field. Selby isn't a historian either and his work contains major errors too. That isn't "without giving a proper reason". Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hukris I would like to apologise if I caused you any offence. I should have looked at the source in question first, I was mistaken. Equine-man (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


We can close this as everyone seems to accept these aren't RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want it on record that I'm not even the first person to point this out

User:Richard Keatinge said this about Peter Dekker's website on 13 April 2016

the site you quote is not usable for Wikipedia, nor are its arguments which are circumstantial and would be the worst kind of original research if presented here.

Talk:Composite_bow#More_commentsHukris (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlas Obscura's staff-written articles

Atlas Obscura's wiki pages are obviously user-generated. Their wiki submission guidelines gives an impression of minimal editorial oversight, which prior discussions reflect. However, the site also has plenty of staff-written articles. What do you think about reliability of those? Ca talk to me! 08:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

They claim that even user-generated submissions are "reviewed and edited by our editorial team before they are published." Alaexis¿question? 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
They do, they edit the user-submitted place articles for cohesion. Ca talk to me! 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Are there examples of their staff-written articles being inaccurate? Alaexis¿question? 17:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the opposite? I consider sources to be unreliable by default unless there are evidence otherwise. Ca talk to me! 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a particularly helpful framing. A source can be considered generally unreliable if it's user-generated per WP:UGC. However in this case it's not entirely obvious if it can be considered user-generated, and therefore it's reasonable to check whether there have been issues with it. After all, if it's never used on Wikipedia there is just no point in discussing its reliability. And this board is "for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Alaexis¿question? 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There are
The user-generated part of Atlas Obscura and staff-written parts are segregated - none interacts with each other. These staff-written articles have seen use in Wikipedia articles like Antarctic English. That is why I am asking this question. Ca talk to me! 15:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_412&oldid=1193362254"