Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 410 ← Archive 412 Archive 413 Archive 414 Archive 415 Archive 416 → Archive 420

Vanguard (Nigeria)

There is consensus that the Nigerian newspaper Vanguard is marginally reliable; it may be usable depending on context. The chief concern among editors is paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is not explicitly marked as so. I belatedly considered opinions here and the conclusion is exactly the same. starship.paint (RUN) 13:00, 22 September 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.

The newspaper openly offers advertorials in its advertising price-list, described as "sponsored content" written as an article "by a Vanguard journalist." The practice was identified at the occasion of an AfD discussion when the same text appeared in articles about a specific artist in more than one publication, obviously fed by the artist's management. I propose that we place Vanguard in the category of generally unreliable sources when it comes to show biz persons, reports on consumer goods & services, and politicians. - The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Vanguard appears to be a national newspaper. Perhaps something like WP:NEWSORGINDIA is needed, depending on how prevalent the practice is in Nigeria. I've notified project Nigeria about this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Concur with ActivelyDisinterested. All the major newspapers are both reliable and unreliable; it’s hard to ascertain which bin a news article falls into. The newspapers’ writing style is colorful and over-the-top by Western standards even when there’s no COI and a news article is fundamentally reliable. When Nigerian BLPs, companies and organizations appear at AfD, it’s hard to sort out reliable sources. Some guidance from Nigerian editors would help a lot. We need more good Nigerian content.
I have a personal interest in Nigerian topics but I’m at a loss to make much contribution.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that as soon as a newspaper offers a price list for advertorials, placing it into the "generally unreliable" category would be a routine step. It appears I'm wrong. In any case, writing style ("colorful", "over the top", etc) presents no problem at all, as far the reliability of a source is concerned, and was certainly not a factor in this proposal. It's actually because it's indeed hard "to sort out reliable sources" among Nigerian media, I suggested that an explicit proclamation of advertorial offering would suffice. Personally, as long as the practice is available I'd never use the paper as a source. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Are the paid for articles separated in some form from the regular content? E.g. is there a specific section for them, do they have particular URLs, are they marked in any way, ... -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
After looking at what seems to be the article in question and a number of other Vanguard articles the only indicator I have found is the lack of both a by-line and attribution to another source. I can't tell whether that is merely a reason to be suspicious of an article or whether this always means the article was paid. I also can't tell whether a by-line means that an article was not paid for -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
There is also a "Promoted" section with content that is clearly not usable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No, that's the point. The price list is charmingly revealing: There is sponsored content that is clearly labeled as such and sponsored content written by a newspaper worker and presented as an article. I'd think this alone should eliminate the need to agonize over a decision here. But I may be wrong and this does not suffice. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
    If there is no reliable way to distinguish paid articles from regular articles that seriously limits the usefulness. I guess it could still be used for topics where it is unlikely that articles are paid. But it would pretty much rule it out for companies, organizations, culture. Maybe it could still be of use for general politics. Ideally we would not use it at all. I guess the question is what is more problematic: further entrenching Wikipedia's "western" bias by removing all media like this, or risking using a source that may not be reliable. I guess I would come down on the side of "further considerations" with a list of very strong caveats. But "generally unreliable" is certainly not off the table. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
A source is reliable or it is not, albeit in a scaled grading. With Wikipedia placing a subject's notability as the supreme criterion for inclusion, and with notability demonstrated strictly through sources, it is imperative that the sources we use are robustly assessed. I happen to be aware of the threat of and suspicions for "western bias" in English-language Wikipedia. But we cannot allow unreliable sources, such as this one, to be used in articles just because they are non-western. This kind of logic would actually amplifys whatever "western bias" already exists! If we modify our criteria on the basis of provenance, we'd be falling into a bon pour l'Orient trap. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes there is a scaled grading. There is also the fact that we should use the best sources available. For some topics we can easily dismiss sources that fall on the lower end of reliability because we have enough sources at the higher end. E.g. we could write articles about physics without "lowering our standards" to include Scientific American. But in many (if not most) topic areas that magazine would be at the top of reliable sources. So to a certain degree we have to adjust our standards to what is available. Of course we should not fall into the trap you mention. The question is: can we carve out a section of Vanguard articles that we are sufficiently confident in? We have many sources where we have restrictions like "except for politics". As far as I can tell no-one is suggesting that the non-paid content of Vanguard is unreliable. So I believe that we don't have to condemn the entirety of Vanguard to the status of unreliable if one of two conditions is met: a) we are able to distinguish between paid and non-paid articles, or b) there are sections where we are confident that the articles are non-paid. I am not familiar enough with Vanguard to give a definitive answer. And while for western sources we could say "who cares if we throw out the baby with the bathwater we have enough other sources" I think we should take a closer look to determine whether or not one of those conditions are met. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Having gone through a number of AfD discussions recently related to Nigerian biographies of persons of admittedly quite low notability by Wikipedia's standards, I keep coming up on sources that read like fanzines, promotional brochures, or press kits. That's prevalent mostly in articles about local musicians, influencers, YT personalities, etc. The assistance of established contributors from Nigeria on this matter would be of great help. -The Gnome (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
    A problem is that a newspaper may accept an advertorial but so might a journalist who’s received a “brown envelope”. Another editor in an AfD asserted this is an issue in Nigeria. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • It is a problem in Nigeria. As soon as we get a source that prints both advertorials and legitimate articles, the whole menu is unacceptable. I'd rarely give a chance to a delicious and plentiful meal if the plate is graced with even one small turd. But that's just me, perhaps. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Sadly this is true. It is difficult to tell but not impossible. Wilson (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • My submisison on this would be to echo this point raised earlier above: So I believe that we don't have to condemn the entirety of Vanguard to the status of unreliable if one of two conditions is met: a) we are able to distinguish between paid and non-paid articles, or b) there are sections where we are confident that the articles are non-paid. Wilson (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Journalism in Nigeria has become increasingly chaotic, an unfortunate reality. Regarding Vanguard, the newspaper is widely recognised as a trustworthy source. Given its national stature, even if it engages in brown envelope journalism, criticism is often withheld.
Random person no 362478479 brought up a relevant point about whether a) we can distinguish between paid and non-paid articles, or b) if there are sections where we confidently identify non-paid articles. Most newspapers designate specific areas for their Promoted/Sponsored content. For instance, Vanguard has a designated PROMOTED category. However, not all promoted content resides there. Some content, in exchange for not being labeled 'PROMOTED', is financially supported and excluded from this category. This is an indisputable reality, not an expression of unwarranted certainty.
As an illustration, I noticed that this article about Johnel, a Nigerian rapper, on ThisDay lacked tags or categorisation as sponsored or promoted content. Instead, it was labeled as LATEST.
Just as Reading Beans pointed out, while certain newspapers may not adhere to common practices of marking sponsored content, some users, including myself, can detect such content from a mere few lines of reading. For instance, the Johnel piece on ThisDay lacks an author attribution, distinguishing it from a bona fide news article like this one.
Although this discussion revolves around Vanguard, the practice is prevalent among most newspapers. The same piece about Johnel can be found on Nigerian Tribune through this link, albeit not verbatim. Funny enough, these sources are currently present in the Johnel article.
In a nutshell, Vanguard is generally reliable, but a reassessment might be prudent, particularly when utilising it for biographies of living persons and possibly for companies/organisations as well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Repeating what others has said, Vanguard is generally pretty reliable and editors with experience can fairly easily distinguish between paid and standard articles. Labeling it "unreliable" would be an overreaction but review and potential reassessment should follow. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @The Gnome: Making Vanguard Nigeria unreliable media because of publicly advertising their advert rates or because of sponsored articles on their media will definitely be a major setback for Nigeria contents. This is because almost all major reliable media also have their advert rates, and also engaged in sponsored and promoted articles. See [Punch], [The Nation] etc. There is probably no way it can be stopped because that's where they get most of the revenue that is used to run the news media. In Nigeria of today, Vanguard is one of pioneer reliable news media in the country. Nevertheless, article on promotion are mostly tagged promotional or sponsored articles.
However, just like what Reading Beans said, there are certain ways in which promotional article or paid articles can be discovered. Some of the ways are the use of languages, biased point of view and so on. Over the years, reviewers like Reading Beans, Idoghor etc from Nigeria have been working round the clock to make sure that articles are created according to Wikipedia policies.
Lastly, whatever happened to Vanguard on this issue will probably affect the rest the Reliable media in Nigeria. Thank you.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I avoid Nigerian AfDs now. I've !voted "keep" based on national news sources only to have it blow up in my face. As I recall from my brief time in Nigeria, the writing style even reporting on regular news is more colorful than traditional North American journalism; this isn't bad - it's just a different cultural trait. Just the same, it makes it harder for me to "read between the lines". We need more Nigerian content and I have 2 suggestions:
  1. More Nigerian participation at Nigerian AfDs - the rest of us could use help interpreting source reliability for a given article. It's simple to track; an editor can just add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria to their watchlist.
  2. Develop something like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations, a.k.a. "WP:NEWSORGINDIA"
Thanks for what you all are doing here to build good Nigerian content.
Regards,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I think having something like WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:VENRS would be immensely helpful. If the people familiar with the media landscape of Nigeria could come up with some tips on how to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources and maybe a list of common sources with some information on their respective reliability that could go a long way to help us ensure the quality of articles on Nigerian topics. It is a sad fact that these media probably couldn't survive without these practices. We shouldn't condemn them for doing what they have to as long as they do their best to provide reliable news in difficult circumstances. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Pinging our WikiProject Nigeria coordinator @HandsomeBoy because I have an interest in the above, WP:NEWSORGINDIA thing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A. B., it could created as a section here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Reading Beans, this is great!
I recommend putting a link to that page from the perennial sources page so that non-WikiProject Nigeria people know where to look.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Am I wrong to understand that if Vanguard was a western publication, e.g. out of some American big city, we'd be readier to lower its status of reliability but we take a more benign stance because it's Nigerian? What we are saying, in sum, is that we accept a source is problematic, as almost all those who support the current reliability-status of Vaguard have accepted, and still keep it officially as a fully reliable source. Yet, whenever we discover realize about a western source that we have each time to wade through prose, context, writers, background, etc, in order to assess reliability almost automatically earns that western source a warning here. The criterion for the differentiation is Nigeria's overall socioeconomic and media-culture status in comparison to the "west", as was stated. But there are nations farther off than Nigeria in these fields. Would we be by the same logic even more benign towards their sources?
I confess that the introduction of two unofficial and very different subsets of standards for reliable sources scares me. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Partly it's because we need more good-quality Nigerian coverage but mainstream Nigerian media has to be used with caution. It's still usable but it depends on interpretation of the source article, especially for potential vanity BLPs.
In much of the West, we have enough good alternative we can afford to be pickier.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 08:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I think we also need to make it clear that Vanguard is not in the top category "generally reliable", but the second category "additional considerations apply", namely that they have paid content and we have to be careful what to use and what not. It takes more work and requires more scrutiny. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Just to be crystal-clear here; the problem is not paid content (even "top category" New York Times and Jerusalem Post have marked and disclaimed paid/sponsored content), it's that there is completely unidentified paid content mixed in with the other material. Frankly, that makes it incredibly difficult to utilize the source. As Reading Beans notes, it can often be easy to tell when the prose is unprofessional and clearly bought, but I've seen obviously paid content that takes great care to seem organic. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely right. I forgot the "unidentified" in that comment. Would you be fine with the compromise proposed below, or do you consider Vanguard generally unreliable? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Your analogical comparison of Vanguard as a western publication is unfair and completely ignores the complexities of the situation. We are discussing about blacklisting what appears to be an entire nation's only source of national news and frantically searching for ways the situation can be managed. Would you rather that Nigeria had no accepted reliable sources and thus impossible to contribute content on Wikipedia except of course when published by some external, foreign (western?) media? This conversation is not about east or west as much as it is about ensuring that the sum of all human knowledge is getting curated and accessed by as many as are able and willing to. The comparison is really unnecessary. Wilson (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Where did this come from? More than 300 print newspapers are published in Nigeria, with a combined daily circulation of hundreds of thousands. Additionally, and more importantly (since most Nigerians get their news online), there are thousands of news websites operating domestically. And here I am, trying to assess, per Wikipedia's criteria, whether one of them is completely reliable. The Vanguard is far from being the "entire nation's only source of national news" (see here for a Reuters Institute study on Nigerian media). Fortunately, for our sourcing, but obviously most of all fortunately for Nigeria, there's a plethora of sources available for reference.
In general, not all countries have the same level of press freedom. That's a fact that everyone but the most fanatical relativist accepts. (From another Reuters study: "The 2021 World Press Freedom Index ranks Nigeria at 120 out of 180 countries, with journalists facing harassment, arrest, and prosecution when reporting on corruption and terrorism.") We have to adjust our choices but not our criteria. In any case, we are not running out of acceptable Nigerian sources any time soon. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the problem with Vanguard and all Nigerian news outlets is that they seem to run promoted content more than what we'd see in Western (American/European) media, so it's hard to tell what's a RS and what isn't. We need something like WP:NEWSORGINDIA to be put together. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Compromise suggestion per input by Random person no 362478479, above. Everyone agrees about the existence of paid, promotional, and sponsored content written by employees of the newspaper, and that we should each time take a close look at an article. We could then designate Vanguard as a Marginally reliable source (WP:MREL), whereby additional considerations apply and the source may be usable depending on context. What say y'all? -The Gnome (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, A. B., Wilson, Watercheetah99, Sam Kuru, Ibjaja055, Vanderwaalforces, Reading Beans.
  • I agree, obviously. The fact that there is paid content that is not marked as such rules out WP:GREL and several people familiar with Vanguard have assured us that it is not WP:GUNREL, so WP:MREL seems to be the logical designation. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @The Gnome This was the context of my opinion above. The prevailing issue pertains to the apparent omission of the PROMOTION tag on certain articles, which, in fact, were commissioned. While I previously alluded to their general reliability, I was not cognizant of the designation of marginally reliable. Armed with this understanding, I now assert that Vanguard presently falls within the category of being marginally reliable as per WP:MREL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with this, caution is needed for exceptional claims and overly promotional language (as not all promo work is labelled as such). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The compromise is succinct. I agree. Wilson (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

Any objections to closing this down with a consensus in favor of the compromise suggestion, as above? -The Gnome (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • @The Gnome You’re on track. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with the compromise suggestion. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with the proposal especially when it comes to BLPs and for-profit organizations. Vanguard is a very top newspaper. Blacklisting them will mean blacklisting all newspapers in Nigeria, and that will not make sense. The issue is not about Vanguard, it is about the state of journalism in the country. You can find rubbish articles from a WP POV in virtually all the top newspapers in Nigeria (and probably many other countries too). HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Request administration to close this discussion per above and implement consensus, then. -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anirudh Devgan

A notability review for the article Anirudh Devgan is being discussed at Talk:Anirudh Devgan#Adding awards. A user has claimed notability under Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Requesting inputs about, Which of following sources can be considered independent, significant coverage, WP:DUE, WP:RS and which can not be?

List of references used or expected to be used in the article
1) Nellis, Stephen; Jain, Tanya (July 24, 2023). "Cadence lifts full-year forecast, shares dip on short-term outlook". Reuters.
2) "National Academy of Engineering Elects 106 Members and 18 International Members". National Academy of Engineering. February 7, 2023.
3) "Interview with Anirudh Devgan". CNBC Television. February 2023.
4) "GSA Board of Directors". Global Semiconductor Alliance. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
5) "About the ESD Alliance". SEMI. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
6) https://besttechviews.com/computational-software-transforms-hardware-system-design/
7) https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/cadence-moves-new-ceo
8) "Anirudh Devgan profile". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
9) "2021 Phil Kaufman Award: Anirudh Devgan". SEMI. 2021.
10) "Phil Kaufman Award for Distinguished Contributions to EDA". IEEE CEDA. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
11) "2021 Phil Kaufman Award Dinner | IEEE Council on Electronic Design Automation". ieee-ceda.org. Retrieved 2023-05-25.
12) Anirudh Devgan at DBLP Bibliography Server
13) https://alumni.iitd.ac.in/home/index.php/2022/10/13/dr-anirudh-devgan/
14) https://alumni.iitd.ac.in/home/index.php/2022/10/13/dr-anirudh-devgan
15) https://www.nae.edu/289843/NAENewClass2023
16) Srivastava, Ritesh K. (2023). "Who is Anirudh Devgan". MSN. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
17) "ICCAD-2003 Awards". IEEE Computer Society. 2003. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
18) Devgan, Anirudh; Kashyap, Chandramouli V. (2003). "Block-based Static Timing Analysis with Uncertainty". ICCAD. 2003: 607–614.
19) "The 42nd Design Automation Conference Best Paper Awards" (PDF). 2005. Retrieved September 2, 2023.
20) Mani, Murari; Devgan, Anirudh; Orshansky, Michael (2005). "An Efficient Algorithm for Statistical Minimization of Total Power under Timing Yield Constraints". DAC. 2005: 309–314.

21) "National Academy of Engineering Elects 106 Members and 18 International Members". National Academy of Engineering. February 7, 2023.

22) "Search Patents - Justia Patents Search". patents.justia.com. Retrieved 2023-05-19.

Sorry for long list. Though I had tagged the article for notability but now I am running short of time hence requesting help with review inputs and guide along with relevant policies from users at this notice board.

  • Pinging users @B030510 and MrOllie: being already in the discussion at t/p

Bookku (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Bookku for preparing the list. Refs [2],[15] and [21] are the same thing, are reliable and independent because the National Academy of Engineering (nae.edu) lists the subject of the article (Anirudh Devgan) as having been elected a member of National Academy of Engineering. IMHO, this alone should be sufficient to establish notability per academic criteria because the criteria mention membership in the National Academy of Science as sufficient, and NAE is at the same level.
References [9], [10], [11] serve to confirm that Devgan received the Phil Kaufman Award, which is the top international award in the field of Electronic Design Automation with winners (listed in the wiki article) being of very high caliber. The references are from semi.org and ieee-ceda.org --- the organizations that give the award. Therefore, these are reliable references. I know of no CoI between them and Devgan. The Kaufman award by itself should be sufficient for notability.
References [17], [18], [19], and [20] include two scholarly publications coauthored by Devgan that received prestigious best-paper awards from the top international conferences in the field (DAC and ICCAD), as confirmed by these conferences -- refs [18] and [20] are independent and reliable. Chances are, these two awards are also sufficient for notability because of the technical contributions of the publications, whose significance was confirmed by prestigious awards.
Moving on, Ref.[1] from Reuters is reliable, but only quotes Devgan, so only serves to confirm his job status. Same for Ref.[3] -- a live interview on CNBC TV. Refs [4] and [5] serve to confirm his board membership and probably don't count much for notability.
Refs [6] and [7] look weak, although Ref. [7] may count as a secondary independent and significant ref (not sure about reliability).
Ref [8] is independent and reliable, not sure about significance and depth --- a maybe.
Ref. [12] only shows Devgan's scientific publications to support the claim that he has over 50 of them.
Along the same lines, [22] shows that he has over 15 patents to his name.
Ref. [13] and [14] -- I don't know how to judge them. May be OK.
Ref. [16] -- is from MSN, so reliable and independent, but it's too sugary to take seriously (has a lot of info though)
That's all. Comments are welcome! B030510 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to comment on that last ref, when MSN acts as a news aggregator it doesn't have a level of reliability. The article needs to be judged by the original sources, which is this article from Zeenews and WP:RSNOI probably applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Since I am playing the role of Devgan's advocate, let me state that I have no CoI with him. have not been in communication with him, don't own shared of his company, etc. B030510 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@B030510,@Bookku I have found Anirudh Devgan as IEEE CAS Fellow and not IEEE Fellow.[1] I feel IEEE Fellows only qualify for notability, as it is a much broader organisation. Hope that helps. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc The Circuits and Systems (CAS) society is a part of iEEE. There is no separate IEEE CAS fellow. There is only IEEE Fellow. You can see at List of IEEE fellows that each IEEE Fellow comes through one of IEEE societies, this is also explained in [1]. So, Devgan is an IEEE Fellow. In any case, the Kaufman award is by far more selective than IEEE Fellowship. B030510 (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's the quote "The nominator is responsible for identifying an IEEE Society/Technical Council whose evaluating committee will assess the nominee’s technical qualifications and contributions." In this case, IEEE Society was CAS. B030510 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that as IEEE fellow, the article meets notability criteria. Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2007 CAS Fellows".

Is this source reliable for making a list?

I found this website and I want to make a list article on the current members of the National Assembly (Malawi). Is it reliable? Masohpotato (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there not an official website that you can cite instead, Masohpotato? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The official website is this https://www.malawi.gov.mw/index.php/61-legislative And does not list the members Masohpotato (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think for this purpose it is fine, I haven't found anything better. However it says that there are 193 MPs, but only 191 are listed. (The speaker is shown separately, but she is also found in the list, so two MPs appear to be missing.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on use of bustimes.org for bus company fleet information

What is the reliability of bustimes.org for citations relating to current and historic UK bus company fleet information?

Hullian111 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: @Hullian111: Just for future reference, make sure you present RfCs in a neutral manner without making suggestions on a decision in the nomination. I agree that WP:UGC may be an issue, though I will have to revisit this discussion before I make a decision. WMrapids (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, very true, I knew the tone felt a bit off; just remembered the last post as a spur-of-the-moment thing. Am I allowed to strike out/blank the offending articles in this post to remove the undue weight, or must it stay for the archives? Hullian111 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hullian111: Not sure, but it looks fine now. You could probably make a comment below with a link to your old diff explaining your concerns, or maybe just paste it if you'd like. Either way, your quick fix is appreciated! Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 4 "Information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) has been contributed by dozens of enthusiastic contributors, and is available from the bustimes.org API."[2] So at least that part is unusable as WP:USERGENERATED. The rest seems to be official WP:PRIMARY information. So Option 2 if the relevant information can be extracted from the official information. Option 4 otherwise. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Reliable for places, bus stops, timetables and bus operator codes all of which is sourced from government databases (primary as Random person noted). Unreliable for information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) as user generated content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comments: Option 2 would be a compromise by split decision. If parts of the source are "by dozens of enthusiastic contributors" (WP:USERGENERATED) and other parts are from "government sources" then why not just use the government sources and list it as "option 3" or "option 4"? It would have been easier with links to some articles using the source. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
    Out of an abundance of caution, I did blank the section of this post in which I outlined my concerns about using the source due to not wanting to unduly influence commentators, so that's an error on my part.
    However, for fleet sections, see past revisions on the articles Xplore Dundee, First Essex, Keighley Bus Company, Stagecoach Merseyside, Diamond North West and FTR (bus).
    For comparison, articles that currently cite bustimes.org for local bus timetables/operators include Tamworth, Staffordshire, South Shields Interchange (which uses many of them!), Rushall, West Midlands, Goole, and in a rather odd self-referential case, Lothian Buses. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2: - Why ask ??? It depnds on cases. I generally lean on the WP:RS at WP:RSCONTEXTMATTERS that whether something is RS for an edit depends on what specific edit and specific reference is involved, to know why ask and what is being asked. Then one is getting relevant answers and not a generalisation or hypothetical discussions like the above "If parts of the source are "by dozens of enthusiastic contributors"" or risking just wasting time and causing incorrect conflicts to existing WP articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
    Editors are required to consider whether a source is reliable in its context. They come here looking for advice, so that's why they ask. The specific question here is whether they are reliable for fleet information, which as it's WP:UGC they are not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why is this an issue at all? This type of detail belongs on Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia, per WP:TRAVELGUIDE. Seriously, someone should probaly check for usage of bustimes.org and remove it and content it references... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability and independence of sources for International Churches of Christ

I've got some concerns about whether some of the sources used at International Churches of Christ are sufficiently reliable and independent of the subject. Into All Nations: A History of the International Churches of Christ (ISBN 9780974534220), for instance, is published by Illumination Publishers International, which appears to be a Christian publishing outfit. I don't know this area of publishing at all, so would appreciate input on whether such a source is likely to be reliable and its degree of independence from the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Having a publisher specialize in a given religion (or other subject) is not a problem. For Wikipedia to consider the publishing house non-independent of the church organization, it would have to legally owned or directly controlled by the church organization (controlling, e.g., by appointing people to the publisher's board of directors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Having a publisher specialize in a given religion (or other subject) is not a problem. It can be. We want publishers that can provide systems of editorial oversight and review that ensure statements are factual/accurate. If the goal of a publisher is to spread a particular religious message and to ensure its facts correspond with, say, a literal interpretation of the bible, that's not going to be the kind of editorial oversight compatible with WP:RS. A publisher doesn't have to be owned or controlled by the religious organization to directly serve its interests. The independent element isn't the issue at that point; it's more about whether it's describing beliefs or operating under the assumption that those beliefs are true. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure who owns it so no comment on its independence but Illumination Publishers International is not a reliable publisher, they're a non-academic publisher so unless the author is exceptionally qualified I wouldn't use their publications for anything other than ABOUTSELF (which rather interestingly means that if they are owned by the International Churches of Christ they can be used). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I've just read here that "Though a member of the ICOC, Stanback has sought to write with detachment and objectivity, insofar as detachment and objectivity are possible". Hmm. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
So it is in fact no an independent source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems not. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Just two additional points about the publisher. If you google their address it comes up as a "single-family residence". And their terms of service page[3] is a boiler plate that they forgot to fill out (it includes sentences like this: "{Company LEGAL Name} (hereinafter, “We,” “Us,” “Our”) is offering a mobile messaging program (the “Program”), which you agree to use and participate in subject to these Mobile Messaging Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy {Insert URL Link to your Privacy Policy} (the “Agreement”).") Not exactly what you'd expect from a quality publisher. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention the terms and service text seems to be for a completely different kind of business. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Random person no 362478479: why do you say that? The part you cited is the "SMS/MMS MOBILE MESSAGE MARKETING PROGRAM TERMS AND CONDITIONS" so they seem to have used the right boiler plate for that. Them forgetting to fill it out is problematic and maybe the fact that they have or had a SMS/MMS mobile message marketing program though. It's also weird that they don't seem to have bothered with any T&C besides the ones for their SMS program other than the copyright ones especially since they seem to sell books via their website, I doubt their lawyers will be happy about that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the T&C only cover a SMS/MMS marketing program plus the fact that I see no evidence of such a program existing on the page leads me to assume that they took it from a template for a company that does nothing else. Maybe that's not the case. BTW I am not convinced that they have lawyers. If they did they probably would have the lawyers if not write then at least check the T&C. This really looks like a one or two person business. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lawyers are expensive, I'd be hardly surprised if they only used them when absolutely necessary and they didn't figure it was necessary for this case. Probably a mistake, but hardly uncommon in this world. BTW I missed until now that they actually do have a shipping and refund policy of sorts [4] and [5].

While it's always possible, I'm unconvinced the SMS thing is mistake. From my experience at least in NZ, it's very common for a company to have T&C for various programs on their website including for stuff that wasn't really offered via the website as well as stuff that is long dead. The fact they are missing arguably more important T&C is less common, still I'm fairly sure it happens a lot. I could easily imagine someone at some stage perhaps the provider of their marketing program probably either required or made them think they needed that so they added it, poorly.

Note that the same T&C is also listed in the privacy policy [6] which does have a generic privacy policy and the address and contact details for "Privacy Compliance Officer". I'm not sure what that Compliance Officer is for, as I agree they're likely a smallish operation (although I'm not sure 1-2 people. From what I know of the US I quite doubt it's a legal requirement in Texas or the US generally for the sort of company they are. Maybe California or something requires it but it could very well be because of the EU or just because someone convinced them it would be better to formally designate someone in the role.

Again this all speaks of an fairly ad-hoc and as-required set up when someone or some situation convinces them they need to do something and so they do it, leaving other things some of which might arguably be more important. And interesting enough in the privacy policy it has a double header "Text Marketing Terms and Conditions:" and "SMS/MMS MOBILE MESSAGE MARKETING PROGRAM TERMS AND CONDITIONS". The second header, the same as in the T&C sounds like the sort of thing which might have come from wherever they took the boilerplate. The first one sounds to me like the sort of thing they might have written, since in I believe in the US like in NZ (but not e.g. Malaysia) it's fairly common to just call SMS as text or text messages.

As for the absence of any other info on the program, my initial assumption was that the program might very well be long dead. SMS/MMS marketing sounds like the sort of thing from frankly 10 years ago or something. But even then and especially now I'm thinking it could very well still exist, perhaps something they feel is suitable for their audience. But the program works via other means e.g. perhaps from in church or word of mouth marketing.

I had a look at the history and it seems they did have a T&C and privacy policy way back in 2004 the first successful capture of their website I found [7]. (From WHOIS data I think it's existed since 2003.) While there are no copies of these policies from 2004 that I found, the copies from 2007 [8] [9] lack the SMS thing but the T&C is more normal.

Their website seems to have undergone revisions [10] [11] [12] [13], but largely kept the original policies intact until 2016 (I didn't look at them carefully but they do lack any SMS marketing thing) [14] [15]

It looks like they disappeared in 2016 when they redesigned their website or at least I didn't see any links to them in the obvious places [16] [17] [18].

Finally, they reintroduced some policies in 2020 [19]. While I didn't find any copies from 2020, the similarity in design makes me think they're probably the same as now (the earliest I found for the privacy policy is 2022 [20] and the earliest I found for the T&C is March this year [21]

Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If International Churches of Christ#Affiliated organizations is correct, it seems the publisher is "operated or managed" by International Churches of Christ. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
So a book written by member of the church, and published by a company operated or managed by the church. I wouldn't say that's independent, it should be reliable for non-controversial aboutself details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that the group has been described as a cult, I'm not sure there are such things as non-controversial about-self details! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So all in all not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes revisited

This article in Vulture makes an allegation that the critics score on Rotten Tomatoes is being gamed. Do we still consider it generally reliable for its review aggregation? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO the question is one of due weight not reliability, they're reliable for their review aggregation... But their review aggregation isn't due unless an RS independent of them mentions it. We seem to have too many people who assume that because a RT aggregate exists that its due and that is simply not the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Horse Eye's Back. It is reliable for their aggregation. It's just that that aggregation is not as good/notable as it would have to be to justify the ubiquitous use on Wikipedia. So reliable, but usually undue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Please note that this is currently being discussed at WT:FILM#Time to rethink Rotten Tomatoes inclusion/centrality to film pages?. To copy my comment from there: Like we did with CNET, I think we should wait at least a while to see how the situation progresses before deciding what to do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering that the RT score is widely reported in reliable sources that cover film, it would be hard to argue that the metric is UNDUE (in most cases). RT has had its fair share of controversy over the years, as noted in that article from Vulture, and they have made attempts to correct issues when they come to light (also noted by Vulture). It is an interesting article worth mentioning/covering at Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm not sure it really impacts our willingness to include data they aggregate, at least not in the near future while they continue to enjoy wide coverage and acceptance, all of which has a significant impact within the industry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    Where it is reported by independent reliable sources I see no issues with regard to WP:DUE. But it is not intrinsically notable/due in my opinion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    From an academic standpoint, I agree. But in practice, it's a moot point. The RT scores of a vast majority of films released post-2000 will have significant coverage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Based on the article, Vulture has noted some suspicious activity for one film whose Rotten Tomatoes score may have been gamed by a PR company. The rest of the article is some quotes from salty film industry people, and speculation regarding Quantumania. We need something more substantial than that. Cortador (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it definitely doesn't come across like all RT scores are broken. Maybe some scores are skewed right after release and some small films can be gamed, but major releases seem fine after the scores have time to stabilize. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The conflict of interest questions raised by Vulture are also of interest to us here and not in doubt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is really complaining that audiences place "too much" faith in the Tomatometer. That's a fair complaint, it should just be one tool among many, but basically implies that we should be highlighting the RT rating even more if the Tomatoemeter really is the make-or-break thing the article portrays it as. If the Tomatoemeter really is what can bring success or failure to movies, doesn't that mean it's so notable it should be covered in great detail, akin to Siskel & Ebert in the 80s & 90s? SnowFire (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@SnowFire: are you perhaps confusing notability and due weight? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
No? If we take the Vulture article as totally true, then due weight would be to spend an entire paragraph in the "Reception" section for post-2015 movies talking about its Tomato score, how it changed over time, any marketing tactics to change it, etc. I'm not saying I agree with doing that, but the Vulture article seems to clearly indicate that RT is very notable. (And even if critical reception was "gamed", well, that means we report on the "gamed" critical reception, just like many other movies that had marketing campaigns that buttered up critics. Nothing new.) SnowFire (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"then due weight would be to spend an entire paragraph in the "Reception" section for post-2015 movies talking about its Tomato score, how it changed over time, any marketing tactics to change it, etc" how do you get there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It is still better than nothing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ecured

We already have guidelines establishing that user-generated content is generally unreliable (WP:UGC), such as Ancestry.com, Answers.com, Goodreads, IMDb, Know Your Meme and TV Tropes. However, Ecured is currently used in over three hundred paged (347 HTTPS links HTTP links) and there doesn't appear to have been related discussion in this noticeboard in the past; I could only find a report from WikiProject Spam. Ecured is also self described as close to the Cuban Revolution, which also violates the neutrality pillar, besides verifiability. Its use in Wikipedia should change. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality is a different question from reliability and usability as a source. For example, the NY Times is not neutral about Trump, but its coverage of Trump is generally reliable. NightHeron (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course, but neutrality affects reliability at times, particularly when talking about a page that depends on user-generated content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's UGC it's not reliable for any purpose, it would be the same as using Wikipedia as a source. Neutrality etc is a null point if its simply unusable. Also usage doesn't matter, throw a dart and .. Deion Sanders uses Wikipedia twice for referencing. I've removed thousands of such referencs, the fact there are thousands more doesn't make Wikipedia reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Footy-Boots.com on reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots

What is the reliability of Footy-Boots.com for citations relating to reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots?

TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a RfC is really necessary here. Footy-Boots.com is only used in 11 articles. Ca talk to me! 14:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
As for its reliability, I don't think it is reliable outside WP:EXPERTSPS. I found no use of this website from other reliable sources and its editorial staffs/policies are unmentioned. People can submit articles with unclear amount of editorial control on its content. The company's name "Sports SEO Agency" does not bring any confidence in me. Ca talk to me! 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Please refer to an AfD on a football boot that is currently occurring for context. In it an editor brought up a bunch of wiki articles for Nike football boots in which a lot of the citations are from this website. Some of us thought some clear guidance on this would be good so we could move ahead and stop this sort of stuff from happening going forward. TarnishedPathtalk 14:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
We should avoid WP:RSN threads that fail WP:RFCBEFORE and follow from minor content disputes (whether or not the disputes are near-WP:SNOW). Sorry TarnishedPath but this is becoming a systemic problem with RSN. For little-known sources, you won't get higher-quality input in an RfC than in a normal discussion. I'd rate the first two as unreliable due to having no published information about their editorial team. The third one is a blog (self-described), so its reliability doesn't need to be discussed because we already address it at the policy level. DFlhb (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
^^ Close all three of these without prejudice to just opening a thread about them (without an RfC). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I would second this, we don't need an RFC for these (let alone three). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the RfC templates and they no longer show on the relevant RfC project. Does this suffice? TarnishedPathtalk 02:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Special Content" in The Jerusalem Post

I'm primarily familiar with The Jerusalem Post for its reputation as an English-language, Israeli paper of record, not infrequently cited in our articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when academic sources are unavailable. I was surprised to come across JPost in a very different context: padding a press release for a gambling site AskGamblers: Successful Brand with a Unique Casino Complaints Service, which includes the following jaw-dropping block of PR text:

extended PR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

3 Reasons Why AskGamblers Is the Best Online Casino Website With a long-standing tradition of 15 years for being the most reputable and trustworthy online gambling platform, AskGamblers has become a name very few people in the gambling industry don't know. However, if there were only three things to single out, a quick rundown of those would be:

More than 1400+ Unbiased Casino Reviews AskGamblers is known for, among other things, having one of the largest directories of online casino reviews in the world. The sophisticated CasinoRank system sorts every online casino review site listed on the AskGamblers. The CasinoRank system, which you can learn more about on AskGamblers website, locates the best online casinos on top using a number of parameters and therefore suggests which casinos are the best places for the players to spend time at.

Over 6800+ Transparent Online Slot Reviews Featuring the largest selection of free online slots on the web, AskGamblers has built a reputation for being transparent with every slot (and other) review uploaded. Online slots have been at the top of the most popular online gambling entertainment, making slot reviews an essential part of the punters' gameplay. The three basic types of slots and slots reviews players can find on the AskGamblers website are classic slots, video slots, and progressive jackpot slots. The main difference between the three is in the number of reels and paylines, the number of free slots included in the game, their interface and the software provider that developed them.

Real Players' Opinions and Ratings As opposed to the general approach to players' reviews featured on websites similar to AskGamblers (it is no secret that they are usually paid), AskGamblers prides on encouraging truthful players' casino and game reviews. Although such an approach may be risky at times, AskGamblers' reason for cultivating this attitude is twofold. Primarily, it goes along with the company's 5 core pillars - trust, independence, quality, fair play, and transparency; secondly, real player's opinions and ratings help other players get a grip on what's happening with a particular game/casino, and the entire AskGamblers community can consider taking appropriate, corresponding measures after implementing all inspection necessary. Reading a player's review on AskGamblers means seeing things for how they truly are.

Over to You Succeeding in the world of online gambling while using trustworthiness as your key ally means building an empire that revolves around players' satisfaction and approval, and there's nothing that tastes as sweet as that. Being at service to the players around the globe for 15 years now (and counting), AskGamblers is the name you don't forget, especially if you are serious about your gambling future. To all the players and entrepreneurs out there - "Don't let the fear of losing be greater than the excitement of winning"… okay?

Looking more closely, the article is filed away in the "Special Content" section of the JPost website: [22], which bears the unhelpful description The Jerusalem Post special content featuring useful information and unique publications. The articles listed in the section, rather than being JPost's usual fare of Israeli, American and Jewish news, cover topics such as acne treatment medication, classic World of Warcraft servers, Top 10 web design companies, a guide to weed products, and crypto casinos, all bearing breathless promotional prose. The bylines for these posts seem to be a very short list, with one Avi Stern responsible for about half of the articles I could see on the page.

My assessment is that this is a pay-for-play zone of the JPost website and that these articles should be considered generally unreliable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like junk. It is similar in content to chumbox ads, and I could see these articles forming part of a chumbox link section. I agree that this "special" content is broadly unreliable and not usable to establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is complete spam most of the time and it's really disappointing when reputable publications resort to this. While most publishers explicitly mark that type of advertorial, JPost euphemistically calls it "Special Content" - a little shady. This is buried in their Terms of Service: "Any commercial or advertorial content shall be marked as Special Content." It does seem to generally pop up in the URL, and I periodically look for anything using that as a source. It's completely unscreened and deceptive adcopy and should be removed on sight. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
No doubt that the "special content" is unreliable. The biggest open question in my mind is: does this sort of behavior actually damage the reliability of the Jerusalem Post? If a source is deemed "reliable", what behavior would the source have to engage in for its general reliability to be scrutinized? Is there any historical example of a reliable source being downgraded because of shady advertisement and PR practices? Pecopteris (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Jerusalem Post is hardly the first extremely reliable source to do sponsored content. Even the New York Times does it. AFAIK in cases where it's properly and always marked we haven't taken it significantly into account in assessments of reliability of the site other than that their sponsored content is not reliable which is a universal thing. So the only issue is that with Jerusalem Post it seems it's always marked, but unfortunately in a way that's unclear unless you read their ToS. IMO while this is not a good thing, it's probably not good enough to warrant anything more than "make sure no one ever accidentally uses their sponsored content" and "pay attention that they don't get worse". Notably it's likely a decision by some part of their marketing/business side and hopefully they are still leaving their journalistic side be. Of course if Jerusalem Post does stop always marking sponsored content even in a confusing way, then we will likely have to consider how to handle this as we have with other sources e.g. Vanguard discussed above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
JPost absolutely isn't the only reliable source to play games with this. Many use passive labels like "Brand Connect", "Brand Spot", "Brand Stories" or "Partnered Content". Some use a mix of vague disclaimers. NYT certainly does it, but they slather it with labels and actually identify who paid for it (at least in the examples I've seen; there may be more dubious examples). The Hindu also does a decent job with strong identification. I agree that as long as there's some consistent way to identify advertorials from actual content, even if it's disingenuous, then it's probably fine. The bright line to me is completely unmarked paid placement - at that point, you have no idea where the line is between editor-controlled product and PR spam. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Per News organizations, "analysis [is] rarely reliable for statements of fact."
I don't know why so many editors don't get this. News reporting in mainstream media is the best source we have for what happened today. That does not mean that the analyses of reporters, who typically have no academic qualifications on the topics they analyze, are as reliable as experts who been published extensively on the subject. TFD (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Books as sources of their author's opinions

Javier Milei is a politician from Argentina, the section about his political views has grown quite a bit and now there is draft for a related article, Draft:Political views of Javier Milei. The specifics of the article are being discussed elsewhere, I have just one doubt. Milei has written many books, with his views over many topics (mainly economy). Is it acceptable to use those books as references? Such as "Milei thinks X"<ref>Book by Milei, page 123</ref> Or would those books be primary sources?

WP:ABOUTSELF would seem to be the policy for such a situation, but seems written in reference to posts on social media. Does it apply to books that have been published the regular way?

And now that we're at it, if there is an article about a non-fiction book, it is valid to say "the book says X", referenced by the book itself? Works of fiction do not need to reference their plot summaries because the work itself is accepted as the source, that would seem a logical similarity. Cambalachero (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable certainly, but WP:DUE? Maybe not so much. WP:ARSEHOLES is an interesting take on it. In general, articles should be based on secondary sources, with maybe primary sources touching in some details. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Ideally we would have a secondary source about the person or the book, to ensure that we as Wikipedia editors are not the ones making the decision on which bits were important enough to discuss. GMGtalk 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
You're right ABOUTSELF tends to be for SPS stuff. That said, in the absence of anything else, it would apply to material that isn't self published if we can be sure that it is an accurate reflection of what they wished to say. (This is primarily an issue were e.g. someone has written an article for the Daily Mail.) However note that in any case, only a small amount of material at most should be under ABOUTSELF and it's very limited material. Generally someone's opinions on random things shouldn't be under ABOUTSELF, since it's likely someone's opinion on something will fail the not unduly self-serving requirement. Sometimes it will also fail the not about third party requirement. As others have said, even if the material is published in an RS, if it's a primary source from the subject then there are DUE issues especially in how we decide what to publish about the person's opinions, so we really need some guidance from secondary sources anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • This is usually more of a WP:DUE issue (and sometimes a WP:BLP issue); there's a lot of things to consider. First, if an opinion is WP:EXCEPTIONAL (in the sense that it is shocking to find that this person holds this view) or is one that would plainly cast the person who holds it a bad light, we need a secondary source - quote-mining someone to imply that they hold a position that no secondary sources support them holding is WP:OR at the very least and can sometimes be a BLP issue, especially when implying that that position is (or ought to be) particularly significant to their overall reputation. If it's a relatively uncontroversial opinion in-line with the rest of their beliefs, then the issue isn't as severe, but there are still often DUE concerns. Another issue IMHO is that editors will often pull out quotes they consider snappy or incisive for things they agree with and include them even without secondary coverage - this is a problem for WP:TONE reasons and can turn articles into WP:QUOTEFARMs. A neutral summary of the position someone take is usually preferable to a quote. And the snappier and more aggressive a quote is, the more cautious we should be about using it - quotes are not an excuse to sneak fiery non-neutral language into articles; especially without secondary coverage, their purpose is to inform the reader about the broad positions people hold, not to convince the reader. Additionally, choosing the most fiery quote from a larger work can give a mistaken impression of the author's overall views. (Quotes that have secondary coverage have more leeway because sometimes a quote is just intrinsically important, but you need secondary coverage to demonstrate that; an editor just deciding that a particular snappy quote is totally awesome and deserves to be immortalized is something to be discouraged.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of SoccerCleats101 on reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots

What is the reliability of SoccerCleats101 for citations relating to reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots?

TarnishedPathtalk 14:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 3 Not enough use to merit deprecation, but even ignoring the lack of evidence that the site has any claim to meet WP:RS standards, its reliability would have to be called into question since it not only reviews boots, but sells them, making such reviews potentially non-independent. [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Reading the about page I was quite hope until, This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. I wonder if an argument could be made for SPS, but the only reliable source I could find using it was this book by Springer and I can't see the context it's being used in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Did some research on SoccerCleats101 (because its article is gonna be another one biting the dust). No editorial team, only Bryan Bryce, self-proclaimed expert reviewer. Brachy08 (Talk) 10:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding https://rekt.news as a partly trusted perennial source.

It's a clear-cut no; no need to spend further time on this. Bon courage (talk) 11:15, 12 September 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 know about the general rule to not use cryptocurrency focused websites, but https://rekt.news is a deep technical oriented outlet which promote nothing.

My aim is not use it as a technical info, but simply to write that a specific cryptocurrency project with an existing Wikipedia article was hacked or that an attack was later thwarted (especially since there s tendency to edit articles that the underlying project ceased to exists if hacked without further source). With CoinDesk being banned and unlike twitter, on chain activity being excluded from WP:ABOUTSELF, history of specific cryptocurrency projects isn t always fully included on more common media like Bloomberg. 82.66.26.199 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I clicked on the first story on the page linked above. It carried this disclaimer: REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT. So, no, not a reliable source. Not a chance. Not even remotely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Who owns the site, who is on its editorial board and who writes its articles? Unless you can answer this, we cannot consider it to be rs. TFD (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Anonymous authors are only for translations. There are no adverts and no brand contents.
The site is in practice maintained by a French suiss speaking individual Julien Bouteloup who keep the grip on what he does publish. There are no mechanisms for a third party to submit an article.
All the technical oriented articles massively quote the blockchain data without ones that can be opinionated such as statistics for fact checking, and with the target audience being cybersecurity professionals, any false statements would be quickly debunked which never happened so far. Given I read all the articles, I don t see a reason for not being truthful so why it should be completely banned like it is now.
It is more a data analysis news outlets than a regular one. Of course, Wikipedia isn t the place to explain how something happened but it s the place for telling it happened. 82.66.26.199 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
'Disclaimer' to articles on the website front page:
REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

donbasstoday.ru

In the article for Verbove, Novozvanivka, and Troitske, a site donbasstoday.ru is cited. I cannot speak Russian, so I cannot read the website, but due to it thematically looking like RT and posting Pro-Russian talking points (which are then cited in the respective articles mentioned) my gut feeling is that it is not a WP:RS, but would like some conformation, ideally from someone who can read Russian. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

According to their About us page, they are based in Donetsk and are not related to RT. Their reporting obviously is influenced by the restrictions on media freedom in Russia, so I would never use them to state something related to the Russo-Ukrainian war in wikivoice. They are probably reliable for the position of the Russian and local authorities. Alaexis¿question? 13:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This isn't an RS, not for the war topics at least, and I think it's basically useless for us.
They openly describe the war from 2014 a "civil war", even though it is common knowledge it is not. Quote: В проекте «Как я встретил начало войны» каждый житель Донбасса может рассказать, как именно изменила война его жизнь, что произошло в его судьбе с началом боевых действий в Донбассе. Необходимо, чтобы весь мир узнал о тех тревожных днях 2014 года, когда началась гражданская война. - emphasis added. In addition, they ignore the official Ukrainian names of settlements in Ukraine-controlled territories that Russia doesn't even claim, such as in this case where they mention the city of Snovsk under its former name Shchors. Cf. Bakhmut v. Artyomovsk. Also, they are clearly on the side of DPR/Russia, as they refer to Russian army as "us" in their military assessments, and name the war a "special military operation" (CBO) on the main page. No indication so far they differ from "mainstream" Russian propaganda, like First Channel or Rossiya24. Just because they will face punishment for not spreading propaganda doesn't make citing the news source justifiable.
Most of the news I saw were actually reports about what other news outlets wrote. So when they cite CNN or Rzeczpospolita or some random guy (which invariably is a Russian war correspondent on Telegram, a Russian propagandist, a Russian collaborationist, a supporter of Russia, or all of the above from what I saw), it's better to cite them directly, if we ever need it on Wikipedia.
No opinion for local news not related to war, but I don't think we will ever need hyper-local coverage from Donetsk on Wikipedia. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
My two cents: It's clearly a pro-Russian source, but I don't see how that necessarily leads to it being any less reliable than other pro-government news. Would a source repeating "pro-Ukrainian talking points" also be dismissed? If a source says "Crimea is controlled by Ukraine", should they be hand-waved away as "pro-Ukrainian propaganda"? What about the RSes that aren't US-funded, but somehow manage to never notice when the USA does something atrocious on the foreign policy front? Or the RS TV programs that have a "former" security state agent on to spout CIA talking points?
I might be dating myself here, but does anyone here remember how US outlets uncritically parroted the "WMD" hoax and other US government talking points/disinformation to justify the invasion of Iraq? Most of the sources that did so are still listed as GREL. To dismiss anything that seems "pro-Russian" while permitting uncritically pro-government behavior from other sources seems like an example of pro-Western bias, which we should strive to avoid, IMO.
I think this source should be handled the same as any other opinionated news source (which is most news sources nowadays). Err on the side of attribution, and don't treat it as authoritative. Don't put things in Wikivoice purely based on this source. But don't deprecate it. That's my perspective. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
There a difference between a source mistakingly taking a governments points as facts, and sources directly following government direction. As with all situations sources external to the area are probably better, and of course if other sources aren't reporting the same details they are likely not WP:DUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree fully with the last statement. Currently there are no journalists representing Western media outlets in Donetsk, and if we dismiss out of hand all the Russian and local sources, we end up with no coverage at all. There are things happening there not related to the conflict, after all. Alaexis¿question? 05:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
1. Better to have no coverage than shitty coverage.
2. The articles where this source is used relate to the war, and there are better sources for that than using an outlet openly supporting one side.
3. Maybe there is unbiased local news coverage from this outlet, but again, a screenshot from the page had a news piece saying that petrol prices went up 5 rubles per litre. It is probably true, but is it something WP has to mention in any of its articles if that's something that didn't cause riots or some sort of govt reaction? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as I wrote in my first comment I wouldn't use this source for anything related to the conflict. They do some local news, it doesn't mean that it's automatically notable, that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Alaexis¿question? 08:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I never said all reporting from Donetsk should be discard, I said that we shouldn't use low quality Russia or Ukrainian sources for reporting Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. My other point was that if minor local reporting is the only source it may not be notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Digital Trends

Is Digital Trends considered reliable? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2BD8:5934:EB69:C9 (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 2, leaning to 1, because of its reputation and its collaboration with Valnet.
Brachy08 (Talk) 10:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Question though. Why would collaboration with Valnet make their platform more reliable? From what I know, to put it bluntly, Valnet runs content farms. That makes me think of Content farm § Criticisms, pageviews, clickbait, and more specifically the "editorial exodus" after Comic Book Resources § Acquisition by Valnet. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2BD8:5934:EB69:C9 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant less reliable. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
They seem generally reliable, they have a full editorial staff and editorial guidelines. Be careful of sponsored content, it is marked but easily missed (see the disclaimer in very small print under the image in this article). If there are issues or criticism I can't find any reporting of it.
Reliability isn't inherited, so whether they work with another site isn't important. Unless of course a reliable source cites them, say if the BBC cited Digitaltrends, then that would point to the reliability of Digitaltrends. Sites that simply repost content, don't effect the reliability of the original source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. And that fine print is indeed easily missable; good catch. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:2BD8:5934:EB69:C9 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:VG/S (the video game community) also classifies it as a reliable source, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of SoccerBible.com on reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots

What is the reliability of SoccerBible.com for citations relating to reviews and product release information of soccer/football boots?

TarnishedPathtalk 13:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable largely for the same reasons as Footy-boots.com. There is no byline, no use by others, no mentioned editoial team, etc. Ca talk to me! 16:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 2, leaning to 1. They do have an editorial team, but they never mention anything about its reliability, or lack of it. Brachy08 (Talk) 10:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you link a page where it mentions an editorial team? I didn't find one during my search. My opinion may change. Ca talk to me! 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
here Brachy08 (Talk) 00:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Militarnyi (mil.in.ua)

Can anyone express an opinion about this site? It looks blog-ish, albeit professional. Not seeing it in the archives. I am not seeing any sort of About us on the site either, although considering the topic area I don't think this is dispositive. I have just never heard of them, and find the claim it is supporting mildly surprising. This may simply be that I haven't done much in the topic area recently, but I have noticed some really sloppy sourcing in Russian invasion of Ukraine that has moved me to check further. Source is here: [24] Elinruby (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

They actually have About us in Ukrainian [25] where they say that they are an NGO and give the names of editors. It looks like Taras Chmut (uk:Чмут Тарас Миколайович) is the founder and the chief editor.
Regarding the article you referenced, they are citing other sources and there is no original reporting. So I would simply cite those sources, like Kan 11. Maybe WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here too, as no arms have been transferred so far. Alaexis¿question? 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah. didn't find that, thank you. So it looks RS to you? I am fine with that, just doing due diligence. As for the wikipedia article, the less said the better. I am really appalled, although on the bright side I don't think that what I am seeing was PoV pushing. Just really bad sourcing and a lot of subtle misrepresentation of sources that looks more sloppy than malicious. So far anyway. It also looks like this was written February-April 2022 and nobody has updated pretty much anything since, but I haven't even begun to address that. and I am not sure I am competent to do so. Source verification is turning up a WHOLE lot of problems however. Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
They say that their goal is to spread ideas which improve the Ukraine's defense ability. This is not necessarily aligned with our mission to spread free information. I would be really very cautious with the conclusions of this site being reliable. Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
OK. Well. I got through one section of the article and am stopping for the night. I will check in to this discussion, maybe tomorrow, then decide whether to rewrite. It looks like there isn't a lot of doubt about Iran supplying drones to Russia, but Israel supplying Ukraine is news to me. And if it hasn't happened yet, a year later, maybe it needs to go. Would be fine with this also. However it isn't ok, for example, to cite a statement to a correction the source has issued saying that the statement is wrong, especially in a way that implies that whoever has done this has seen the correction. [26] Just saying. Elinruby (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Elinruby, thanks for checking the sources, it's important and thankless work.
As regards to this source, I've watched the original Kan 11 video and it seems that they are misrepresenting the source. According to the presenter, Eyal Hulata said that Iranian short-range ballistic missiles may end up in Russia (0:54-1:10).
Militarnyi, on the other hand, says that "Israel may transfer high-precision ballistic missiles to Ukraine" and that "Eyal Hulata, “warned Russia against this step and warned that if the spread of Iranian missiles is not stopped, it may lead to the appearance of high-precision ballistic missiles in Ukraine.” You can google-translate this article which confirms what Kan 11 says and contradicts Militarnyi's article.
I don't know if it's a mistake or intentional lie, hopefully it's the former and they will issue a correction. In the meantime, this source should be considered Unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 19:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
A previous editor summarizes the source as follows: "their goal is to spread ideas which improve the Ukraine's defense ability." So in other words, it is a pro-Ukraine propaganda outlet. Let's call it what it is. This source should be treated the same way a pro-Russian propaganda outlet is treated. I wouldn't say "deprecate it", because I think deprecating any potential source of factual information is a bad idea. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of propaganda being included on Wikipedia, for any reason. This is not a reliable source, and nothing it says should ever be stated in Wikivoice. Perhaps it could be used for attributed statements of opinion. If this outlet cites other sources, we should use those sources instead. Pecopteris (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable, per above. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. Calling this consensus. I will be deleting that source as I find it and pointed to this section if there are questions Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of an article in the Journal of Black Studies for Nsude pyramids

I'm working on the Nsude article after discovering a report by someone who visited the area and was told they had been built two years before his visit, ie early 1930s. I've removed a lot of nonsense from the article. I found [1] being used to back accurate text although the journal article doesn't actually do that. What it does do is, for instance, suggests that melanated people built Britain's Silbury Hill which it mentions specifically. "The children from their schooling experience were for the first time introduced to the pyramid building of the melanated family across the globe, namely Africa and Britain." The abstract of the article says "The aim of this article is to identify, describe, evaluate, and then challenge through classroom practice (praxis) the prevailing myth of Black African Caribbean inferiority in the schooling process. It is concerned with the educational damage to Black children as a group who have culturally been identified in the literature as having negative experiences and low achievement outcomes in mainstream schooling. Utilizing Afrocentricity as the paradigmatic shift, the study described in this article was conducted to support those Black students’ affective, conative, and cognitive domains within an African episteme of guided group pedagogy."

Bringing this up as it does throw some doubt on the general reliability of this journal although we use it quite a bit and it seems to have a good pedigree. Am I missing something about the article (copy can be provided) or is this likely to be just a oneoff? Doug Weller talk 13:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

An article about black studies education is probably reliable as a source on black studies education, but not necessarily for something outside that field. The author is a teacher and pedagogy specialist, not a historian or archeologist. Therefore, I would look for other sources that are directly about the topic if I wanted to write about African history or African American history. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Scholars going outside their field often make errors. Note the aim of the article seems to be the effect of teaching in an Afrocentric way on Black children not on the accuracy of what is taught. I will note that there seems to be good evidence that people living in Europe some 5,000 years ago were dark skinned (and very strong evidence that our species was dark skinned for a long time before a subgroup or two started losing melanin). (Wilde, Sandra; Timpson, Adrian; Kirsanow, Karola; Kaiser, Elke; Kayser, Manfred; Unterländer, Martina; Hollfelder, Nina; Potekhina, Inna D.; Schier, Wolfram; Thomas, Mark G.; Burger, Joachim (2014-04-01). "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (13): 4832–4837. doi:10.1073/pnas.1316513111. ISSN 0027-8424.) Erp (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Erp I know about the dark skin in Europe research, but no one can assert as fact that something built at the most 4,500 years ago was built by dark-skinned people. Light skin discusses some of this but not Britain, but more recent research suggests that the population of Britain was replaced almost entirely with light skinned people before Silsbury. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Charles, Marie (2019). "Effective Teaching and Learning: Decolonizing the Curriculum". Journal of Black Studies. 50 (8): 731–766. ISSN 0021-9347.

Land Transport Guru and SGTrains

Bringing up a previous RfC with hardly any consensus from last year, I wanted to leave Land Transport Guru (LTG) to open discussion, again, as it is a user-generated source, as @ZKang123 pointed out in his essay about improving Singapore MRT station articles. It is used in a lot of Singapore bus-related articles. Furthermore, 20 to 30 days ago, a new editor (I’ll keep them anonymous, as they are relatively new) added exit information to select articles with LTG as a source. I also brought up SGTrains, as it is also a user-generated source, but significantly more reliable. Thanks for your time, Brachy08 (Talk) 10:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

These are WP:SPS rather than WP:UGC, at least I can't find anyway of creating an account and editting the articles. They are both quite open about being run by train enthusiasts, so reliability would come down to how (or if) they are used by other reliable sources.
It seems at least some of the articles states their (primary) sources, so using those instead is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
They never said anything about who used LTG. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion going on, user generated content is a specific term on Wikipedia (read the link for details). It's not about who uses the site, but who creates the content on the site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant which reliable source use LTG as a source. I know what UGC is. Brachy08 (Talk) 08:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The confusion was mine -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Additional note: said editor even said that LTG can be unreliable at times. Brachy08 (Talk) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sailboat.Guide

The website, Sailboat.Guide, is used as a source in multiple articles. The website claims to gather information from other websites (including Wikipedia). I see no mention of any editorial oversight.

The WikiProject Ships had a discussion on the reliability, however even within the project the consensus was split. -- Mike 🗩 13:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Something that uses Wikipedia as a source shouldn't be used for referencing purposes, per WP:CIRCULAR Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

SailboatData

The website, SailboatData, is used as a source in multiple articles. Some articles sourced solely to it. The website claims to gather information from "original plans and brochures", as well as user generated data (when a reasonable degree of accuracy can be assumed). I see no mention of any editorial oversight, only that it used to be run by one guy who has since passed.

The WikiProject Ships had a discussion on the reliability, however even within the project the consensus was split. -- Mike 🗩 13:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a few things here. If they are hosting primary documents then those documents could be referenced as reliable (if WP:PRIMARY) sources. This is the same situation as ancestry.com, which hosts reliable primary documents but is not reliable itself. Secondarily anything from the forum section would be immediately unreliable.
As to the database itself it could be worthwhile checking to see if it's used by other reliable sources. If books on the subject by reliable sources used the site as a source it could be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I partially agree, however, there's no indication on what is user generated data or not. For instance, this is the example of the quality of source that comes from the website. I also don't think repeating the information from a WP:BROCHURE (which they also claim to use) would make them reliable. There's not commentary, just repeating the basic facts. -- Mike 🗩 19:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Its a great resource and terrible source at the same time. You need to validate everything on it. The brochure archive is it best feature.
User:Ahunt may have a view as he uses it like chapter and verse.
Personally I like primary reference to be specialist source. For example I would much prefer the classic Swan Association being the source for articles on these models over sailboat data. I do not consider it to be reliable source. Yachty4000 15 Sept 2023 12:42

War crimes

I see that Amnesty International is on the list as a generally reliable source, perhaps to be used with attribution. The context here is Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) and the statement is The strikes targeted civilian areas beyond the battlefield, particularly critical power infrastructure, which is considered a war crime. where Amnesty International is one of the sources for "considered a war crime". The specific source does indeed say this. My question is whether this is a case where the statement should be attributed, or whether this is so WP:BLUESKY that it's belittling to say so, and would should just leave this there with the current reference, or maybe cite to an international law entity. Thank you for your assistance with this question. Elinruby (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad RfC, Amnesty is already listed as a reliable source. Brachy08 (Talk) 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Not an RfC and please re-read the question, which does not suggest otherwise, but instead is asking about attribution Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is this in RSP? Brachy08 (Talk) 08:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
What's an RSP? I take it you mean RSN. I asked this question about a reliable source here because this is the reliable sources noticeboard. I am sorry if this offends you but you aren't required to answer, you know, let alone in bold font-weight. Elinruby (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if my replies sounded like a PA, but you can try discussing it in the respective article, to give my final few cents. Brachy08 (Talk) 09:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Not quite a PA, but I don't quite understand why you are challenging the legitimacy of a question about applying the reliable sources policy at the reliable sources forum. The talk page is currently debating arithmetic, if you must know, and this is a valid question that you are free not to answer if it does not engage you. I am verifying sources and would like to know if the community thinks the statement should be attributed, that's all. I have zero doubt that bombing nuclear power plants is some sort of violation of international humanitarian law, if that is what is bothering you. "War crime" is however a term of art whose definition I don't quite recall and that it would be good to use correctly. Does that answer your question? Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes Brachy08 (Talk) 00:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty is fine, particularly if in context of one of their detailed reports. I would myself be a little more cautious here as it is a news release quoting Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, better if picked up by a newsorg. Can look at https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/when-are-attacks-civilian-infrastructure-war-crimes-2022-12-16/ Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The source does not say it was a war crime, it says Marie Struthers, their Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, called it a war crime. It should be reported as an opinion with in text attribution rather than as a fact.
What makes Amnesty International a reliable source is that the facts its publications reports can be relied on. It does not mean that analysis by its staff is necessarily correct.
One of the features of reliable sources is that they clearly distinguish facts and opinions. We should not confuse the two.
TFD (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Its an RS, but as it seems to not say it in its voice we can't say it does. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Selfstudier thank you, that is helpful. Elinruby (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

MSN news website

MSN reportedly fired all 27 of its journalists in 2020, replacing them with “artificial intelligence software,” The Guardian reported in 2020. Specifically "Staff who maintain the news homepages on Microsoft’s MSN website and its Edge browser". Today, The Daily Beast reports about an epic-fail AI-generated news article that leaked out and was soon after deleted but not before being captured by the Wayback Machine, providing evidence they are indeed using AI. -- GreenC 20:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. Another reason why it is better to cite an news outlet directly rather than an aggregator. Ca talk to me! 10:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic.com

Over the past few months, I have often seen links to sputnikmusic.com [27] for reviews in articles. Since the page was successfully deleted as part of an AfD back in July, I decided to do some research into whether or not this site really is reliable, even if consensus agrees that the staff reviews are OK to use. The site appears to be a self-published source (the homepage linked above displays the URL as the owner of the copyright), while hosting a significant amount of user-generated content (which arguably includes the staff, as they are merely appointed through their reviewers being seen as "better" than other users). These are all arguments that I provided in an edit summary when I reverted a re-addition of this source to We Are Chaos here [28], but it was understandably added back in per its inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources.

Which leads me to ask -- does this site really qualify as a reliable source? I'd argue not, since all evidence seems to point towards this being a self-published, user-generated source in the vein of Rate Your Music or WhoSampled, but what does everyone else think? JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I saw this source when I was reviewing AFC drafts, and I was quite surprised that it is listed as reliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The authors are pseudonymous, and are largely user-generated. However, I think this source has some use by other sources, but I will take a look later. Ca talk to me! 06:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
It would help if editors from project Albums could explain why the staff reviews are reliable. WP:A/S points to WT:WikiProject Albums/Archive 54#Sputnik reviews, which suggests that the differences between Users/Contributors/Staff were discribed in its Wikipedia article (so no longer available). I can't find anything on the site explaining the differences. I'll notify the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The website has been oft-debated, but every time the discussions lead to keeping it as reliable, as long as it's their staff/emeritus reviewers. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The only discusion I've found is the 2017 one linked in the sources list, could you explain the difference between user and staff reviews? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
What's interesting is that there is little discernible difference. The "staff" are not paid by Sputnik and tend to have jobs outside of the site, merely using it as a hobby. They are merely promoted to this higher position because their reviews are seen as "better" than those of other users. In many ways, this makes it consist almost entirely of user-generated content. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I looked through deleted revisions of its article and transcribed what it's article had said prior to its deletion where you asked about it at the Wikiproject. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't really add much, are the staff paid or just those more trusted to do reviews? As a separate idea do other reliable sources cite Sputnikmusic? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I was just offering what I knew off the top of my head. Do your own research. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I've tried, as detail above and in my notification of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
To answer your question posted above, User:ActivelyDisinterested, the staff are not paid for their work. They have jobs outside of social media (as the user below notes, a lot of people on the site seem to have jobs as pastors), and given that this site does not have a real life headquarters, or claim to have an editorial team that works specifically for the site, their credibility is indeed very dubious. Once again, they are merely promoted to higher ranks because their user-generated reviews are seen as "better" than those of other users. It really does not seem like a site that should be used as a source here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:A/S (not to mention a lot of the video game, film, comics, board games, and other pop culture sources we use) includes a whole lot of sites run and/or written by amateurs. Look especially at the niche topics. The line between fansite and music journalism site or between group blog and "real publication" are pretty blurry. I was looking at Jesus Freak Hideout the other day. Their staff pages include reviewers' professions (lots of pastors, etc.), so clearly not full-time music critics. So the question is what do we want out of a reviewer? There are some serious music critics whose opinions are far more insightful, informed, and smart than those published in a lot of "real newspapers", for example, where the local "arts" person has to churn out bits of text about all sorts of subjects. So how do we determine whose reviews are worth including? We could only include those whose opinions are cited by others, but that would exclude a huge chunk of these sites and potentially include walled genre gardens. We could only include the big publications, but then we would lose a lot of less popular content and material from other parts of the world. It's a tough call. Sputnik Music is at least a review site I've heard of, which, since we're really just talking about opinions at the end of the day, lifts it up above a lot of other ones on the list for me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The collapse of music reporting is a big issue, maybe we need a new option similar to "2 - Marginal with consideration". Especially for non-mainstream music, this ?professional-fanzine? type of publication is becoming very common. I'd be hesitant to consider them for notability though, as they are still written by enthusiasts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
What we want out of music critics is journalists whose work has been published by at least one or two reliable sources. The staff of Sputnikmusic, a self-published source that mostly comprises user-generated content, does not fall under this category -- at best, they're more along the lines of, say, Piero Scaruffi, a self-published author who took up writing about music as a hobby despite his main profession being in science (a comparison I find rather apt, personally, considering that the Sputnik staff have jobs outside of the site -- as you point out). At worst, they're at the level of such discredited sources as Famous Birthdays and IMDB, sources based almost entirely off of inviting users to contribute despite having "moderators" who can choose whether or not to allow the information to be considered reliable on the site. This is precisely why I am questioning its validity on Wikipedia. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess the thing about opinions is that its more of a question of "Why would readers want to know about this person/publication's opinion?" I would consider this site reliable for reviews if there is evidence that this is an established review site. I'll try to look for WP:USEBYOTHERS tomorrow and see if it returns good results. Ca talk to me! 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking for USEBYOTHERS I've found, Music at the Extremes, Video Game Audio: A History, 1972-2020, Rammstein on Fire, Original Jethro Tull: The Glory Years, 1968-1980, all published by McFarland, Beggars Banquet and the Rolling Stones' Rock and Roll Revolution and David Bowie: Critical Perspectives by Routledge, National Myth and the First World War in Modern Popular Music by Springer, and Listen to Punk Rock!: Exploring a Musical Genre by Bloomsbury. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
As noone else has replied I'll just add given its use by other sources I'd agree with finding the staff reviews generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above comment, as their reviews are used by reliable sources, the staff reviews should continue to be reliable content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    As do I. It's been used without issue in the music content area for decades. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Although I agree it's reliable how long it's been used is not any recognition of its reliability. There are many sources that continue to be used even though they are anything but reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    That's ridiculous, there's value in observing that it's use hasn't lead to issues personally or in observation of others when one has worked in a content area for the past 15 years. Its baffling that you keep trying to be so contrarian with someone who agrees with you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    It's kind of like silent consensus, it's all well and good unless the content is just plain wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to be contrarian. It's just that "it's been used for a long time" isn't a policy based argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    Sure, taken by itself. But I also said "As do I", in reference to agreeing with Atlantic306, who was saying they agree with you. I was saying I agreed with your USEBYOTHERS assessment. It's just very weird to get the third degree from someone who you said you agree with them. Just as as it felt like you were "shooting the messenger" when I took the time to transcribe the content you asked for from the deleted version of the article. Very strange approach to collaboration. I've said what I need to, so Im done unless someone else has questions. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry I obviously failed to get my message across successfully, neither time was I trying to give you the third degree. I apologise for making you feel that way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

i24news.tv

What is the reliability of i24news as a general source? It's used quite heavily in Storm Daniel and I was wondering how reliable it is.

Grave8890 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other background to this? They appear to be an Israel based internationally syndicate news channel, see i24NEWS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

KulturNav?

What is the RS-ness of the info on a page like this [29]? If it originates from museum-staff, like WP seems to imply, it should be usable. And if so, does a page like this even have WP:N value? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something about this site? For instance in Östersund it's used to support the content The main part of the building is accentuated by a grand tower and a monumental stairway. It is accompanied by only one wing, the north wing, as the second, south wing, was torn down in the 1970s., but looking at the provide link cover none of these details nor anything usable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree, I can't see that it does either, though it does say that building is one of his works. That may be an error on the part of the WP-editors who used the ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I was also concerned that it contained links to Wikipedia and Wikidata, and looking at your original link it uses geni.com (definitely not reliable, WP:UGC) as a reference for the date of death. The more I look at this the more I start to think it shouldn't be used for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I'm pretty sure they got the geni.com reference from either etwiki or enwiki, I fear this is WP:CIRCULAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It's absolutely used for something [30], it's an on-WP Help:Authority control database. What seemed hopeful in my original example was for example the info on occupation, activity, education, notes and references (books which I sadly can't easily access). None of this seems to be WP rip-offs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
That something is used is not an indicator that it should be used. As a suggestion I would use it to find sources, rather than using as a source itself. For instance if you used it to reference the date death of Aleksander August Jurich, you would just be using geni.com but hidden one layer. I'll leave it though, and see if anyone else has anything to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I've appnoted in a couple of places, we'll see if anything happens. Yes, they obviously link geni.com (which is WP:USERG etc), WP, wikidata etc, but it's not obvious to me that they choose these sites as their source for death date and what have you. Geni.com (has WP:RSP-entry) is named as "Web reference" but there is "Reference" too (a least in this particular example). And this may unduly optimistic, but isn't it possible that when/if Kulturnav used geni.com, someone competent-ish actually looked at the primary sources there and thought "Yeah, that checks out."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of the source

Hi! How much reliable this source: Nadvi, Muhammad Ilyas (2004). Tipu Sultan, A life History. is for citation, considering that there's no information available regarding its author or the publisher? Moreover, it allows only a snippet view.

Currently, this source is cited in the main article on Hyder Ali. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Narasingha Sil uses it as a ref in this article [31], that would seem to be a plus on RS-ness. How much I can't say. I get this knee-jerk reaction against an org that calls itself "Institute of Objective Studies", but hopefully they live up to the name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Btw, snippet view is not a problem per se, see WP:PAYWALL. Hopefully the editor who added the ref had access to the entire book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for replying. Have you any additional information regarding the author? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't easily find anything. I think most of his work is not in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Country Living - product commission links

Hi! I was intending to boldly change the opening line of Cottagecore to include something like (sometimes referred to as Countrycore or Farmcore), with this Country Living article as the source. Before making the change, though, I’ve been doing some basic checks on Country Living to make sure it’s not obviously unreliable as a source.

While doing this, I noticed that the top of the article states We earn a commission for products purchased through some links in this article. I just wanted to check what other editors’ opinions were on whether or not this means the article would fall foul of WP:SPONSORED. My current view would probably be that it doesn’t, as I’d probably draw a distinction between an entire article being written to promote a company, and commission-earning product links being included in a piece where the main text body (as opposed to the links themselves) doesn’t appear promotional - at least to me. In any event, as I’m inexperienced in this area, I just wanted to check what other editors’ thoughts were on it.

All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite SPONSORED or AFFILIATE, but I would say it's enough to make better sources preferable in most cases. This specific instance seems rather uncontroversial though, so we wouldn't necessarily need that strong a source to support it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Astronautica

Is the Encyclopedia Astronautica a reliable source for German influence on the Soviet space program? User:Ilenart626 writes: I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:

"Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." - Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, (2006) pp. 484–485

Should the site be considered unreliable? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The context can be viewed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been given a award, and criticised for its accuracy. An issue is that since 2019 it's not being updated, see it's contact page. So any inaccuracies in the sites content are no longer being corrected. I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

fact checks

What's the guideline for using "fact checks" as references for a controversy? Example 1: a major news publication that's performing an independent fact check by citing primary and secondary sources. Example 2: a governmental agency that's countering misinformation by citing primary sources. rootsmusic (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Fact checks from reliable but independent sources should be fine. In a case like of the possible MI election fraud, you shouldn't use the gov't site, but I would be readily surprised if you can't find independent news publications that confirm what the gov't site is trying to say. Masem (t) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not very impressed by these "fact checks" that have popped up over the last 10 years. Often, they purposely word things in ways that misrepresent what the actual controversy was, so that they can debunk a straw man. I think in both examples, you'd be better off using the secondary and primary sources that the "fact check" cites, rather than citing the fact check itself. Kind of like what university students are instructed to do with Wikipedia: look at it, cite the sources it cites, but don't cite it. That's my opinion, though, not necessarily formal policy.
Also, we should always be very wary whenever a government proclaims to be "setting the record straight", "fact checking", or "debunking misinformation". Do not forget that governments are the most prolific purveyors of misinformation of all. In my perfect world, all government agencies and state-funded media (from every country) would be GUNREL by default. Alas, we do not live in that world, but we definitely should not cite government sources to debunk a claim of government corruption, as is the case in MI. That would be Soviet Union-level creepy. Pecopteris (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
"Often, they purposely word things in ways that misrepresent " ← could you give some actual example of this? Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It depends on the precise situation, but unless the primary and secondary sources are themselves some form of fact checking, we can't generally use them without WP:synthesis. The benefit of fact checkers is that they've generally analysed the particular controversy and found sources which address it. Often these sources are from before the controversy, so shouldn't generally be used in our article to "debunk" the controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@Nil Einne (When you say "unless the primary and secondary sources are themselves some form of fact checking", I assume that you're not referring to the references cited in a fact check.) Since fact checks cite multiple references, fact checks synthesize facts to make a conclusion about whether a controversial claim is indeed reliable. Indeed if fact checks are syntheses of published material, then wouldn't Wikipedia prefer them over secondary sources that don't have multiple references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsmusic (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of Vice in Operation Gideon (2020)

Two questions:

  1. Is Vice reliable enough to use by itself (attributed) in Operation Gideon (2020)?
  2. Can it be used for WP:BLP content in the article?

Recognizing that there is no consensus on its reliability and context matters, the Vice article in question is presented here. You can also review the talk page here discussing the article. WMrapids (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

After considerable cleanup, there remain two areas of concern:
  1. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#More VICE problems: Aleman UNDUE, cocktail party banter later denied, and because the US and Venezuela celebrate July 4 and July 5 declarations of independence one day apart, the US embassy party is (was?) open to everyone and widely attended
  2. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Silent Professionals UNDUE
These are matters not mentioned in other sources, the VICE article is sensationalized to convey some bias (title oddly uses the word MAGA and implicates the CIA, while higher quality sources find no evidence of US involvement).
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can see from your own post, the meeting with a CIA officer was confirmed by Alemán himself, so Vice turned out to be right. Alaexis¿question? 12:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you are misunderstanding my own post? Story was the ambassador.
Aleman never says he met a CIA officer at the "social gathering", or as VICE claims, that he was put at the party for the purpose of meeting a CIA officer. He acknowledges being at an embassy celebration of the fourth of July and meeting Story, the ambassador (every Tom, Dick and Harry used to go to the US Embassy joint 4/5 celebration, which was even advertised in local news).
There's also a question of DUE weight and interpretation and the realities acknowledged by higher quality sources, which avoid using content like this because of "Maduro’s vast, Cuban-trained intelligence network" (AP but similar can be found in any high-quality source). Even WP:VICE acknowledges (what other sources know about the realities of reporting on Venezuela): "According to intercepted communications with an informant to the Venezuelan intelligence (which could very well have been tampered with by a security service loyal to Maduro)--Alemán openly bragged about discussing Operation Gideon with an officer in the CIA at a party in the American embassy in Bogota." (Noting this relevant disclaimer was omitted when someone added this content to Wikipedia.)
CIA officers don't make their presence known at embassy parties or anywhere else. It is because VICE includes salicious marginally sourced information like this that their reliability is questioned; they are willing to include dubious information that other sources choose to omit for good reasons. The "intercepted communications with an informant to the Venezuelan intelligence" are a standard thing that higher quality sources don't fall for. If Wikipedia is to pass along something like this, it should be based on more than one marginal source, and the disclaimers should at least be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is the WP:RS dashboard, and in this case there is no real doubt that the event took place. They might have bumped into each other at a party or it could have been a part of a nefarious plan but then it's a due weight issue. Alaexis¿question? 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
VICE's reporting goes quite beyond whether an annual 4th of July party took place, and that Aleman attended it, to include information of dubious origin (not found in any other reliable source). That (and similar, eg the sensationalized headline) speaks to its reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Look, this was your first example, and it turned out that Vice has been correct about the meeting.
As to your second example, what makes you think that Vice are wrong? We know for sure that *another* PMC was definitely involved so it's not some kind of outlandish claim. Having said that, I agree that it's undue as nothing came out of it. This is not a reliability issue though. Alaexis¿question? 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
We disagree as to how correct VICE was, but that's nuance understood by people familiar with Venezuela. I agree with your broader point (about reliability v UNDUE); you might notice that I wasn't the one who brought this to the reliable sources noticeboard. My concern was UNDUE and partial representation of the facts. Perhaps if WMrapids would better utilize the talk page before jumping to noticeboards, we might have gotten this resolved more easily and quickly. As indicated on the talk page, I've followed up with several balancing edits, including at my second example (see Silent Professionals). Where did you interpret that I said VICE was wrong in the second example? Please read carefully what I have said. I consider all VICE issues resolved at the article now, although I'll always replace sources with higher quality ones where possible, and don't think we need to be plugging one provider on Wikipedia, when the Wall Street Journal mentions six. UNDUE is different than false or not reliable, and that is what I posted on talk about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of The Kyiv Independent

What is the reliability of The Kyiv Independent?

Previous discussion from March 2022 here

Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of this? 173.70.129.146 (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Reliability for what? Alaexis¿question? 06:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I would say, unlike most of modern Ukrainian media, generally reliable. They just sometimes rely too much on opinion pieces of their own authors, and sometimes use language which makes an impression this is pure propaganda, but generally what they report corresponds what the major Western media report.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Ymblanter: I've refactored your comment, as I assume you meant to vote option 1, rather than comment in the question itself? But if you didn't mean to vote option 1, feel free to amend :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    It is correct, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Heythereimaguy There doesn't seem to have been much prior discussion. Is there a particular article or issue here? What has prompted this? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the IP in saying What is the point of this?. I would say to try not to use it (or any involved media) as a source for the Russo-Ukrainian war without attribution, but otherwise it seems fine. Curbon7 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - As a previous editor commented, "they...sometimes rely too much on opinion pieces of their own authors, and sometimes use language which makes an impression this is pure propaganda". That is my impression, also. I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, be it pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, or pro-USA.
The continuation, "...but generally what they report corresponds (to) what the major Western media report" is not only unconvincing, it's troubling to the degree that it is true. If a Ukrainian outlet publishes propaganda, and the Western media runs with it, that does not make the propaganda more credible. It makes the Western outlets in question more dubious. Of course, the West, particularly the USA, is firmly on the side of Ukraine, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, so it does not surprise me that Western media would repeat whatever Ukrainian outlets are saying, to the exclusion of other narratives. Can one really expect that a US or Ukrainian outlet will report news that appears favorable to Russia? In other words, we cannot compare Ukrainian narratives to US/Western narratives to measure reliability, because all aforementioned parties are on the same side of an information war.
Given the situation in Ukraine, which leaves little to no room for journalistic independence, I would vote "option 3" for any Russian or Ukrainian outlet that is primarily focused on the war. Pecopteris (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. There's an inherent difference between propaganda (à la Russia Today, which publishes outright fake news), and having an inherent bent. Simply because an outlet has a clear opinion on something does not by itself make it entirely unreliable, even for that topic area, but may require the use of direct attribution. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I could list numerous examples of historical propaganda that is not "fake news". Wikipedia's article on propaganda presents an adequate definition: "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented."
My point is not that the outlet in question fabricates information. My point is that it does, indeed, appear to include propaganda, per the above definition. My other point is that whether or not Western media echoes this propaganda is irrelevant to establishing the reliability of the Kyiv Independent, because the West and the Kyiv Independent are on the same side of a full-scale information war - so of course Western media will repeat it.
I do not consider the Kyiv Independent to be "entirely unreliable", just "generally unreliable". I would probably be okay with its use for attributed claims of opinion, but in regards to any factual reporting about the war (casualty counts, accounts of a battle, reports of alleged Russian "war crimes" or alleged Ukrainian heroism, etc.) I would avoid this and look for better sources. I'm also uncomfortable using this source unless pro-Russian propaganda outlets are also widely accepted for attributed opinions. Are they? Pecopteris (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a strong difference between sources that are biased and those that published government created propaganda. The one form is not equal to the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would have procedurally closed the discussion had it not been for the fact that I had expressed my opinion on this newspaper in the linked discussion. That said, I strongly suggest that this RfC be closed because the user appears to have no issue that requires an RfC to resolve. Their edit history and nature of edits do not suggest that the OP had any issue with the newspaper. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of newspaper obituaries to claim famous lineage

The first question is whether it's reliable enough for factual accuracy, and second question is if such inclusion is due if such connection is not discussed in independent reliable sources.

James D. M. Beebe asserting he's connected to the 5th president of the United States James Monroe sourced to Brooklyn Daily Eagle Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No; most obits of that nature are submitted by families. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Was it basically that way in early 20th century too with no fact checking? I'm not familiar with how they handled obits that long ago. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of breakinglatest.news

Hi!

I noticed on Kate de Romero's page that news her death was sourced by breakinglatest.news. I swapped it over to a Spanish-language source (from Telemundo Puerto Rico), which is the same used on her death notice on Deaths in 2023.

However, I see that there are 18 pages currently using breakinglatest.news as source (as of 19 September 2023). It looks and feels like a content farm with no real standards – the URL seems like a dead giveaway – but I'd like to get some extra sets of eyes on it.

Thanks!

~ Charlie 514Charlie (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No indication of who the are, no editorial details, and articles that contains "By [Your name]" (so not know for accuracy). I can't find anyone else citing them either. I'd bet they're syndicating news from another source, it would explain the "[Your name]" gaff, which by definition means these always a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Filed a request to blacklist at here. 514Charlie (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Journal article versus thesis for Latin American population genetics articles

At Mestizo Colombians and Race and ethnicity in Colombia, Zaquezipe is replacing this source, a journal article, with this one, which I think is a PhD thesis. Could we have views on the reliability of the two sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I have issues with both sources. The journal is an open access journal where the authors pay for publication, so it would appear to be a predatory journal. The second is indeed a doctoral thesis, which means it is essentially self-published. I don't see that it has been cited in other articles. Both appear to be primary sources. See WP: Scholarship. Banks Irk (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    PLOS Genetics is not predatory, and is MEDLINE-indexed with reasonable impact so in fact looks quite respectable. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, lots of open-access journals charge to publish, don't they? That in itself doesn't make them predatory. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Banks Irk, theses are not "self-published", and are supervised and reviewed by committee. They are just un-published. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    See User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia#Theses, though covering science has much that also applies to scholarly topics in general. It says Consequently, theses should be regarded as primary sources and used with caution. A journal article is preferred. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Completed dissertations for a doctorate are considered reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but are often, in part, primary sources. A reliable journal article is still always preferable. No comment on the status of "PLOS Genetics", but in the few past discussions in the archive it's been looked on favourably. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • A "test conducted by Research Gate"? And Zaquizipe is essentially a new SPA on that topic; how about a {{Welcome-COI}} to inquire if they are connected, and more information on editor talk about how to use sources for biomedical content? It doesn't appear that the editor is well versed in sourcing, so may not have a COI wrt to the source they are trying to add, but the inquiry should be made. Because this is biomedical content, I'm more comfortable with PLOS in this instance, but since the PLOS Genetics is 2014, Zaquizipe may well be right about their criticism; has anyone tried searching for more recent information than the PhD thesis? This looks to be an issue where better educating a new editor on policy and guideline might help advance the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    The thesis is from 2008. Two studies with two different samples of the population come up with somewhat different numbers, not surprisingly. So this is what the discussion is about, not so much about reliable sources. Could include both if the samples are from different areas, a discussion that should take place on the talk page of one of the articles. The thesis is 160 pages long, so will need page numbers for the citation. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    There was a simpler solution to the problem. The PLOS reference did not support the sentence that preceded it, both added by an IP in 2021. Sometimes it helps to read the sources. The IP misunderstood what the source way saying. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Glad you checked (that is all-too-often the case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    PS, this is another of the many examples where an infobox is causing more harm than help; if there is disagreement over, and nuance involved in, these numbers, why are they highlighted in an infobox, rather than discussed in text ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Good catch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for catching this, StarryGrandma, and for the edits to Race and ethnicity in Colombia. Am I right in thinking that the sentence starting "In a genetic research published in 2014..." at Mestizo Colombians also needs changing or deleting? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Cordless Larry, yes. The paper doesn't support the statistics, but its results are relevant. I'll modify the paragraph. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414&oldid=1177130467"