Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 380←Archive 385Archive 386Archive 387Archive 388Archive 389Archive 390

INaturalist photos

Summary Is iNaturalist reliable for sourcing photos of species for articles? And what should we do about it?

Previous discussion - consensus was INaturalist is (and in founder and co-director's own words) "I totally agree it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims". So no real disagreement. To the issue at hand: There are a number of photos uploaded to articles that are sourced (via commons) from iNaturalist (I dont know how many, it would help if someone could run a query on how many articles we use them in). A photo purporting to be species X is a taxonomic claim. Because of the way iNaturalist works (both collaborative and AI identification) it is a UGC [User-generated content] site, and the identification accuracy (observation in many cases) depends on who has made the identification. Two examples to illustrate the problem below:

Melanophora roralis - iNaturalist source ID'd by the uploader (this person with a concurring opinion by another user with easily traceable relevant experience). If this person posted it on their social media, they would almost certainly qualify as an expert in their field for "is this X species Y" and used in the way we use primary sources from experts. High degree of confidence this picture is what it says it is.
Malthinus balteatus - iNaturalist source ID'd by amateur expert, second opinion from someone who could be anyone. Low degree of confidence in identification.

In order to qualify as 'research grade' as both of these are recorded on iNaturalist, there have to be concurring opinions. It is clear there is a difference in quality and accuracy of the above photo's identification of the species they purport to represent. The reality of recording species is that a huge amount of the work is done by 'amateur' experts in their relevant preference, however these are almost always (for professional databases) verified by a qualified expert which is not the case with iNaturalist - it may or may not be ID'd by someone qualified. Questions: in light of the above, should we...

A. Reject iNaturalist photos where there is not a clear identification of the subject by an expert? (Will require review of all existing photo use. In practice this may be unworkable because while I did a dive on the persons involved for the above two examples, as we occasionally do for primary sources, it may be a lot of work depending on how many iNaturalist pictures there are.)
B. Should we reject all of them because of the general unreliability of iNaturalist in regards to taxonomic claims? (eg, remove all iNaturalist photos because source is unreliable)
c. Accept potential unreliability and handle on case-by-case basis when it comes up? (Similar to A but without doing a review of existing use).

My preference is generally A but B may be necessary. The issue is the work involved, I dont think C is an option we should entertain (accepting unreliability) unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. Thoughts? (The above two are both insects, but iNaturalist would be relevant to many biology wikiprojects, so I have not started a discussion on project pages to keep the reliability discussion centralised.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would a photo reviewed by multiple people (authenticated experts or not) be considered less reliable than something you or I upload to Commons and simply say "it's this species" (WP:IMAGEOR). For example, I took File:Ovenbird (90497).jpg last week and added it to the ovenbird article. I'm sure of the ID, but I'm not an ornithologist. When I see something and I'm not sure of the id, I show it to people who know more than me (including, sometimes, people on inaturalist). Photos are a weird space for V/RS. I think the idea for species IDs is an image is verifiable because if you wanted to, you could review the relevant papers and compare their descriptions to the photo, and if anyone has reason to doubt the accuracy of the identification, that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Well you answered your own question. If you dont know what bird it is, you have added unsourced information to an article. "This is what this bird looks like" in this case. We explicitly dont allow content from UGC sites for that very reason, or otherwise we would be sourcing a lot of text to Quora. When you start getting down to things like insects and some other species, actually the discriminating characteristics can often be quite minute. Some look identical except for extremely minor differences which even given an experts ID key can be hard to tell by eye. When it comes to birds some look almost identical except for their plumage at particular times of year (the LBJ). Some varieties of insects can only be told apart by slicing them open and looking at genitalia under a microscope. I generally wouldnt doubt the accuracy of say a picture of a Robin uploaded from youself because most of the western world knows what a Robin looks like (at Christmas anyway). I would for a picture of an obscure insect that can only be truely identified by an entomologist or otherwise recognised expert *even with the help of a guide*. WP:IMAGEOR is about original research, not about the reliability of the image itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
How did I answer my own question? The point is, we don't expect Wikipedians to be credentialed experts to identify the subject of an image they use in an article, but if the same person [along with several other people] reviews the same photo on inaturalist, and someone transfers it to Commons, it becomes unreliable? Absolutely every original image we have relies to some degree on an assumption of good faith/trust that the person would be clear if they're not reasonably sure of the subject. It's different from text, and to some degree a compromise so that we can have images in articles. I'd add that LBJs are usually discernible by sight. Here in New York we have house sparrows, white-throated sparrows, white-crowned sparrows, chipping sparrows, song sparrows, and several other kinds which are "LBJ" from a distance, but can easily be differentiated from one another. There are some birds which are impossible to tell apart visually, especially if just looking at a single photo, and in those cases the consensus on inaturalist stays at higher level taxa. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Kind of a side point but its really only the UK where the european robin is associated with Christmas, thats not a tradition you find in most of the "western world" nor is it actually the species that most of the world thinks of when they think of robin (that would be the American Robin, thanks hollywood/TV) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there such thing as a reliability standard for image sourcing? Note that the captions on images aren't authoritative under even the best of circumstances, I've come across images which originated in the US Military whose official captions misidentified the equipment in the imagery Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Its not a captioning issue as the pics are uncaptioned. They are not pulled from books etc or otherwise published. They are uploaded to iNaturalist (A UGC site) where the expectation is that someone (hopefully an expert but not verifiable) will identify it (see the previous discussion linked earlier where the founder and co-director of iNaturalist agrees it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims). But a related question is: If you used that equipment picture in an article for that piece of equipment, knowing that the source was unreliable, what degree of confidence do you have that the picture is as described if you were not a military equipment expert? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If the pics are not captioned where is the species information? Thats actually the most reliable image source I know of. If thats your argument then we just can't use pictures on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
For iNaturalist, the 'caption' would be the ID process (see the iNaturalist links above) where its determined (to a widely varying degree of accuracy) what its a picture of/the species ID. 'Research grade' on iNaturalist merely means it meets their user consensus (for the same meaning as wikipedia uses consensus) with the main difference they allow OR and we do not. Its enough there that their community says "Its species X" whereas here we ask "Who says its x?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone on wikipedia disagrees with the accuracy they can remove the image or re-caption it (both preferably with talk page consensus). Same as any other picture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Most to the point, while we can talk about the review processes on inaturalist, it's one of the only sites that has a review process for identification. Why would we single them out for reliability, when we also get pictures from Flickr and a host of other sites (in addition to original work of Wikipedians)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems an odd discussion to have where the existing RSN consensus (in line with how we class almost all UGC sites) is that a website is unreliable, but intepret that to mean only for the text and not the photos which is what you seem to be arguing our policies and guidelines around reliable sourcing should be taken as? The ID text on iNaturist when it comes to pictures is only relevant in relation to the picture. Without a picture there is no ID and no accompanying content. Its pointless saying iNaturalist is unreliable as a source then turning around and using pictures of species hosted on iNaturalist - the only verification we have of such being the accompanying content there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
We have a reliability standard for images? We have a clear and longstanding consensus I can go take a picture of the courthouse downtown and add it to the wikipedia article for that courthouse which currently has no image, I'm not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I have always taken our policies & guidelines in regards to reliable sourcing to apply to all content in article space. I think you would need it explicit to say it didnt apply to a media type. WP:IMAGENOR is the only place where its explicit and thats not even about reliability. Even then it says (unlike the image) captions are still subject to the rest of WP:NOR (WP:CAPTION and H:FPD are both how-to's not policy documents). By the wording of NOR, neither of the two captions for the images in the articles above can be used, as they are either original research or based on an unreliable UGC site. With your example, if anyone wanted to verify it they could visit the courthouse and compare it. Thats not a realistic option for taxonomic ID's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we probably need to have a community discussion about image reliability standards, but thats way above the discussion here. Heres a better example based off of our current procedures: If I took a picture of a notable figure it could be used and it would not be possible for someone to go back to that spot and re-take the image. I would also say that the identification of individual human beings is pretty close in terms of difficulty to identification of LBJ. On the right is a good example of this which I came across recently during a COI discussion, as far as I am aware this is kosher BLP wise... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I was at some events from the 2022 Commonwealth Games, and took photos of some of the athletes. If I uploaded those photographs to Commons and included them in their articles, there's no easy way of checking either that I am correctly identifying the athlete in question in my caption, or even that I am accurately reporting the event I took them at. Despite all this, it's perfectly common and widely accepted practice for exactly this sort of image to be used. E.g. this image, used in Mary Beard, is in fact clearly Beard, but there is absolutely no reliable source vouching for that. And it's by no means clear that the location really is Rome or the date really is 2012, as the caption claims.
If we were to be stricter about requiring reliable sources supporting that an image really did depict what we said it did, we would be significantly restricted in what images we could use. Maybe we should be much stricter – but that would be a significant policy change affecting hundreds of thousands of articles, and would require a proper widely-advertised RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
We certainly should be more careful. I have helped get multiple hoax images of flags deleted from Commons. I also know that there are a lot of user-created maps on Commons that are wildly inaccurate. Donald Albury 15:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am one of those who uploads many iNaturalist images to Wikicommons and places those images into both Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles. I tend to concentrate on New Zealand species including insects. I have spent enough time on the iNaturalist site to know both the professional and amateur experts and I check to see who is identifying the species images to research grade before uploading. Although I recognise there is room for human error in the identification of these research grade observations, I do my best to ensure that the images I upload to Wikicommons are accurately identified by experts. I would be extremely upset if all this work, which took a significant amount of time and effort, was removed from articles and items because of a perceived and I believe mistaken belief about the general unreliability of iNaturalist in regards to taxonomic claims. There has been some research undertaken about the accuracy of iNaturalist research grade observations - see this piece of research. I am aware that the accuracy for insect images are not as high as for birds for example, but I, as well as other editors I know who upload images from iNaturalist, try to mitigate any mistaken identifications by relying on experts. In my case entomologists such as Dr Robert Hoare from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research or Neil Hudson, an extremely well regarded New Zealand amateur lepidopterist, for identifying New Zealand insect images. I should also point out that research grade iNaturalist observations are imported to GBIF and are regarded as reliable enough to be used by the scientific community for research purposes. I trust the observations I upload from iNaturalist over those images publicly available on Flickr or uploaded by anonymous Wikipedia editors as at least the iNaturalist observations have gone through some vetting process. As a result I am of the opinion that the community should accept any potential unreliability and handle on images on a case-by-case basis when issues arise. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

like @Ambrosia10 I am also responsible for quite some reuse of iNaturalist uploads to the Wiki ecosystem. Predating these iNaturalist imports there was really no vetting of the uploaded images, besides the trust of the uploader. Are the iNaturalist images 100% reliable, as has been argued already definitely not. However, the provenance of those images are as detailed as it can get. There are direct links to the source in most uploaded content. At the same time, iNaturalist uses Wikipedia content as a source for knowledge on the depicted taxon. This back-and-forth linking to each other is IMO a good thing. It allows for quality curation from both communities. If we would go back to the previously - accepted - manner where we have to fully rely on the uploader. I tend to trust an annotation of an image that is in iNaturalist (and GBIF) to be of higher quality than the annotation of a single uploader. I share @Ambrosia10 opinion that we should accept any potential unreliability on image from iNaturalist and I would even argue, that due to the explicit feedback loop that exists between commons and iNaturalist, any potentially unreliability is picked up earlier than a direct upload to commons. Andrawaag (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Two comments: 1)the research on accuracy Ambrosia10 kindly provided does clearly lay out where the accuracy is and it depends on how you define accurate so I would suggest people read it (in my opinion 65% accurate on insects is very far below what you could call 'accurate' for a group, while the 91% on birds is quite accurate. Anyone who puts a bird and insect key side by side can clearly see why there is disparity there). And 2) Andrawaag, we specifically try to *avoid* using content from third party websites that can be traced back to a use of wikipedia content, as it leads to circular citation. See Citogenesis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Another cross-poster of Wikipedia and iNaturalist. (1) I don’t think iNaturalist photos are universally free use (I could be wrong?) so I don’t know why this would need to be a policy about iNaturalist specifically. (2) If John Ascher and Kristal Watrous agree your North American native bee photo is one genus or species or another, that’s as close to authoritative reliable sourcing as you’ll get. iNat is one of the multiple platforms they use for tracking local ecosystems. (3) There is a definite Wikimedia Commons issue w misidentified species. usually if I find something misassigned I mention it on the photo’s talk page. If there’s a better way to flag, we should make it more prominent. (4) People cross-post photos to iNat/Wikipedia/BugGuide/FB all the time. I don’t know how we’re going to stop them or determine original provenance.

Possibly relevant is this article in Nature about crowdsourcing community science, how it’s been used to collect and identify samples, incl peer-reviewed studies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02921-3?fbclid=IwAR2XxZ39tGWrnvLuKhrpK1UWp8YqHA-RKjSJssmXSrkfonIbNuIJ4YyN1R4

jengod (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

More thoughts;

  • Do we have active cases where images pulled from or cross-posted from iNaturalist have been determined to be ambiguous or incorrect? The misidentifications I know of on Commons are two pictures that are tagged as Platanus racemosa but area actually a pine and a eucalyptus. But these are just old Commons photos that have nothing to do with iNaturalist.
  • I would argue that most of our users who pursue bug photography and/or editing Wikipedia are cognizant of the issue of taxonomic correctness *because* of the “gamified”/Pokémon Go nature of Reddit-style fake Internet points and/or the historic honor system of birding and/or “pics or it didn’t happen.” i.e. It’s only fun to have a photo of a Stagmomantis limbata if all your weird friends get to see it and agree that it’s that species and not a Stegomantis arizonesis. You get a tiny hit of dopamine and a status bump. Which is to say I think all the principles that make Wikipedia functional underpin iNaturalist as well. People may occasionally get ahead of their skiis and post a jumping spider that can only visually reliably be identified to genus rather than species, but I’d be willing to bet that most people would go to great lengths to have reliable verification and involvement from subject-matter experts before they add to Commons.
  • In summary, I think iNaturalist is not a reliable source for the same reasons that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but I think we should take the work there in good faith and use it anyway.


  • This is somewhat a misguided question. It's like asking if Wikimedia Commons is a reliable source for photographs. From Wikipedia's perspective, the only appropriate use of iNaturalist is as an image repository, not a factual claim: we wouldn't use the coordinates of a flower photo or the comments of an uploader as references since they are user-generated and primary sources at best (even if authored by a recognized expert). Of the original post, Option C seems the most realistic. If there is genuine uncertainty about the identity of an image imported from iNaturalist, it can be discussed on the file talk page, the Wikipedia talk page, or any number of project pages, and the image might simply be omitted until more consensus or confidence emerges. A 'research-grade' rating on iNat helps, but need not be required (and there may well be cases where a high-quality but generic, unidentified spider or frog image is useful to illustrate a non-taxonomic article like ecology or taxon X in popular culture). Note, this applies to images from Flickr, Wikipedians, and even the Library of Congress: Commons has hundreds of thousands of images from the LOC, and many are used in Wikipedia articles. Many LOC images are undated, unidentified, incompletely identified (e.g. only one person in a crowd of several notables gets a named etched onto a negative), or even misidentified: this photo was long identified as the wrong Fred Frelinghuysen, based in part on this Flickr crowd-sourced ID, and was on Wikipedia for almost a decade. Published books and articles sometimes have misidentified species or people as well (this man was long thought to be James Parkinson, but is not). We should not disallow or deprecate images from libraries or museums or repositories because sometimes they contain errors. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

roads.org.uk

There has recently been a discussion about this source. It's a personal website, but it's run by something of a subject expert, who has been mentioned in the press (example) and a few transport books. I believe for certain topics, he clearly cites his source material from places like the National Archives and the London Metropolitan Archives so the facts can be independently checked. I personally think it's acceptable to use as a source for basic facts and figures; for example, it is cited in the good article M25 motorway to say that two junctions that seemingly belong to that road actually belong to another one, which can also be simply verified by driving along the road and observing the signs.

On a more general note, I think there are more expert-level websites existing now, compared to twenty years ago, and roads.org.uk is one of several that being able to cite would make article writing easier (ianvisits.co.uk is another, as is seat61.com). The principal reason for the self-published source policy, as I understand it, was to stop somebody setting up a website with some quackery or conspiracy theory, then using it as a source to state something bonkers on Wikipedia. What we have here is more subtle. I think it's okay to be used sparingly on articles for basic facts and figures, that mainstream sources might gloss over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I've said elsewhere that I don't think that this source quite passes muster: per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As far as I'm aware, the author does not meet the 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published' part of that. If he cites his own sources, that's great - we can use those instead, assuming they support his content. Having said that, I take Ritchie's point that it's somewhat borderline - I wouldn't excise on sight or anything, but it's not the kind of source that I would be encouraging new, enthusiastic editors to start basing swathes of content on (which is kind of how we got here). Ritchie, I think you are I are quite close together on this, we're just falling slightly different sides of the 'yes/no' boundary. Girth Summit (blether) 17:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • They don't appear to be a subject matter expert by our standards, that means they're not the sort of WP:SPS we can use for much of anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As said elsewhere by Ritchie333, it is the site owner Chris Marshall has been mentioned in the news and name-checked in a few books, and I believe he does cite his information from the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives where appropriate, so he is obviously widely recognised, so does it count as reliable? Roads4117 19:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    See WP:SPS for the answer to your question. TLDR not an expert per our SPS standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back thanks for sharing that. Roads4117 19:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I specifically expanded upon my interpretation of the SPS policy, because simply saying "not an expert" is misleading and likely to be factually incorrect. After all, if the site wasn't an expert, it would be easy to find a claim in it contradicted by another source - has anyone done that? What we should be asking instead is not whether or not roads.org.uk is an expert, but rather - how much weight of that expertise should be put on a general, mainstream, encyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No-one needs to disprove the content, someone needs to prove its a reliable source. SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. If anyone can show where this is the case fine, otherwise we shouldn't be using it as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
An amateur site can be completely factual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This looks complicated, but I'm leaning towards it being (semi?) reliable. In the What does Roads.org.uk do? of the about page there are claims that would make me believe it should be considered reliable under SPS, but there's nothing backing up those claims. He is in this Independent article but is introduced as Roads enthusiast Chris Marshall is a Ringways expert. If it hadn't used Roads enthusiast I would have said we have a RS that says he's an expert, but it does say enthusiast and that muddies the waters. If someone can find reliable sources stating his expertise then roads.org.uk is reliable, but I've not had much luck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at ianvisits.co.uk the about page does have links to articles this time. But again we have a mix, here he writes an article for the Guardian but here the WSJ describes him as an enthusiast and Engadget and the BBC both describe him as a blogger. It doesn't make me believe he's considered an expert in his field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The about page of the last website mentioned, seat61.com, however does lead me to believe he could be considered an expert. Maybe it should still be attributed though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@John What are the better sources? Roads4117 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Better sources are those which are not self-published and have a robust and visible procedure for flagging and checking errors. The BBC and Guardian are two that spring to mind. John (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the best sources I have used for road articles around London is "Rings Around London" by Wayne Asher, Capital Transport Pub. 2018. I bought my copy at the London Transport Museum bookshop. There's a review here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Some more references - The Rise and Fall of London's Ringways 1943-1973 (Dnes, Michael (2019). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-00073-473-7) on page 13 says "It would also have been impossible to do justice at either stage without the work of Chris Marshall, the great archivist of the Ringways project ..... It is worth noting that there is a significant body of allied research underway, notably that carried out by Chris Marshall and others at roads.org.uk" while Unbuilt - Radical Visions of a Future that Never Arrived (Beanland, Christopher (2021). Batsford. ISBN 978-1-84994-745-9)" on page 134 says "Described by Ringways expert Chris Marshall ...." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that Ritchie. Roads4117 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333, these are the kind of sources that I was unable to find online. If such works consider his work authoritative, then so should we. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
We can do that for regularly published sources unfortunately we have no such wiggle room with WP:SPS unless the expert has been published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There's also this Independent piece and this one that refers to the site's old name CBRD. To paraphrase ActivelyDisinterested, if The Independent is fine reproducing this website's facts as gospel, we're probably okay to do likewise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
We could no doubt use something this person had published in a reliable source, but SPS is a different standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I also found Transport and Its Place in History Making the Connections by David Turner. It does not name Marshall directly, but instead uses Roads.org.uk as a reference. Which I think points to the site itself being reliable, independent of Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You can't separate out the site and the author with SPS, thats the whole reason we put unique restrictions on them. If its not a personal website there is a path to reliability here, but it doesn't appear that OP was wrong about that fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The only absolute of WP:SPS is that they must never be used as third-party sources in BLPs. The rest of the language is deliberately not definitive (largely or may be considered ). I'm satisfied that Marshall and roads.org.uk are considered reliable by reliable sources. I'd rather that better sources are used where available, but don't believe that it shouldn't be used. Individual references might be questioned, but that would be a discussion for the article talk page where that reference is used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
But it does say "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." which is not worded as negotiable at all... and the sources presented have been strong, but not exceptional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Did I miss something what exceptional claim has been made? (honest question, not rhetoric). As far as I can tell the only claim specifically addressed in this thread is Junctions 1A and 1B are part of the A282, though they use the M25's numbering scheme, which is using roads.org.uk in the M25 motorway article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
On a second reading of the sources I will drop my opposition to them not being a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a mediocre-to-good source, always good to back it up with stuff like contemporary news sources, but the fact that he's so widely sought after by RS is pretty good evidence. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Indiana History Blog

Normally I'd write this one off, but it's part of a government website. Is this blog reliable? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not consider the Indiana State Library and Historical Bureau a reliable source? SilverserenC 05:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I will note that the guidelines for submitting blogposts seems to include directly sending them to Nicole Poletika, who appears to be a staff historian for the Indiana Historical Bureau. It seems like there's at least rudimentary editorial review for guest contributors, but I'm not able to find guidance/editorial standards indicating that anybody checks Poletika's blogposts before they are published. This seems generally fine for things like local history, but I wouldn't stake contentious claims on its blogposts alone (especially so for contentious claims about historical people who are still alive). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I would say yes with the caveats that I don't think it would contribute to notability and that anything which looks like an opinion should be attributed. Whether its due in a given context is a separate question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

dirt.com

Is dirt.com a reliable source? Whilst looking for information on Cody Ko, I came across this website in an Insider premium article. Looking at its homepage, its articles are all about the home properties of celebrities. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrinform and Yahoo

Is Ukrinform really a reliable source when it is from the Ukrainian government. Also, Yahoo News, is a pro-Ukrainian outlet when it comes to the Russo-Ukraine war. I suggest these as unreliable sources. Please comment and let me know if this has been discussed before. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias it not a reason to reject a source. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely biased and should be used with attribution in the context of the war in Ukraine. As for its reliability, why do you doubt it? Do you have any specific examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis¿question? 06:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Alaexis They are very nationalistic and only use data from Ukrainian government. This includes false information. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless you can provide examples I don't think this will go anywhere. Being biased does not in itself mean that it's not reliable. Alaexis¿question? 06:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCradle

Can the this article from the The Cradle be used to say that the September 2022 Iranian protests was partially influenced by a "western-sponsored covert war" against Iran? --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No idea if The Cradle is WP:RS or not. However, at the end of that article, I notice the sentence "The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle." Adoring nanny (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
So an opp edd (in effect)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. This discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. The discussion will then be reported back here to RSN, likely in the form of an RFC on the reliability of the non-peer-reviewed works of Xhufi as a source. Since there may be a large number of editors, I will be asking editors to be concise, but am inviting editors to express their opinions before a report is made back here to RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

People Magazine reliability?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable, however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.

https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/

None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe this falls under the WP:DOB part of WP:BLP policy, and rather than pointing to some particular issue with People is a recurring issue with many otherwise reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Fox News Problem

Article from Slate, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a nice, fair article, with a crappy clickbait headline :-) Andre🚐 16:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
More than that, I thought it very complimentary. In essence, although Wikipedia says that it itself is not an RS, in practice you can trust it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I was pleasantly surprised insofar as it was a good "intro to Wikibureacracy" sort of thing. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman, this article [1] makes a similar point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait this article was written by an active wikipedia editor? Does no one else see the issue with this? Nweil (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I will confess that I don't, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that all articles about Wikipedia must be written either by clueless people or by banned users or by users who left the project? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The premise of reliable sources is that Wikipedia is downstream of good journalism or research and that there is strict independence between the two. Someone playing "both sides" seems concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nweil (talk • contribs)
I disagree, it's not a WP:COI unless they are editing on behalf of their outlet or including their own work in articles, which this editor is not. As long as a separation of interests is observed, someone who works in journalism can work in journalism and also edit. Writing about Wikipedia so long as that isn't influencing their on-wiki editing, is allowed. Andre🚐 22:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot more issues than that involved here. But I'll take the writing about Wikipedia issue first. The person with a media platform (in this case Slate) would potentially be able to draw like-minded new editors to the site, even if what they write is neutral. If the consumers of the article or outlet are largely of one political persuasion, it effectively becomes a meat puppet recruiting arm.Nweil (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
A "meat puppet recruiting arm" is not a thing. Meat puppetry, in my mind, implies that you are intentionally colluding off-wiki with others to push a POV or do whatever onwiki. If you promote Wikipedia by writing about it and a bunch of new editors decide to join, who are independent from the writer and are not communicating, that isn't meat puppetry. Andre🚐 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
How about a hypothetical. What if Dean Baquet, while he was the executive editor of The New York Times, also edited Wikipedia. Would you have a problem with that? Any guardrails? Nweil (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
That is really not analogous, because just being one contributor to a publication is quite different than being an executive officer of the corporate entity, but regardless, if Dean Baquet was secretly a wiki-editor and also edited a column that covered Wikipedia, I would still be ok with it and it would not run afoul of COI provided that he didn't edit articles or otherwise do stuff onwiki about the business. But it's really quite a silly comparison. Andre🚐 01:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue you are getting to is would it be a COI. I think it could be considered to be a COI if Mr Breslow !voted to downgrade Fox in the recent RfC. But with 150 involved editors it would be all but impossible to claim any one editor's comments carried the day. So even if I would technically see that as a COI, I would say it is one with no meaningful impact. Note that I do not know Mr Breslow's wiki id so I have no idea if they participated in that RfC. I would say the same if they participated in RfCs about any of their competitors in the media field. Still, reading through that Slate article I feel it was pretty straight forward and generally told the story rather than told readers what they should think of the story. I do appreciate Nweil's Meatpuppet concerns. Still, that is largely true anytime someone with reasonable reach on the web suggests Wikipedia has a story wrong. I don't see that in this case. Springee (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The issue I see with the article is that it totally ignores the very good reason that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to cite for papers: that it is constantly changing. Yes, in principle you could cite specific revisions, but also the citations used by the Wikipedia article are right there. Wikipedia is an excellent resource and should be taken seriously, but it has no place in the formal references section of any print publication. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to cite for papers: that it is constantly changing By that reasoning, papers should not interview people about things they remember since people's memories change all the time. One can write for Wikipedia and for something else, one can be an author and a critic, one can be a scientist and a science journalist. The world is not cleanly divided into separate categories, and as long as the author gives the exact source, there should be no problem. Of course, Wikipedia should not use the Slate article as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Even if the user, who did not edit the RFC (I just checked their contrib history), had edited the RFC, that would not be a COI. A COI would be if they edited an RFC about Slate (or the article about Slate). Simply participating in an RFC about a competitor is not a COI because it's not a zero sum game. Fox being reliable or not doesn't in any way reflect on Slate or Slate's reliability. There are no meatpuppet concerns, and nothing related to meatpuppetry has been substantiated. It wouldn't be "meatpuppetry recruiting" even if I wrote a huge front-page article on Fox News saying "EDITORS PLEASE GO TO WIKIPEDIA NOW AND DELETE THE RECESSION ARTICLE!" Writing about Wikipedia on an external site is not against policy. Andre🚐 15:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow Andre you have a far more liberal view of this than I do. Someone like a newspaper editor has influence on what gets covered in a newsroom and what doesn't. And could add small changes to a NYT article which could have immense impact on Wikipedia (such as labeling a living person something subjective but incendiary like "far right" in an article or something like that). I guess I concede that a very contentious person could keep those two lives completely separate, but we're talking about a severance-style "forget what you worked on five minutes ago" type thing. Much better imo to have common sense guardrails for this type of thing to prevent journalistic power from being abused. And editors obviously have final say on things, but the journalists themselves can influence what gets covered too. Can interact with their colleagues and share info hoping that a certain story gets covered (by someone else) then they could add that to a wikipedia page themselves. I'm not saying anything like that happened in this case, I'm saying there a lot of pitfalls here. Nweil (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This all seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. Given the situation, no WP:COI or meatpuppetry has been shown. I will concede that there could be a conspiracy to insert material into newsroom content to change how it's covered in Wikipedia and then go ahead and edit wiki to lock it in, but it seems like a long shot at best, and at worst we're getting into paranoid territory. The reality is, newsrooms are not subject to arbitrary whims, and if they are going to publish that someone is "far right" to enough of a frequency that it's due weight, we should write it regardless of whether the editor also edits wiki in his spare time. It's about outcomes and results - we don't need a rule that nobody should do a thing that isn't happening - what's the essay on this? Andre🚐 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with "it's about outcomes and results." I would place legitimacy a rung higher than outcomes because without legitimacy the outcomes don't matter. And a place which allows this sort of circular feedback loop (reporters editing which requires reporting) harms it's legitimacy. This is not paranoid or a conspiracy at all. Simply a glaring weak spot for people to question the basic structures of wikipedia. Nweil (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The "legitimacy argument" would seem to support the actions of this editor, they are a contributor to a publication and so they observe some separation by opting not to edit RFCs on media source reliability in general, even though they do not need to according to policy. Therefore no problem here and no solution needed, business as usual as it were. Andre🚐 16:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Fun fact: a lot of the best research and journalism about Wikipedia has been done by people who were also Wikipedians. I wrote about Wikipedia long before I was actively editing. Any responsible journalist, academic, or other nonfiction writer would disclose relevant COIs and the editors/reviewers would have to determine whether that affects the quality of the piece. If not, then we see it. I would certainly expect that if a Wikipedian were directly involved in some discussions, that would be disclosed in the piece of writing in some fashion, but that wasn't the case here. All the stuff about recruiting meat puppets has nothing to do with RS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what the problem is. Is the concern that we need to supervise Slate’s editorial practices? Is a question being raised as to whether Slate is a reliable source? John M Baker (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
It would not surprise me if someone did. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Daily Mail's alleged noteriety

Having read the article, I can see a clear issue with the fact the author is apparently a Wikipedia editor. The line "the Daily Mail, a British tabloid notorious for its poor journalistic standards" could far easily be seen as their own personal opinion or even desire, rather than the result of any serious journalistic review. Even The Guardian occasionally has to admit that much of the hate for the Mail out there doesn't really reflect reality on the ground: "Rival newspaper publishers, such as Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, have spent the last 15 years dealing with hundreds of claims of illegal activity at their newspapers, often relating to phone hacking or obtaining material illegally. Associated Newspapers [publishers of the Mail] has escaped the same barrage of lawsuits and always strongly denied engaging in phone hacking at its outlets, although it has been dogged by accusations about its use of private investigators." I see what the Guardian writer produced there as being the work of a biased but sensible reporter, someone who allows readers to make their minds up from the known facts (something that used to be a goal of Wikipedia). That line in Slate, not so much, certainly not if it was inviting reader inquiry into why it is that the likes of the Sun, and now evidently Fox political reporting, is still considered more reliable by Wikipedia than any word written by any person on any topic, solely because it appears in the Mail. Pointing out that such things are done as much for reasons of shaping a world view within Wikipedia rather than a simple care for accuracy was a good thing though, albeit inadvertently maybe, and perhaps is the best sign of all that this person was writing from the perspective of being a participant in, rather than an observer of, the Wikipedia community. Which would indeed mean their work is inherently unworthy of being classed as reliable journalism, if we're showing a regard for standards. Barry Zammy (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Barry Zammy has been blocked as a sock of Brian K Horton. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The view on the Daily Mail is actually the community consensus here. Andre🚐 17:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter whether this is the view of one editor, or the consensus of the majority of our editors, the question is: can it be supported by citation to reliable sources? If not, then we should not say it. Even our consensus view must be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Blueboar, you'll have to refer to the last Daily Mail RFC, I'm not here to do new research on the Daily Mail. It's a deprecated source currently. I was referring to the comment made by this sockpuppet that Daily Mail's notoriety, as described is just an opinion, but in fact it is not an opinion, it's a consensus view. Andre🚐 18:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
What I think Blueboar is getting at is that we can come to consensus on how we classify DM, but that's a behind-the-scenes consensus and something we don't treat as fact in Wikivoice on mainspace. Our view of DM is far harsher than I would think most media sources give it, but that's because for us it directly threatens our coverage on key topics due to its known falsifications, so we with consensus have a good reason to black list the bulk of it. So consensus is not the same as Wikivoice-fact. Masem (t) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Please ignore this. This an obvious sock of the WMF globally banned user Brian K Horton/AttackTheMoonNow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter - Reliability

The website reports composers who have worked on films. The website's reliability isn't the best because its authors are anonymous, it's made in a wordpress, and its about page explains nothing about the owners. Its sources are easily replaceable with more reliable sources.

http://filmmusicreporter.com/about/

I'm bringing this up because it's used in countless articles [2] [3]. In my opinion, most of them can be replaced with a more reliable source, and I think this article should be listed as a deprecated source Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Can these sources:

be used to support a claim of "vigilante executions" being a consequence of same-sex sexual activity in the UAE, per current statements in LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates? (The lead says "Punishments include ... vigilante executions ..."; it's mentioned several more times elsewhere in the article.)

There's extensive talk page discussion over months. The most recent and relevant is probably Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates § Sourcing for non-legal penalties, especially under Vigilante executions sourcing. Both sources were also discussed in 2021 at section: Legal penalties. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • No. Metro is published by The Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source. The church site is basically a SPS, and the particular article cited there is basically an op-ed, authored by a composer, not a reporter.Banks Irk (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Actually Wikipedia:DAILYMAILRFC says Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, it does not mention the Metro being covered by the RfC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, @Emir of Wikipedia: Would you, @Banks Irk, or other editors here, say the specific coverage of the Metro article was enough to support the claim of "Punishments include ... vigilante executions ..."? The piece, from Metro's "Showbiz" section, is reporting on an incident at a concert, and its entire coverage of outcomes in UAE for homosexual conduct is:

    In the UAE, all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is considered a crime, with punishments including jail time, floggings, beatings, death, torture, fines, vigilante execution, and deportation.

    Strangely enough, the phrasing is quite close to that of various versions of the WP article, in 2019 and early 2020. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Emir of Wikipedia: WP:METRO says [t]he reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids, and the outlet is marked as generally unreliable, so Banks Irk's assessment seems to be correct that neither sources are good enough. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Oops! Sorry about that: I should have looked there first, but I"ve just seen the Metro listing on WP:RS/Perennial and it seems it's unreliable: WP:METRO. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Isabelle Belato:. Sorry, I just discovered that. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bounding into Comics

Was there ever a consensus over whether Bounding into Comics is a Reliable Source? I seem to remember it not being considered one due to it's pro-Comicsgate viewpoint, which informs the stories it covers and it's editorial slant, but I might've gotten it confused with another "news" site that popped up around the time GamerGate was starting off. Quick search tells me that it's cited 42 times on Wikipedia, but I can't really find any previous in-depth discussion over using it here. Asking for an opinion just to make sure. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. While we can use biased sources, it's important to remember that bias alone obviously doesn't make a source a RS. It's generally inappropriate to cite a source with no reputation because of its bias - that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Filipino tabloids: Hataw! and Pilipino Mirror

I recently came across an actor biography that cited Hataw! ([4]) and Pilipino Mirror ([5]). Working through Google Translate, it's hard to assess whether they're Daily Mirror-tier unreliable or reputable enough for to be cited for BLP coverage on entertainment topics. I don't see any prior discussion of these sources in the archives, is anyone familiar with them or able to investigate? Hataw! at least is prominent enough to be featured by Google News, but that's a low bar for reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

These two are Tagalog language sources, and are of little use in the English Wikipedia. The English language tabloids I'd most like use as sources are Tempo (sister publication of the Manila Bulletin) and People's Journal/People's Tonight -- but if they carry the story, it means other more reliable sources have carried it as well, and I'd rather use those instead. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe Tempo is the most reliable/reputable tabloid in the country. As for other tabloids, I tend to avoid them as sources. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
For Hataw!, I only saw libel cases in the archives. Such as [6] and [7] . Furthermore, a Google Images search (NSFW, I'm not linking anything) shows unnecessarily large number of scantily clad women in the front page which I'm pretty sure aren't related to the tabloid's headlines and a rather persistent ad for a "Miracle Oil". --Lenticel (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
For Pilipino Mirror. It exists but basically has no presence in G News Archives and G News. I agree with Howard here that there are better broadsheets and tabloids out there. --Lenticel (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

countrymeters.info/en

Is https://countrymeters.info/en a reliable source for statements about populations and percent of religion for a country? I did not notice any documentation for their numbers and there are a lot of adds on the front page.Hardyplants (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

From the countries I've looked up, most articles use the World Factbook for population estimates. Sungodtemple (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Gunaz TV

Can an article from Gunaz TV be used to support the ethnicity of the subject of Death of Hadis Najafi? The ethnicity is not mentioned in other sources. Beodizia (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Many sources say that her parents are from East Azerbaijan province of Iran where the people are Azerbaijani. Her mother published a video speaking in Azerbaijani to describe her daughter's death. Her sister gives interviews in Azerbaijani language to TV channels like AznewsTV channel; in her funeral you hear Azerbaijani Noha; many sources say her paranets are born in Irainian Azerbaijan; many sources say the family are ethnic Azerbaijani; she itself published many Turkish videos in Tiktok and Instagram, and has written in Turkish in Instagram (main Instagram status in Turkish: Doldur şimdi yerimi başka ben varsa... ). We know that Hadis Najafi was ethnic Azerbaijani. The spoken source of GunazTV says she is an ethnic Azerbaijani. I can not aunderstand why some people refuse to accept the reality about her ethnicity. Please see the discussion in talk page of the article [8]. Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to misconstrue the argument; it's not about whether she is Azerbaijani but whether Gulnaz TV is a reliable enough source to use as a reference for this. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
we must not try to censor the information and reality. The readers here need some background information. Please have no fear about people getting information and understand the reality. Getting information should not be restricted, it should be remained free, this is a goal if Wikipedia. Savalanni (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work based on reality but verifiability. The editors must present a reliable source for what they write here. And Gunaz TV is not a reliable source (full PDF in Persian). 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: This PDF is written clearly by a person near to intelligence and security authorities in I.R.Iran (refer to the mentioned people as sources in the PDF), and could not be seen as a relaible source againgt Gunaz TV based on your own standards. I can not understand your argumentation and logic: in one side you speak of oppresion in Iran gainst the people [9] and in another side you use the sources of these claimed oppressors here. Please solve your paradoxes yourself. Savalanni (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
No paradoxes on my part. I just do not believe in black-and-white thinking as opposed to many users.
Gunaz TV is not a relibale source and that's a no-brainer, no matter who says this (the Iranian government or its opposition).
I would say the same about clownlike TV channels such as Manoto and its foolish news desk (which obviously and shamelessly supports Pahlavis). 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Weak reasoning. I, too, can read and write in Turkish: See fa:دستور زبان ترکی استانبولی and its history for the evidence. I also listen to Turkish music and I absolutely love them and sometimes I even sing them for myself. But all of these does not make a Turk. I have just learned Turkish the way I have learned English and Arabic. As simple as that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you have not understood my reasoning correctly: I said regardless of many sources which say she is ethnic Azerbaijani, many sources say her paranets are born in Miyaneh city in East Azerbaijan province. There are aslo many other reasons and signes which I have mentioned. Savalanni (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Gunaz TV is not a reliable source. It's a TV channel pushing for the secession of Azerbaijan from Iran. The name of the TV channel speaks for itself: Güney Azərbaycan ("Southern" Azerbaijan, as opposed to the "Northern Azerbaijan", i.e., the Republic of Azerbaijan) 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Further sources (other than earlier mentioned one) about her Azerbaijani Turkic ethnicity are also existing, like: [11] [12] Savalanni (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals

Please comment. This is related to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, of interest to this project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Byju's considered a reliable source?

Bjyu's is an eduactional website and it generally has correct information on its pages as its concerned for competitive examinations. SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a question? It doesn't look like one. Read the notes at the top of this page, and then explain what the website is being cited for, and in what articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is a question.
Can this website be considered for citing articles based on Fundamental rights of India. Like right to privacy or freedom of expression SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Please give specific details - the article concerned, the edit, and the webpage being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Byju's is an exam prep website which just aggregates material so their quality varies. They are more or less questionable tertiary sources since they don't have any significant editorial oversight let alone academic peer review. The content on these type of sites are at best simplified for a high school level of understanding and at worst just misleading or even inaccurate so they can't be considered reliable sources. Same goes for most other sites like this; Jagran Josh, Testbook, etc.
It's not very clear what exactly you are trying to edit. But if you want sources for topics related to the Constitution of India then you'd need scholarly sources and there's a plethora of them. I'd suggest looking at The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution for a generalised overview. If you want more specific material then just search on JSTOR or google scholar. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!
Makes sense. SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Globalist.it also known as Globalist syndication

This section refers to pages in Italian. You can translate them here.

The Giorgia Meloni BLP cites the website "www.globalist.it" several times. However, it does not seem to me like a reliable source; User:Davide King disagrees with me about this. Several other Wikipedia articles cite this source as well. This source bills itself as "independent" and thus it is apparently not connected to The Globalist (an online magazine headquartered in DC), nor to any other Globalist described at Wikipedia. Descriptions of this globalist.it (also known as "Globalist syndication") are not numerous on the internet, even in Italian, but here are a couple descriptions via Google translate:

  • “an independent syndication conceived by Antonio Cipriani and Gianni Cipriani, which gathers journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net. As in a home, each of the inhabitants brings their own, specific and unique gift, contribution, precious for the well-being of all and to make that place welcoming.”[13]
  • "Globalist syndication operates in the construction of an open and truly participatory information model, as opposed to the closed system of traditional media. An agora in which to share information, to grow a participatory news factory...."[14]

Some links to this source have a news extension like this:

(1) https://www.globalist.it/news/2020/12/04/l-ossessione-xenofoba-di-meloni-il-governo-non-si-occupa-dell-italia-ma-favorisce-i-clandestini

However, other links to this source have different extensions like this:

(2) https://www.globalist.it/politics/2019/11/23/il-dirigente-di-fratelli-d-italia-dobbiamo-essere-liberi-di-poterci-definire-fascisti-2049445.html

(3) https://www.globalist.it/intelligence/2020/05/10/giorgia-meloni-con-la-scimitarra-verbale-la-conversione-e-uno-dei-metodi-del-terrorismo-islamico-2057948.html

Even the links with the "news" extension do not read much like news to me. Consider link (1) above which is titled (per Google Translate) "Meloni's Xenophobic Obsession: 'The government does not take care of Italy but favors illegal immigrants'". It is only four paragraphs, it looks more like a brief blog post than a news article, the author is not identified, the date is only evident from the URL, and it starts with a vapid question: "What to say?". The title of this "news" uses epithets and seems pretty shabby/unreliable, certainly the stuff without a "news" extension cannot be a reliable source either, correct? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias aside, the website has a lot of linked similar news pages all under different names and every single one without even a single person putting his name as director or editor. The Whois database returns a "hidden" registrant, with no contact or even website admin... it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site. It's just too shady, it can't be considered reliable. EDIT: there is a "Giuliana Sgrena" page, which is also linked as official Giuliana Sgrena webpage on her personal page on Wikipedia, but I can't verify whether it's actually her or just someone using her name for the website. Is there any proof about her page being actually written by her? Alves Stargazer (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Here’s an English translation of the portion of Globalist.it devoted to Giuliana Sgrena. I’m not sure what articles linked at that page were written by her, if any, but it says at the bottom that the page is copyrighted by her, not by globalist.it so there’s no evident editorial control by any editor. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The Sgrena page is mentioned on Sgrena's facebook too, which appears to be legit to me. But truth to be said, the fact that she bought a blog on the circuit does not mean that the main Globalist Syndicate should be considered handled by journalists or even a legitimate source of information. Alves Stargazer (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, what the user Anythingyouwant is writing, it is untrue. The Globalist is a reliable news source. How can you say the titles "seems pretty shabby/unreliable" if you have zero knowledge in Italian?
'Globalist' (launched in 2012) is one the main Italian syndications of journalists. Amongst its contributors there are famous journalists like Giovanna Botteri, Ennio Remondino, Giuliana Sgrena, etc. This fact can be read in one of the article published by the Italian National Press Federation, the unitary trade union of the Italian journalists.
Source: https://www.fnsi.it/il-futuro-e-digitale-ma-il-giornalismo-non-cambiannasce-globalistit-con-notizie-certificate 79.66.217.217 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You haven't disagreed with any of the translations I gave above, or with the lack of authorship information. The fnsi link that you provide (which is from 2012) says that globalist.it is "in the Huffington Post style" but please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics." A biased source can still be reliable, but bias often makes in-text attribution appropriate, and the Meloni article does not use in-text attribution; the biased material is also a primary source, and that biased material is what we are using in the BLP without attribution. But even if we did use in-text attribution, I don't think the source is reliable, because we don't have authorship information, and at least some of the material seems to be self-published. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the HuffPost US. In Italy the HuffPost website[1] has a different editorial board, a different style and with a different media coverage. So, what is your point?
You wrote that the website is not a reliable source, which is false.
You wrote that "it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site", which is false and defamatory. Clearly you don't know how news outlets run in Italy and you don't have knowledge about Italian legislation of communication and information.
What translations did you refer to? Did you use free unreliable translation tools? I don't need them. I speak the language, unlike you!
In the source I provided you, it is clearly written that the Globalist publishes 'verified news'. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Someone else (not me) wrote "it's just plain impossible to know if there's even a single licensed journalist behind the site." You can see easily enough in my first post in this talk page section that I offered English translations of several things, but you have not disagreed with any of those translations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
You provided two translate texts (in the two bullet points) in your first post in this talk page! What is your point? You clearly don't know how journalists work in Italy. And the strict rules required, unlike the UK or US journalists.
All Italian journalists are required to become members of the Ordine dei Giornalisti by passing a professional exam. This requirement, established by law in 1963, is unique to the Italian media landscape, and only exists in a small number of other countries. While in other countries anyone can start to work as journalist immediately and he doesn't need a specific qualification, Italian journalists need to train for two years and pass an exam. If you are implying that in the Globalist (an accredited news outlet), anyone can publish, you are mistaken. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Globalist.it is “an independent syndication conceived by Antonio Cipriani and Gianni Cipriani, which gathers journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net”. If they were only journalists, then perhaps they would reveal the names of their authors. Anyway, there is a difference in Italy between professionisti and pubblicisti. Per this source: "The professional journalist is enrolled in the Order of Journalists, has completed a period of paid internship in an editorial office or has attended a journalism school to be able to access the state examination for qualification to the profession. Once entered in the register, the journalist cannot carry out any work other than the editorial one, under penalty of expulsion." In contrast, "The freelance journalist is also enrolled in the Order of Journalists, but in a different register.....By law it is someone who does not carry out the activity of a journalist exclusively and who therefore can also ... carry out disparate or sector-related jobs, such as communication activities in social media or content development for the web, but also highly specialized jobs in specific areas." Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Reveal their names? If the news outlet doesn't sign the articles, it means the articles are produced by the editorial staff (=journalists). I know very well the difference between journalists so called 'professionisti and pubblicisti'. The journalists called 'pubblicisti' even if they don't need to pass an exam, however they have to carry out a paid and continuous journalistic activity for at least 24 months in one or more newspapers duly registered and directed by a member of the register of journalists who certifies the activity carried out. Yes and they can continue (if they have time) to do other jobs! But, this doesn't mean that you can read in the Globalist, an article written by anyone! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Where at the Globalist website are the names of the editorial staff? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Many Italian newspapers don't publish the list of their editorial staff. If you are interested, contact them via email! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
IP is arguing that Italian standards for journalism are different than US/UK standards, and Anythingyouwant is arguing that the articles just suck. I personally agree with Anythingyouwant here. From machine translations the articles seem very opinionated already. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Right, and it’s not just the quality of the “articles” but the secretive structure and personnel. As best I can tell, anyone can set up a blog there, including password-protected blogs. Some of those people may be journalists but the site boasts non-journalists too ("journalists, bloggers, sites, associations and activist citizens of the Net"). These people who run their separate blogs can then submit some of their writings for anonymous publication by Globalist.it at which point someone (again anonymous) decides whether to publish it, and maybe the top person (Gianni Cipriani) may (or may not) approve the “article” too. Cipriani did work for newspapers including Paese Sera, but it’s not clear how involved he is in reviewing each article by his team of bloggers. Anyway, the writing quality of their "news" is low, unprofessional, and opinionated. Here's how they've snagged writers: "Do you want to participate in Globalist Network? Log in and open your blog, or comment on the pieces, relaunch them in the social forums.”[15] So if you want to write there, you can write there. I'm not saying it's a bad website, but we'd be better off waiting for reliable sources to pick up each of their stories, and rewriting and expanding it in a professional manner. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The secretive structure and personnel? I have already written that many newspapers don't publish the list of the their editorial staff! Please, refrain from writing lies! I have already provided you a source that clearly states articles published in the Globalist are verified. Also, you have scarse knowledge about the legal responsibilities that face any editorial directors in any Italian newspapers! The blogs section is different from the news section of the website. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Them claiming something does not make it true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
What are you referring precisely? Can you elaborate your sentence, please? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Wait right there, skipper. The website itself does not report the names of the editorial staff and articles are not signed, this is enough to consider it shady as hell. The only things that it's making me reconsider it is the fact that the FNSI is an official source of the Journalist federation but I would still debate whether it's enough. I don't know where you got that the Italian newspaper are anonymous but that's false- basically every Italian newspaper I know of only publishes signed articles and you know exactly who's writing what, they never hide behind a collective with occulted identities; and this includes the Huffington Post, which has every article signed.
Right now I'm considering the Globalist Syndicate as a personal blog handled by journalists, which can not be considered in my opinion as an professional news media. Its a personal project of theirs but it just lacks the transparency needed to make it trustworthy. I frankly see no reason to consider it reliable and it might be better to avoid it altogether in references. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll give a couple specific examples of how the Giorgia Meloni BLP uses Globalist.it.

  • The BLP says, “She has been accused of making xenophobic statements,[162] as well as of Islamophobia.”[163] These accusations are made by the two cited Globalist.it articles, not by anyone mentioned in those articles. The articles are not reporting about any accusations, but rather are making the accusations themselves. At [162], it is described that Meloni argued for better monitoring of undocumented/illegal/irregular immigrants within Italy, and for that Globalist.it accused her of "xenophobia". At [163] Meloni deplored the London stabbings in November 2019 by Usman Khan (terrorist) who stabbed five people, killing two; Meloni responded by criticizing Islamic fundamentalists and saying they were anathema to Italian/European traditions and identities, for which Globalist.it accused her of "Islamophobia". And we treat those accusations by globalist.it as reliable statements that she has been accused of xenophobia and Islamophobia.
  • The BLP also says, “She has endorsed the Great Replacement, a white nationalist conspiracy theory.”[167] Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement” or “white nationalism” but globalist.it does quote her as saying there is pressure to bring hundreds of thousands of people from third world countries into Europe to provide cheap labor. This is similar to standard arguments in the USA that there is a labor shortage, and that there are jobs Americans won’t do, so therefore we need more people from the third world to come and do those jobs to help the economy. Because Meloni also said that George Soros is financing many of the NGOs supporting open borders and the like, Globalist.it accuses Meloni of promoting “another dark conspiracy invented by the far right that recalls the Nazi theories against the Jews.” Had Meloni not mentioned George Soros, nothing she said would be different from standard American arguments for increasing both legal and illegal immigration, but because she mentions some financing of this movement by George Soros she is accused by globalist.it of a heinous conspiracy theory, which this BLP then parrots (while correctly characterizing the Nazis as white nationalists). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not just Globalist though. There's this piece by historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat published in a reliable source that support the statements. "George Soros, an 'international speculator,' she has said, who finances global 'mass immigration' that threatens a Great Replacement of white, native-born Italians. ... As it has grown, Meloni has walked a double line, trading in far-right conspiracy theories at times, while claiming to be a traditional conservative at others." Davide King (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The Times and the Financial Times clearly state Meloni supported the “great replacement” theory and accused multiple times George Soros for this.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/giorgia-meloni-is-first-west-european-leader-to-believe-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-pddmf5vsf
https://www.ft.com/content/dc79e50c-45dc-4bb4-a688-ac59d3fb1073
Giorgia Meloni calling George Soros an usurer (perpetrating the fascist prejudice of Jews as usurers).
https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1109825289897549824
Giorgia Meloni accused George Soros to be complicit in his plan to deconstruct society in Europe.
https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/meloni-soros-complice-piano-destrutturare-societ-1713380.html There are numerous sources to confirm this, but Anythingyouwant, who has zero knowledge in Italian and Italian politics, is constantly pushing his narrative!79.66.217.217 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Then use those, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Slatersteven Are you suggesting that the Globalist is an unreliable source? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence it is, RS beyond its won claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I have not argued for removing this particular article text, only for removing the irrelevant footnote from the unreliable source. This source doesn’t point to any statement by Meloni or any time or place when she alleged so-called great replacement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I am speechless. You have argued about the content of the articles and now suddenly you say you don't want to remove the article text. You wrote "Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement”'. Make up your mind! Or at least, check the sources in English, if you don't speak Italian and you want to decide if a source in Italian is reliable or not! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Globalist.it does not refer explicitly to great replacement or white nationalism which is what our article text discusses, and Globalist.it does not point to any place where Meloni has done so either. Globalist.it does blame her for “another dark conspiracy invented by the far right that recalls the Nazi theories against the Jews.” But Globalist.it does not offer any evidence for this. Perhaps other sources offer evidence, but that does not justify using Globalist.it in this instance. Moreover, Globalist.it is generally unreliable, and we should provide content only if supported by reliable sources. UPDATE: In any event, this example about great replacement is now moot because User:Davide King has edited the BLP so that Globalist.it is no longer used to support this assertion.[16] Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The Article in the Globalist refers explicitly to great replacement expressed by Meloni. Here: https://www.globalist.it/politics/2019/06/19/sui-migranti-meloni-rispolvera-la-teoria-del-complotto-un-disegno-di-soros-contro-l-europa/ Your opinion on Italian press is generally unreliable, because you don't speak the language. You wrote "Neither Meloni nor globalist.it refers explicitly to “great replacement”. This is false and you are persisting writing false statements. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Here is an English translation of that cited article.. I characterized it correctly. She said the goal was to get cheap labor, not to replace anyone (perhaps she’s made the latter argument elsewhere). Happily, this BLP has recently been edited so this article from the unreliable source is no longer used with regard to replacement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
As the article states Meloni refers explicitly to a “great replacement”, accusing George Soros about it. And newspapers like FT and The Times confirm that!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/giorgia-meloni-is-first-west-european-leader-to-believe-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-pddmf5vsf
https://www.ft.com/content/dc79e50c-45dc-4bb4-a688-ac59d3fb1073
You can moan about a source, which however you are not able to read in the original language, but this doesn't change that it is true! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you would like to “moan” some more about it, I suggest you do so at the article talk page by actually quoting the sentence you’re referring to, but the point is moot here at this noticeboard (because the BLP no longer cites the unreliable source regarding replacement). The question here is whether this source is reliable, including both its URL’s that include the word “news” and its URL’s that don’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.it/

Is Deseret News independent of the LDS Church?

This was discussed briefly on this board over five years ago, and it didn't quite reach a consensus. Since it's been a continuous source of discussion in LDS areas, I thought I'd bring it up again.

I'd like clarification on whether or not, and to what extent, Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church.

Some options:

  • A) Deseret News is completely independent.
  • B) Deseret News is independent for everything except exceptional claims.
  • C) Deseret News's independence should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
  • D) Deseret News is not independent.

––FormalDude (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Deseret News)

Discussion (Deseret News)

Are there specific reasons why we need to determine whether it is 'independent'? And if so, what do we mean by that? Clearly, given the circumstances, it would be rather surprising if Salt Lake City media didn't take into account the faith of a large proportion of its readership, even if formally unconnected with the LDS Church. Generally, the more appropriate question to ask here would be whether it meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source - something which often depends on context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, per the About Us page, the Deseret News is owned and operated by the Deseret Management corporation, which is a for-profit subsidiary of the Church. As per additional information from its' mission statement page. Deseret Management, which also owns and operates other newspaper and television subsidiaries throughout various parts of the United States, appears to support the mission and goals of the Church while not necessarily being beholden to the Church for "marching orders" about how they report or what they report. It may also be worth noting that KSL, owned by the same subsidiary of the Church, is also the local NBC affiliate station, which may apply to other television networks in the United States that are owned by that subsidiary. I believe that some general leaders of the Church do have seats on the boards that direct such subsidiaries, but that doesn't automatically mean that the individual TV stations or newspapers do not have sufficient editorial or journalistic independence. Is that helpful at all? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Right now RSP says there's no consensus on the independence and that makes it unclear when assessing if sources meet WP:GNG, specifically in deletion discussions. There is already consensus that it's a generally reliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jgstokes: This explanation on their editorial independence is what I find to be most helpful. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The date on that is "2000" and the author hasn't worked there in more than a decade. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Independence is only necessary when we want to establish notabilty and therefore comes into play in AfD discussions. That is the only time when we are concerned about independence. It is not required for verifiability or reliability and such sources can be freely used in articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
What does independence have to do with notability? Are you perhaps getting independent in the WP:RS sense and independence in the "independently notable" sense confused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Coverage is required to be independent of the subject to count towards notability guidelines. There are, however, contexts other than notability where the independence of a source could directly impact its reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Thats a third option, but context wise that seems less likely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Summoned by a post at the WP:LDS wikiproject. I think the RSP listing linked above by David Gerard sums it up well and needs no modification. It's reliable for local news. It's a bit too close to the church to be used as a sole source for any exceptional claims. And the Church News insert is not independent, as it comes directly from the LDS Church, so it should be considered a primary source.
    The only times I personally have seen this come up is in AfD discussions about the notability of LDS temples or newly appointed "general authorities" (church leaders). My own guideline is that if the article is in the Church News insert, that alone is not enough to establish notability, but if it's actual Deseret News editorial content then that's independent enough to be considered 3rd party. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with those saying the existing RSP listing covers it and nothing more is needed. I've used Deseret News many times when working on articles about Utah-related politics or Utah-based companies and I haven't noticed any problem with it. Once or twice I think I in-text attributed it when the subject was the LDS Church itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    RSP states that there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. In order to align with what you're saying, I think the RSP should be updated to option C instead. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • While I don't really edit LDS topics I have used Deseret News for local and environmental topics. At the very least I would consider it to be like any other local paper. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Independent sources is the explanatory essay about independant sources in reliable sources. I would point out that when it comes to news media, the essay is never actually followed.
First, respected public broadcasters, such as the BBC, are of course owned by governments but are expected to report independently. The logical implication of the policy is that the BBC could not be used as a source for UK politics.
Second, major media is always owned by someone. NBC was owned by GE, which is a major defense contracter, from 1986-2013. Does that mean we could not use it for coverage of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.? Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, now owns the Washington Post. The Thomson family, in addition to having a media empire, also invested in travel, oil and gas, and department stores. There's often a connection too between news media and internet and phone providers, and of course the entertainment industry.
Third, celebrities typically work for entertainment companies which in turn are owned by corporations that own news media. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean film series, starring Johnny Depp, was produced by Disney, which owns ABC. Does that mean that we cannot use ABC News as a source for Depp's well publicized libel trial?
I would like to see a clarification on the policy before spending much time on this type of RfC.
TFD (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Religious organizations present a distinct problem because their existence is predicated on "universal truths" that are objectively neither universal nor true... They are organizations that by definition deal in what journalists would call untruths. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Your comment seems to ignore the practices of journalistic standards and editorial independence. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Awilley and Guerillero: For clarification, I intended the scope of this RfC to be solely about Deseret News' news coverage, not including their Church News supplement which is obviously not news nor independent. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Canadianr0ckstar2000: You're misinterpreting the meaning of the Deseret News news section. I'm not talking about the content from Deseret that is news related rather than Church related. Obviously content that doesn't talk about the Church is independent of the Church. I started this RfC to ask about their news department, which produces Church related content. I'm asking because their news department seems editorially independent and unbiased as compared to their other departments like Church News which is directly affiliated with the Church or their religion section which often comes up short in terms of neutrality, as no distinction is made at WP:RSP. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Understood, I still maintain A. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

CNN news reliability

In the last years I keep finding articles that sound less and less credible on the CNN circuit. For example, right now my eye has fallen on this, which is entirely framed to portray a race issue in Kenly Police but fails to address the fact that the previous town manager was also black, as it can be seen by this local newspaper dated 2018. Another good example might be the fact that CNN lied about Lanny Davis being a source, to afterward defend the falsehood in the article by claiming they had another source too so he wasn't important rather than addressing the fact they did wrote something false on purpose. They are also quite politically biased. this article about 2022 Italian elections, which only shows concern and opposition to Meloni's victory without even trying a neutral stance. We even have an entire page about several critically bad coverages from the media [[17]] and the 2020 US election alone shows a starkly hostile take toward Conservatives.

Several websites tracking media reliabilities do not have an high opinion of CNN either, as the pages here and here. As a comparison, Fox News is just slightly below CNN in their ratings. Isn't it about time to discuss about avoiding such an unreliable source? Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been discussed to death (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#CNN), and it always amounts to WP:WHATABOUTISM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I've just brought up one lie and one miscontextualization, both on purpose. Several more are already in the CNN page. It seems quite clear that reliability is not a strong point for the CNN, so what's the need to defend it?Alves Stargazer (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Be cautious when using it is what I can advise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Alves Stargazer: Conservatives generally do not like CNN, and have often come to the help desk or teahouse protesting what they feel is unfair treatment of conservatives and their activities in Wikipedia articles. Nonetheless, if a CNN piece (or any news outlet for that matter) is used to source something that you disagree with, you're welcome to try to balance things out by finding an article in a reliable source that contradicts the reporting. For example, if you can find an article that says new Italian Prime Minister Meloni is not openly anti-LGBT including against same sex marriage, not against women's abortion rights, and not anti-immigrant, then you can call out CNN and any other sources that reported that she is all of those things. You can also check out WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Your advice is meritless, Emir. There s no call for "caution", and attempts to use that as a reason to remove CNN as a source from an article will likely be reverted. As for the OP, the fact that there was once a black manager previously doesn't grant those who walked on the current manager a magic "Get Out of Racism Free" card. You are providing your own disingenuous spin to two separate news articles. Zaathras (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The point is that there was no race card to begin with... No source reported any racist behaviour toward the manager, it was merely desumed by her being black and the cops white; this alone could be considered libel. But instead of writing a story about an incompetent manager (their words, not mine) that made all the dept. walk out they decided to re-frame it as a race issue, and this is straight-up bad faith. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The only bad=faith here is on your end. There is no merit to your assertion, only a slanted opinion. Zaathras (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
It is not meritless. If you would prefer not to use it and avoid then that is best for you, especially if we are talking about a WP:BLP or other contentious topic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
CNN is generally reliable and is considered as such. It should not be regarded as less than reliable. WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES are NOT reliable and should not be used for this purpose. Andre🚐 00:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I got exactly one source in before discovering that you were full of it... "Others in the community say they believe there is not a racial component to the situation due to the fact the previous town manager was a Black man." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I was exactly one line in before discovering you were full of incivility. But staying on topic, you might notice that they tried to discredit the idea right below that line, put a title aimed to persuade people there is an ongoing race issue with the police dept and spent the whole article debating about it. It's clickbait at best and an active attempt to spark hate against the police at worst, so let's take the middle ground and say it was just unprofessional. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Is that your opinion or can you provide a WP:RS which says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Buzzfeed News found the CNN lying on Davis right here. The Washington Post found the CNN lying on Trump receiving receiving early access to Wikileaks hacked documents on 2016/9/4, showing that said mail was received on 14 sept instead. Or, in the case of the Kenly police, you could try watching as the local news here or here and see how differently (and neutrally) they report the news. "Hey, that's not a WP:RS source!" yes, obviously, because major news media won't cover a minor town event, they would need to make up a race issue first. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually asking for sources which support "they tried to discredit the idea right below that line, put a title aimed to persuade people there is an ongoing race issue with the police dept" and I guess now Im asking for support for "make up a race issue" as well Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Your first source, Media Bias/Fact Check, says CNN's "news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks." Your second source, Ad Fontes, rates CNN as "Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability."
Sources can be both biased and reliable. Furthermore, the criticisms of unreliability are directed against talk show hosts, who are not reliable sources regardless of the reputation of the network.
While Media Bias/Fact Check found Fox even more biased than CNN, it said "Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate." While Ad Fontes found Fox news reporting "generally reliable," it was rated less reliable and more biased than CNN.
Certainly you will find fake stories in CNN, but that's the same for any news outlet.
Ratings do not matter, since a huge section of the American public is uninformed and most of them watch Fox.
TFD (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is that it's easy to find fox news hate on wikipedia, yet its reliability is rated just below the CNN and there's a consistent history of unprofessionalism. If we're aiming at only using good sources and try to avoid Fox there is just no reason to keep using CNN, especially for its political reports which are quite biased... it's quite odd to me to see such resistence. Alves Stargazer (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the arguments used in the RfCs about Fox News support the decision on its reliability, and the same for many RfCs on other publications. I remember that one of the main reasons used to support banning the ''Daily Mail'' was a false story they published, which also happened to be published in all the daily newspapers.
The only objective way to determine the reliability of news sources for Wikipedia is to use reliable third party comparisons.
In the end however, not using Fox News will have no effect on articles (1) all the networks are reporting the same news and (2) stories that appear in Fox News and are ignored by other cable media would not have weight for inclusion in stories about major topics. TFD (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
1. Actually, I don't know. Since Fox is right-winged while CNN is left-winged there's a decent chance that the two of them will cover different informations to pursue their bias, and therefore not have any echo in other media. But let's say you're right, it doesn't seem a loss to remove CNN either since everything major would be covered by BBC anyway. 2. My point is that CNN reports have been misleading (as in the town manager case) or even lying (in the Lanny Davis case). To this you can add articles already known for being wrong (in the CNN controversies page) that they printed without fact-checking. I'm not saying to treat it as a deprecated source, but to give preference to different sources. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Alves Stargazer Keep in mind CNN has won multiple Emmy awards, and numerous other journalism awards. I don't think Fox News has won any kind of mainstream journalism award. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK Bret Baier has won a number of awards for his work as journalists, and even Chris Wallace (he's working at CNN right now but he's been at Fox News from 2003 to 2021); don't know how many more are there. I think that the main issue with Fox News are the commenters and the anchormen though, not the actual journalists. Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Neither of which has any bearing on reliability. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Reliability seems to be improving due to Chris Licht. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Not discussing something, and lying are not the same thing, nor is a user wp:or they are lying. Do you have any RS that say CNN lies? Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
As I said in a different paragraph, about Lenny Davis we know they lied in saying he didn't comment, while he was later reported to have been their direct source. About Trump they said he received a confidential mail giving early access on hacked Wikileaks before the data was leaked, which was proven false by the Washington Post later. These are two small, yet documented lies written on purpose, which should be at least enough to question their reliability. While I don't have the time to scan every article they wrote looking for more it's unlikely that they stopped there. Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that the cautions we give about using Fox for political and science topics should also apply to CNN… and indeed all of the major US news outlets. They have all published erroneous stories. They have all spun their news reporting to fit their preferred political narratives. They have all let opinion slip into their news reporting. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Just a point of order but there has never been a period in which facts didn't slip into news reporting... We are currently living in the golden age of journalistic standards, they've literally never been higher or better enforced. This "slipping media" narrative is fiction unsupported by mainstream academics even if its become a popular fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
      • I am unsure we are " living in the golden age of journalistic standards" (as I am unsure if any such thing has ever existed) if Fox or the phone hacking scandal is anything to go by. Rather I think people are no longer willing to buy the 5th estate narrative of journalistic integrity. The news media have been willing to publish outright lies since the fall of Sevastopol. So I think Blueboard makes a valid point about maybe we should stop using all news media. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Another example is CNN's claim that Paul Manafort has a FISA warrant which has been debunked by the Inspector General but yet they doggedly refuse to retract it. CNN should be downgraded Nweil (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
        Whilte it would be definitely a motion I could stay behind, it would be pretty hard to talk about current events without news media as sources. Unless you're also suggesting that Wikipedia should stop acting as a tabloid and not cover modern-day events? Alves Stargazer (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
        That is what wp:notnews actually says, we should not really be a live news feed. We can in fact wait a few months before reporting an event. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The Kenly thing is a matter of framing and obviously meant to drive clicks. It bothered me to see it, especially since the local news stations down here in Raleigh did not place emphasis on it, implicitly suggesting that race was not the deciding factor in the matter (I personally subscribe to the theory that the new outsider manager clashed with an old boys club at the small-town city hall, not exactly unheard of down here). But of course, race is a national issue, and "Police bully black woman" drives more clicks than "Personnel change due to drama in small town that you, average CNN reader, have never heard of". But the general facts of the CNN article mostly corresponded to what local media said, and local media did report that some residents had expressed worries about racism nonetheless. Disappointing from CNN? Absolutely. Unforgiveable? No. Inaccurate? Not really. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Fox and CNN should be held with a similar standard, treating one differently than the other demonstrates bias. There are numerous unreliable sources on CNN which seem to get a free pass on Wikipedia. I believe this needs to be revisited as well. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The argument (whether you accept it or not) is that we DO hold CNN and Fox to the same standard… but doing so gives us different results. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much this, the issue is Fox has been caught telling outright lies on a regular basis. For CNN the worse we have seen here is the odd "not telling the whole story". Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
To play devil’s advocate… The argument on the other side (whether you accept it or not) is that we DON’T actually hold the two to the same standard. That when Fox is guilty of “not telling the whole story”, we call it “lying”… and when CNN “lies”, we dismiss it as simply “not telling the whole story”. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Problem is when we say Fox lies we mean "they actually claim something that is not true, in their words". Such as deliberately falsifying a picture. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • CNN still is reliable, but I have found they are slipping into bad "clickbait" signs in how they generate headlines (which themselves aren't reliable). They want to draw your eyes to specific articles, creating a small bias to simply be aware of. --Masem (t) 13:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
    I think it is well known nowadays to look beyond the headlines of online news sites. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Front Page

Recently on Belmont 112, a reference to the views of Larry Elder in an opinion piece by him in the FrontPage Magazine (FPM) was removed because it was "a deprecated source." I don't see where FPM is listed as not a legitimate source. But since the piece is actually written by Elder, I don't see why the source is not acceptable regardless of its general reliability. Kdammers (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FPM. It's a far-right blog platform essentially. Also, why would Elder's opinion exactly be WP:DUE here? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
While Elder's opinions could be used in an article about Elder per WP:ABOUTSELF, using his statements as though they were factual as was being done in the Belmont 112 article, and citing it to an opinion column in FPM, is not valid. Neither Elder nor FPM is a reliable source for the purpose of the subject of that article. --Jayron32 14:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I had put Elder in to balance McWhorter. I don't see how you read them as anything other than his opinion. In any case, I'm not going to pursue this. Hemiauchenia, thank You for showing where it was listed. I had spent about ten minutes following links that were supposed to show me where to check for reliability. We should make the page easier to find. Kdammers (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Not every opinion needs an opposing opinion. If we're using Elder for his opinion, the matter is "why does Elder's opinion matter in this context?" McWhorter is a professional academic that specializes in linguistics and culture, especially among African-Americans in the US. His professional analysis, based on his work in the field, is relevant given his expertise and respect. Elder is a professional talk show host and commentator that specializes in saying things on TV and radio and writing things in newspapers, magazines, and blogs. Those professional qualifications do not make his assessment of the program relevant. If you have another genuine academic that works in a similar field, and they contradict McWhorter's analysis, fine, but the consideration needs to be the qualifications of the person, not merely that they contradict him. --Jayron32 12:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Top Italian Scientists

I came across this site here. Is it reliable for anything? Details of the underlying "organization" are at best murky, the content is suspect because it is apparently based solely on h-index, and the whole thing smells to me like a WP:PROMO site. Opinions? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on that I would say no for anything, but I am open to hearing what others say with the obvious understanding their might be information in Italian. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

America (magazine)

Is America a reliable source? It seems to be a left-leaning Catholic publication. I did some research, and I wasn't able to find any red flags. I want to be sure though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly opinion pieces, so WP:RSOPINION seems to apply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that it is a Liberal Catholic publication but it leans right in terms of American politics (remember that both main US political parties are Liberalist parties). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
That might be true (or not, I ain't judging) but I cannot see how that would affect reliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't, I just thought that "left-leaning" needed a bit of context. As for its reliability I have little to add to Scorpions13256's analysis, its a magazine of opinion and we have clear standards for opinion content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Carl Sagan used as a source for philosophy of science

User:Carchasm recently nearly blanked the Argument from Authority page. In his edit summary he stated "carl sagan is not a reliable source anyway and his books are filled with factual errors" and on the Talk that "Carl sagan is not a philosopher of science. I recommend you take a look at WP:RS and WP:V if you have trouble understanding this". As a widely-known and well-respected scientist who dedicated much of his career to the public understanding of the scientific method, I believe that he is a perfectly fine figure to cite on the page when it comes to the intersection of this aspect of science and philosophy. I don't believe we'll be able to reach a consensus between ourselves on the Talk page and so would appreciate community input on the question. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy to discuss here as well, but I added an explanation to your talk page of what reliable sources constitute. Popular science authors are not scholarly academic sources for academic philosophy, I do not believe that this is really something that is unclear in WP:RS - car chasm (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that Carl Sagan is not a citable scholar on the subject of science. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You are aware Carl Sagan is an academic (PhD and all that)? Yes, he often wrote for the popular people, but he absolutely is a fair source on philosophy of science. Masem (t) 22:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
i mean, in some cases perhaps, but he's certainly biased towards a particular viewpoint, scientism. I don't think having a phd (in a different field) makes someone necessarily a reliable source? - car chasm (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Expertise in a STEM field is distinct from expertise in the philosophy of science, which is a branch of philosophy. Sagan's expertise is the former, not the latter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Porque no los dos? Having expertise in one field does not mean one cannot have expertise in other fields. Chomsky is cited as having worthwhile things to say in both linguistics and political science. Stephen Jay Gould was a well-respected evolutionary biologist, but also is well cited for his works in both the history and the philosophy of science. Many people can be well recognized as reliable sources in multiple fields. --Jayron32 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
looks like this has been discussed here, and here. Oddly, many of the arguments then look very similar to now. - car chasm (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
and strangely, the article that was settled upon back then looks a lot better than the one from this morning...
In fact, nearly all the previously cited high-quality sources have been removed. - car chasm (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, having not reviewed previous discussions, not every source cited for philosophical topics needs to be a philosophical academic expert, and Carl Sagan is very much fair game. Andre🚐 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
the issue in previous discussion is that multiple philosophical experts who disagreed with carl sagan were removed, and replaced with carl sagan's minority viewpoint - car chasm (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I mean, Carl Sagan shouldn't be the only source nor should the academic philosophical experts be removed, however, you appear to have in the diff linked above, removed about 20kb of material, some of which, upon cursory glance, appears to be links to stuff like Nature and Cell. Andre🚐 23:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly, i probably should have just reverted back to 2017. But I didn't think there would be a whole, well-sourced article hiding back five years ago. The nature and cell citations were being used to arrive at (philosophical) conclusions not supported by the articles. - car chasm (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact, now that I think about it, lots of citations to Nature and Cell on an article about philosophical logic are a pretty huge flag for WP:SYNTH because any conclusions drawn that would be relevant to philosophy would not typically be published in those journals - the equivalent appropriate journals for philosophy would be ones like Nous, Mind, The Philosophical Review, etc. And for something like argument from authority which is relatively well-established, any journal articles are rather suspect because citing new research is generally not necessary for established topics that have not changed much. - car chasm (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that those journals should be given the most weight since they are the most authoritative, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to say there will never be a valid, usable philosophy article in a more sciencey science journal. This seems like an overexclusive interpretation to me. Andre🚐 18:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
yeah, I think we agree here. I'm advocating giving sciencey science journals the side eye in articles on philosophy, not uniformly excluding them. - car chasm (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree. I just want to further add that it's important to remember that a Wikipedia article about appeal to authority isn't only about the strict meaning of that in the context of informal logic, but also about the broader cultural and social scientific view of that concept. So it's not OR/SYNTH to cover what other sources outside of the core authoritative epistemological science/philosophy of mind/philosophy of science and what have you concepts, they just should be given due weight and perhaps a separate section or a separate treatment in context. Andre🚐 19:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
After reviewing previous noticeboard entires for Carl Sagan, I have opened a case on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere - car chasm (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Re: "I don't believe we'll be able to reach a consensus between ourselves on the Talk page," you didn't even attempt to reach consensus on the Talk page before bringing it here, contrary to WP:DR. Sagan is a scientist with specific expertise; he's "a citable scholar on the subject of" astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. He's not a philosopher of science, so he's not a citable authority (WP:RS) for that. There are plenty of actual philosophers of science turn to for the latter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that there are two questions here, the smaller question about whether its appropriate to use Sagan in that specific context and the larger question of whether an expert in X is also inherently an expert in the Philosophy of X. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I hope that the answer to the larger question is a relatively uncontroversial "no" in most cases - psychologists and neurologists are frequently not well-informed on philosophy of mind, same for mathematicians/philosophy of math, theologians and apologists/philosophers of religion, etc. I think "philosophy of X" disciplines often ask uncomfortable questions about the study of X (e.g. scientists would really prefer if epistemology was not complicated), which leads to no shortage of people who "experts" in X but broadly dismissive of the philosophical study of X in a way that approaches WP:FRINGE. It's not much different than James Watson or Freeman Dyson speaking outside their narrow band of expertise, when an expert in a related field strongly goes against the consensus of experts in the actual field, it's probably WP:UNDUE from someone with an axe to grind.
    It is ironic that the argument from authority article is the one that's being discussed here, though :) - car chasm (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that being an expert in X doesn't automatically give one expertise in philosophy of X. However, topics have a specialized meaning and a generalizable meaning. Something like "appeal to authority" is general enough of a term that it should be discussed in terms of both what it means in epistemology, what it means in popular fields, etc. in separate sections and so on. Not all non-expert POVs are therefore fringe. Andre🚐 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well, in this particular case the view *is* fringe, and while I think I see the abstract point you're trying to make I think it's rarely the case in philosophy. People in other fields are always making much stronger claims about the nature of logic or knowledge or mathematics, often without realizing that they are doing so. There's no clear-cut boundary between "academic philosophy" and "popular fields" and attempting to draw one would itself be a philosophical claim.
    This is usually a non-issue though, because there's inevitable also a philosophical study of the popular field itself which has no shortage of reliable sources - in this case, Carl Sagan or another scientist's claims on knowledge (i.e. epistemology, logic) are the subject of philosophy of science, and can likely be treated as such. Any colloquial uses of a term should only be given as much coverage as is warranted to clear up confusion, per WP:DICTDEF, and likely treated as primary sources that need the support of secondary ones. - car chasm (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Not to nitpick, but I would dispute your view that scientism is fringe. WP:FRINGE states "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." I would submit that scientism is a mainstream view in both the philosophy of science (the Wiki article states as much) and in society in general. My POV is that it ought to be fringe, but that's not the reality. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    I completely agree the answer is "no" in most cases. As for Sagan has he ever been published in a philosophy journal or published alongside philosophers? Thats the only way I'm seeing him being a subject matter expert, now his opinions may still be notable but only if a third party talks about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    For sagan it looks like the answer is no for philosophy publications: jstor turns up two philosophy articles, and they are both reviews of his books - he's not an author of either journal paper and both were actually published after his death. - car chasm (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    So, that would seem to mean Sagan's books are in the field of philosophy, otherwise they would not be reviewed in philosophy journals. Sagan's work at issue in the edit, The Demon Haunted World, is apparently referenced in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. At any rate, what is your problem with the Sagan quote, you think he was wrong in his quote about appeal to authority? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, that's not true. Carl Sagan is a scientist, and philosophers of science love using him as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything. The quote in question from the article, Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." sounds noble enough, but sort of just misunderstands and misrepresents the whole epistemological debate to begin with. Unless Sagan was personally performing every scientific experiment he ever presented and working out every theory that he ever presented on Cosmos, he also accepted argument through authority, and since it's clear he didn't expect everyone who watched his show to work it out, he expected them to believe his authority on many things. - car chasm (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    We may agree with you about Sagan and how right or wrong he is, but that doesn't mean his wrongness isn't worthy of being described in attributed form, if it's a notable minority view. Andre🚐 23:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    yeah, but it just isn't that - he's just an outside who misunderstood the whole debate. it's notable enough to be covered on his page perhaps, but "crank pseudo-philosopher makes broad, senseless statement that doesn't mean anything" doesn't belong on an article, it's WP:FRINGE. The Stanford article quoted in that article even says This form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; which is a very clear jab at Sagan. - car chasm (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    " . . .philosophers of science love using him as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything." Do you have citations for that, or is that just something you made up? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    sure, from not looking too deeply, here are a couple on google books 12. Also Stanford: 1 2
    If you grew up with Carl Sagan's cosmos this may be new information to you but he is very much treated as a punchline, as a clear advocate of the fringe belief of scientism. - car chasm (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I think that's overstating it. Carl Sagan "was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, and science communicator." He was a popular science educator and an entertainer. He is still widely respected even though he may not be an expert in epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind or philosophy in general. Andre🚐 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Are you... citing a wikipedia page? But at any rate your citation doesn't support your claim, a popular science educator and entertainer is not a reliable source for philosophy. Not sure how you could read WP:RS and come away with that conclusion. - car chasm (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    As I just said I don't think he should be cited as an expert in philosophy, he should be treated as a public intellectual and popular author, not unlike a Malcolm Gladwell. Andre🚐 23:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    None of those sources say Sagan was wrong about everything. Nor do they say philosophers of science love as an example because of just how he wrong was about everything. You have not only disproved your claim, you have suggested that your critique of Sagan is just a matter of your theology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'd remind you of WP:NPA, I don't believe in gods or superstition or theology and don't appreciate any implication that I do. - car chasm (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Your the one who brought personal into this with your "If you grew up", and you seem to have a theology about scientism, and that Sagan is somehow the high priest, making other irrelevant claims that his work is reviewed in philosophy journals after he died, and silly claims of wrong about everything. The logic of your critique is wanting with respect to any relation to the quote, nor is it supported in evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Okay I actually don't understand what you're asking for. Do you want some sort of formal logic proof that Carl Sagan is not a philosopher? I don't think anyone can give you that. Sorry. - car chasm (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a question of reliability as we define it in this project. To the extent that Sagan's published materials were published by reputable publishers, they are certainly reliable for our purposes. Whether that means that they are good sources to use for this particular article is a different discussion that is not appropriate for this noticeboard. Editors who would like additional input are encouraged to open a discussion in the article's Talk page and consider an RfC or queries to relevant Wikiprojects. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How is whether or not an author is a subject matter expert not a reliability question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
To the extent that Sagan's published materials were published by reputable publishers, they are certainly reliable for our purposes. - this is more or less directly contradicted by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. - car chasm (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
If this is simply a matter of this noticeboard not being the correct venue, I think I would agree. Especially because it has been discussed here and here and it's really not clear why it keeps getting brought back here except in the hope that a venue with people less familiar with philosophy will be more friendly to Carl Sagan. - car chasm (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This was a poorly framed initial question, but the discussion here has ignored what Sagan was actually being cited for at the article in question. If I may paraphrase, it was a single quote to the effect be careful of relying on authorities, sometimes they're wrong, and they need to prove their theories like everyone else, appropriately cited. To die on the hill of "Sagan isn't an expert on the philosophy of science so this has to be deleted" is a vast overreach. He is certainly an expert on the scientific method, and the statement is hardly controversial. Is there a school of the philosophy of science that says, to the contrary, "If Professor Seuss PhD is an acknowledged expert on the subject of Ooblick, we should accept anything they say about Ooblick, even though they refuse to explain or provide any data?" I see no problem whatsoever with the specific quote in the specific article with the specific reference. Banks Irk (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I explained the issue above. He has taken a nonsensical stance on a debate he does not understand. - car chasm (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, actually, you didn't explain at all. You simply asserted,that he's not an expert on the philosophy of science and thus should not be heard to opine on this issue, and then asserted, without any explanation whatsoever, that, while his statement seems reasonable on it's face, Sagan failed to understand the issue. You have also asserted that his position is "fringe". I think that needs some evidence, cited to reliable sources. Banks Irk (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I don't really plan on explaining much of anything beyond what I have, I've written plenty, cited several sources, and provided plenty of explanations of my own. If you haven't read them or don't find them convincing that's not really my problem; this isn't going anywhere and there's no clear resolution or next steps here that I can see other than the person who opened the original notice being blocked as a very clear sockpuppet of two other users who opened identical discussions in the past.
    The page has already been restored to the state from the last time this question was discussed here, before all of the WP:SCHOLARSHIP was removed. I don't think anyone is arguing that all of the philosophy sources should be removed and the scientism ones put back. I'm not looking to have Carl Sagan deprecated as a source generally speaking. If you happen to think you agree with him philosophically, maybe... go read an epistemology textbook or something? Robert Audi's book is a pretty good introduction to the field, I think it would be hard to read that book and come away with the conclusion that that Carl Sagan quote actually meant anything at all. - car chasm (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    That kind of condescension is not going to win you a lot of fans outside your walled gardens. Banks Irk (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I tried to give you a little more to work with, but it's pretty clear you initially commented without reading half the discussion anyway. Maybe don't complain that you don't understand something and demand people explain it when you haven't even read half of what they already wrote? - car chasm (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    If it helps you any (I suppose I can't resist explaining after all...), Sagan is building a straw man: while most people do not agree with the statement "authority should never be questioned" most people, including Carl Sagan, do accept authority as a source of knowledge because they don't verify everything themselves. and most people, including Carl Sagan, frequently argue in favor of authorities they trust in matters they have not personally verified. so he's sort of just saying a trite little nonsense statement that doesn't help anyone actually evaluate knowledge, and passing it off as received wisdom. - car chasm (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    So your argument is that his statement is 100% correct, but he doesn't always follow his own advice. Old adage, "When you discover that you're in a hole, stop digging". Banks Irk (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    yeah, that's what i said initially - nonsensical sense on a debate he doesn't understand. it's like he showed up to an ethical debate and said "gee, i really hate it when people are immoral, wish they wouldn't do that!" which mostly no one disagrees with, and then he sort of implied that anyone who disagreed with him was just being immoral on purpose. - car chasm (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    So at this point you concede that what Sagan said in the disputed quote is 100% accurate re the subject matter of the section of the article, i.e. the use of argument to authority in science, but are reduced to you don't like him because he's a "sciencist" (which is perhaps relevant if we were discussing religion or metaphysics and not the scientific method) and he doesn't always follow his own advice. I'd say that's a concession to close on the basis that Sagan is a reliable source for the quote in the article. Banks Irk (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'm a scientist, so no that's not accurate. And taken at face value his advice is either meaningless (don't always trust authority!) or horrible (never believe anything you haven't personally observed). I do think we should close this, under the understanding that the current state of the article, as it was in 2017, with No carl sagan quote, is the correct one. because after that consensus was achieved, a sockpuppet of the minority viewpoint slowly changed the article against the consensus of multiple subject matter experts, in violation of their block. - car chasm (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Request to Close as incorrect venue, WP:NPOVN or WP:FTN would be a more appropriate venue as the question of whether Sagan is citeable at all isn't really the question here, it's whether or not he's biased or fringe. I don't plan on opening a discussion there unless the original person who brought this to this noticeboard continues to object on the article talk page. I somewhat suspect they won't be back though, there's a pattern with Carl Sagan and this article and noticeboard specifically. - car chasm (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This is hard to interpret in any way other than WP:FORUMSHOP. This is clearly the proper place for the question of whether a given source is reliable for a given claim. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Support the request to close. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is about whether a certain method should be used by scientists or not. Of course scientists understand that better than philosophers, they have to decide whether to use it every day, while philosophers are one or two steps removed from the problem. Sagan wrote several books about how to do science and how not to do it, and it is silly to say he was not an expert on the difference between both.
It cannot be that the expertise of scientists on how to do their own job is taken away from them by to a bunch of people whose work consists of sitting in armchairs and talking about stuff they only heard about from others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
No, the article is not about "whether a certain method should be used by scientists or not." The article is about a form of argumentation -- the argument from authority -- used in diverse settings (e.g., science, social science, art, public policy debates, advertising, ...), which has a fallacious form (e.g., when the ostensible authority is not an authority on the topic at hand) and a widely accepted form (when all agree that the person is a reliable authority). The argument from authority is not a scientific method. Part of the problem here is that the question was poorly worded initially. Sagan is a reliable source for scientific claims in areas where he has expertise (e.g., cosmology, astrophysics). But the question here is whether he's a reliable source for claims about the philosophy of science, and just as scientists understand the scientific methods in their field better than philosophers of science do, philosophers of science understand the philosophical issues better than the scientists do. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling It's fairly clear that you feel strongly about this, but it also seems that you understand that your viewpoint does not reflect the academic consensus? If you want to have an RFC to ban all philosophy of science coverage from wikipedia because you and others don't personally like it, I suppose you are welcome to do so, but I think that would violate WP:NPOV and is unlikely to win broader approval. - car chasm (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
"Ban", what nonsense. Maybe you should look up another fallacy: straw man.
I just do not want philosophers of science to have a monopoly on good reasoning. Galileo, another pop science writer, as you can see from the fact that he used Italian instead of Latin, said pretty scathing stuff about the argument from authority - the authority in his case was a philosopher, Aristoteles. Philosophers have no business of looking down their noses at scientists when scientists are the ones who have to kick the philosophers' butts every few centuries, telling them how to use their own branch of philosophy. The "reasoning - authority" dichotomy is a scientist's bread and butter, and it is pretty impertinent of philosophers to hog it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You seem to hold a belief in a naive kind of scientism, which in the context of the coverage of the philosophy of science on Wikipedia would probably fall under WP:FRINGE. Endwise (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
you feel strongly about this
You seem to hold a belief
Yeah, it's all my fault that you do want to reject my reasoning. Please ask yourselves: Why do you have to resort to fallacies such as straw man and ad hominem if you are right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
please don't accuse other editors of fallacies for simply being polite to you. you are plainly admitting here that you want to push your own POV about the relation between philosophy and science, that is not supported by an academic sources. - car chasm (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Car chasm that preferring scientists without any background in logic or philosophy over logicians and philosophers in articles about logic and philosophy will inevitably lead to promoting fringe. I also think that editors who personally believe that philosophers are unqualified to talk about science should stay far away from any Wikipedia article dealing with subjects relating to philosophy of science or logic/philosophy as applied in science. While it's perfectly legitimate to hold such a personal belief, it runs contrary to mainstream reliable sources, which do look to professional philosophers for such subjects. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not about "preferring". It is about "completely ignoring".
I "personally believe" that if someone has studied the field A, they are qualified for field A, and if someone has studied the field B, they are qualified for field B. Your claim that being a philosopher (field A) is a qualification for science (field B) is just the Dunning-Kruger effect speaking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I accuse editors of fallacies because they use fallacies, not because they are "polite". With the banning thing, you put words into my mouth, and that is a fallacy called straw man. Diverting attention from a user's reasoning to the user's alleged feelings is also a fallacy, called Red herring. I think it is remarkable that a group of people who claim knowledge about who is an expert on fallacies uses fallacies all the time. --09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that philosophy of science and science are two entirely different fields, each with their own expertise. The position you take that philosophy of science is dubious and that scientists are the proper authorities on philosophical issues related to science is fringe. You may hold this view, and you don't need to defend it here, but it simply is not acceptable from a WP:RS/NPOV perspective. The Dunning-Kruger comment is a pure personal attack. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not refuse that. To the contrary: My contribution was a response to your own fringe demand editors who personally believe that philosophers are unqualified to talk about science should stay far away from [..]. Philosophers are unqualified to talk about science unless they are scientists too. They may be qualified to talk about "philosophy of science", which is obviously different from science and mostly not very closely connected with science.
Scientists know how to do their job, and knowing the argument from authority is part of their job. The claim that this obvious fact is "fringe" is pretty unreal.
This leads too far away from the subject, and meaningful discussions with you are unlikely because you so often distort what people say, so I will leave it at that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Well by unqualified to talk about science I obviously meant talking about science from a logical/philosophical perspective. Philosophy of science, you know. It's a legitimate pursuit, and scientists qua scientists have no expertise in its issues, such as the validity of the argument from authority. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Argument from authority is an article about logic, which is a branch of philosophy. The relevant experts are logicians and philosophers, not astrophysicists and pop science authors like Carl Sagan. The fact that the relevant experts in this case purportedly 'sit in armchairs' is of no consequence: Wikipedia articles should be based on them. While non-experts may sometimes deserve a place in articles, the choice to use Sagan here appears to be entirely motivated by some kind of admiration for this popular author, not for Sagan's enlightening views on the subject. Arguments from authority in science were already criticized by Cicero (106–43 BCE), so to use someone like Sagan for this is entirely unnecessary, and frankly rather ridiculous. In fact, the whole 'Use in science' section here is superfluous and undue: the relevant experts do not pay any attention at all to such utterly trite observations as that scientists should check their evidence rather than blindly rely on authority. Rather, they focus on the logical and epistemological aspects of arguments from authority, and so should we. We are an encyclopedia, not a science education service targeted at young children. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree with this approach. It's an article about a form of argumentation that takes place in many domains, not just amongst logicians and philosophers. Understanding how this form of argumentation is perceived and used in areas other than among philosophers still has encyclopedic relevance. Deagonx (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Carl Sagan is certainly qualified as a source on the use of arguments from authority *as they are used in science*. And from the context of the quote, that is clearly what he is talking about - the science-approach of distrusting authority based arguments. As Hob above points out, philosphers do not have a monopoly on arguments from authority, either as an intellectual concept or in day-to-day practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps instead of Carl Sagan, who writes for a popular audience and had a fairly hands-off career, you'd rather an professional scientist who also worked in philosophy? Thomas Kuhn might be a good replacement. or Imre Lakatos. Both of them are scientists originally who made the transitions to philosophy, and should reasonably be considered experts in how arguments from authority are used in science.
    Or if Carl Sagan is such a famous scientist, and not simply a popularizer of science that many editors have heard of, perhaps you could explain for us some of his scientific discoveries? You might want to add them to his wikipedia page while you're at it, which clearly lacks much of any of them other than a few speculations about life on other planets. - car chasm (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
    Regardless of how you might feel about Sagan himself, it's obvious that nuking the entire page due to your personal grudge against him isn't appropriate. Such a sweeping revision (or a reversion to a five year old version of the page) is something that should've been discussed in the talk page. Deagonx (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    It looks like you're pretty new(?) to wikipedia, may I recommend that you take a look at WP:BRD and WP:STUBIFY? And no, I did not nuke the page solely because of Carl Sagan, the carl sagan quote just inspired me to take a closer look and I went through it line by line, and I made a post on the talk page about it. If an article is biased it sometimes makes sense to remove content that pushes a particular biased POV until a consensus is decided and a more neutral article can be written, even if some of the removed content might make sense on a final, balanced version of an article. Any content removed can be re-added by looking through the history, it isn't lost forever. Other than my own time lost spent with a close reading of the article there wasn't much at stake there, I have no desire to edit war and was willing to spend time being WP:BOLD even if it ultimately came to naught. - car chasm (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with User:Alanscottwalker. Review of Sagan in a philosophical journal evidences his work as being in the nature of a philosopher. There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy anyway, only endless arguments. Like this one. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:, Declaring my Bias, I almost love Carl Sagan. Having said that, Sagan was both a scientist and a science communicator. We can use Sagan's opinions when published in peer reviewed journals, but I think we shouldnt when he is publishing books or other media where he blends entertainment with scientific facts or philosophical arguments. Cinadon36 09:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Having given this some more thought, I've come to realize that this is one of those threads should never have come to RSN in the first place. One editor brazenly claimed in an edit summary that Carl Sagan is not a reliable source, and another editor took this to mean that their whole content dispute with the first editor could be solved by just showing that Sagan is a reliable source. But in fact, showing this does not solve the content dispute, whose substance does not turn on it.
Sure, Sagan is reliable in some contexts for basic facts about the scientific method and what not, but the question is rather whether it is helpful ('wp:due') to quote Sagan in this context, and actually more broadly whether all of the content removed and replaced by a 2017 revision here is helpful and due for a properly encyclopedic article. Discussion of that should proceed on the talk page, and the next step here (which does seem needed if editors would like to pursue this further, though I would actually advise against that) is an RfC rather than a noticeboard discussion.
Also remember that the best solution to problems of this kind is often to rewrite the entire article on a more solid basis. Surprisingly, that often takes less time and energy than endless bickering. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The Argus

Is The Argus (Brighton) considered a reliable source for BLP articles? It seems to have a deep controversies section, which makes me hesitant for it to be used in a BLP. It's also a local paper (not sure if that makes a difference). Thanks. — Czello 09:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Every single source is going to have controversies and occasionally publish incorrect things. One would need to judge The Argus against the standards of reliability as laid out at WP:RS, "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest." If The Argus corrects its mistakes and discloses COIs and has clearly stated editorial policies and identifiable editorial staff and the like, it's likely reliable enough, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Unless and until you can tell us what Wikipedia content is being cited to which Argus article, it's hard to make blanket statements as to whether any particular one use is good. --Jayron32 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Is the BLP a local matter or an outside matter? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It is a reasonably reputable local newspaper, one of the relatively few surviving publications from the golden age of local print newspapers in the UK. It's regulated by IPSO, who have occassionally ruled against it, so we can assume that inaccuracies are generally identified and corrected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Flags of the world

Specifically this page: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cn_sep.html

This website is used as a source for flags, but it is unclear how it obtains/verifies information about flags. In its disclaimer, it is warned that "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." However, many pages on Wikipedia use Flags of the World as a source.

On this FOTW page, the referenced origins of the flags are from Twitter, which is not reliable and one is Channel News Asia's Tweet but it doesn't mention the flag.

Reliable or not AAAAA143222 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats a non-expert SPS, we shouldn't use it for anything besides ABOUTSELF which seems to cover none of the current uses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Previous RSN discussion, not an RS [[18]] [[19]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is basically flag fanfic, per my comment here. Zaathras (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • NOT RS I've run into issues with this being used as if it's authoritative at flag of Afghanistan. Like Zaathras said, it's a hobby page. They guess about flags that they see in images from news reports and on the internet. It's more like "look at this cool new flag I saw, I wonder what it means" than any kind of comprehensive research. They admit this themselves as an accuracy disclaimer. Many of their flags come from Wikimedia Commons and anonymous accounts on Twitter. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

archive.is/archive.today

The site is widely used as a backup/archive mirror, but it is very sketchy. Nobody knows who owns it or operates it, or even which country is it associated with. See Talk:Archive.today#Ownership and like. Sure, in theory it is just a mirror, so we generaly care about sources archived in it, not the service, but I can't shake the feeling that this is suspicious. If there is a bad actor behind this service, they could manipulate archived data for their ends, etc. Should be discourage the use of this service (given that there is the reputable Internet Archive alternative)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus
Nobody knows who owns it or operates it, Such can be said for a lot of things both online and in real life. Out of all of the complaints about these sites that's the one that makes the least sense.
If there is a bad actor behind this service, they could manipulate archived data for their ends He has acknowleged this on his blog once, he said "the archive doesn't use strong anti-forging techniques" so it shouldn't be used as court evidence or something of the sort. But there is no reason to believe that he is manually editing archives.
Should be discourage the use of this service This misses the point a little. The whole point of these sites, at least to some, is that it does stuff the wayback machine doesn't do. Archive.today and Ghostarchive.org can bypass news paywalls, archive.today does a better job at Twitter, etc....... So for many of the archived pages the "reputable alternative" doesn't work. Rlink2 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
There's no evidence this site is a bad actor. None. As I noted in that #Ownership thread, it's typical for small archive providers to protect their anonymity so they are not attacked or sued by those seeking to force them to do things. Ghostarchive.org is another example. Large provides like Wayback have institutional and political support. We already favor Wayback over archive.today at least at the bot level, it only goes to archive.today when no other options exist. As for individuals, you can't stop someone from using it based on a "suspicion". Believe me I have watched them very closely for years, looking for any evidence of foul play and I have yet to see it personally or reported by anyone else indeed it has a loyal following globally. I have spoken to the owner many times, they comes across as privacy obsessed, extremely technically literate, helpful, politically neutral, and global in outlook. If someone wants to provide evidence of suspicion fine. GreenC 21:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@GreenC @Rlink2 I appreciate your responces. I also have no evidence of foul play, but I think the community should review this, so we have some concrete consensus to point out in the future - as well as a note that IF evidence of foul play arises, we will revisit this. Also, note that if this is an effectively one-person (or small group) project, "privacy-obsessed", without an open-source backup plan for its software and data, it is something that is very likely to disappear eventually, as the owner looses interest, or becomes unable to work on this for various reasons. In other words, it's a stop-gap solution. Consider the case of WebCite. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not clear there's presently a problem to action here, and certainly not any new news or issue that's arisen since the 2016 RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

PinoyParazzi

At David Licauco (BLP), can the following link from PinoyParazzi be relied on for date of birth, birth name, schooling, etc?

Disclaimer page: https://www.pinoyparazzi.net/disclaimer/ – Archer1234 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on that I would say no, but I am open to hearing what others say with the obvious understanding their might be information in other languages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Any other opinions on whether PinoyParazzi can be relied on for date of birth and other personal details? There is an edit war developing to change the birth date/year. – Archer1234 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I would not give too much weight to this disclaimer. Except for the statement in the first sentence that it is for entertainment purposes only (arguably appropriate for a website that seemingly focuses on entertainment news), it is all stuff that any reliable source would agree with, even if they don't necessarily spell it out. This is not to say that PinoyParazzi is reliable, just that its reliability should not be discounted for this reason.
Out of curiosity, I spent a few minutes looking at news stories that mention his age. Unfortunately, they are inconsistent. The Philippine Daily Inquirer said on 5 June 2019 that he was 23. The Philippine Star said on 20 July 2014 that he was 20, and it said on 28 July 2020 that he was 25. The Manila Standard Today said on 10 October 2022 that he was 28. I have not assessed the reliability of any of these sources. John M Baker (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable, especially for BLP. Pinoy Parazzi is a tabloid which covers scandal and gossip, it does not do the sort of reliable reporting that we need in oder to build good articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387&oldid=1138648660"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy