Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 398

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 395

Archive 396

→

Quoting from an unreliable source, when the unreliable source is cited by multiple reliable sources.

In the article Killing of Brianna Ghey, we have a sentence that originally read The Independent reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime.", citing this article. It's gone through a couple of revisions since then and currently reads According to the Independent, MailOnline reported that a parent of one of her school friends criticised the initial police statement, saying, "Let's be frank, she was bullied because of her sexuality. Of course this is a hate crime.", cited to the same article. The relevant paragraphs in the citation are the three paragraphs beginning from Damian Harry, who said his 15-year-old daughter, with the later two paragraphs being direct quotations from Harry that appear in a MailOnline article.

This was objected to on the article's talk page, as the original source of the quotation from Damien Harry is the MailOnline, and that Wikipedia should not be using any info sourced to a deprecated source, even indirectly. Is this the case? Are we unable to indirectly cite interview comments that first appeared in a deprecated source, when the same comments are re-reported in other reliable sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Think there is a policy/guideline/essay somewhere that says this but wouldn't it be the same as NYPost in Hunter Biden laptop controversy and Twitter Files with SUBSTACK/Twitter? The parts that are referenced by reliable sources can be used as they are placing their editorial integrity on the line. A similar policy here is restoring a banned editors edits, which the restoring editor then takes responsibility for. Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this has been addressed somewhere before, possibly somewhat recently on this noticeboard, I'll just be damned if I can find it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

For my part, it is my understanding that other considerations aside, so long as we are not directly citing the deprecated source and that the quotation has appeared in other reliable sources, we are allowed to include that content. I'm almost certain a similar issue to this was discussed on this noticeboard at some point in the not so recent past, however my search-fu of the archives has so far been unable to find that discussion. And because we are anonymously quoting, summarising and attributing this to a parent of a friend of Brianna's, we are not putting anything into Wikivoice as a fact.

While I wasn't able to find the past discussion from this noticeboard, I did discover two other examples (Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and Stabbing of Salman Rushdie) where we are indirectly citing the MailOnline through other reliable sources.

Finally, I'm aware that neither the current nor original sentences are ideal. If there is a consensus that we can indirectly cite the MailOnline, then that sentence will be rephrased into one that's more natural to read. However because of this current issue that could result in the removal of the sentence, we've not spent any time yet on writing a replacement. So it's safe to assume that once this question has been answered, the sentence will either be removed or rephrased as required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, performing research on sources we would consider unreliable and using their fact-checking (backed by their reputation) to produce reliable reporting out of it is part of the point of a WP:RS; obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all. The one caveat is that it's important to rely on what the proximate (actually reliable) source says - sometimes there are situations where someone first writes something using a non-WP:RS, then it gets replaced with a RS quoting that non-RS, but the original text is never rewritten to reflect what the RS itself says. If the WP:RS cites a non-RS in a way that is clearly skeptical or cautious, we have to be careful to reflect that in our wording; likewise, if they cite it in a way that balances out different viewpoints we have to be careful to reflect that balance overall and not pull one part out in an undue manner. --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
In this specific circumstance, neither the Mail nor Independent have made commentary on what Damian Harry said. Both sources just quote his words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

obviously something from an RS can't be dismissed simply because it is reporting on something from a non-RS, or we wouldn't be able to cover anything at all. This is interesting, there's a trio of related articles (related to each other, not the article that spawned this discussion) that I may need to bring here after this, where an editor has been excluding content from reliable sources because they are reporting factually on something that first appeared in an non-RS. In that circumstance, the proximate sources state something as factual, that we're currently reporting on with far more scepticism than any of the reliable sources on the topic report it on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that our article expressing skepticism under that circumstance would be appropriate at all. Second-guessing the methodology and fact-checking of a source (including by saying eg. "they shouldn't have trusted X, and they obviously just copy-pasted from there with no fact-checking) is inappropriate WP:OR. Of course I'd have to see the source, the text in question, etc. and so on, but generally-speaking I don't think we're supposed to second-guess the sources used by sources, and that discussing them generally veers into WP:OR (no differently than questioning a paper's methodology.) If people believe skepticism exists they should find sources expressing that skepticism, rather than making the argument themselves in talk and then inserting that into the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That was my thinking on this as well. I'll drop you a message on your talk page when I make another RSN discussion for it later. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources regularly cite things Wikipedia considers to be unreliable sources all the time; it's a basic way that journalism operates. Journalists work with primary sources that we would not consider reliable for facts—one-on-one interviews with witnesses to a crime committed by a living person, public databases, archives of blogposts, ISIS propaganda, OSINT twitter accounts, press releases, etc.—and use them to construct an article that is consistent with their newsroom's standards. Think of how news organizations handle coverage of civil legal disputes: if there are two sides of a legal dispute, for example, the written statements of a plaintiff (such as a motion for summary judgement) is not WP:RS for whether or not those charges are based in fact, and neither would be a defense attorney's writings in court patently denying all of the plaintiff's allegations. Typically, news organizations will describe what each side is arguing, quoting from each side in a dispute and providing each side some weight, and the news article might also provide additional context on its own regarding the facts in the case. It seems pretty straightforward how we'd deal with that in an article.

WP:RS/QUOTE notes that To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If a reliable secondary source is reporting on a quote from a primary source document, then we should look to verify the quote in the primary source and we should cite both. If we have access only to the secondary source, we have to state where we actually got the quote from, and we obviously can't cite the primary source. To continue with the example above, if we have access to the writings of the defense attorney and the prosecutor, and the news organization made an obvious error in quoting one of them, then we should use common sense (for example, if the newsorg accidentally introduces a typo like "we are seeking to expedite the trial" to "we are seeking to expedite the trail", then we can just cite both the newsorg and the original document and use the correct quote).

In any case, I think that a similar logic would apply to when reputable news organizations publish articles contain quotes from text written in the voice of tabloids or other news agencies that we would not consider to be reliable; the news organization has chosen to give the quote some weight, and we should faithfully represent that. The logic becomes a bit more stretched when we're dealing with a reliable news group quoting an unreliable tabloid who is quoting a parent who themselves a 15 year-old who new the victim and is making specific criminal allegations against living people, albeit two people whose identities are probably sub judice so the BLP considerations are probably lower than they would otherwise be. I'd be inclined to think this is more of a WP:DUE issue; is the specific quote from the 15 year-old something that's give a bunch of weight in sources? I would generally tend towards exclusion on the quote in favor of prose description (something like A parent of one of Ghey's friends, speaking with the Daily Mail, alleged that the killing was a hate crime.... Police initially stated that they had no evidence supporting the claim that this was a hate crime, but since have opened an investigation as to whether or not the killing may be a hate crime. might work better based off of a general reading of the article in The Independent) but again that's more of a weight/style question on the specific words.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the quotation as it originally appeared and subsequently reused in other sources is from the father of one of Brianna's friends, not from the friend. While DUE issues are a bit out of scope for this noticeboard, two RS have included the same "Let's be frank" comments that originally appeared in the MailOnline: The Independent and LGBTQ Nation. Other quotations from the same father have appeared in various RS over the last few days, and he has appeared on camera on Sky News and I believe both BBC and Channel 4, though clips of the later two are not easy to search for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

National First Ladies' Library biographies

Link: National First Ladies' Library – First Ladies Research

These online biography pages are used in several articles for United States first ladies, and I've used them a few times myself. It seems to be a legitimate organization, but I've stopped using it lately because I'm having trouble finding information about how the biographies were written. It would be really helpful if a few other editors could weigh in on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

These are tertiary sources, and probably fairly credible (on par with a museum or public library article), but should be used sparingly as citations, and not used as the sole source for any particularly surprising or controversial facts. Simplified tertiary sources like these are very good for evaluating due weight to give various aspects of a biography. Presumably every fact in them can be found in greater detail in academic sources: when possible we should find and cite those instead. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Lipstick Lesbian Pride Flag controversy

This sourcing issue affects five articles, Lesbian flags, Pride flag, Biphobia, History of lesbianism in the United States, but has been discussed in most detail on Talk:Lesbian flags.

Back in 2010, a blogger named Natalie McCray designed the Lipstick lesbian pride flag. This flag has had a bit of a controversial reception within the LGBT+ community, some felt the flag was not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others pointed out controversial comments made by the designer on her former blog.

At present, Lesbian flags states that Some lesbians have argued that the lipstick flag is butch-phobic, while others oppose its use due to controversial comments allegedly made by the flag's designer on her blog. Pride flag and Lipstick lesbian state that However, it has not been widely adopted; some lesbians have not adopted the flag because it is not inclusive of butch lesbians, while others have accused McCray of writing allegedly biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments on her blog. Biphobia states that some lesbians are against it because McCray’s blog had biphobic (and racist and transphobic) comments, and because it does not include butch lesbians. And History of lesbianism in the United States states Note that the lipstick lesbian flag has not been widely adopted; some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.

All variations of the text cite the same sources: a 2015 After Ellen article, and Refinery 29, with the After Ellen cited for the flag's lack of widescale use, and Refinery 29 for the controversial comments by the flag's creator. Of the controversy, Refinery 29 states Some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because McCray's blog includes racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments, and because the pink colours and "lipstick lesbian" terminology don't include butch lesbians. however three of the articles state this in more uncertain terms.

The discrepancy between the cited source, and the article text was previously raised on the lesbian flag talk page, where several other reliable sources were discussed and excluded because those sources cited sources we consider unreliable (various social media, and Medium blogs). This included exclusion of a 2019 Cosmopolitan article (later updated in 2021), and a Yahoo!Sports rehosting of a June 2021 Women's Health article (which was updated in June 2022).

Two questions. Should the Cosmopolitan and Women's Health articles have been excluded because their ultimate source for information, after traversing through the levels, was a series Tumblr and Medium blog posts? Is the Refinery29 article strong enough that we should be less sceptical in our content across all five articles that include mention of the Lipstick flag? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are some other sources that would have been pre-emptively excluded on this particular controversial flag

Nonchalant Magazine, which said McCray has also been known to write some pretty controversial stuff on her blog, including what others have deemed as racist, transphobic, and biphobic comments.
Symbolsage which said Furthermore, designer McCray was said to have posted racist, biphobic, and transphobic comments in her now-deleted blog.
EqualLOVE which said Some lesbians also oppose use of any flag revised from the lipstick original because its designer Natalie McCray reportedly wrote racist, biphobic and transphobic comments on a her blog. And some lesbians oppose the use of this flag because the pink colors and “lipstick lesbian” terminology don’t include butch lesbians.
POP!, a subpublication of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (a Philippine newspaper of record) which said This design was further forgotten when the creator of this in 2010, Natalie McCray was known to have transphobic and racist ideologies.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine for publications to link to social media sources for discussion of something. I don't think it's a reason to exclude reliable sources discussing a topic, particularly when the topic was formed through things involving social media and personal websites. And the sources all seem to concur on the lack of support for the 2010 lipstick lesbian flag within the community both for its exclusion of certain groups and the community's distaste for the creator. There seems to be no alternative views in RS' on this subject. If anything, just saying "Some lesbians" might be too reductive, since the sources appear to indicate a much stronger community repudiation of the flag. Silver seren^C 02:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The question seems to miss an essential point and fundamental question about reliable sources. What is the text for which the source being cited as a reference? If I understand the foregoing wall of text, these reliable sources are cited to support the proposition that a "lipstick lesbian" flag was proposed on a blog, that it has not been widely adopted, and some people object to it as insufficiency inclusive. These sources are unquestionably reliable for those propositions. That the sources link to the original blog or to other SPSs is irrelevant, as are allegations of bias about the original blogger. We do not censor or "preemptively" exclude content on Wikipedia because of bias, real or imagined. Banks Irk (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There's three versions of the text, across the five articles, listed in the second paragraph of the "wall of text". Ideally I'd want to unify this into a single version for all five articles, to something like the version that appears on History of lesbianism in the United States and currently reads some lesbians are against it because it does not include butch lesbians, and because McCray’s blog had biphobic, racist, and transphobic comments.

However given the pre-existing issues on exclusion of reliable sources, and that the current version of the text in three articles was made more sceptically phrased citing WP:LIBEL (changed here before propagating to other articles) than the source being used to support it, I've not wanted to draft or propose a replacement issue until the sourcing problem has been resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Smarthistory

This is a somewhat unusual (though I hope not unwarranted) RS thread on Smarthistory (www.smarthistory.org), as the source has not been challenged to the best of my knowledge. Nonetheless, I think it merits its own discussion to offer WP:CONSENSUS precedent moving forward in case doubts appear. It has recently grown into one of the most extensive and accessible sources for art history, architectural history, and global visual cultures; I myself have used this source multiple times in various articles due to its reliability and peer-review process. However, I am also aware that the format and visual layout of the page, along with its admittedly blog-like name, can at first appear unreliable and possibly discourage potential new editors from relying on it as a resource for WP:VISUALARTS. There is already a dearth of high quality art historical content on many global subjects (despite, of course, some excellent GAs and FAs, most of which focus on Western art history). I am looking forward to hearing other editors' thoughts. Thanks so much. Ppt91 (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their "Our Mission", "Content editors and contributors", and the page on how to contribute an essay, leaves in little doubt that this is a reliable source. They also run a blog site that should probably be handled with a little more care, but would be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks. That is what I always assumed, which is why I have been on the fence whether to even open this noticeboard thread at all. So, I am happy to see the first vote being unequivocal in its support. Ppt91 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check

What is the reliability of Media Bias/Fact Check? The Cite Unseen says its unreliable. An IP editor claims it is credible Special:Diff/1139970652 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We even have a nice little shortcut for that one: WP:MBFC. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah of course. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You could have checked the main article on this website, which points out that it an an "amateur attempt at categorizing media bias". And that the website's owner has stated that "his methods are not rigorously objective." Basically, Media Bias reflects his subjective views. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Unlike the Media Bias Chart by Ad Fontes, they don't have any formal training, a large team, or repeated and careful measurements, analysis, and statistics. That's why it's strange that the Ad Fontes chart isn't rated better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Ad Fontes chart continues to not be good either. It promotes a false equivalency between MSNBC and CNN, that are generally reliable, versus the mostly unreliable Fox, NY Post, and Daily Mail. Andre🚐 03:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media is mostly a centrist political organization with its own biases. As pointed in the main article: It "promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political 'center' as being without bias, and reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes 'news' in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn't already hold a comparable view of the media landscape." Dimadick (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look at the chart and it separates CNN and FOX into web and TV and on that basis it isn't too bad in is assessment, though I think the latest revelation in the Dominion case indicate FOX should be lower and more to the right. I think the basic problem is that Trump has shifted the middle to the right a bit if you count the middle by just taking averages rather than as any sort of fixed standard. The news media tend to censor or bias a lot of the news anyway so they don't offend their readers or sponsors. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Techdirt

In editing an article on The Washington Post, I found the website TechDirt used as a source. Upon investigating TechDirt, I found it to be nothing more than a large-scale, multi-user blog.

Quoting from the "About Us" section of the website, it is clear that the website is an opinion blog and not at all a reliable source for information:

"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies' ability to innovate and grow.

The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 74,000+ posts''."

Based upon the fact that TechDirt is a blog, I propose that it be included on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. I eagerly await your participation in this discussion. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's a blog then WP:BLOG applies and it should be handled as any other self published source, but there's no need to deprecate it. Looking at a few authors/posts I'd say it's generally unreliable, but it could be if the author was otherwise recognised as a subject matter expert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Functionally, yes, it's a group blog. Mostly Masnick, some other authors including Glyn Moody, who's a respectable freelance journalist. Funding from a pile of venture capitalists. I wouldn't use it for controversial stuff, but you'd need more than "it's a blog!" to swing deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I would think hard before using it on Wikipedia, but I have been a reader, and found it accurate in tech areas where I have training. Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't be more pleased to have received the input of other editors in considering this source. ActivelyDisinterested is correct in concluding that WP:BLOG applies here. That policy states that "...group blogs...are largely not acceptable as sources." However, I also acknowledge the value in the opinions of David Gerard and Elinruby. My opinion remains that it should be deprecated, but I acknowledge that as a retired journalist and editor of 40+ years, I am a purist where that kind of thing is concerned with more of a "black or white" approach. In the spirit of collaboration and consensus, and based upon the opinions of the editors who have responded, I propose that, instead of labeling TechDirt as "deprecated," that it be included on this list as a "generally unreliable" (WP:GUNREL) source. That label supports all of the opinions posted herein and leaves the door open for use if someone such as a respected journalist posts in the blog. Can we reach a consensus on that? Thank you and all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarydaleEd (talk • contribs)

Techdirt doesn't meet our sourcing policies, but it is not egregiously bad - certainly no worse than many other blogs that we don't bother to put on the Perennial sources list. It doesn't require any special handing, so I see no reason to single them out in this way. - MrOllie (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, MrOllie. I think TechDirt should be included because it is becoming a well-known blog and even in my small area of influence I hear it referenced as a source of information. ("I read in TechDirt yesterday that blah, blah, blah.) I don't run in particularly tech-heavy circles, which is why I see that website's influence rising. Since I don't know whether you were previously aware of the website, I will take into consideration the other editors (including me) who have responded here, and of the four, two of us know their site. A small number, I grant you, but that is 50 percent. I respect your point of view and am happy to acquiesce if that is the consensus. As for me, I believe we should get in front of such trends instead of lagging behind them. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a well known blog, I've read it and I think even cited it at some occasons. Bu yes, it is a blog (a fact I don't think I realized until now). I think I would second what ActivelyDisinterested said. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd put it a category similar to Snopes. See discussion of that source here. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Is unrevealedfiles.com an RS for astronomy?

Specifically 1 as used in Heliocentrism#Rishi Yajnavalkya. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not an RS, it's a one-person blog, and thus WP:SPS, and not an expert SPS. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s also my opinion. I’ll revert. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Predatory

Is this journal reliable? 2 a few google searches call it predatory. Thanks. Magherbin (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

See Longdom. I.e., a big fat no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Magherbin (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ratings Ryan

Is Ratings Ryan a reliable source for episode viewership ratings?

I first stumbled across the site while visiting the article South Park (season 1), after realising that the list was making a contradiction about the viewership ratings of the first episode (0.89 million) comparing to the number given by the article on that episode (0.98 million). While the latter cites a book, the list cites this page from the Ratings Ryan blog. This was before I noticed that all the pages from season 1 to season 10 also cited that exact page, affecting the list of South Park episodes (check reference 20 (permalink)). Concerned over the reliability of the blog, I started a discussion on the talk page of the list, pinging the editor that added them (diffs:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10), before searching the blog name in Wikipedia (in quotation marks) and realising that other episode lists cited it too: Futurama; Breaking Bad; Big Brother (1 2); Jimmy Neutron; Yes, Dear; 8 Simple Rules; Monk; Friday Night Lights; Murder, She Wrote and the list goes on (I haven't checked whether this editor added references to the blog in these other lists).

I first considered posting this in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but the fact that this source is being cited in so many pages and the apparent extensive information present in the blog makes me think whether this is a special case (where the blog is reputable or written by a subject-matter expert for instance). However, I can't find any evidence of this. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, there aren't many past Wikipedia discussions mentioning it (1 2). ObserveOwl (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOG and 3, not a WP-good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I've started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Removal of references to a blog to try to remove these citations. Thank you. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree we're looking at a blog. Nothing which should be considered reliable. When cleaning it out, please note if any particular users have been introducing the source, and don't be shy about calling on me if you notice anything fishy. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have to ask - I'm not a TV editor, but what would the replacement be? While I would certainly hesitate to use a SPS, my limited understanding is that Nielsen does not publish ratings openly. --Rs chen 7754 01:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Collider.com a credible source?

I am wondering BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to clear a minimum hurdle, but reliability is always in a context that includes publication, author, and claim. Sennalen (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

BananaBreadPie12: It has an editorial team and editorial policies, and it appears to be a well-respected entertainment news outlet. You should be fine using it to source things about entertainment. With that said, it might not be good enough for the sentence you added to Shrek 2. The Collider article is just the opinion of one writer, and it doesn't prove that anything is "widely regarded" or that "many people" think something. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the layout, this seems to be a Valnet source. Note that other sources of this company such as Screen Rant and Game Rant are situational sources (marginally reliable). — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedia editors used as a source

OP is LTA sock

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

I wasn't sure whether to post this here, at NPOV, fringe, or elsewhere, as it seems to be violating every policy.

I noticed here an editor claiming that Arthur Jensen, one of the most accomplished individuals in psychology, is a fringe source.4

Following the reference, we find a survey of Wikipedia editors on the question of whether the view that any component of race and intelligence differences is genetic is fringe. 5 The vast majority of editors there effectively simply write "yes" with no attempt to survey the field. The few that do survey the field engage in rather obvious cherry picking. I would also note that it seems odd to declare an individual fringe because one of their views is considered fringe, by Wikipedia editors or experts. Jensen's contributions to the field went well beyond race and intelligence.

Here we have a survey of experts in the field, rather than Wikipedia editors, which produces a quite different result. 6

Which survey should take precedence according to the reliable sources policy? Dretynit (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

which produces a quite different result This is not surprising, since is was answering a different question: not race and intelligence differences, but intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Anarchist Federation website as a source for facts on BLP article Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

UNRELIABLE

Strong consensus that this is an unreliable source, especially for use in a BLP. nableezy - 16:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I'm concerned regarding the use of This source on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. The source is from anarchistfederation.net, which self-describes as an automated news aggregator run by the Online Anarchist Federation. I recently removed content sourced to this website, as it appears to be a self-published press release of an organization with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Newimpartial decided to restore the source.

I think that the source has no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I have been told by Newimpartial that I am clearly not familiar with anarchist doctrines of individual and collective accountability and that the source carries at least the standing of a blog entry by someone who is known and who has a track record of self-publication on related issues over time.

Is this a reliable source for content in that BLP article? I'd like to say it's not reliable, but I figure I'd prefer the community weigh in on this specific use case given that this disagreement cannot be swiftly resolved on the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the text sourced to the anarchist SPS is not content about an identifiable living person, nor is it stated in Wikivoice. The text in question reads as follows:

The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.

This is not sensitive BLP content, and adds detail to discussion of an event that is already included in the article based on independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be contentious content in a BLP, and I really do not think this is the sort of source that should be used for contentious claims anywhere on Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As noted below, 'anarchistfederation.net' is not the source, the Anarchist Federation (Britain) is. We should not be debating the reliability of the former since it's immaterial.

Recommendation for best practice: editors should not cite them directly, but cite the original source the organization re-published from, based on how well that meets WP:RS standards, just like any other news aggregator TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLP leads you to interpret this account as "contentious BLP content"? I am perplexed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you not understand how this is contentious material? I'm frankly quite confused here if you don't. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If you can see a contentious statement in that article text that concerns a specific living person, I'd be very interested to know what that is. Newimpartial (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Linking a living person to Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. is clearly controversial, and requires strong, secondary sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand your argument here. I'm not implying that Keen's supporters are zombies or ultraterrestrials, but WP:BLP doesn't apply to such groups. The event in question is documented in RS here; it isn't something the anarchists simply claim to have bappened. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is about a BLP, if the content is not about the BLP, then it runs against WP: OR and is still a BLP issue. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It isn't OR when the relationship between the subject and the event is established in WP:RS, which is true in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Except you have to cite a reliable source this is directly related to the subject of the article. The subject of the article in this case is a living person. So BLP applies to determining whether the source is reliable. Either it's not related and OR, or is related and subject to BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the source that currently establishes that connection, in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That you can provide a hook for a coatrack doesn't meant it's not OR. Either the content that the source is being used for is related to the BLP, which makes BLP apply, or it doesn't and it's OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable Unusually clear case of a source not being reliable, surprised it comes up to discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are you unfamiliar with WP:USESPS? Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  - I am very well familiar with it. Are you familiar with WP:BLUDGEON? Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    No. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This a non-neutral way to raise the issue and not even relevant.

For a start, as you note, anarchistfederation.net is a news aggregator. They republish material from other publications, so assessing the inclusion of such articles should be based on where it's republished from, not the anarchistfederation itself.

The source in question is the Anarchist Federation (Britain), who protested an event of Keen's, and the material sourced to them is an attributed statement as to 1) how they would characterize Keen/why they're protesting and 2) who were the other groups in attendance/that they collaborated with. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it's a primary, self-published source. Shouldn't be used in a BLP, and even in a non-BLP it wouldn't have any weight without secondary coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to specific statements about living people, not to BLP articles. I'm tired of seeing experienced editors make that mistake. Newimpartial (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In the very lead of WP:BLP, it says Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. I'm really not understanding where the confusion is on your end. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't material challenged or likely to be challenged. This is material you removed on grounds of WP:CRYBLP, although it doesn't require BLP sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

BLP applies to everything about biographies of living people. Unbalancing an article by using bad sources is most definitely a BLP violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't require that non-BLP claims be sourced to BLP-compliant sources. I get that balance needs to be based on the balance of coverage in independent, reliable sources, but that isn't the question raised by RTH's filing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm in two minds here. And while I realise BLPN is that way, and that this is overall a discussion on whether or not a source is reliable, given the assertions on BLP I think it important to discuss or at least address this.

On the one hand I think I can see Newimpartial's point. This particular quotation is about a group of people, which would be excluded from BLP requirements by WP:BLPGROUP, depending on its size and editorial consensus determined on a case-by-case basis. I can also see their point about how the BLP policy applies to all content about living people, and is not specifically tied to biographies. This can be summed up as: any article can contain content about one or more living people without becoming a biography, and biographies about living people can contain non-biographical content.

On the other, I can also see the points by Red-tailed hawk, ScottishFinnishRadish and Animalparty, the article is unquestionably a biography of a living person and so should by inference and common sense be covered by the BLP policy, as that is the policy that covers content on living people.

The reason why I'm in two minds is that I can't see an obvious way to reconcile either of these two interpretations of the policy. There does not seem to be any direct or explicit guidance in the text of WP:BLP that covers the applicability of the BLP policy on (potentially) non-BLP content that appears in a biographical article of a living person. Looking at I'm not even sure if we have an essay on how the BLP policy interacts with non-BLP content in a biography. And assuming I'm not missing something obvious or not so obvious in my reading of the policy, and related essays, maybe this is something that we need to discuss in general terms at BLPN?

However, in general editorial practice, we do generally write our biographies conservatively as there are all sorts of risks whenever we get biographical content wrong. As such I would err on the side of caution and tentatively agree with the points raised by RTH, SFR, and AP that this content can be objected to on good faith BLP grounds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My explanation of the principle was made at the article Talk page:

We are not, for example, forbidden from mentioning when an organization was founded, in an article about an activist or leader in that organization, just because we may have difficulty finding a source that gives SIGCOV to the leader while also mentioning the founding date. Even a SPS could be used for such information.

7 Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the type of content in that example is generally (but not always) less controversial than the content we're discussing here on KJKM's followers at a protest. It's kinda an apples to oranges comparison you're making there I'm afraid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The point of the example is to show the absurdity of "only BLP-compliant sources in BLP articles regardless of the specific content to be sourced". My intention was not to draw a precise parallel to the article text in question. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable. This is an extremely questionable source. Where is the evidence AF has a reputation for accurately reporting news, and/or is taken seriously by others (outside of AF)? It is simply self-published, user-generated content. It can't be a self-published subject matter expert, since we don't even know the name of the author. and yes, anarchistfederation.net is a 'news aggregator', in this case they aggregated this article from, guess who, Anarchist Federation (Bristol chapter). It really carries no more weight or reliability than a random guy walking by, taking notes, and posting his experience on Facebook. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it simply doesn't come from a reliable source. This is how rumors and falsehoods spread. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the account by an anarchist collective concerning an event its members attended. It doesn't need to be an independent source so long as the content is correctly attributed in arrticle text, which it definitely is. A collective has a track record over time and a reputation at stake as a random guy walking by, taking notes does not, so your parallel fails in the respects that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Please provide the secondary reliable sources that demonstrate that inclusion is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the source used in the current article version. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You're using the source that says This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course. To shoe-horn in a primary sps painting the article subject in a negative light, rather than summarizing the secondary source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
In my view the report from the anarchists adds balance to that one-sided summary. I don't see any reason in policy not to include such accounts, not in Wikivoice, where they do not raise actual BLP concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
That is pure OR, since it's your view, and not that of a secondary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not proposing any article content that includes WP:OR or SYNTH. There is nothing wrong with holding my own critical opinions about media sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Facebook is a different example than an organization publishing a statement on something it was involved in. I'm not convinced on its reliability either way, but I think the best thing to do is re-scrutinize relevant policy and trawl the archives for past discussions on whether it's acceptable to use an attributed self-published statement from an organization involved in a notable protest. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not a useable source. What we're looking at is a primary (written by a party to the event), self-published, and obviously biased source. This source wouldn't be usable in any article, and certainly falls far below the bar for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- That isn't true, given that RS already document that the event occurred, and given that the anarchist collective can be reliably counted on to give its own view of what happened. WP:USESPS doesn't really speak effectively about collective authorship, but the same reputational factors apply that would in the case of an individual reporting events in the course of many years. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  The secondary source that says This weekend’s scenes are typical of such events, where physical intimidation and vandalism directed at gender-critical groups are now par for the course. or a different one? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  Please see my reply above; I'm trying to minimize BLUDGEON here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not reliable for the reasons SFR notes. Also, the notion that Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground is not contentious BLP content beggars belief. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
In what sense is this a claim about a living person? Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Keen and her supporters are living people. Levivich (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no statement there about Keen, and anonymous human beings are not covered by WP:BLP. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If there is 'no statement about Keen', what is it doing in the Keen biography? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The connection of the event to the subject is established in this RS. I get that the level of detail to include about the event can be questioned, but that isn't the question RTH asked. Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe stick to what the reliable secondary sources say, rather than not using the secondary source for anything but trying to open the door for bad sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any basis in policy for your interpretation; it looks from here like a rationalization you had made before reading either of the relevant sources or the versions of article text concerned. Of course, I may be wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Andy identifies the weakness in this argument. Tbh, I would support TBANing from BLPs anyone who makes this kind of argument. Seriously, if an editor is arguing that in an article about Keen, a statement about "Keen's supporters" doing horrible things is not a statement about Keen, then the editor lacks the necessary competence to edit sensitive BLP content like this. More likely, the editor is just willing to make an overly-pedantic argument that they know is nonsense in order to win a content dispute, but that also doesn't bode well for editing in sensitive topic areas like this. I urge everybody to get into the spirit of BLP rather than trying to wikilawyer BLP. Same thing about getting into the spirit of WP:RS, and abandon wikilawyering arguments about collective authorship. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If your issue is with the characterization of those hurling abuse as "Keen's supporters", I am fine to take that out of the article. What matters to me is describing what happened at the event to the extent we can, given the sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The source concerned doesn't meet WP:RS. Not remotely. Not for anything. It cannot be used as a source for 'what happened at the event', in any Wikipedia article, BLP or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
It isn't being used for what happened at the event it is describing what happened at the event according to some (anarchist) participants. It is unquestionably reliable for that.

Levivich, I made this edit to respond to your concern expressed here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not base article content on random assertions from unidentified individuals as reported in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
You seem to under the misapprehension that anarchist collectives are unidentified individuals who make random asseertions. And you sound grumpy about it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The only misapprehension here seems to be yours - that you stand the slightest chance of winning this argument through relentless bludgeoning of the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
That has not been my assumption. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, Andy, this retributive revert does not seem healthy and looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not concern any contentious material, it removes stable article content, and it does not reflect any consensus about the source. The publisher in question has effective editorial oversight and has been in operation for more than a century - I suggest that you self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, you can't seriously be arguing that this source is a proper RS, especially for BLP content. Levivich (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Why not? The publisher has been around for a very long time; it has a good reputation and effective editorial oversight. What do you have against anarchists? Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Because https://freedomnews.org.uk/2019/05/18/some-thoughts-on-bristol-university-disciplinary-action-against-trans-student/ is an opinion piece. How did you miss that? Levivich (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think it was, since the portion I restored wasn't opinion coverage. But now I see Comment. Interestingly, nobody had raised that issue until now (that I'd seen). It is WP:RSOPINION, and so not usable for facts: you were right for the wrong reason. :p Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
When the headline is "Some thoughts on...", that typically indicates an op-ed :-P Levivich (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
We're expected to read headlines, now? Merde. I always go right to the publication's masthead, then the article text supporting the arricle content. Oof. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not even remotely reliable. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how anyone who has ever read WP:RS should even need to ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not reliable. About as obvious as it gets—remove on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I removed the section from the article in question based on the very clear consensus here that the Anarchist Federation is not a reliable source for anything in the article in question. Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Unclear The website used in the citation, anarchistfederation.net is an auto-aggregator of "daily news" from multiple worldwide anarchist collectives. They have a tech team who keep the site working, and they don't seem to publish their own content directly. The original non-aggregated source appears to be an article by Anarchist Federation (UK). I do see a basic editorial policy on the AFUK site, which states that submissions are accepted on a “trust first and correct the mistakes” basis and which implies that while they don't fact-check prior to publication ("trust first"), they do accept and make corrections ("correct the mistakes"). The only reason why I'm unclear is that I've not seen any editor demonstrate use by others, nor that AFUK have a reputation for accurately reporting UK anarchist related news. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Ignoring anarchistfederation.net, which has no reliability as it's just an aggregator, the original source is a self published source. It's AFUK talking about AFUK. The quote from WP:SPS is Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. The details being reported aren't about the living person, so it can be used but would have to be attributed as it's a primary source. However it's obviously trying to pass guilt by association, and is likely undue in the article about Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull. That though is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, all statements made from this source in former article versions were fully attributed to the source. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not reliable, especially since the content cited to it is deliberately drawing a deeply negative connection to a BLP. I'm surprised anyone would defend it. JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The final version of text drew no such connection:

The Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation reported that demonstrators had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground. They reported that other attendees included the Industrial Workers of the World, feminist collectives, queer student groups, action medics, legal observers, three different climate groups, anti-fascists, and other leftists.

That said, no text based on this source is in the article, any longer. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

...Surely you aren't claiming the BLPVIO is neutralized simply by removing Keen's name from a recap of a demonstration that was tied to her enough to be DUE in her biography? The extent of your idiosyncratic interpretations of P&Gs is becoming deeply troubling. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The demonstration is tied to her by The New Statesman, as noted above. How is additional information, attributed to the source, giving one group's account of the demonstration a potential BLPVIO? This seems bizarre to me - no source suggests that the clash didn't happen, an independent source says it did, and this non-independent source is used for information that does not characterize the BLP subject in any way. It seems that editors are used to CRYBLPing to discount sources that they don't want to include, even when these sources are used for policy-compliant inclusions. Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

So summarizing a Focus on the Family blogpost to describe a drag show performance is totally fine in the performer's bio if it's attributed, right? Come TF on. JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, but a blog post about anti-drag show demonstrations could certainly be used, with attribution, to add detail to article coverage of such an event. Newimpartial (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What you are arguing is that such a blog post could be used in a BLP, despite it containing material that casts the BLP in a very negative light. This is outrageously non-compliant with policy. JoelleJay (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a description of what others did at an event can cast a living person in a negative light, unless their actions are attributed to that person in some way.

That said, of course I will respect the consensus that this content be excluded. Since last night, I have just being rebutting WP:CRYBLP arguments that mis-state the P&G. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is indisputably at odds with consensus. Keen's supporters had called counter-protestors "trannies" and "faggots", had pushed into the counter-protestors, and had grabbed a child and pushed them to the ground absolutely falls under biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. How is a description of demonstrators' behaviors at a Keen rally DUE here if it's not intended to provide context on Keen? Do you believe readers get a neutral or positive impression of Keen from that statement? If not, how can you claim it isn't material challenged or likely to be challenged, or that it doesn't have the possibility of harm? Policy says to beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and states "See also" links...should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person; the above content is exactly the type of insinuation addressed here and unless an editor has severe competence issues it should be clear implications of contentious association are not acceptable elsewhere in the article either. The same goes for the use of shitty sources in BLPs in general: if Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, where they obviously are not attached to info directly covering the subject, why would they be acceptable when cited inline? JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The above content isn't what I reverted in after the BLP issue was raised; it was this text, and no, I don't see any possibility of harm to a BLP subject. The passage in question is an attributed account by a reputable organization that neither casts insinuations about the BLP subject nor was its relevance to the article questioned by any editor at the time it was discussed. The objection to the adjusted passage was purely to the sourcing, by an editor who was misapplying the requirements of BLP to material that is not contentious material about a living person. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That content is in the diff you link. Your stunning inability to recognize that that passage is biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and ... poorly sourced is grounds for a CIR/TENDENTIOUS block. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I was attempting a two-edit diff and failed. I removed the objectionable bit once I understood the objection minutes later. User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You are still bludgeoning. It may be wise to drop the stick. It seems you are willfully ignoring the WP:PAG against sources you want to include. You want to add/retain the primary source accounts of an organization with no established reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial discretion, seemingly merely because they were there and happened to have blogged about it, and you presume that the anarchists who attended are inherently reliable and/or significant. A self-published primary account carries virtually zero weight, especially when it's not a recognized journalistic outlet. It doesn't matter much what they said: a self-published account saying "everybody had a grand time and ate strawberry ice cream" would carry equally negligible significance. WP:NPOV is based not on listing what every conceivable source has published, but in conservatively summarizing what reliable sources have said, in proportion to the prominence of these views. You've not provided any evidence that the AF source is reliable or has been given weight by secondary sources, nor that it is a WP:RSOPINION, merely asserted (repeatedly!) that their content should be added. To give undue wight to unreliable/minority views is not what an encyclopedia is for. The only case I could possibly see using this source (with due caution) is a hypothetical article about the Bristol chapter of the Anarchist Federation to document non-contentious statements about itself (not other people or groups) per WP:SELFSOURCE. If you wish to write an original composition outside of Wikipedia, elevating unheard voices and primary sources that you think deserve more focus, then by all means pen an article for Anarchist Studies or your local newspaper, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As I noted on the Talk page, I believe you are not paying attention to the relevant questions, which are (1) does the text referencing this Anarchist source contain contentious material about a living person? (it does not), and (2) are the statements of this particular anarchist group reputed to be good sources for the events they attend? (I believe they are). This isn't an RSOPINION, but it would have been sheerest optimism on my part to expect you to confine yourself to WP:PAG that are actually relevant to the case under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

1) Even if this wasn't a BLP, the self-published primary accounts (WP:PRIMARY), have not been demonstrated to be significant views, e.g. mentioned by other sources. 2) You believe they are. That's fine! It doesn't mean they warrant mention. If I find an unpublished diary by a World War I soldier, or a published newspaper letter by a spouse of a soldier, that might be very interesting to add to tack onto some article on a WWI battle, but it's still a primary source, and primary sources need to be used with care, if at all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the legitimate uses of non-independent sources is to add additional perspectives on events whose inclusion is justified by independent RS accounts. We can use such sources, for example, to give founders' perspectives on when and why a group was established, without of course endorsing their view in Wikivoice. Your claim that such sources never are and never should be used in enwiki is prima facie absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Three editors above have cautioned you about bludgeoning this discussion, and I would kindly ask you to please stop bludgeoning by volume and sheer repetition as well. The arbitration committee notes that Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. In this discussion, you have made no fewer than thirty-five comments, many of which have been extremely repetitive to previous points. Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you make this comment in a thread of back and forth where I have said less and repeated less than my interlocutor, but I respect your viewpoint. Newimpartial (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable solely as an attributed notable SPS Which is what it appears to be used as in the section already. I would change "reported" to "claimed", as it is a claim being made by the group in question of what occurred at the event. But they are a notable group whose opinion seems fine to include for an event that already has other reliable secondary coverage as an event that occurred regarding the BLP subject. Silver seren^C 03:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
No, we can't use an WP:SPS to describe what occurred at the event, because that would be using an SPS for claims about a third-party. This is WP:SPS and WP:BLP 101, and like many other editors, I'm starting to get very alarmed by what some editors in this topic area have been writing when it comes to interpreting our very clear, very well established policies about this sort of thing. A "notable group's opinion" is not "fine to include for an event" when the "event" consists of other people's actions. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
So you are saying that WP cant give an attributed statement by the Anarchists mentioning the other groups that accompanied them at the counter-demonstration, because they are referring to people other than themselves? I don’t believe that to be what WP:SPS means by claims about third parties. If someone says, "I'm suing Elon Musk" on a blog, I think we can say "so-and-so said they were suing Elon Musk" using the SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
"I'm suing Elon Musk" is an WP:ABOUTSELF statement. "Other person is suing Elon Musk" can't be cited to an SPS. "Other people did things at a demonstration" can't be cited to an SPS. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That wasn't the part of the sourced content to which I referred. It was the "we were there with ABC"-type content. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I think "I saw my friend across the room" or even "I spoke to my friends" are covered by ABOUTSELF, though clearly I may be in the minority on that. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Not reliable Nothing at Wikipedia should be cited to such sources. --Jayron 32 13:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The question is whether to include material from an activist organization in a biography. It's about WP:DUE more than RS, and the default answer is no, especially if it's a controversial claim and especially if it's a BLP issue (the idea that it's not a BLP concern to include claims about what their supporters did in a biography about the person is very unconvincing). There are exceptions for certain high-profile organizations whose opinions routinely receive coverage by the press, but even then it's helpful to see the extent to which reliable sources cover the claim being made. It's there that the reliability of the site in the header is relevant: does it lend weight to the claim's inclusion. I don't think it does -- at least not sufficiently. Find some other sources which cite the claim or make a similar claim and there's a better case for weight. Regardless, as others have pointed out already, this is a NPOV issue first and RS question second. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, and want to note some additional considerations

While AFUK was verifiably present, only WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:BREITBART explicitly noted that, and are not WP:RS. Had RS explicitly named them as being present, there would be more of a debate over WP:DUE, and if reliable sources had explicitly mentioned their statement, there would be a much stronger case for it being DUE (though hopefully, the RS would have noted their statement themselves so we didn't need to turn to the primary source).

But as it stands, sadly the RS don't lend weight to its inclusion and it is WP:UNDUE in the article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Not reliable Unreliable news aggregators, nor self-published material, should be used freely about living persons in an article. If the content is fit for inclusion, find the reliable secondary source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a political advocacy group, that gives a disclaimer that it doesn't do up-front fact checking, making self-serving claims, to go in the biography of a living person they regard as their enemy. It does not get less reliable than that. It concerns me that experienced editors would even entertain the idea of using this, much less writing apologia for it.

Sennalen (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I have filed a report at WP:ANI given Newimpartial's extreme bludgeoning here (more than 40 different comments in 24 hours) and WP:COMPETENCE concerns raised regarding their pushing of such an obviously unsuitable source. Anyone can make mistakes, but doubbling down on one's mistake over 40 times is too much. Jeppiz (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Not reliable No evidence presented of a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. No evidence of editorial control that I could see. Advocacy organization. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Oklahoman / Accuracy in Media

1. Source. Irvine, Reed; Goulden, Joseph C. (June 1, 1997). "New Wave of Attacks Targets Aldrich". The Oklahoman. Retrieved February 17, 2023.

2. Article. Gary Aldrich.

3. Content. "George Stephanopoulos, serving as White House communications director under the Clintons, was able to exert pressure on the media to ignore the book, and it received little attention from mainstream outlets despite the sensational contents and its popularity with the reading public."

I noticed that this content was cited without the authors to an article in The Oklahoman, however, clicking the link indicates that they may have re-published something originally published in Accuracy in Media by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden. (For another take on why Gary Aldrich's book may have not been given the publicity some think it deserved, see Margaret Carlson's take in TIME.) At the very least, I think this is a statement that needs attribution. Thoughts? -Location (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a BLP issue as it's an allegation against Stephanopoulos? If the only source is a tabloid shouldn't the text be removed, per WP:BLPSOURCES? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I'm not sure. This doesn't look like a typical tabloid, but it does appear to violate WP:REDFLAG if it is considered an "exceptional claim". -Location (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say it's an exceptional claim, using public office to suppress an unfavorable work is implying corruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be treated as an opinion piece by Reed Irvine and Joseph C. Goulden, for me that means it can't be used at Gary Aldrich. When Aldrich dies that "can't" gets downgraded to a "shouldn't" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the feedback. I removed the sentence and citation as it does seem to violate a few different aspects of WP:BLP. -Location (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

History Channel case-by-case basis

I'd like to suggest that we revisit the History Channel (History.com) ~~notability~~ reliability, to consider it on a case-by-case basis. While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable, I see no reason why we can't use the "Food that Built America", "Tools that Built America" and "Toys that Built America" and similar programs in this same "that Built America" theme as reliable sources. They've had a history of companies, toys, tools, foods and other items that are part of America's industrial and commercial heritage. Each program seems well-researched, having company representatives, university scholars and other individuals present the history of each item involved. The History Channel comes and goes as far as overall ~~notability~~ reliability is concerned, but I've noticed that they've attempted to get some serious content on the air lately. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"While I agree that Ancient Aliens and similar shows are not notable" Who says they lack notability? Their reliability is questionable, not their notability. Dimadick (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

corrected as above. Oaktree b (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Meh… even the “best” programs on the history channel are over-simplified and frequently get basic facts wrong. Sure, they do get a lot right but, before I cited something from them, I would want to double check it by looking at an actual history book… and as long as we are doing that, we might as well cite that history book. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Literally everything you can learn through a History Channel program that's worth covering in Wikipedia is better covered through a more reliable source. --Jayron 32 14:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
That's true, but the fact that a more reliable source exists doesn't make a source unreliable. If it did, we'd never cite a newspaper for any topics covered in an academic book. I'd like for that to be our rule, but it isn't. Levivich (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not true that everything covered by newspapers is also in academic books. --Jayron 32 13:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said "we'd never cite a newspaper for any topics covered in an academic book", I didn't say everything in a newspaper is covered in an academic book. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be possible to find more academic or preferred RS for anything on the History Channel? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, at least for its website. For example, Mohawk "Skywalkers" 8 (that article was cited in this paper (PDF) from Catholic Theological Society of America), Murder Castle 9, and Buffalo wing 10 are topics where I'm having a hard time finding academic or preferred RS. In other topics, like history of surveillance aircraft 11, or the Native American perspective of Mount Rushmore 12, there are academic RS about the various aspects, but the History.com articles provide helpful broad overviews, and also do it in easier-to-understand English than academic sources, with no paywall. I get the sense there are articles where History.com can be a helpful source. My hesitation is that I'm unsure about the accuracy of these articles, and I have my doubts considering the publisher is known for publishing sensationalist history TV shows. Levivich (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

At best there are better sources, at worst it is junk. No we Should not use it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No and just FYI the "_____ that Built America" series are just as unreliable as Ancient Aliens etc. Often they tell the corporate marketing narrative for a product and not the actual history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's worth separating the TV shows from History.com. I'm not sure that anything at http://www.history.com/topics or http://www.history.com/news is any more or less reliable than what you'd find in mainstream media, like http://www.cnn.com, but then I've never read an analysis of it. I suspect judging the website articles by the TV shows (Ancient Aliens, Built America, etc.) is inaccurate. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
These programs often have field experts, professors, and the like; literally just find the experts' publications on the matter and cite them. Curbon7 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Easy to say, but can you do it? I listed a few History.com articles above: Mohawk Skywalkers, Murder Castle, Buffalo wings. Can you find the experts' publications on the matters to cite? I tried and couldn't. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think History.com should ever be considered reliable for citations on Wikipedia due to the extremely low quality of its content, nor should History Channel shows be considered reliable. The blanket ban has worked wonders towards improving history articles and reducing talk page wars. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources reliability?

Hi, want to know, can the following sites be considered reliable:

HIP in Pakistan

Fuchsia Magazine

Parhlo

Thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Public Works Department of Rajasthan

How are the sources given by me in this article? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"

There is a consensus CNET is no longer reliable following a deterioration in editorial standards after its acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020. The exact cutoff point for unreliability is a little bit unclear in the discussion, with both the October 2020 acquisition date and November 2022 date when AI started being deployed without sufficient oversight suggested. Consequently, the status of the source's reliability is generally unreliable post November 2022, no consensus from October 2020 to November 2022, and no change to the generally reliable status of its material from before October 2020. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the RSP template format to update RSP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running 13 14 AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. Silver seren^C 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.

On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.

I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

Navigácia: Veda >

Analytika
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika

Metodológia vedy
Náboženstvo a veda
Náučná literatúra
Podvody vo vede
Popularizácia vedy
Potravinárstvo
Prírodné vedy
Pseudoveda
Scientometria
Spoločenské vedy
Teórie
Teatrológia
Technické vedy
Technika
Terminológia
Umenie
Výskum

Veda
Veda a technika podľa štátu
Veda a technika podľa kontinentu
Veda a technika podľa roka
Veda v kozme
Vedci
Vedecká literatúra
Vedecké databázy
Vedecké experimenty
Vedecké konferencie
Vedecké metódy
Vedecké ocenenia
Vedecké organizácie
Vedecké parky
Vedeckí spisovatelia
Vzdelávanie
Záhady

Príbuzné výrazy:

Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.