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.

There are a number of sources that are listed in WP:RSP as usable for attributed opinions but considered biased or opinionated. That leads to whats eem to me to be misunderstandings: citations to opinion pieces by political commentators on articles not related to either the commentator or the source, and where the commentator may have an opinion, but has no obvious expertise.

I would like to see a guidance note along the lines of:

• Biased / opinionated sources should not be used as primary sources but may be cited where (a) the author is a noted expert in a relevant field or (b) the commentary is notable, as established by mentions in reliable independent sources.

Opinions are, famously, like arseholes: everybody has one. For any contentious topic I can find a left-wing blowhard who will excoriate the right wing view, and a right-wing blowhard who will excoriate the left, and including either tells us pretty much nothing about the subject itself, but only acts as a primary source for the fact that it's a political hot button. The root of the iossue appears to be the (mis)understanding that because X source may be usable for opinion, so opinions in X source are acceptable - the usual confusion of may and should, in other words.

There are examples of valid uses of primary opinion sources. See the discussion of #The Spectator above. A piece by Michael Crick, who is known primarily as a journalist and not as a rabble-rouser - this should be fine. It's not so much an opinion piece as a work of investigative journalism. Or maybe this, by Roger Morris (American writer), on the Plame / Rice business. That seems OK, it's not mere opinion and the writer is an expert (though I'd prefer a better source). But random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications seems like a bad idea. Guy (help!) 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"random opinions by non-experts primary sourced to opinionated publications" are typical practice for book reviews and TV reviews, etc. If this were implemented strictly it would make a lot of books, TV shows, movies, etc. non-notable and require deleting their articles. I think this sort of restriction could be useful but it should be better targeted. buidhe 12:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, you mean we'd exclude book reviews written by people who are not professional book reviewers? OK. And why would that be bad? Guy (help!) 12:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you determine if a particular writer is a "professional book reviewer" if, for example, they are the author of a book review in the Spectator? buidhe 12:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, are they known for book reviews, or for something else? Example: a book review of a biography of Boris Johnson in the TLS will carry more weight than one written by Michael Gove in the Spectator. Guy (help!) 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG What if the review of a book is by a notable person not notable for book reviews in a notable but "reliable" publication? So, how would Boris Johnson's review of the 4th edition of The Oxford Classical Dictionary in The Telegraph fit? Both Johnson and the Telegraph are notable, but one is allowable as a reliable source but the other is ... opinionated by definition and possibly therefore not. This is especially interesting because while often perceived as competent in the classics, Johnson is not a classicist, and while I presume the review was a review proper and not a reference in his opinion column, The Telegraph printed his words as both politician and hired "journalist". GPinkerton (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't know. Guy (help!) 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG Sorry, pseudo-rhetorical question. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, heh, we can all get meta sometimes :-) Guy (help!) 18:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• We already have guidance on this... see WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Blueboar, and that is routinely ignored because "but this is fine for attributed opinion" is asserted to be a complete rebuttal to "nobody other than the original source has discussed it". Guy (help!) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  This seems a bit like a context matters sort of thing but it would be helpful if we had some actual examples from articles to look at. I'm trying to invent a hypothetical for discussion sake so forgive me if I miss something. I think one example might be a case where the opinion is of someone who is somehow involved. Perhaps there is a small protest because someone wants to put up some sort of controversial statue on their property. Perhaps we have interviews in RSs with the neighbors but the property owner only issues a statement refuting claims about them on their personal blog. They aren't an expert, in general they aren't notable but for direct involvement. Would that be never OK, sometimes OK (assuming no FRINGE etc type issues), always OK?

Another hypothetical, we have some speech event that is disrupted. The disruption is covered by a few RSs but lets assume those sources largely lean North (trying to avoid R/L) and they mention some of the Northern leaning commentators who condemn the other side. However, some of the Southern leaning commentators point out issues with the Northern view. Let's assume all of these sources are at least in our RSP yellow to green band. Do we include them as attributed opinions because the publications are notable (things like HuffPo, Reason, VOX, National Review etc)? Springee (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, good question. In my view, an editorial in the print edition of the New York Times is pretty much by definition significant, while a contributed opinion on HuffPo generally is not unless there are third party sources that call it significant. Guy (help!) 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Let’s explore this further.... WHY is an opinion piece in NYT significant, but one in HuffPo not significant? Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, it's the bar to publication. An NYT editorial speaks for the Times in a print edition that costs money to produce. A HuffPo opinion piece costs nothing to produce and is not taken as being the voice of HuffPo. The publisher vests very little in the content, whereas a bad NYT editorial can cause serious backlash. You can see that with the blowback WSJ gets about climate change denialism in its editorials. Guy (help!) 20:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So... an opinion in printed paper format is more significant than an opinion in digital format? Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a timeliness factor of UNDUE that needs to come into play here. *insert my usual rant on RECENTISM here* When the topic's content has gotten to a stable point (a controversy has died down, an event is months in the past, etc.) , that's when it is reasonable to start to figure out the right commentary to include, and that's when a statement like this may be important , because now we can judge the big picture of opinions (RS or not) and figure out how to frame it, and that may make it obvious when we need to pull an opinion or commentary from the biased sources on this lists that are from experts that make sense in light of the full UNDUE picture. Just that that UNDUE picture is near impossible to see while the topic is still developing and thus best not to try to reach to these sources just yet. --Masem (t) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have mentioned what I am suggesting elsewhere, but I think this slots in nicely if we also extend this to include deprecated sources and which are assumed that the person writing has control on what they are writing in that source (not opinions relayed through a different by-line writer) Namely this gets to things like critics reviews in the Daily Mail and other British tabloids for television and film; many are notable critics and their work in the DM and other UK tabloids is their own, and their voice for British films and television is generally of DUE weight in that field. --Masem (t) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• While I am sympathetic to this approach when it comes to pseudoscience, I admit that I'm not convinced that it works in general because not all areas of academia use the scientific method. For those that don't, treating academia as if it has no inherent bias may not work in terms of NPOV. In the example below, I don't think that you're distinguishing between opposition based on being pro-conversion therapy and opposition based on anti-censorship (which is not a science question). It would be perfectly possible to believe that conversion therapy is dangeous pseudoscience but also oppose censorship of it. buidhe 09:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  On this point the question is not one of censorship but the free market. Critics of Amazon in that example are opposing not censorship (done by governments) but free market capitalism, where sellers may choose to sell or not sell whatever they please. Criticism here appears to be directed at a business decision, not an act of censorship! GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Example

From Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality:

Gwen Aviles of NBC News reported in July 2019 that Amazon had withdrawn Nicolosi's books, which she described as "some of the most well-known works about conversion therapy", from sale following a campaign by gay rights activists. Amazon's decision received criticism from some commentators. In The American Conservative, the journalist Rod Dreher decried it as a step toward censorship. He noted that Amazon continued to sell other books that were controversial or could be considered dangerous or unscientific. In The Daily Signal, Joseph Nicolosi Jr. defended his father's books, and said that one man credited Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality with saving his marriage. On Townhall, Robert Knight described Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books as a form of censorship. Daniel Newhauser of Vice News reported that a group of Republican members of the United States House of Representatives was campaigning to reverse Amazon's decision, which they considered a form of censorship.

However, other commentators supported Amazon's decision.⁸ Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner observed that Nicolosi's books, as well as books by authors who considered themselves ex-gay, were controversial. While he considered the criticism that Amazon's decision to stop selling them had received understandable, he nevertheless believed the decision correct, describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". He noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available from its publisher.⁷ In a Newsweek article, journalist Kashmira Gander interviewed physician Natasha Bhuyan, who voiced her support for Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, noting that the books involve approaches rejected by every mainstream medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychological Association.^8a Daniel Reynolds reported in The Advocate in February 2019 that the gay writer Damian Barr had criticized Amazon for selling the books, arguing that they were discredited and harmful.⁹ Aviles dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific".¹

Kelly Burke of Australia's Seven News reported that despite the withdrawal from sale of the books by Amazon in the United States, they "remained available on Amazon's Australian site until 7NEWS.com.au approached the company for comment, after which they were hastily removed."¹⁰ Jordan Hirst of QNews reported that, following Amazon's decision to stop selling Nicolosi's books, gay rights organization Equality Australia was "petitioning Australian retailers to follow suit."¹¹ Burke and Hirst both noted that Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was still available for sale from booksellers such as Dymocks.¹²

References

• Aviles, Gwen (July 4, 2019). "Amazon removes controversial books by 'father of conversion therapy'". NBC News. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Burke, Kelly (July 31, 2019). "Amazon heeds LGBTQ call and removes gay conversion therapy books from shelves". Seven News. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Dreher, Rod (July 3, 2019). "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern". The American Conservative. Retrieved 5 July 2019.
• Gander, Kashmira (July 24, 2019). "'Outright abuse of children': Doctor warns Amazon not to sell 'extremely dangerous' books on gay conversion therapy". Newsweek. Retrieved 29 July 2019.
• Hirst, Jordan (August 1, 2019). "Australian booksellers petitioned to pull 'conversion therapy' titles". QNews. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Human Rights Campaign. "Policy and Position Statements on Conversion Therapy". Retrieved 24 April 2020.
• Knight, Robert (July 16, 2019). "How Democracy Dies in Darkness". Townhall. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
• Newhauser, Daniel (July 20, 2019). "Exclusive: House Republicans are pressuring Amazon to sell books on gay conversion therapy". Vice News. Retrieved 15 July 2019.
• Nicolosi Jr., Joseph (July 10, 2019). "Amazon Just Banned My Dad's Therapy Books, Caving to LGBT Activists". The Daily Signal. Retrieved 4 August 2019.
• Polumbo, Brad (July 10, 2019). "The complicated case of Amazon banning books promoting gay conversion therapy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
• Potok, Mark (May 25, 2016). "QUACKS: 'Conversion Therapists,' the Anti-LGBT Right, and the Demonization of Homosexuality". Website of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
• Reno, R. R. (October 2019). "The Virtue of Prudence". First Things (296).
• Reynolds, Daniel (February 14, 2019). "Gay Author Slams Amazon for Selling Conversion Therapy Books". The Advocate. Retrieved 4 August 2019.

Of these, Dreher, Hirst, Knight, possibly Newhauser, Nicolosi, Jr., Reno and Reynolds seem to be opinion, with Reynolds reporting Damian Barr as close to primary as makes no real odds.

1. Dreher (The American Conservative , , biased opinion-by-attribution): No. Dreher's only expertise in this area is being against gay marriage, the headline references the "homintern", a reference to the long debunked "gay agenda", and TAC is about fighting the class war, not analysing the merits of books making bogus medical claims.
2. Hirst (QNews, not on RSP): I'd say no, this is an activist source and I don't immediately see anything there that's not covered in a more reliable one.
3. Knight (Townhall, , attributed opinion only, may be unreliable for fact): No. "Tyranny can arrive fast in the form of tanks and jackboots. Or it can come gradually, snuffing out liberty and replacing it with fear. The latter is what we’re facing today, as cultural Marxists advance their doctrines and silence any dissension." This is nowhere close to a serious analysis of one retailer removing a book that advocates a practice denounced by the medical profession as dangerous.
4. Newhauser (Vice News, no consensus): it reads as news not opinion but I'd lean no anyway on the basis that (a) Vice is crappy and (b) it appears redundant to better sources.
5. Nicolosi, Jr (The Daily Signal, not on RSP): No, because he has a dog in the fight - in fact he practically is the dog, it was his father's book and he still performs conversion therapy.
6. Polumbo (Washington Examiner, , partisan, avoid for exceptional claims, opinion to be attributed): No. Washington Examiner is a terrible source and "Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wants to be the arbiter of acceptable thought" again misses the point that more reliable sources bring out, i.e. that conversion therapy is dangerous nonsense.
7. Reno (First Things, not on RSP): No. This was included solely because I challenged Dreher on the basis of UNDUE and this appears to be the only article anyone could find that mentioned it in order to claim "third party coverage". Its relevant content in full: "Amazon has removed from its list of books for sale the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. His crime? Writing about techniques of “conversion therapy,” designed to help those who do not wish to identify as homosexual. As Rod ­Dreher points out, Amazon sells Hitler’s Mein Kampf, apologias for Stalin’s crimes, books by the white supremacist David Duke, a translation of The SS Leadership Guide, and countless other rebarbative titles. But something that casts doubt on today’s sexual ideologies? That’s beyond the pale. Amazon’s action demonstrates the singular power of LGBT activists to “unperson” a person." Again, completely missing the actual point, and appears to be essentially a blog post.
8. Reynolds (The Advocate, not on RSP): No. It's a more sensationalised version of stuff covered better in Aviles and Gander.

HRC and SPLC are in a different category.

1. HRC (not on RSP): I would not include statements from campaign groups unless a third party notes them - there are too many campaign groups, you can find one to say pretty much anything you like, though I guess HRC is better than most.
2. SPLC ( reliable for hate groups and extremism): No. This one really; has a dog in the fight. They represented plaintiffs in Ferguson v. JONAH.

Reliable and secondary

1. Aviles (NBC News, Reliable)
2. Burke (news.com.au - not on RSP as far as I can tell)
3. Gander (Newsweek, Reliable)

Of course, the noticeable thing here is that the contentious opinion pieces all oppose Amazon's withdrawal of the book, whereas the reliable sources, even when reporting the Republican backlash, take the time to explain the status of conversion therapy and the concerns that underlay the campaign. Balanced coverage. This isn't about conservative v. liberal, it's about including one-sided primary sourced opinion pieces, with the apparent intent to "balance" reliable sources which come down on the side of not selling dangerous pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, in text attribution is often overused. Here's a couple of examples from Political correctness#Conservative political correctness, Krugman and Nowrasteh would maybe meet the requirement for notable opinion, the others not so much. fiveby(zero) 20:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG Why does this egregious article still exist? It's shot through with FreeKnowledgeCreator's inherent bias. GPinkerton (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby, Krugman, for sure - a Nobel laureate with a column in the NYT. Nowrasteh? He appears to be notable solely as part of the walled garden of conservative think-tanks. And the others, I agree. We should use secondary sources, and if none exist then it's probably not significant. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going by your (b) criteria, as both those columns seemed to be mentioned in other RS. In both cases it might be possible to have more than the quote, have actual text in WP voice adding context. Or maybe not, as you say: may should not be taken as should and there mustn't be any guidance that mandates or unduly encourages inclusion. fiveby(zero) 17:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This source is being used to source statements in the lede for Society of Merchant Venturers. While the site is not online anymore, from the archive it appears that it was created by a Bristol schoolteacher (based on a LinkedIn profile I found). I found what I felt was a suitable replacement, but another user contends that the Flocs source should be included. Additional opinions sought. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a difference in reliability between the televised reporting of various broadcasted media outlets (whether CNN/Fox/ABC/CBS/NBC/BBC etc) and their online (written) app based reporting? From my experience, the online reports seem to be drastically condensed versions of what appears on screen, with the added addition of click-bait headlines, and that makes me think that there might be a valid distinction (to the detriment of the web versions). Note that I am not looking for discussion of differences between the various outlets (BBC vs CBS for example), but for discussion of differences between versions put out by the SAME outlet (ABC broadcast vs ABC online). Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t think we have the same issue between printed editions of newspapers and their online editions, but I could be wrong, so feel free to comment on that as well). Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is an issue of editorial identity for newspapers, at least in the UK. For instance, The Guardian and The Observer are totally separate newspapers in print with different editoral control, their content is treated the same as part of theguardian.com website. The same can be said for The Times and The Sunday Times and the (dreaded) Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the other hand, videos and cable news is much more difficult to WP:VERIFY than a printed article, and more editors can check the online than print versions of a newspaper. Citing a hourlong video without providing timestamp, for instance, is not reasonably verifiable. buidhe 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I feel that in general anything written serves our purposes better than audio or video, its much harder to check/search audio and video and unless there is a transcript much of whats said is subjective. If a news organization said one thing on the air and another in print I’d defer to the statement in print almost every time. The wide range of news apps makes a universal judgement hard though, for example I’ve found CNN’s app and online written reporting to be better and more in depth than their on-air reporting while the CBS app tends to be worse than their broadcasts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Ad Fontes chart draws a distinction between CNN the news channel and website, and CNN cable. I suspect this would be hard to discuss without examples. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Each case would have to be judged on its merits. One thing I notice about broadcasts on channels such as the BBC is that the automated subtitles are ludicrous - routinely mispelling or misunderstanding the speech. I'd like to know how accurate the sign language is too as I get the impression that a lot may be lost in translation. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Andrew. The Ad Fontes chart (founded by a patent attorney, not a media expert) and all the other media bias charts have big holes in them. We should not be referring editors to any particular chart. See the CJR write-up about measuring media bias. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources discussed:

• Martindale-Hubbell
• martindale.com
• lawyers.com
• nolo.com
• https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/
• https://www.martindale.com/marketyourfirm/profiles/

Note: I had to remove the links to lawyers.com and nolo.com because they are on the blacklist. Should we add martindale.com to that list?

Edit which brought this to my attention:1

Are the ratings reliable? It looks like you can buy yourself a spot on the lists. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nolo.com has been discussed several times before, most recently this April, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Nolo.com Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_223#Nolo.com Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• nolo was spammed, not sure about the others - but it would not surprise me. We whitelisted nolo's legal encyclopaedia, there may also be content on Martindale that would qualify as reliable, but the peer-ratings are promotional. Isn't lawyers.com a storefront? Its /legal-info microsite purports to be a reference but most of it is pitches, and there's a gratingly chirpy "Hi, can we find you a lawyer?" chatbot. Guy (help!) 13:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lawyers.com is a storefront owned by Martindale-Hubbell. Go to the bottom of the lawyers.com main page and click on the "Legal Professionals; Build Your Business" link.

Martindale-Hubbell is owned by Internet Brands, which had a legal dispute with the WMF.2

I say we blacklist martindale.com (whitelisting anything worth keeping) and put together a comprehensive list of all site owned by internet brands. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that they have been around since the 1800s. It seems lots of attorneys rely on it as a reliable rating system, unlike any other rating system. Maybe we shouldn't write them off so quickly because they were bought up by an Internet Brand company that evidently doesn't like Wikimedia.

The rating doesn't cost anything from what I can tell, but requires you to nominate yourself and give a list of at least 18 "attorneys or judges familiar with your legal ability in mind that you would like to nominate."3 Steps to Getting a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating Those peers are contacted and asked for information about you.

Just google "martindale-hubbell ratings reliable -martindale.com" to see what the lawyers think about it.

https://www.forthepeople.com/attorneys/peter-byron-gee-jr/

https://www.nejamelaw.com/nejamelaw-ratings.html

https://vanarellilaw.com/highest-attorney-rating/

https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/how-to-choose-a-lawyer/

https://www.mijs.com/congratulations-partners-earned-av-preeminent-rating-martindale-hubbell/

Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lawyers who have a martindale-hubbell rating are not a reliable source for how reliable martindale-hubbell ratings are. The conflict of interest is obvious.

• How LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel are Running a Lawyer Ratings Scam
• Martindale-Hubbell ups the ante: Price tag for lawyer to display rating online goes from $50 to $599
• Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings: Pay-to-Play or a Ransom Demand??
• Are Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com Dead? Why Every Martindale Client Should Care
• Martindale Hubbell: Another Legal Icon Bites the Dust. But It Was Once Worth Its Weight in Gold (and Held for Ransom)
• Does Martindale-Hubbell, as we knew it, still exist?
• Who Cares About Martindale-Hubbell?

"Lawyer awards aren’t a new thing: anyone remember Martindale Hubbell? Sure, they’re about as relevant as Pogs nowadays, but at one point, an AV-Rating was something to brag about. Was it something more than a vanity placard or was it simply an earlier incarnation of these arguably worthless awards? I recently contacted Martindale to find out. And the selection process surprised me: submit a list of eighteen references (from outside your firm) to vouch for your abilities as an attorney. That’s it. Have 18 friends."3

"I am deeply disgusted to report that the good name of LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbel is officially worthless. This institution which has built its reputation on providing accurate information to lawyers and the general public about lawyers is now nothing more than a marketing organization. Their ratings can not be trusted. How do I know? Simple, they recently rated me as an outstanding lawyer as rated by my clients.

I haven’t had clients since July 2000. And unless my three partners are secretly spending time rating my services (they aren’t) then this is complete and utter bullshit. So beware consumers and fellow attorneys: these ratings are nothing more than a scam to sell expensive plaques and foist the “ratings” on a public who might be looking for competent legal counsel."4

"Let’s just say that I think it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea for Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Ratings program to start everyone off as an AV 5.0 and (potentially) re-review them DOWN over a 10-year period".5

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I requested an edit to a semi-protected article, and my request is being moderated and reviewed by user SNUGGUMS (https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=User:SNUGGUMS). SNUGGUMS wanted me to provide a reliable source for my requested edit. I provided the following news article as a source: http://nerdreactor.com/2017/10/26/lindsey-stirling-and-mark-ballas-earn-a-perfect-score-in-dancing-with-the-stars/. SNUGGUMS wanted me to seek your input on the reliability of Nerd Reactor as a news publication. What do you think? Could Nerd Reactor be considered a reliable enough reference to implement an edit on a semi-protected article? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prepare2getstarbucks (talk • contribs)

Seems like a somewhat obscure blog; I don't think it's sufficient for the context you're proposing it for, but then again the rest of that article's sourcing is a bit suspect. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Go to RfC

Heyo editors! There's recently been an edit dispute over a highly controversial topic regarding the recently-deceased Mr. Wrestling II where editors have been both claiming and refuting that the wrestler was a registered sex offender, sources and all.

This could get heated very quickly, and I encourage all readers to come to a consensus on this issue at the RfC. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 09:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Are rbc.ru   and rbc.ua   reliable sources or not? I cannot read Russian or Ukrainian, but they were used to readd material that had previously been sourced to a conspiracy site. 6 buidhe 20:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• They are used on more than a thousand articles including Vladimir Putin, War in Donbass, and International Space Station. But it is difficult to find info on this source in English so hard to judge. buidhe 22:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, rbc.ua is RBC Ukraine News Agency. Russia’s Roskomnadzor blocked RBC Ukraine News Agency for “instigating the Crimean Tatars to war against the Russian Federation”. The cynic in me says it's probably reliable on that basis alone.

  Rbc.ru appears to be RosBiznesConsulting , a Russian company. It was at one point critical of the Kremlin's kleptocracy but that changed in 2017: 7. I'm pretty sure this has come up before, the story rings a bell. It might be OK for inside baseball on Russian business but anything pertaining to Russian state interests I would treat it with great suspicion. Free and independent journalism is not really a thing in Russia right now. Guy (help!) 10:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I was thinking that they were the same site. buidhe 10:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  This one has a been a bit challenging for me. I’ve tried to avoid rbc.ru where feasible. But it does have fairly comprehensive coverage on some things and has been from time to time the only source, so I have used it if I feel comfortable with what I have in front of me. And, with that said, given Kremlin control of media, it’s hard to trust TASS or anything else. I think it’s ok but couldn’t give a firm statement. I guess we would have to examine how it’s being used and what it’s being used for. My Russian is adequate so if you have particular articles that I could review and see how it’s being used, maybe I can offer more of an opinionTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I did pop in to The RS board on Russian WP and I think they have struggled with rbc.ru as well. Don’t know about the Ukrainian site TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would say evering before 2017 is reasomably reliable; everything after 2017 as reliable as any Russian news agency for example Interfax: reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be biased, but I consider pretty much everything in .ua domain, with a very few exceptions, as a blog platform, so no, not reliable. I just has a look and I do not see them producing own content.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is true that there is a lot of bullshit media in russia but rbc is one f the reliable, so are: meduza, novaya gazeta, kommersant. All of them are oppositional, for example you can check the story with Ivan Golunov and Meduza.--DonGuess (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• user:buidhe give some examples of rbc articles that you have doubt in
• And here is the russian article about the rbc info agency: https://ru.wikipedia.org?pojem=%D0%A0%D0%91%D0%9A. It is number 532 in the global Alexa rating. DonGuess (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• omg, that’s actually extremely strange that there is so little written about RBK, but other media too. I’ll try to add some stuff about RBK. Do you think we should something else about the media? Cause it may seem like russian federation is almost 1984-like government. --DonGuess (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable, they mostly republish articles from unreliable sources and their own work is of questionable quality. Nothing I can find indicates reliability. One note though, they’re different enough to need separate RfCs if it ever came to deprecation (the contexts are different, but both are unreliable for similar reasons). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Germash19: has been editing the article of List of the busiest airports in Europe for years, and has been adding the same reference citing outdated, old, and geographically wrong images from Encyclopedia Britannica. Claiming that Krasnodar, and the Krasnodar International Airport is located within Asia, when it is entirely within southern European Russia, in the western extremity of the Russian Federation, and the North Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe.

Now, coming to his point that the southern part of European Russia, is apparently within the Asian continent, as he claims, is as absurd as it seems. If you follow the map shown in Encyclopedia Britannica, which is clearly wrong, and shows that the North Caucasus is outside of Europe, and is a part of Asia, it seems like the North Caucasus is an exclave of Asia not even connected to Asia or Asian Russia by land, and is rather located within Europe. The image also excludes the smaller European portions of the transcontinental countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan. It is also not like that Krasnodar is located close to the divider of Europe and Asia, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus, that he keeps adding the reference that apparently the airport is in the boundary of Europe and Asia, and also a bold claim that it can be considered in Asia, without citing any other references or sources supporting his claims. The Krasnodar International Airport is located within the city of Krasnodar, which is located in Krasnodar Krai, a federal subject of Russia, which is clearly located in Eastern Europe, which borders the Black Sea, and is separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov. In fact, he also believes that Sochi, a seaport on the Black Sea coast of Russia, is also in Asia. So, according to this reference, the highest mountain in Europe, Mount Elbrus, which is located in the North Caucasus, is also located in Asia, so why is it considered European then?

Here are the references: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danloud (talk • contribs) ⁴

They may not be alone 8. Do you have an RS that contests this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica has been extensively discussed before, see WP:BRITANNICA Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the used definition of the Europe-Asia boundary. If my memory serves me right, we were taught similar boundary in high school (with Mont Blanc as the highest mountain in Europe) - that was some 20 years ago. Books I have at hand (an old school atlas and small seven part encyclopedia) put Elbrus outside of Europe exactly like Encyclopedia Britannica. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Germash19:@Danloud:@Slatersteven:@Pavlor: As far as i know, European Russia covers the whole part of the Russian Federation west of the Ural Mountains, including North Caucasus, the northern part of the Caucasus is generally considered a part of Eastern Europe. See these references: 910 However, South Caucasus is an area disputed about whether its in Europe or not. The map used in Encyclopedia Britannica excludes whole Southern Russia, European portions of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are located in the southern part of the Caucasus, and suspiciously includes the European portion of Kazakhstan, which is almost never considered a part of Europe, and never added on the maps of Europe.1112

Southern Russia is the southernmost point of European Russia, where the western part borders the Black Sea and the eastern part borders the Caspian Sea. Krasnodar is a city located within the federal subject of Krasnodar Krai, on the Russian Black Sea coast, which is also narrowly separated from the Crimean Peninsula by the Sea of Azov, if Krasnodar Krai was within the limits of the Asian continent then the Sea of Azov is a divider between Europe and Asia, just like the Ural Mountains or the Caucasus Mountains, which is it not, it is a sea in Eastern Europe. Also, recently Russia inaugurated the Crimean Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland (specifically Krasnodar Krai, which we are talking about here) to the Crimean Peninsula. It surpassed the Vasco da Gama Bridge and has been halted as the tallest bridge in Europe since 2019, 1314151617 so if whole Southern Russia was indeed in Asia, the Crimean Bridge is a bridge connecting Europe and Asia, just like the Bosphorus Bridge, which it is not. Mount Elbrus is located in the North Caucasus, and is indeed the highest peak in Europe.18192021

So the output is that Southern Russia, including North Caucasus is generally considered within the European continent, the map used in Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, and i must admit i have never seen that map anywhere else, and this is also the first time i have seen a map of Europe without the southern part of Russia. The map also excludes a few European bits of Russia across the Ural Mountains. Krasnodar and Sochi are both within Europe, and not at the boundary of Europe and Asia, and absolutely not within Asia, as the reference claims. Horope (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Horope, see also WP:SYN. Guy (help!) 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a question for WP:RSN. The best solution is an RfC to determine the consensus definition of Europe to be used in the article, because one could clearly argue this either way in good faith. Guy (help!) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NPV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." The article has two points of view on the location of Krasnodar airport (Europe and Asia). Danloud and Horope delete one of the opinions about the location of the airport.--Germash19 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Cartographic history comment Horope Krasnodar Airport is definitely in contested territory. Any time in the past three thousand years it would clearly be considered on the Asian side of the Black Sea. But since the 19th century the more expansive definition using the Urals as an eastern boundary for Europe has come into play but is not universal, and further disputes exist on where and how to draw the (entirely arbitrary and non-natural) boundary joining the Urals to the Caucasus. (Which were important in a lot of Soviet committee meetings that decided which SSR should have which territory) Classically though, it would seem very bizarre to put the Caucasus or eastern Black Sea littoral in Europe, when the standard divide was, and in many contexts remains, the Aegean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Don River. The idea of the Urals forming a land boundary came very late to the party. Maps illustrating the vagaries of this are here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth#Europe_and_Asia. GPinkerton (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Kerch Bridge also appears here: 22 GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Horope's and Danloud's definition of Europe agrees with that of the wikipedia article, so if there is a dispute about the eastern boundary of Europe then there needs to be a broader discussion on the issue, otherwise I would favor their position for internal consistency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I agree that this is a geography question not a RS question --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Well, @Germash19: is back again restoring his edits on the List of the busiest airports in Europe, without giving any explanation on why he did it, and not citing any sources, or discussing the matter here. He is going to keep doing this, because nobody warns him or takes any actions. Just like Danloud said. Horope (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Public contributions to EB brief

A side note, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources says that Encyclopedia Britannica has allowed public contributions, 2009 on. In reality, that program lasted for a matter of months, it ended in 2010 at the latest. (I contributed three articles.) The impact of this program is minimal, at best. There's no dispute from me with regards to its yellow status, simply hoping to state the program ended quickly. Is that okay with everyone? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. The Encyclopædia Britannica is a top-tier encyclopedia, and its "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" classification is solely due to its status as a tertiary source. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What do people think about the reliability of The Spectator? It only appears to have been discussed once before, regarding issues around BLP. For those not familiar, The Spectator is a right-wing British magazine founded in 1828, having been previously edited by now Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It has been cited over 3000 times according to spectator.co.uk  . As much of what is written in The Spectator is opinion, I think all statements should be attributed per WP:NEWSBLOG. I think The Spectator can be considered reliable for cultural coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is mostly opinion and I would attribute on that basis. It's not quite as bad as Quadrant imo, but it does promote climate change denial2324 and publishes columns with questionable interpretation of the science on the origins of homosexuality25. I would avoid for anything science-based and I would be skeptical of their Brexit coverage as well, but it should be OK for culture reviews and attributed opinion. buidhe 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oh hell no. Not reliable for any claim of fact, possibly usable for attributed opinion but not to establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help!) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator isn't exactly my cup of tea either. While I absolutely wouldn't cite it for any scientific claim, I thought its attributed opinion on Who's Who (UK) (considering the suprising dearth of coverage on the publication), cowritten by Michael Crick, was usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Michael Crick has sufficient stature that I would probably agree. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• It publishes a very wide range of opinion pieces, with regular and occasional columnists covering a remarkably wide range of views from centre left to raving right wing, with a famously light editorial touch and almost all pieces clearly attributed to their author rather than the magazine. Attribute to the author as opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Spectator is the world's oldest weekly magazine. It therefore has a long history in which it has had many famous editors, writers and political positions. Currently it has the same proprietor as the Daily Telegraph and so it's rather like The Observer – the world's oldest Sunday newspaper which is now part of the Guardian group. The position of these periodicals on current affairs is unimportant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I often root through old sources to find material for our articles. For example, yesterday I dug up a 19th century map of Timbuctoo to answer a question about current geography. Sources like The Spectator, with their long history and rich archive, are vital for work on topics such as people and places in London. As with all sources, one has to be careful but so it goes. The Lancet is the world's oldest medical journal but recently had to retract a paper which was based on fabricated data. Caveat lector. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, but The Lancet doesn't publish political op-ed with minmal prior review, which is the Spectator's main game. An occasional retraction is one of the things that tends to prove the reliability of a scientific journal. The Lancet also published Wakefield's fraud. Guy (help!) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Lancet does publish op-eds such as its attack on the Royal Society. It's interesting to note that that editor, Andrew Horton, previously wrote for The Observer. The usage of all such sources depends on the context and the claim and so the idea that this is a simple binary matter is facile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, yes, and they are marked as such. We don't accept these as MEDRS, but attribute them as commentary where relevant. I recall several such from Fiona Godlee. But peer-reviewed papers in The Lancet are presumptively reliable, as is reporting (rather than editorial) in The Financial Times. But The Spectator mainly does opinion. Guy (help!) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for the things it is reliable for - Whilst I'm sure the label "right-wing" already has some people ready to ban the Spectator, it does cultural reviews and so-forth as well and is obviously a reliable source on them. Its opinion pieces should be treated the same as any other opinion piece in any other publication. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A number of issues have recently arisen around the creation of an article on a blog called The Eye Wales, which has since been reverted after it was a WP:ADVERT. It now exists as a page about its author Phil Parry. The Eye says it dedicates itself to investigative journalism, mainly targeted at the Welsh concept of the Crachach and the existence of a Welsh media and high society elite. That is fine, but I am hoping to gather some opinions on whether the content of The Eye Wales is sufficiently reputable to make it suitable for citing, especially where it tends to be used on articles about fringe political topics on articles. Parry has journalistic credibility, he is a former BBC Wales and HTV (now ITV Wales) journalist, but has been freelance since leaving the BBC in 2010, and now seems to engage in writing on articles including the activities of anonymous users in the Nation.Cymru comment section, he relies on Pepe the Frog memes, and seems quite fascinated with Carol Vorderman's bottom. I'm not sure the website as it currently stands should be cited as heavily as users like Martin Clintergate (talk · contribs) currently do. Llemiles (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WP:RSSELF and WP:BLOGS cover this. I can't find any coverage of it online, apart from a passing mention in a Western Mail article 26. Capewearer (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

With contributions like this (and of course, the recent example raised by Llemiles above) it's a bit difficult to take The Eye Wales seriously. I'm surprised at the sensationalist nature of the writing, I was somehow expecting and hoping for better. Unfortunately the website does not suggest it is anything other than a personal project of its editor (who is clearly very obsessed with Ifan Morgan Jones and Nation.Cymru). Sionk (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason I have been skimming the sources at a lot of articles on serial killers and other murderers in the last few days. And hopefully it will shock no one if I point out that a great many such articles are sensationalist garbage with no reliable sourcing that should be burned to the ground. But, what brings me here today is the website clarkprosecutor.org, used as a source on many such articles. It appears to genuinely be the webpage of the district attorney of Clark County, Indiana. It hosts some large number of pages on crimes outside of that county; for example, 27 is used as a source on Robert Anthony Buell. Is this a reliable source? --JBL (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The site has apparently existed since 1998 according to the copyright notice, which is confirmed by this archive from October 11 1999, which look almost identical to the current website aside from the different attorney. The current head of the website is Jeremy Mull who took office in 2015. Much of the text on the website appears to have recived little update since its inception, as can be seen in the enormous similarity in the drugs section between the 1999 version and the current version of the drugs notice. This 2002 archive of the Buell article is essentially the same as the article you linked, making it effectively a relic of the late 90's - early 2000's internet like the Space Jam website. The websites updates to the death penalty stopped in 2008, so I would not consider the source to be reliable for up to date information on legal issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As whether it is usable as a source, given the above caveats, most of the uses appear to be articles on specific criminals like the one you linked, and is a collation of information found in legal documents. executedtoday.com   appears to be another (obviously non-government) site with a similar scope to these pages. Obviously there is not likely to be any further update needed to an article about someone executed in the 1970's for instance, but I would prefer newspaper sources and books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hosted either here: https://jaffacity.wixsite.com/gazellebulletin/ - or here - http://www.gazelle.8m.net/index.html - unclear which of these is supposed to be the "official" address.

This appears to be the homegrown, self-hosted, non-peer-reviewed journal of a single author (this guy). We got a heads-up from deWP about the possibly fishy status of several taxonomic descriptions (see current AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilean blue whale) and that publication in particular 28; unlike them we seem to have escaped getting an English article about this masterpiece, also published in the "journal". Following that, I have removed the dozen or so citations to this source that the author has inserted on enWP over the last few years.

I wouldn't have thought that there's much room for disagreement here, but since Tisquesusa just reverted me here, it appears we need to have this discussion. What bearing being hosted on Researchgate and having an ISSN number has on reliability is a bit of a mystery to me, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Tisquesua I'm not sure what your thinking here is. Researchgate is considered an unreliable source per WP:RSP

ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).

Also the paper itself "Ornithomimid Dinosaur Tracks from Beit Zeit, West of Jerusalem, Palestine" is not relevant to the Tendaguru Formation article itself, which is in Tanzania. As far as I can tell the article is not cited in the text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Tisquesusa has since reverted his re-adding the publication, so there's no longer an issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw; it is appreciated :) However, if a couple more people wanted to add their assessment, that would be useful. I can see this coming up again - the author is currently busy decorating lots of other language WPs, and sooner or later that journal is going to rear its head again here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: If it is being spammed with the intent to promote the "journal" then it should be added to the Spam blacklist, as as a publication with no effective peer review it is no better than something published in OMICS. @Headbomb: do you think that this is worth adding to your unreliable script? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Re Headbomb's ref highlighter, that already is picking it up; sole red standout on several of the pages where I removed it. Works as advertised! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

At Iruña-Veleia an editor has twice made this edit.29 "Despite this assertion held by the accusation, the two UPV-EHU experts committed an appreciation error, since the lines carved in the pieces are not actually letters, and no "RIP" can be inferred from them, as concluded in the June 2020 sentence.¹

I'm also unsure about this source (which in any case is being misused): In May 2009, prominent archaeologist Edward Harris published the conclusions of a detailed assessment of the findings in Iruña-Veleia, according to the copies submitted to him by the excavations team in charge, with the scholar examining the excavation method, recording of plan and section data, as well as the compilation and illustration of stratigraphic sequences. He concluded that the findings held true, according to the evidence provided.² As you can tell by the title, it's something written "To Whom It May Concern" on a blog.30 The author is an expert on stratigraphy (which isn't really an issue for the apparent hoax), but on a blog? In any case the blog is since a court case last week directing people to a new website31 arguing the issue, so it looks as though both sites are not neutral about the artefacts in question. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian source is obviously usable, but I'm not sure for the others, especially if they're both primary and transient... —PaleoNeonate – 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is not policy (as far as I know) that forbids the use of photos published by news organisations. As plenty of people seem to think they are not RS maybe we need to write this into policy.

Should we forbid the use of photos published without accompanying text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• A photograph should never be used as a source for information on Wikipedia... however, a photograph can be used to illustrate information that is otherwise reliably sourced. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • But do we say that anywhere?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I do know that we have discussed the issue of images from an original research perspective (saying that an analysis of a photo by an editor would constitute OR)... and we do have WP:OI (but that talks about images created by Wikipedians, not images created by news orgs.) we may also have discussed them from a WP:COPYRIGHT perspective. I would agree that we should say something about them from an WP:V and WP:RS perspective. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• As a note, using photos from media organizations on WP is prevented by WP:NFCC#2 - we do not allow photos which are meant to be purchased from press corps like Gettys to be used as they have commercial value, unless they are the subject of discussion themselves (like the flag raising on Iwo Jima). --Masem (t) 16:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That is using them not citing them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider what if we were using graph data from a news article...We're allowed to cite graph information but in such a case I would expect that we know the source of the graph data is reliable - which might be the actual work that published it but more often is a third-party source. But in this case, we can't make any further interpretations beyond WP:CALC of graph data in the articles. (eg trying to interprete climate change data for ourselves, that would need the expert statements of what it means, but dropping a 100-yr graph of average temps going up, we can say this shows the average rising temperature over the past 100 years). Photos become more fuzzy because nearly everything about that is not hard data but interpretation that CALC doesn't apply to, and thus we have never considered them as reliable sources in discussions, but never iterated in policy. --Masem (t) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I am asking if we should.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

We should, but I think its more an NOR issue than an RS, though the source of the photo/graph/image needs to be taken into account as a first step (sourcing graph data from a questionable source isn't going to work either). --Masem (t) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If a picture show X its not OR to say it shows X. Thus the only issue would be its its depiction of X an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to be careful because a photo can't show other things like intent or action or the like. I've seen editors try to show a photo of X and Y together (X and Y being BLP) and then assert some type of connection between X and Y that may or may not exist. And unless the origin of the photo is clearly know, other factors, like identifying a location based on landmarks, as well as potentially identifying specific persons if the image is not clear. There's almost no case I can see using an image (outside graphs) solely as a reliable point of information. --Masem (t) 18:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at millhist it crops up every so often for issues such as military decorations (well this picture shows it on his uniform (but that is usually OR anyway)) for example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the OP (which seems to be sort talking about a photo being a source) this policy creates a sourcing requirement for the presence of material, not a requirement that restricts the inclusion of sources. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) I think that Blueboar is addressing a different issue, which is that the caption of an image or sometimes the mere presence of an image in context is itself a statement which may need to be sourced. An example is that putting an image of John Smith into an article on Australians may be an implied statement that John Smith is an Australian. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am talking about, a lot of users seem to be under then impression that A: Photographs are not RS (like headlines) and that B: you cannot judge the RS by the quality of pictures it uses (because of A, we cannot use the picture). But this does not appear to be the case. So therefore as some users seem to think (and from their tone agree) that they should not be regarded as reliable I am asking the community should that in fact be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is just a category error. My sandwich from lunch can't be used as a reliable source, because it lacks the relevant kind of information. The same is true of photographs. People who say "in the photo one can easily see ..." are committing original research, just as if I tried to add "anyone who has a bite of my sandwich can easily tell it contains tomatoes, and is delicious". --JBL (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Online photographs are basically digital art. The art and layout departments in today's clickbait environment may not always consider potential ethical implications when using a manipulated photograph to accompany an article headline, especially when working under time restrictions in the race to beat competitors to the punch. You can also liken it to artistic license - the artists often see nothing wrong with combining elements from different digital images that took place at the same time in basically the same location. The editor-in-chief and copy editors may not even know an image was manipulated until after they go online. I retired quite early from a 30+ year career in media, but have maintained an expert level in photography, digital image enhancement and photoshopping, field & post production for online video and television, and there are times when I can't even tell the difference when the job is done well; therefore, I have no reservations in saying that images are/can be changed without us ever knowing it. I agree with Masem in that images are not a RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Images can be taken from any source, provided copyright is respected. But, "Images should look like what the are meant to illustrate." I don't know how specific the guideline needs to be. Editors should not use images to provide misleading information because of a perceived loophole in policy or guidelines, but should adhere to the spirit of the project.

I remember a case where an editor created an image of Hitler and Stalin. In fact they had never met and the photo was deleted.

TFD (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And what if the are from an RS? How do we know an image is of what it claims to be?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is from a generally accepted RS we accept the image is what it is claimed to be in the RS. Anything else is OR unless its clearly and obviously a mistake (source says dress is white, dress is red in photo etc) We would not use the photo *as* a source for articles in most cases because our rules around inclusion of non-free media start to come into play. The exceptions are specifically where the photo itself is the subject of the article. This seems to be a rather specific query however, is there an example that has prompted this? If you look at the very top of this board in quite clear writing, it says in order to get an answer we need the source, the article, and the content the source is to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more a meta issue than one with a specific example in mind. The question probably should have been asked at the talk page of WP:RS itself - as a preliminary to (potentially) amending the guideline - rather than here at RS/N. That said, since it HAS been asked here, I don’t see any harm in continuing to discuss it.

As I see it, the underlying question is: in terms of reliability, do we consider photos appearing in news sources as being SEPARATE from the news reporting (as we do with headlines), or are they PART of the news reporting? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pictures being an instant snapshot of a situation lack context without a written description. You cant use a picture as a source for anything except the basic facts of what the picture is showing. Take Eddie Adams most famous picture. Its a man pointing a gun at another man. There are plenty of factual things about the photo you can state, but anything actually useful (where it is, why, context, who, that one of the subjects was in the midst of being executed) cannot be sourced without accompanying text. Taken in isolation you cant even say its not a still from a war movie. As a primary source a photo is reliable for the basic details of what the photo shows. In much the same way any other visual media is a primary source for its own content. So I would say they cannot be considered except as part of the reporting (except in the cases like the above where the picture is the subject itself). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Article: David Haas
• URL: 32 (general), 33 (article in question)

Hi folks, I don't see much discussion of Catholic News Agency on this board (it only comes up once in the archives with a tangential mention) so I'm looking for opinions on its reliability. Right now, the second link above is being used to support a claim that a BLP was accused of sexual misconduct, which is obviously an area where we want high-quality sourcing. In this case, I've looked at the primary sources they're referring to, and I believe that the article is accurately reporting that the accusations exist. I've modified the article to attribute the report to Catholic News Agency, but I'm interested in wider input on the reliability of the source, both in this case and in general. My initial read is that it's not the best source (though it does at least claim to have editorial oversight), but in this case I think using it with attribution is reasonable. creffett (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) (please ping in replies)

• I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• According to its about page, "Catholic News Agency was founded in 2004, in response to Pope St. John Paul II’s call for a “New Evangelization." It is one of the fastest-growing Catholic news providers in the world."34 I would say it is probably reliable for facts but obviously expresses a Catholic POV and should be combined with other sources for NPOV. When in doubt, attribute. In the case where a Catholic person is accused of misconduct I would say it's entirely usable as admission against interest. But in that case it doesn't hurt to attribute. buidhe 18:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't sound like something that can be used as evidence of notability, though, for instance. It sounds like they haven't been caught lying - which is good, but then I think about the deprecated LifeSiteNews, which is used as an opinion outlet by Catholic hierarchy. To what extent are they hooked into that media sphere? - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you may be right about that. I randomly clicked on their front page and CNA describes Czechia as "a largely atheistic country", but Pew says only 25% of Czechs identify as atheists35 ("largely secular country" would be accurate). However, CNA is probably reliable for reporting what Pell says 36 (just not WP:DUE). buidhe 23:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It's widely cited in RS books, but mostly for quoting Catholic Church figures. buidhe 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else, does not establish notability. Its mission is to evangelise, not to publish fact, so we should not treat it as an authority for fact. Guy (help!) 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Week is cited a couple of hundred times on Wikipedia. Is it reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Falls into the same ballpark of works like The Nation; weekly politically-oriented news magazine. Typically editorial practices for such a work, and have not seen anything to suggest that they engaging in any fabrication or the like (in searching for any incidents on the web). May not be the Old Grey Mare but nothing to blemish editorial practices that I can see and when I've used them, nothing that stands out. Only small bit to note being a more central (but still left-leaning) magazine. So reliable. --Masem (t) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And just to note, there is a UK version and a US version, same ownership (like Wired US and Wired UK). Same rational applies to both. --Masem (t) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Week isn't so much a publisher as a re-publisher.

Pieces which are "original" to The Week are composites of pieces from elsewhere. For example, a piece on Covid Lockdown in the UK is peppered with attributions:

• Britons feel betrayed, said Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.
• This escapade has unleashed "public rage," said Rachel Shabi in Independent.co.uk.
• Johnson has sabotaged public trust, a crucial weapon in the fight against Covid-19, said Janice Turner in The Times.
• The Left wants Cummings fired because he knows how to win, said Nick Ferrari in the Daily Express.
• That’s why the prime minister won’t get rid of him, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian.

Other pieces are covered by the small print disclaimer at the foot of the final page:

Sources: A complete list of publications cited in The Week can be found at theweek.com/sources.

which leads to a list of publications and their websites with no way of linking fact to source.

In short, it's reliable, but citing The Week denies credit to the original source of the material, and falls shy of being truly verifiable. Cabayi (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I looked up some of the uses on obvious hot button topics. What I found was not encouraging. Articles with no bylines, listicles and the like, but also attributed comment to (e.g.) Francis Wilkinson (who he? -- ed.), whose qualification as a valid opinion appears to be that he writes opinion pieces, mainly in The Week, where he was at the time Executive Editor. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I don't see any valid reason for citing opinions form people known only for having opinions, in publications that only really publish opinions. We should strive for a more grounded approach to fact. I don't see any indicators that this is a generally unreliable source, i.e. that it makes stuff up, but I owuld say that any of the current uses I have seen should not, and probably would not, survive any challenge to removal. Guy (help!) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

deaddeath.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I want to ask about whitelisting a citation for the death of Mr. Wrestling II, but I can't find any mention of it in the archive for the blacklist. I want to know it's reliable, and/or why it was blocked. --Auric talk 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• No editorial oversight and simply reprints material from elsewhere on the web, including rumours from social media. It may also copy from reliable sources, but the social media thing is clearly a no-no. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, and the entry for the wrestler is indeed, just copies of social media posts and a summary of his life stolen from elsewhere on the web. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to go with another ref.--Auric talk 13:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I found this by accident yesterday. It aggregates other reports, of distinctly variable reliability, including what appears to be speculation. Basically clickbait, not a usable source. Guy (help!) 10:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

At Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, WhatamIdoing suggested four books that he thought were relevant and helpful. One was Jacquineau, Azetsop (2016-09-15). HIV & AIDS In Africa: Christian Reflection, Public Health, Social Transformation. Orbis Books. ISBN 978-1-60833-671-5.. AlmostFrancis disputes its reliability because Orbis Books is "unabashedly religious and Marxist," and because several of the chapters are written by Catholic priests. He has removed all content attributed to it, including secondary citations to pre-existing content. In general, is this book reliable for this article? Are chapters written by expert priests reliable? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see wp:undue issues with this, and it can be argued to not exactly be third party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Could you elaborate on the undue issue, please? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said its not exactly third party, thus one can argue it represents a very narrow and biased viewpoint. One can go as far as to say self serving and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Or not. I assume you haven't read it? One of the sentences blanked from the article is this: In early days of AIDS, discriminatory views of political leaders were supported by religious leaders, including Catholic clergy, hampering the response and worsening the pandemic in some parts of Africa. That's cited to the director of the African Jesuit Historical Institute, who has a PhD in African political history from Oxford. I would not consider that a self-serving statement, and I bet nobody else would, either.

Given that this article is "Named organization and subject", it would be WP:UNDUE to omit everything published by anyone related to that organization, but that is a subject for a different noticeboard. The question for RSN is whether this source is reliable enough to support this statement. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Self serving and "serving that version of my organisation" are not the same thing. It promotes a specific opinion, one that may not be independent of the publishers agenda, hence why I said this is more a case of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The same claim could be made with greater justice of basically any newspaper. I assume that you don't think that major newspapers regularly publish things that their publishers disagree with? Hearst would be rolling in his grave. WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with whether publishers choose to publish authors whose views are congenial to their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but it does if those views are only represented by that one source (it is after all what it means, an undue opinion). Yes (by the way) I would and have said that if an opinion only appears in one newspaper then it might well be undue to mention it).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Before we get to in the weeds on that quote, which is why this should all be on the talk page, it was also going to be a two sentence section where the second one was promotional. The bigger issue was that the page cited doesn't seem to be in the source, page 522 out of 424.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats wp:v, not RS. But its a valid point.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't bring it here :) AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I cited "location" 522, not "page" 522, because I cited the Kindle version of the book. I also said I'm not sure how to cite a Kindle, so if you have some advice I would be obliged. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Add a bookmark on the kindle which you can then view the page number. Alternatively you can search for the quote you are using on the google books page, which will return the page number, though you may not be able to view the page itself. I recommend the search because no one wants to be forced to use the kindle.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, The source was also used as a secondary source to further support existing content. While admittedly I only skimmed the chapters that didn't seem directly relevant, and while I haven't worked my way through the entire book yet, I haven't seen anything that looked like a fringe position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would still consider it possibly undue,. It doers not have to be fringe. If there are other sources just use those. My concearn would be this on its own.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I agree. Exactly the kind of source we should steer clear of in a controversial area like this. Guy (help!) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what RS has to do with this as it is mostly a Due Weight issue. It is a weak source for two reasons. One the publisher follows liberation theology and is an imprint of a Catholic order which has a missionary focus. The Chapters added so far were not written by experts but by Catholic priests, Jesuits I believe. I am not sure where the "expert" part came for the priests, though?AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably when they get PhDs from Oxford, is my guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Being a priest or a Jesuit does not preclude being an expert... I agree that this is more a due weight issue though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I get for trying to be brief. One priest was a director of a what looks like a Jesuit archival institute, which does produce a journal, who does not seem to produce much if any scholarship. Unless everyone with a DPhil is an expert then he would not be. The other priest "taught" at a number of schools but mostly just seems to contribute to various church magazines, though again he does have a Ph.D. Too be fair some of the other priests in the book do publish, seem to have actual academic jobs, and might fit under expert. But this should be decided on a DUE basis at the actual talk page. For all I know I just missed where these two priests have shown expertise. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:V's only definition of expert is anyone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The PhDs are optional under our rules. Mkenda certainly qualifies, as Routledge (as in, "the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences") tapped him to write a chapter in ISBN 9781134505777.

Your edit summary, when you blanked this, said that you thought the source was WP:QUESTIONABLE, not that you thought it was UNDUE. UNDUE would mean that you thought there was too much in the article from priests writing that their organizations were discriminating against PWA. If you're no longer concerned that the source is unreliable for the stated claim, and you don't believe that there is too much criticism about discrimination against PWA, then maybe you'd like to go restore that sentence and its citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is dishonest to say that I said it was WP:QUESTIONABLE when I in no way tied myself to that wikilink. Unless you are arguing that "questionable" doesn't have a understood English meaning, I ask you too strike your comment and not misquote me again. The rest of your comment is a strawman argument and belongs on the talk page anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298
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.

---