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.

What do you think about ? WP:RS are entitled to perform their own WP:OR, we aren't. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to engage in research: that's why we cite them. As to whether that particular source is WP:RS for the statements made, that is another question. For a start, the citation includes a link to a website which seems to be hosting a chapter from a book - quite possibly in violation of copyright - we cannot cite that, and must cite the original. Dening's The Mythology of Sex was published by Macmillan, a reputable publisher, and seems to have a few citations show up on Google Scholar, so it probably shouldn't be rejected outright, without further discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, cite Denning not "The Temple of Ishtar" (seems to be a Burning Man thing?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Denning is a popular book on a wide variety of sex-related topics. The author clearly has no independent expertise on Sumerian society, about which she makes a number of statements in relation to sexual behaviour. She provides no references for these statements (in fact the book is entirely without references). It is the absence of authoritative references that renders the book an unreliable source in this specific area, despite the reputable publisher. There might be another area in which the author is authoritative but about Sumerian sexual mores she isn't. As the source is not reliable, the statements in the page that reference it do not conform to NPOV. John Lazenbatt (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability and neutrality are two different things. And if we were to demand every source we cite cites its own sources in turn, we'd end up with no sources at all. Is there any specific reason to suspect that Dening (one 'n') is wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the issue one of expertise? If an academic in some field that covers ancient Sumer tells me something about the sexual behaviour of Sumerians I will be inclined to believe it because I'll regard them as an expert. If someone I have no reason to accept as an expert tells me the same thing I will ask how they know that and I'll expect them to be able to point to the experts. Dening doesn't do that. She isn't an expert on Sumer and her book contains no references. John Lazenbatt (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You can check Dening out at https://archive.org/details/mythologyofsexan0000deni John Lazenbatt (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Dening was making it up? It seems rather specific to be pure invention. Her book is clearly a general overview of a very broad topic, and ideally it would be nice to cite scholarly works directly, but it seems unlikely to me that Macmillan would be publishing such an extensive work without at least assuring themselves that Dening wasn't inventing stuff wholesale, and one gets the impression from the context to the material being cited that she must be basing it around expert sources - who else would be translating Sumerian tablets?. So again, I'd ask whether there is any particular reason to think that Dening is wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You're experiencing Goldilocks expert syndrome... If an expert on sexual practices isn't an expert on Sumerian sexual practices because they aren't an expert on ancient Sumer then your desired expert in ancient history isn't an expert on Sumerian sexual practices because they aren't an expert on sexual practices. Most of the time the double or triple niche academic who would be perfectly qualified to answer a given question doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Also informative are the reviews of the book at https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0713481110 John Lazenbatt (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not the best source, but it's not the worst either. On the positive side: it's published by MacMillan, a respected publisher with a reputation for accuracy. On the negative side: the author, Sarah Dening, is not a historian and I can find no evidence that she has any particular historical training – she is a psychotherapist whose other books are on the I Ching and the interpretation of dreams –, the book is for a popular rather than academic audience, and I can't find any substatial academic engagement with it. I wouldn't call it outright unreliable, but we should absolutely prefer a better source. Perhaps {{better source needed}} would be a more appropriate tag than {{unreliable source}}. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a better source would be preferable. The article also cites Gwendolyn Leick, who definitely is a subject expert: I wonder if she has written anything directly relevant to Sumerians (as opposed to their gods) attitudes to masturbation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think Dening's source is probably this paper: Vern L. Bullough (1971) Attitudes toward deviant sex in ancient Mesopotamia, The Journal of Sex Research, 7:3, 184-203. Though it raises similar questions of interpretation to Dening - Bullough's interest is in sex rather than Ancient Mesopotamia - he does at least provide references. I think his own primary source is this: Biggs, Robert D. Šà.zi.ga, Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Locust Valley, N.Y: J. J. Augustin, 1967. I don't have access to this at the moment but I can get it through a library. There is a basic page for Šà.zi.ga which has been flagged up as needing work. John Lazenbatt (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Bullough at least is an academic publishing in an academic journal; even with the knotty problem of interpreting Sumerian sources, I wouldn't be concerned about an article citing that for claims about Sumerian sexual attitudes unless there was some particular reason to doubt the claims made.

Biggs apparently was a well-respected expert on ancient Mesopotamia – a quick google search turns up a festschrift dedicated to him – and would by all appearances be an excellent source on Sumerian attitudes.

It shouldn't be controversial to replace citations to Dening on Sumerian sexual attitudes with either Biggs or Bullough if they can support the same claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert D. Biggs, author of the Šà.zi.ga study, was Professor of Assyriology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

I've been very negative about Dening's book as regards Sumerian mythology but taken as a whole it seems like a very enjoyable and wide-ranging romp though sexual matters. It was probably quite liberating when it was published in 1996. John Lazenbatt (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons has a photo of somebody's tombstone, and it's specific enough that it cannot possibly be the wrong person. If I cannot find a better secondary source for that person's DOB, (a) can I cite the grave marker and (b) how would I do so? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

{{cite sign}} exists. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a new one to me, thanks! As to point (a): if the Commons photo is unquestionably the correct one, is that a suitable source for citing a DOB barring any other reliable sources? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

We don’t cite the photo, we cite the tombstone itself. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A tombstone in public view is a published source, albeit a WP:SPS. It's probably fine for DOB if the DOB isn't extraordinary in some way (i.e. I wouldn't use this if this is a contentious claim related to somebody being the oldest person in X at some point in time). The point in using the {{cite sign}} template is so that someone can actually verify that the tombstone says what we are citing it to say; you could provide a link to the photograph in the URL field as a convenience link. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Cinestaan a reliable source? It has been debated in several AfDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someday (2021 film). The site has an about us and team but no editorial policies, I also couldn't find evidence that the authors are subject-matter-experts. However, Atlantic306 stated that it is RS. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• It was discussed here. section 94. As they have a full staff and cover a wide field including historic areas of Indian cinema not always covered by other sites, I would say they are acceptable as a source for non-controversial content such as film reviews where editorial policies are not essential. Whether they are reliable for blp claims is debatable Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Rock_'n_Load but didn't get much response so I figured I should try bringing this here. In short:

1. Multiple editors have concerns about the site and admit to actively avoiding it (see the above-linked discussion as well as this older one). One of those editors admits to not investigating too deeply so most observations are perhaps relatively surface level, but there's still a lot of circumstance that doesn't look very good.
2. There's apparent evidence, as I detailed on WP Albums, that this website is actually publishing press releases/ad copy and passing it off as legitimate reporting and album reviews.
3. There are also several other issues with the site such as a lack of bylines or a staff page and a poor archiving job for reviews.

I personally believe this site is deserving of at least a listing at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, this is something that affects even long-established reliable sources these days – half of what Billboard or Rolling Stone or NME publishes as news has been fed to them by press releases or even directly uploaded by the artist's management. But you are right about the other issues: even album reviews from a few months ago are coming up as 404s, and the ones that do work are credited to obvious aliases or first names only, so it's impossible to tell if they are paid staff or enthusiastic readers sending in their own reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A fair call regarding other publications' use of press, but I will reemphasise the "and album reviews" part as especially troublesome. It's no guarantee, but when I read reviews like those that are nothing but surface level observations and showers of unadulterated praise, it looks questionable at least. QuietHere (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a fun one for you. The Tek Fog story has been thrown into disarray in the aftermath of the Wire-Meta fiasco. The entire story relies on an investigation by The Wire (India). Other news outlets have covered the Wire's investigation, but none have been able to verify the claims independently. And now, The Wire has removed the story (but not retracted it) after accusing one of its authors of deception.

To me, it's pretty clear: none of the WP:GNG are currently met, so the topic does not, for now, deserve its own article.

• The sourcing no longer exists, since the original outlet no longer stands behind its reporting (for now).
• There's no longer significant coverage.
• The report's editorial integrity is in doubt, so the "Reliable" criteria isn't met.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources isn't met either (and never was): the investigation was a primary source on the topic, based on anonymous sources; other outlets that covered the story were secondary sources on The Wire having done an investigation, but are primary sources on the investigation itself since they attribute all claims to The Wire.
• "Independent of the subject" could be argued to still be met, but is obviously not sufficient.

The story may not be retracted after all. But the "secondary source" requirement would still not be met, even if the reports are eventually reinstated. A journalist (who's written for the Atlantic and HuffPo, meeting WP:SPS's subject-matter expert criteria on journalism itself) has found serious issues with the investigation, with the now-fired author making incredibly bizarre claims. DFlhb (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't AFD but I see no realistic possibility that we don't have an article on this in some form even if it is simply as a widely discredited hoax. Also the claim there are no secondary sources is weird. I see plenty of secondary sources in the article which refer to the Wire investigation strongly suggest the investigation is something well known enough for us to cover. If no one else has independently verified anything the Wire has said, we do need to be careful about what we say, but that's about all. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In order to cover it as a discredited hoax, we'd need independent coverage of that. And I've explained why I think the sources aren't secondary: they republish The Wire's reporting (attributing all claims), but don't analyze its claims or substantiate them; they're independent but primary. In addition, a single article can be both secondary and primary. They're secondary when they analyze what it would mean for India, for example, but they're clearly primary on the basic Tek Fog allegations; they don't include commentary and evaluation of the quality of the evidence.

See WP:RSBREAKING: The Wire matches both the anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports criteria. DFlhb (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Source. 2

2. Article. John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

3. Content. Special:Diff/1060577128

The specific content sourced on Newshub is the following: In November 2021 Campbell included in a video the false information that Ivermectin was responsible for a decline in COVID-19 fatalities in Japan, when in reality the drug has never been officially authorised for such use in Japan – its use was merely promoted by the chair of a doctors' group in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.

Is Newshub reliable to backup the assertion of Campbell having used false information in his Ivermectin video? Forich (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Haha. You are confused. The John Campbell (broadcaster) who works for Newshub is a different person. Newshub is a major news outlet in New Zealand; they run TV3. Mainstream media in NZ is sane. Schwede66 16:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree that Newshub is generally reliable (even if its quality has declined a bit recently), but to be fair the specific article in question is referring to the John Campbell youtuber, not the local broadcaster. Turnagra (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw Nexta with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant being captured by the Russian army. First they claimed that the plant was hit: 3 As a result of the shelling at the #Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, a fire started. The exact location of the fire is being specified. CCTV cameras at the plant show flames and smoke. which caused a lot of panic, even Al Jazeera published their tweet. And this week 4 they claimed that Turkish mercenaries were noticed in Putin's Z-army. which was debunked by Euronews. In my opinion, this is at the same level with Greek City Times and Al Masdar News. These kind of propaganda outlets shouldn't be used in Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Beshogur (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends. They report a lot on internal Belarusian matters and while they are clearly biased it can be a useful source. On the other hand, I don't see any reasons to use Nexta tweets for events in Ukraine. There are much better sources for that. Alaexis_¿question? 13:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Nexta's main outlet, so to speak, at least public facing and in English, appears to be their twitter feed. And a quick search shows it doesn't seem widely used on Wikipedia, so there may be quiet consensus already that this is not an ideal source. It's hard to get sufficient nuance and depth, as well as issuing corrections on a twitter feed. And they appear to be aiming for quick breaking news rather than full accuracy.

That said, looking at the examples given by User:Beshogur, the first one does not seem particularly problematic. Nexta did not in fact say that "the plant was hit". The quote from their tweet shows they said there was shelling at the plant resulting in a fire. Two BBC reports from the same day 12 contained very similar information. But with full articles outlets like BBC can give a more complete and nuanced picture than short tweets, which is why tweets are better avoided as sources. Second example would not be usable by itself on Wikipedia on WP:REDFLAG grounds. But from the Euronews article it appears to potentially be a misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate misstatement.

All in all, an outlet where better quality sources should generally be preferred, and where Nexta's twitter feed is the only source WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE would likely come into play. Siawase (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Siawase: how exactly is this a misunderstanding? If those so called newspapers can not do their own research, they shouldn't be manupilating the internet. Calling Russian citizen Meskhetian Turks who were forcibly conscripted "Turkish mercenaries" is a deliberate misstatement. Beshogur (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would attribute at a minimum, they definitely blur the line between journalism and activism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A tweet from Kevin Rothrock, managing director at Russian independent news outlet Meduza: Folks, I know they share a lot of red-hot content, including sweet, sweet multimedia, but @UnianInfo and @nexta_tv simply are not reliable information sources. Please do All Deities a favor and stop citing them uncritically. 5

Also, on here Nexta#Misinformation has one example where they corrected themselves within an hour, and a second one where they eventually removed the item. Siawase (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What about the nuclear power plant? I don't understand what's wrong with that story. Renat 18:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What best describes El American's reliability?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

NoonIcarus (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed several of El American's references in the past weeks. Even if the amount of articles where it was used didn't reach the hundreds, it was still used in tens of pages, it has been included in Pablo Kleinman's article several times. It has additionally already been mentioned in this noticeboard in a discussion about the John Stossel article (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#John Stossel's views on Wikipedia, where it was suggested to start a discussion on the outlet. I'll ping @Orangemike, Zaathras, and Peter Gulutzan:, who were involved in these discussions and might be more knowledgeable in this regard. I would personally vote for Option 4 and ask to deprecate the outlet, but I would like first to elaborate my point before, if I have the time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4: As I have now offered a neutral introduction, I would like now to explain the reasons why I believe the outlet should be deprecated. Editors or participants in the noticeboard might by familiar with PanAm Post, which was deemed unreliable by the noticeboard in 2020. El American was founded by its chief editor Orlando Avendaño after leaving the outlet the same year, and it essentially is a website that mixes news with opinion currently that has an alt-right editorial stance, with a reliability more questionable than that of PanAm Post.

Among the dubious information they have published, to say the least, are articles about the 2020 US elections (6789, republishing content from the deprecated outlet Breitbart (101112131415), conspiracies related to Hunter Biden's laptop (16171819), that fascism is a left-wing ideology (202122) and quoting that "not only were masks effectively worthless against stopping the spread of Covid-19, but also that wearing them might be harmful for people’s well-being and for society in general". They even have an article titled "Wikipedia Adheres to White House Propaganda by Changing Meaning of Recession"

El American has published false or fabricated information in the past, and should be deprecated as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 - unreliable and to be deprecated. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I guess I'm pinged because I commented in thread Stossel on Wikipedia Edit removed. There I said that Mr Stossel's opinions were allowable if the article's editors could agree, there was no policy against. There still isn't and no WP:RSN RfC can result in an opinion ban. This kind of question, though, can encourage people to think it's okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (El American)

NoonIcarus, some of your examples are opinion pieces which shouldn't be used anyway and thus are irrelevant for the discussion on the reliability (23, 24). Taking an article from your list which is *not* an opinion piece, can you clarify what false or fabricated information does it contain? Alaexis_¿question? 07:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Numerous of these inaccurate pieces indeed are opinion ones. However, this is apparently a politics, not an opinion piece, and is probably inaccurate IMO- the most serious thing happens because of what happened throughout 2020 and part from 2019: the democratic legal mobilization to change the rules of the electoral game. Here, here, and here it also cites mediocre sources such as The Washington Times, which is currently marginally reliable (though latter ones are opinion). Further, here is an economics and news-related piece which states in the body (not headline, which is automatically unreliable per WP:HEADLINE)- And to their good fortune, several major national media outlets —and pages of mass circulation across the Internet— adjusted their definitions of recession to contribute to White House propaganda. The latest was Wikipedia and seems to brand our current event tag, which is quite common and used in lots of articles, as somehow driving a biased agenda and resembling propaganda. This doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction. IMO deprecation might not gain consensus for an infrequently used source, though. Many thanks, if anything I posted was wrong please let me know! VickKiang (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I request Wikipedia community to identify this as an unreliabkle source due to multiple reasons.

1- A prominent Indian independent news site destroys its own credibility - https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/10/27/a-prominent-indian-independent-news-site-destroys-its-own-credibility

2- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/27/indias-wire-says-it-was-deceived-by-staffer-articles-about-instagram/

3- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/18/india-facebook-meta-the-wire/

4- https://about.fb.com/news/2022/10/what-the-wire-reports-got-wrong/

5- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/sharechat-asks-the-wire-to-take-down-story-on-the-tek-fog-app/articleshow/94963861.cms

6-https://scroll.in/latest/1036058/editors-guild-removes-references-to-articles-on-tek-fog-after-the-wire-retracts-its-investigation

Those who have technical knowledge have explained that they were not deceived or cheated as they claim, but they intentionally made fake accusations and created a fictious tek fog app which never existed. 2402:3A80:1C3C:1155:34EA:FDF6:191B:630 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that the sources you've used to talk about this story all have similar if not more troubling skeletons in their closet... One bad retracted story doesn't sink a whole paper. Also note that your ending statement there goes further than the sources do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Meta and tek fog are two different cases and both are taken down. You said one story, I think you didn't check all. and regarding other comment, I read tweets from verified handles. 42.105.7.4 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I was speaking metaphorically, replace "one" with "a dozen" and the message is the same... Retraction is part of the normal editorial process. Random tweets are not WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The website is not like 'massive circulation' newspapers that covers many cases from cities and villages, or like news channel covering many stories everyday; but they focus on few cases and evem claim to investigate the story for months. I think, you don't have experience about this website and reports they make. The journalists, editors and founders of wire have verified twitter accounts. For months they debated, defended their stories. Meta is latest but tek fog is old. There is also a third case, where a Judge Loya died, his son told media, "my father died naturally", wire tried to create sensational conspiracy theory about political murder and cover up. Recently one article about judge Loya is also deleted. If you find other existing aticles about Loya, that is not the article they deleted. 42.105.7.4 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with u:Horse Eyes Back, retraction is a normal editorial process. Having two high-profile stories retracted doesn't look good, but I don't think we should consider them unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 18:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If any particular story is done exclusively by wire which is then picked up by other media?

A whole article was created about a software which even got international media coverage and those who first published this have now retracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Tek_Fog

You people are not going through the details. When their meta lies were xposed, then they also removed months old tek fog, and only one article on Justice Loya.

The editors are blaming their journalists while editors themselves were equally involved, and what they have written as apology is not whole truth.

It's not a printed or tv media. So they promote through twitter, youtube and facebook. What verified twitter accounts speak about them matters here. 2402:3A80:1A4E:513E:35F5:6C79:98BF:6107 (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Wire should absolutely not be used on anything contentious until they demonstrably change. My post will be long since it seems others are only applying superficial scrutiny. Mistakes are perfectly fine; what's not fine is the complete lack of proper editorial processes, since it disqualifies them from being a WP:RS.

Please make sure your browser supports "link to text fragment", since I use them extensively to save you time.

• In their initial October 10th report, The Wire nonsensically claims that 5.8 million Facebook users have the ability to report Facebook posts, and they'll be immediately taken down, with no review by Meta. Preposterous beyond belief. Nowhere do they say they contacted Meta for comments before publication. The story was written by The Wire's Deputy Editor and Executive News Producer.
• Here's the sourcing claimed in that initial report:
  • The Wire has learnt from a well-placed source at Meta, and: in the month of September, the Meta source told The Wire. Note the singular. You never publish a groundbreaking exclusive based on a single source.
  • The internal Instagram report, which The Wire has accessed. That "report" is a screenshot of the instagram.workplace.com website. "Workplace" is Facebook's alternative to Slack, and is used internally. Note that anyone can create a Workplace instance (i.e. myinstance.workplace.com) on that site, for free (with a trial), just like Slack.
• Meta denies.
• October 11: The Wire doubles down and releases a dodgy email with horrendous ESL grammar as proof. The dodgy English should have tipped them off and got them to scrutinize the story, but they didn't. They again reference the "internal Instagram report" (from the Workplace instance). In this second report, they claim they did reach out to Meta on September 28th. Why was it ommitted from the first report?
• Meta said the emails were fabricated. A Facebook whistleblower said the emails are "clearly faked".
• October 15: The Wire triples down: ("We stand by our stories entirely"). They make several claims:
  • They say the email was obtained from a single source at Meta (again, no journalistic organization would run a story without corroboration).
  • They released the email's cryptographic information (for proof of authenticity). They further claim that two security experts verified the email's authenticity, and post screenshots of two emails from those experts.
  • They claim The Wire's sources at Meta (plural, now) have confirmed that instagram.workplace.com is used internally. At The Wire’s request, one of the sources made and shared a recording of them navigating the portal.
• The response is swift:
  • Meta disputes the new report unusually strongly.
  • Independent experts immediately said the released "cryptographic information" didn't prove anything. A researcher says it's possible they were forged.
  • The emails from the two security experts, which The Wire published, were dated October 2021. The Wire quickly photoshopped the screenshots to change the date from 2021 to 2022. The Wire claimed that this date discrepancy was caused by an incorrect system setting in TailsOS, which cannot be true since email dates are embedded in the email headers and don't depend on your operating system settings, and since TailsOS automatically synchronizes the date & time, and cannot boot without the proper date. The days of the week were also wrong, indicating an obvious Photoshop.
  • Both of The Wire's quoted security experts come out and say they never verified anything. Both of them say that they never sent the emails The Wire attributed to them and later photoshopped.
  • Meta says the Workplace instance was a spoof, created 3 days after the initial Wire article came out. The notes were all created by the logged-in user "3 hours ago", and were shared with no one. There was clearly no traffic to this instance. No one had ever heard of it. It didn't look like an internal Workplace instance would. And again, "Workplace" allows anyone to create an instance. The Wire's video shows that their instance is on a $4/month "Core" tier (which obviously wouldn't be used internally).
• The Wire quadruples down, reiterating the faith we have in our sources, the impossibility of this being a hoax, and calls the accusations baseless. Then they retract after enormous international backlash, and we're here.

To recap:

• Basic scrutiny disproved every aspect of this story. They clearly have no proper editorial processes whatsoever.
• From the beginning, they ran an extraordinary claim based on a single source. This is a clear editorial failure: no reliable journalistic outlet would ever do this. The entirety of their evidence (the emails, and the Workplace instance) was demonstrably fabricated.
• The Wire is trying to blame a single author, Devesh Kumar. But The Wire's successive articles were written by 3 authors total, not just one "bad apple". One of them is the Executive News Producer and Deputy Editor, and another is the Founding Editor. The Founding Editor also vouched for the hoax, saying the stories came from multiple Meta sources—whom we know, have met & verified. He later admitted to The Verge that wasn't true; they only verified the identity of a single source.
• The Wire was caught manufacturing emails from sources (the two security experts) from whole cloth, and later photoshopping these emails to make them look more convincing.

Editors who defend The Wire are being extraordinarily lenient. There's been instances at reputable outlets (USA Today, the New York Times) where single journalists were caught manufacturing quotes on minor stories. Never for huge international stories with the editor in chief and a senior editor on the byline, who are caught manufacturing quotes, photoshopping evidence, and lying about sources (in this case, the 2 security experts).

We decide whether sources are reliable based on their among of due diligence, scrutiny, and editorial oversight. The Wire has failed all those criteria. It's on them to demonstrate they've addressed these issues. If they do, fantastic. But until they do, they can't be treated as a reliable source. They've demonstrated that they are unreliable for tech news, not just politics and science; that's worse than Fox News! DFlhb (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Your rendition isn't exactly accurate. For instance, secondary sources that have covered the story haven't pushed the blame of the manufactured emails onto the entire team. Of note is that the purported emails from the experts were addressed to Kumar and the identities of the experts were kept anonymous. It became public when the independent expert who had raised the alarm on the emails being manufactured and was scruitising the story, obtained the identities of these anonymous experts from the editor himself. If the editor was in on it as you are implying it would make no sense for him to disclose their identities to him. In WaPo's coverage where the independent expert gave comments, he himself vouches for the editor's integrity.

Now, the reporter Kumar obviously fabricated those emails and probably more, whom the editor initially trusted, relied on and backed his explainations. The story was rushed and there were editorial lapses but this isn't extraordinary for reliable sources. There have been reporters who have made careers out of manufactured material and continuously slipped them past their editors. There have been bigger lapses on more significant stories, one that comes to mind is the NYT pushing the lie on WMDs in Iraq and apologising for it an year later.

In short, basically what HEB and Alaexis have already said; no source is infallible and what matters is what they do when lapses occur. In this case, The Wire retracted the story, published an apology, sacked the reporter and also retracted earlier reports he was involved in.

This kind of response is rare in the Indian news media and they are one of the best sources we have for the topic area. To give a snippet of their reputation, their reporting is described as award-winning by Colombia Journal Review and the stories they have received awards for are nearly all what one would describe as contentious. For instance their coverage of extrajudicial killings. The International Press Institute in a 2020 report stated that it "is providing some of the best coverage in the Asia-Pacific region on the impact of the coronavirus and the lock-down on disadvantaged and disempowered Indians". They are the Indian partner at the Pegasus Project. They also have a high WP:USEBYOTHERS from reliable sources in the topic area, for instance this Coda Media report (hyperlinks to 4 articles at "rebuke", "had", "observed" and "maintained") uses it as a source for facts without seeing any need for attribution, regarding migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic and inconsistencies in the government's claims. Similarly BBC reports on nearly ever major story in India contains details or background sourced to The Wire with hyperlinks to it. In other words, it is a generally reliable source and doesn't suddenly become unreliable because they had an editorial lapse and retracted a couple stories. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think your first paragraph actually distorts it a fair bit. The source was anonymous to us, obviously not to The Wire. Kumar showed the email to his boss, and if there was even minimal fact-checking, the discrepancies would have been caught. Calling sources to double-check before using them is journalism 101. The independent expert never "vouches" for Kumar, he merely "did not accuse" him. And this has nothing to do with Stephen Glass or other cases, I've already addressed that. Senior editors were on the byline; which wasn't the case with Glass, Jayson Blair or others.

Comparing this with the NYT's WMD coverage is really off the mark; the evidence back then was quite robust and stood up to scrutiny; it was just completely made up (in a sophisticated way) by the intel community, which the NYT had attributed the claims to anyway.

Editorial processes aren't there to "trust" authors; they're there to fact-check and make sure journalistic standards are met. Claims weren't fact-checked. Sources weren't called to confirm. The whole story was based on one source. No reputable org today does this, especially not on such a major story. And are you saying that The Wire isn't responsible here, that it's just Kumar's fault? Basic, reasonable journalistic standards would have prevented all of this.

The CJR award commands them for claiming to value credibility over clickbait; but the opposite is shown on display here. Further, the awards were likely partly motivated by the Wire's independent from the Indian government, rather than purely their journalistic worth. Bild and Epoch Times also won awards, and yet are not WP:RS. And Re: WP:USEBYOTHERS the vast majority of those sources use it for India-related news. Contrast that with the Tek Fog coverage in Western media, which universally attributes their claims. They're just not trusted with proper investigations. Their Pegasus Project doesn't tell us as much as we'd hope; those are joint investigations, which can paper over certain newspapers' deficiencies.

See, for example, how the Economist covered this: they say The Wire fell for a "massive conspiracy". They explicitly blame The Wire's partisanship. WaPo notes growing questions about The Wire’s integrity and accuracy. The Editors Guild of India, their national journalistic association which had previously stood by The Wire, now calls out their circumvention of journalistic norms and checks. It's hard to pretend it's business as usual. DFlhb (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Um what? Kumar is the sacked reporter, I never said the independent expert vouched for him. He vouched for the editor. And there is also no CJR award, it's an article from the CJR which states as fact that they "carry award-winning journalism", its not just about independence. And of course, the WP:USEBYOTHERS is for India related topics. What's that point supposed to mean? It's an Indian publication and it indicates that they are considered an RS by other reputed international sources for India related topics, specifically for contentious and major stories going by what they cite them for. It's a bit ridiculous to say that they would receive awards because of independence, when they specifically received them for investigations. There are many independent outlets but they don't recieve awards just because of that. There are unreliable sources which have received awards sure but they don't become defined as being award-winning nor do they receive them at this rate.

For instance in 2021 alone, they won two Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards (akin to the Pulitzer Price in India) in both "digital media" and "broadcast media" categories for their investigative journalism on misuse of public funds by members of parliament and their documentary Inside Jamia Nagar on a Muslim ghetto in south Delhi.

The point of bringing up Glass or WMDs was that there have been big lapses in reputable publishers as well because you stated that there have been only been minor ones, not that they are direct analogues here. One could even argue that Glass and Blair was worse considered it covered a lot more stories and went on for much longer. They happened because editors don't expect their reporters to be blatantly fabricating emails and quotations. In this case it was a rushed story and the emails could have been proof enough for the editor that he didn't think he would have call to confirm an email. You could say Journalism 101 wasn't done, that it was preventable and dig into the deficiencies of the story all of want but so what?

In the end, the simple fact is they have been felicitated for much of their coverage and the coverage which is now being questioned stands retracted. Yes, there is criticism with regards to this which is to be expected, nearly any major reputable publisher has some major scandal that it gets heavily criticised for. That doesn't make their other work unreliable. Also the Editors Guild also isn't calling them out, they are urging "extra care" and retracting their own statement which was based on a retracted piece. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They objectively have some great journalists working for them. But the quality of their editorial processes are what we base a WP:RS determination on, and I'm basing my reasoning on that. Not on Kumar; but on the editorial processes The Wire has.

"Vouched for the editor" is overstating it; he praised Varadarajan for retracting, but said the publication "had failed its journalistic responsibility". I was imprecise with "CJR award". Individual journalists at The Wire winning awards has no bearing on the quality of their editorial processes, just on these individual journalists' work. I think I've addressed why I think this is worse than Glass or Blair; the senior editors were on the byline, and publicly vouched for the quality of (either made up or unreliable) sources; when senior editors publish a false story, without consulting independent experts to help them evaluate evidence (who would have caught it instantly), that's bad. When they don't catch obvious Photoshops, that's dubious. When they quadruple-down after one of their reporters is caught Photoshopping evidence, that makes me cringe.

What's worse is that as I note, The Wire never reached out to Meta for comments before publication! That's utterly disqualifying. They claim they only reached out for an earlier story about the removed Instagram posts, not about the massive and dubious conspiracy they alleged. Highly irresponsible.

Re: The Guild: they didn't just retract, they do explicitly say they're "disturbed" by the Wire "circumventing due journalistic norms and checks".

Here's the point: if you really think such egregious mistakes, involving senior editors and a blockbuster story, could ever have happened at the NYT, or WaPo, or anywhere else, please show evidence. The fabrications and discrepancies were too large to count. Even outlets like The Daily Beast have far stronger editorial scrutiny than The Wire demonstrated here, and I doubt even Fox has been caught in such a large scandal. The Wire doesn't disclose its editors, or editorial processes on its website. It's not a newspaper, it's an online site created in 2015. Given their short history, such a large mistake is hard to ignore based on good work their individual journalists have done before. Read the Fox News RfCs again; they've retracted or corrected many of the criticized pieces ("spin first, correct later"); but they were still downgraded because these errors were caused by bias (which The Economist also notes for the Wire). Let's not judge The Wire's quality as a WP:RS based on their Wikipedia page; what's our judgment of their editorial quality? Why shouldn't we urge caution when using them as a source? DFlhb (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Taking into account their mistake but disregarding their good work as the work of individuals is an untenable position. Through this determination you would be discarding that very work based on stories that have been retracted. Speculating on a general lack of process based on one incident is not how we make RS determinations, we look at the full scope of things.

There is no doubt that an editorial lapse occurred here but there's nothing special about that and we can clearly see there are editorial processes to rectify mistakes. We don't need to urge extra caution here because the general considerations for all reliable sources are sufficient; that one should not jump the gun with exclusive stories and for extraordinary claims one needs multiple sources. Very recently CNBC and Bloomberg fell to pranksters with joke names pretending to be fired employees from Twitter. One could say there was no editorial oversight and fact checking here. The thing is these things happen and doesn't take away from their other work. I can't say anything if you dismiss everything else as not as bad. Glass, Blair was much more extensive but I guess we can agree to disagree there.

Now Fox sometimes retracts sometimes doesn't. The most problematic part of theirs is that the errors are systemic and persistent, there are entire academic papers on how they actively promote disinformation. That's not remotely comparable to a newspaper column opining that they fell for a conspiracy because of partisanship. The presence of systemic issues is why most such sources are cautioned against but there is no evidence for that in this case.

Lastly, it's not just an online site, its a news publisher and is treated like one by other RS. Their disclosures are fairly normal, news publishers don't tend to have a blow by blow account of their exact editorial process or the structure of their staff. And it's not like they emerged from nowhere, it was established by the editor-in-chief(s) of legacy newspapers, The Hindu (RSP entry) and The Financial Express (the business news imprint of The Indian Express (RSP entry)). Also if I'm to go into the weeds a bit, EGI does not explicitly say that it was "disturbed" by the Wire "circumventing due journalistic norms and checks", you are combining two different sentences of a guarded statement to say that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparing this story with the Twitter story is nonsense; that was a minor detail in a minor story. The studies on Fox News's bias almost universally focus on FNC, not Fox News Digital, so are irrelevant for our purposes. And I never asked for a "blow by blow" of their editorial processes; it's perfectly normal for reputable news outlets to have a published editorial policy. General considerations (WP:RSBREAKING) are not relevant here; they apply to all outlets; but if some outlets are less reliable than others, that should surely be noted separately (otherwise, why do we need the concept of "generally reliable/generally unreliable"?) Finally I disagree with your interpretation of EGI's statement; they clearly place The Wire's reporting as part of an industry trend of partisan reporting that does not follow due journalistic standards.

When determining a source's usability, we must focus on their editorial quality; all my arguments center around that. Your points, while well-argued, sidestep that question. I covered, in detail, the extent of The Wire's journslistic failings, and why their attempt to blame them on a single author (Kumar) aren't credible when two senior editors were on the byline, and repeatedly vouched for the story and its sourcing. Let's take The Daily Beast as an example. Again, I'd be utterly shocked if TDB committed similar mistakes to what The Wire did here; their editorial processes would have prevented such a fiasco entirely. In the RfCs and discussions on TDB almost everyone agreed that TDB doesn't made things up; they employ serious journalists with solid resumes, and even their reporting on Donald McNeil Jr., which some here saw as questionable, was corroborated by other outlets like WaPo. We should use at least as much caution about The Wire as we do for TDB, a far more serious outlet. (Note that I'm not asking TDB's rating to be changed, there are other concerns.):

An extremely similar story to The Wire's Tek Fog and Meta stories is Bloomberg's The Big Hack, which was strenuously denied by all parties, disputed by some independent experts, and which I don't find credible whatsoever; yet it was never retracted. Does that mean I believe Bloomberg as a whole is of lower quality than The Wire, which did retract its Meta story? Emphatically not; Bloomberg generally have solid editorial standards and repuable journalists. There's nuance here which I hope you're not missing. DFlhb (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I believed that Tek Fog app really exists as many American, Arab and European newspapers supported Tek Fog story of The Wire. Only people who were not beleiving were BJP supporters, and I though they are simply being biased. Months have passed and now another meta story came out. This time people from USA disagreed and they gave detailed technical evidence, why the meta story is fake. Wire apologised and retracted their meta story.

Now also they retracted their Tek Fog story which they defended for months. Also some two or three year old Justice Loya article is removed. I repeat only one article about Justice Loya as others are available. So any kind of story or article which is done exclusively by The Wire should be treated as unreliable. Means first it was published by The Wire and then picked up by other media. I have seen many tweets by some journalists who worked for The Wire (temporarily). They said Wire has confirmation bias. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Other than META, please discuss about Tek Fog app. Those with technical knowledge can understand. I am not student of IT, software engineering or computer science. Only they can undertsand what Wire did in their Tek Fog story. Most discussion is focussing on META but Tek Fog is another case. I am not able to explain the technical details, which is necessary to discuss here.

https://scroll.in/latest/1036058/editors-guild-removes-references-to-articles-on-tek-fog-after-the-wire-retracts-its-investigation

https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/10/28/wire-meta-saga-editors-guild-withdraws-tek-fog-remarks-economist-points-to-3-lessons-from-own-goal

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/post-wire-apology-editors-guild-retracts-statement-on-tek-fog-urges-due-diligence-in-reporting-445163

Wire is removing, reinserting tek fog stories? I can still see some stories, I don't know which one they removed as they created multiple articles on Tek Fog. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I focus on Meta because I'd been following that story since the beginning, and found it egregious at every step. I can't fathom WP:RS like the NYT ever falling for such poorly faked emails or made-up internal websites; this is a whole new level. But the Tek Fog investigation does seem to have been an example of bad journalism too, IMO. DFlhb (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

NYT does 25, the problem is that hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to look back with the benefit of knowing the ending and say "OMG who would ever fall for this?" but its not as easy to predict the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

How both are same level mistakes? In case of Meta and Tek Fog, Wire themselves created a fake story, nobody asked them to, they invented two cases which they themselves were first to report, then they confidently supported their fake stories for weeks, months. In case of the NYT ISIS story you said. Lets say after the end of second world war, an American journalist met an injured soldier who claimed that he was held captive by Japanese. Later on it was found that he was lying. So if NYT believed in some ISIS story, it was not a big mistake. As there are thousands of true cases of ISIS brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1a4a:7753:c5d7:e0eb:60c6:9dd7 (talk • contribs)

Janet Cooke made up a fake story while at the Washington Post, about an 8 year old Heroin addict. Her editor submitted it for a Pulitzer Prize. When they found out it was a fake they fired her and retracted the story. The Washington Post remains a reliable source and the editor in questions remains a respected journalist. Sometimes even the best publications make mistakes. Admitting the mistake and retracting is exactly what a reliable source should do. - MrOllie (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I my third comment above I mentioned why that comparison is wrong. Big newspapers and media publish many stories, covering many areas. Compared to them, Wire type new internet based media covers less stories. The editors or head of NYTimes, TimesofIndia, The Guardian, Washington Post have less time to check all stories. And the drug addicst example you gave is same like the ISIS story. These type of cases can happen. In case of Meta and Tek Fog, their entire team was involved in pushing a fake story, and they are not so busy like NyTimes, CNN, BBC that they were fooled by one person. When their fake stories were challenged by others they defended their fake stories multiple times, and when they saw they can no longer defend it, they retracted. The retract, retract thing you all are mentioning, didn't happen instantly. Like someone said "your story is fake", and they easily accepted. "yes, our story is fake, we are sorry".

Want to gather the opinions of other editors on this particular site. Whilst it is not used for referencing that often, it has been in the past. Realtime Trains (RTT) is an industry data-based source which shows the movement of almost every train on the UK rail network, describing the real-time movements of each one. Recently, it has also started to feature unit allocations (roughly 95% accurate I would say). This was used in a recent edit to the Class 455 page, to refute an unsourced claim about one particular unit being stored, when RTT was used to show (in regards to the allocations) that it was still operational.

• Note: long-term services should, for consistency, reference the electronic National Rail Timetable, or the Working Time Table, so RTT - as far as I see it - does not need to be used in this instance.

I want to, therefore, gather the opinions of other editors as to whether (or to what extent) this site could be used as a reliable source. Could it be used to refute unsourced claims like this example, or could it be used to show other things, likewise if other trains are shown as stored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A major problem with realtimetrains is that information is removed after a short period, I think that it's about twelve weeks. The pages still exist, but are filled with default information - for example, as of today, 2N92 Paddington-Didcot of Sunday 7 August 2022 is live, with actual rolling stock information and stopping/passing times; but the same train one week earlier is the schedule from the Working Timetable, which may not have been met at the time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

For more 'historical' allocations, they could feasibly be archived (although I have absolutely no experience with this); I am aware that this has been done with RTT before, but this may generally help with referencing anyhow. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that any information that's worth being stored on wikipedia (such as "train XYZ has been withdrawn and stored at MOD Old Army Base") will be reported by the (usually specialist) media, if only with a slight time lag. If you're scrabbling around to use RTT as the only source, it shouldn't be included and an editor should wait for it for a decent source. Better to be accurate, than the first to "break the news".

It's also closely affiliated with the subject... (National Rail timetable data) and you could argue it's not a secondary source - can one actually confirm that train XYZ has been stored at MOD Old Army Base? No.

Many of the interesting things that occur across the network every year (and are shown on RTT) would be too much detail to include on wikipedia - "this train went down this weird route", "this train has 28 carriages for some reason", "no trains called at Anytown Station today" - if they were notable of inclusion, it would have been reported by the media in due course. Turini2 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. I can't think of any reason that a Wikipedia article would need to include information so ephemeral that it only appears on RTT. Anything of significance would be reported elsewhere. It's not as if there's a shortage of literature on the UK rail network! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I can add much to the debate other than I NEVER use them as a resource for Wikipedia. On discussion boards yes but on here - no. GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a very useful resource but not for referencing Wikipedia articles. I have seen the unit allocations regularly being wrong as well (although they're pretty reliable). Black Kite (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment seems reliable, but I'm not sure what you'd use it for on wiki. It's basically a gps tracker for trains. It's basically a live timetable. I suppose for basic confirmation that the XYZ Express train travels between Joe Station and Blo Station. I'd always look for a better source. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes it is reliable within reason, but I wouldn't use it to provide a citation for Wikipedia as the data is removed and unverifiable after a week. If it is the calling point information you want then use the official railway timetables; if it is the rolling stock information then I would want to see it corroborated from a printed source or more permanent (non-fan) website. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's reliable within its limits (which are explicitly noted in various places on the site) but not particularly useful for writing an encyclopaedia. Archive.org and similar can get around the transitory nature of the information if necessary, but I can't see why it would be - anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I’m working on the stub Separate Reality (climbing route), and I want to improve sourcing before expanding. I am unsure about the source planetmountain.com. I would use this source for descriptions of this climbing route, as well as pulling relevant quotes from interviews with climbers.

I looked at two climbing-related archived discussions, one for Peakbagger.com here, where the discussion seemed to center around whether information was user submitted and about whether a certain author was enough of an expert to be a reliable WP:SPS; and another archive here about a climbing book, where it seems the issue was also about SPS.

For context, I did leave a more general note on the article’s talk page about the article's sourcing, but I think this one source is the crux of it. Regarding whether this is one-off or site-wide, I know that List of first ascents (sport climbing) cites this source extensively, as does Bouldering. Thank you kindly for your (volunteer) time. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The PlanetMountain page you link lists "directors and editors": the fact that they name editors is a good sign. I can't find anything in particular about two of the names (Hobley and Tremolada) but Vinicio Stefanello seems to have separately published on the subject of climbing through actual publishers (26) which suggests some level of reputation. Individual news articles do appear to be credited either to Planet Mountain or to the individual author. There's no immediate glaring red flags for the site as a whole.

The only article I can find about the Separate Reality route on the site is this one, which is an interview with Heinz Zak. In general interviews are reliable sources for the opinions of the person interviewed, so the question becomes "is Heinz Zak reliable for any claims of fact he makes, and are his opinions important enough to merit inclusion in the article?" – appropriate weight is more pressing a concern than reliability in this case, I think. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Caeciliusinhorto-public, thank you kindly for your reply. Based on your comments, I will use this source for the Heinz Zak interview, and possibly other stories than can help provide context for this route. For example, 27 details the life work of Wolfgang Güllich who made a notable climb of this route (first free solo). I appreciate the reminder about appropriate weight (Zak and Güllich are not the only experts on this route) and I will read that carefully before proceeding. Thanks again! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this an RS for Near death experiences, and specifically 28 for claims about MEDRS statements? I doubt it vey much, but have never heard of it.

See Pam Reynolds case. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Journal of insert pseudoscience bullshit is never going to be a reliable source for anything scientific because it's still pseudoscience bullshit. We don't cite Journals of Homeopathy or Numerology or Astrology on science topics either. --Jayron32 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we list the website Modern Diplomacy as an unreliable source?

It’s been discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 249#Modern Diplomacy and Ahtribune. The site’s contributors include, for example, Eric Zuesse29 of GlobalResearch.ca (generally unreliable and blacklisted, see www.globalresearch dot ca/author/eric-zuesse), Adomas Abromaitis30 contributor to Katehon,31 Anna Wozniak32 published by OpEdNews,33 and Dmitri Trenin.34

It is cited in about 25 articles.35  —Michael Z. 22:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Having a contributor that also writes for a deprecated source is not a valid reason to declare a source unreliable. Is there evidence that they publish false and/or fabricated information? Alaexis_¿question? 06:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

These are examples of the site uncritically publishing material that is extremely WP:POV and WP:FRINGE. That it is part of the Russian Federation’s propaganda laundering (see below) implies this could be systematic or intentional.

Here’s an example: an article alleging that donated French howitzers have been sold by Ukraine to Russia.36 The main source: a tweet by a French lawyer (w:fr:Régis de Castelnau#Informations jugées fausses ou complotistes lors de l'invasion de l'Ukraine par la Russie), supported by responses from a Russian propaganda outfit in occupied Ukraine and a Russian state tank factory.

It is in the news category, completely lacking integrity, designed to create messaging on the common Russian propaganda of demotivating military aid to Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 15:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Um, it's also, by its own about us page, not a source of factual news. It says "We are a leading European opinion-maker with far-reaching influence across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. What we are not is a pure news-switchboard: we do not just provide information but expose readers to analysis." Which is to say that as attributed opinion, it may be useful, but it per WP:RSOPINION, among other places at Wikipedia, should not be used as a source for text written in Wikipedia's own voice. Whether their opinion is worth quoting is another matter entirely, and not part of the purview of the board, but as a source of opinion and analysis, it really should only be used as such. Also, we aren't going to "list" it anywhere. There is no master list of reliable and/or unreliable sites. --Jayron32 12:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If this discussion comes to a consensus, then the site qualifies to be added to WP:RSP, along with other similar sites already listed.  —Michael Z. 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Has the source been discussed here, or elsewhere, at Wikipedia repeatedly with regard to its reliability? This is the only such discussion I am aware of. --Jayron32 14:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

See the original post above.  —Michael Z. 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say twice meets any reasonable definition of "repeatedly". It definitely falls well short of any sense of "Perennial". --Jayron32 18:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It meets WP:RSPCRITERIA.  —Michael Z. 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. I'll grant that your entirely correct, though under objection. I still think that putting everything on the list serves us badly in two ways 1) It dilutes the usefulness of the list and 2) It gives the false impression that the list is canonical; that a source's reliability status can't be determined unless it is on the list. That's a bad idea. 99% of sources can be evaluated without discussion by people just applying the criteria at WP:RS, and 99% of disputes should be handled at the article talk pages and never get here. I'm more upset this has become a defacto "official endorsement" of reliability/unreliability and I'd rather people stop trying to rely on this board so much and instead just apply WP:SOFIXIT. This board (and the list) should be a last resort for intractable debates over reliability where everything else has failed. It shouldn't be a one stop shop for all things WP:RS. But yes, I will concede, the guidelines say that as long as you can sucker in at least two people to comment on the reliability of your pet source in at least 2 different discussions, it gets "official, certified, and guar-AHN-teed" status forever and ever amen. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, although I don’t think we should fill up this topic with discussion about the merits of the current arrangement. —Michael Z. 19:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the Finnish article linked below (auto translate works well enough). It demonstrates how an item in MD’s “Newsroom” section is used to launder Russian propaganda, from a fake “Polish” news site, through MD, to Russian state news publishing a story falsely alleged to be from Western media.  —Michael Z. 14:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The site is listed as a partner by the Russian Foreign Ministry and it launders Russian propaganda for a Western audience. (Yle and Christo Grozev in Finnish) Prolog (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Mhhossein, Icewhiz, and Alsee: participants in the previous noticeboard discussion.  —Michael Z. 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Er, I don't think there's any need to ping Icewhiz. He's been permanently blocked by the Wikimedia foundation for years. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1586623916709134336 --Renat 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Modern Diplomacy is not reliable: They source and publish unpaid content from the general public,37 and they disclaimer responsibility for the content.38 The content quality is wildly uneven and the range of view expressed is almost schizophrenic and at times fringe, because the content is unpaid work of any random author. A number of articles echo Russian propaganda while, ironically, I found article warning of the threat of Russian disinformation. Alsee (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

How would you evaluate the reliability of Catholic.org?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Catholic.org (Catholic Online)

• Option 3, Catholic.org is a fansite unaffiliated with the Catholic Church run by Michael Galloway39. On the site you can do such things as learn about early Christians, Church teachings, and buy beef40, wait... buy beef? Why is selling beef the primary purpose of a religious website? Color me unconvinced that this WP:SPS is a WP:RS. See also sister site catholiconline.shopping41. From the Justice Department source the enterprise is highly lucrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Having look at a brief sample of citations (from the first five pages that came up in an article-space search for 'Catholic.org'), I can't see much that looks obviously 'false or fabricated'. Some content seems to be press releases-based, or archived from elsewhere. One article cited an 'encyclopedia' article which probably shouldn't be used, but beyond that, from my limited sample I'd say that the website probably falls into a 'best not used for anything important' category - so probably option 2-ish, since they are unlikely to be fabricating press releases on the appointment of cardinals etc. As for the website flogging beef, if we excluded sources that tried to sell us stuff, we'd probably have to exclude the majority of web-based sources entirely. I'd need more to go on to convince me that deprecation for 'fabrication' was merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not Option 3 however? Deprecation is unnecessary, but this source definitely seems like it would fall under generally unreliable. Silverseren^C 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the trying to sell stuff bit is relevant due to its prominence, its lack of separation from the site's other information, and because Galloway was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison for failing to report a massive amount of income from the site42. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RFC. Catholic.org is a republisher of articles and a repository for information. That information has been collected from disparate sources and its reliability for various purposes is highly variable. For example, there is certainly a good deal of information about patron saints contained herein, and that can generally be considered reliably and stably published. Likewise, the information about popular devotions and prayers is generally reliable. In my experience, this site also republished articles by reputable authors and scholars that had previously been published by news sites. I don't use Catholic.org too much due to its high quotient of ads and donation appeals, but I see no reason to deprecate it nor pronounce it as "generally reliable for whatever" but instead it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as editors typically do according to policy. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  None of that makes the RfC invalid. Also, republishing of articles elsewhere doesn't make this source valid either. Wikipedia doesn't support using rehosting sources in the first place, since there's also copyright issues with that. You're really making the case that this is really not a source we should be using at all. Silverseren^C 18:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Catholic.org obtains copyright permission to republish the articles. I'm not sure why you would accuse them of not doing so. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 Sounds like this is a site with no reason to be considered reliable. Rehosting of outside content doesn't make the source reliable just because of that and introduces additional issues of copyright. We should be using the original actually reliable sources, not a rehosting fansite. Silverseren^C 18:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Site fails the basic criteria in WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Should not be cited but it can be used in discussions that review certain facts for accuracy (specifically feast days and anglicization of saint names). It filled the role of what should have been actually RS on so many saint articles when they were created and it’s continued use should be halted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3/4; the things it writes itself are unusable because it's a personal website, and the stuff it rehosts without concern for copyright makes things worse because they put it under WP:ELNEVER point 2. Depending on the degree of copyright infringement and the extent to which they try to deal with it, it may require actual deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Any reprinted content is entirely dependent on the reliability of the original source, and should be cited to that original source. Any original content fails our standards for Reliability. I see no indication applies any professional-level standards for journalistic editorial oversight. I see no indication that it has any significant reputation. Anyone can establish a non-profit and anyone can throw up a website. It fails our criteria. Beyond that, the fact that the owner has apparently been indited for issues relating to the website is hardly inspiration to extend a favorable exception here. Alsee (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Invalid RFC as per above and oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Depends on context - per RS, it depends on what for. It seems obvious that it is a decent source for general information on Saints, and equally obvious that any rfc about RS without defining on the RS topics or a specific article question and not using the RS criteria items ... is not right. I also agree with Emir dislike about this “deprecation” system ... we just do not need a rfc on this nor is a record of this rfc going to have any meaningful value. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Why? This is controversial? RAN1 (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  To elaborate, I don't think it's a good idea to RSP sources that have never had their unreliability disputed as a matter of WP:BEANS. RAN1 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Its reliability has repeatedly been disputed, thats why this discussion was opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: I ran a link search for www.catholic.org, and I'm pretty sure there are over 1000 articles that cite this site. Is this problem bigger than an RS issue? RAN1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thats not a lot, we've had discussions about sources with 10k plus here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC can't see what dispute is being addressed. I'm glad to see that others are tiring of this kind of RfC, I'm hopeful that someday what we'll ban instead is the 4-way template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option nuke-from-orbit. This plainly self-published site is a one man project by a convicted tax-dodger previously credibly accused of defrauding Catholic charities. The comment above about its primary purpose being sales, is perceptive: he got 21 months for evading taxes on those sales. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Options 2/3 while the website is not reliable as a secondary source … any primary documents it hosts/reprints are reliable primary sources that CAN be cited (with the usual caveats that apply to all primary sources). And when citing those primary sources, the website can be used as a WP:Convenience link within those citation. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 "fan" website if that makes sense. Not the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 3, though I would support the usage of Catholic Online for covering opinions made by the Catholic Church and affiliated organizations, preferably in conjunction with other sources (assuming such opinion is eligible for inclusion). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Would the The Pioneer (India) okay to use as a source for an author's Reception section, with any material sourced to it attributed to the publication in the article text? (The specific article in question can be found on this newspaper page; the headline is "2 authors highlight history of tribal warrior". Thanks! --Andreas JN466 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be reliable for an attributed statement about what their opinion is… however, that leaves open the question of whether their opinion is significant enough to mention (see WP:DUE). I can not comment on that. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Blueboar. There is nothing on this book in the Reception section at the moment. For reference, the only other two sources commenting on the book that I'm aware of right now are–

  • an opinion piece in Firstpost (already cited in the article, but merely to source the fact that the book was published, and when)
  • a review on New Asian Writing, which does at least have a book review policy but is basically just a group blog apparently run by a UK/Irish/Indian literary community.

  WP:DUE says, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So, if that's the choice of sources available, what is WP:DUE in the Reception section? It seems to me, these three sources don't differ much in their viewpoints. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 17:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• That looks like more of a publicity piece or summary than a review. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• I cannot find anything about P. G. Haridas (പി.ജി. ഹരിദാസ), the "eminent historian", except his being the erstwhile Principal of a MGU-affiliated college of no repute (1a, 1b) and post-retirement appointment (2) as the President of a BJP-patronized cultural organization (3). I agree with Ravensfire that this is not a review and probably, an example of paid news. The article in question is so poor that the quote from Haridas ends but without starting at the first place! There is no reason to use such a shabby source in our article esp. as a review. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The FOTW webpage is generally used as reference in most of the flag related articles, including Flag of Great Britain and Flag of France, but also Flag of Canada, which is a featured article or Flag of Gdańsk, which is a good article. The page, from what it seems is a fansite, written by non-specialists, kind of similar to Fandom. They sometimes put the sources of information in the text (then we should base our articles on those sources), but there are situations, that the text has practically no confirmation in any other sources considered as reliable.

A good example of a mistake is the flag of Gmina Świdnica, Lubusz Voivodeship, as seen here: 44. @Bolszewski Wikipedysta, seeing no documents mentioning the flag messaged the local government and got as an answer, that the flag was only a proposal and was denied by them.

In my opinion FOTW should not be used as a reference in any article, and should be included on a list of deprecated sources. Filipny (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Another examples:

- Gmina Białopole, as seen here: 45 - there is an information "that resolution was repealed by another one: # IV/18/07", because of decision of Heraldic Commision. But, unfortunately, one user added it to Commons (here).

- Powiat górowski, as seen here: 46 - information: "Probably an unofficial flag", but, of course, also in Commons

- Powiat łosicki, as seen here: 47 - in other source, Gazeta Wyborcza (here in Polish), "symbols was canceled"

There are few of them, but, in my opinion, they are confirmation of @Filipny: arguments. Best wishes, Bolszewski Wikipedysta (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an unreliable fansite with user-generated content and no fact-checking or reputation for reliability. Note that the disclaimer section of the website says:

• "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website.", and
• "Most text and images contained in the website are made by the contributors themselves. If the contributor states the source of the information, we report it, otherwise we assume it is new material and the copyright is owned by the contributor."

Should not be used as a source anywhere on wikipedia. IIRC this been discussed before although I am sure whether it was at RSN or one of the articles where fictitious fan-generated flags from this site were being added. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Links to previous RSN discussions:

• Oct 2022
• Sep 2022
• Jan 2011

The conclusion always has been that this is an unreliable source for wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Fan site, not subject to proper editorial controls, not a recognized expert in the field, etc. etc. --Jayron32 14:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we add it here then? Filipny (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I had been defending an edit to the page David Sanders (biologist) that quoted the subject making some controversial remarks on abortion that gained noteriety in at least some circles. The subject is a public figure and the edit cited an article from the website Campus Reform and a YouTube video with 17,000 views. The edit included a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute.

Although it has an ideological slant, in my view Campus Reform issues corrections, list it's editorial team and in the case of this particular news story, it is not engaging in gossip or the tabloid journalism that is condemned in the guidance on BLP articles. But what does the community think? Can a right-leaning website that issues corrections and lists its editorial team be a source on at least a case-by-case basis? JA1776 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

So, the issue is not one for this board, which deals only with the reliability of things cited in Wikipedia in context. Which is to say, does the source reliably verify what the Wikipedia article says. This is not a reliability issue, since as you say "a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute." We can reliably verify he said these things. THAT having been said, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia must include the quote. While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. (bold mine) This is a matter of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and all of that; this is the sort of thing that's determined on the article talk page by consensus discussions. There's no magic pill you can find to force the quote into the article, it needs to be agreed that the quote is relevant to the subject at hand; and that's not something that exists on a binary status. There's a sliding scale for these things; is he well known for these opinions, repeating them frequently in public fora and using his public status as a means to advance a position, or is this something he's mentioned about his own beliefs a few times, but doesn't make it a big deal? Is the position in the quote essential to his on notability in a Wikipedia sense, or is it an inconsequential part of his biography? All of this needs to be discussed on the article talk page if there is a dispute, to decide what and where in the article and how to cover such material, and the conclusion may even be to not include it at all; but it isn't an RS issue. --Jayron32 17:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, we should treat The Hindu as a newspaper of record.

So I would have thought this article in The Hindu is –

1. reliable for statements of fact about the book and its author ("published by Westland", "written in four months", "scriptwriter living in Mumbai", etc.)
2. reliable for sourcing the publication's description and assessment of the book discussed (e.g. that the book's style is "simple and racy", that it takes the reader on "an interesting journey", deals with "aspects of cricket, including the dark side of the game – match-fixing ...", that the author "drifts from the subject midway when he writes more about the off-field activities of the cricketers", etc.)

Does such use of this source strike anyone as incompatible with sourcing policies and guidelines? --Andreas JN466 17:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm. An article in the Metro Plus section with no by-line and consisting largely of quotes by Sinha and Tom Alter (who was apparently the chief guest at the book launch) and the most cursory form of commentary (""simple and racy", "an interesting journey") is hardly a good quality source to build an encyclopedic article on. Not saying that it is an unreliable source per se; just a low-quality one that should be given minimal, if any, weight. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Abecedare, this is CIR at play. See this strange paraphrasing or the OP's proposal that our decisions invoking DUE be influenced by relevant publications in blacklisted publications. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Abecedare - this is a very poor quality source and definitely, far from a book review. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously, the article is reliable for statements of fact. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for Khoobsurat (TV series)? To me, this seems to be a promotional website with no editorial policies that shows a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with its about us page being vague and refers to social media stats. However, Lillyput4455 contends that it is reliable critic page. VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Fails WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I have used Britannica as a source in my articles, and when expanding new ones. But is is reliable, can I use it as a source? I have heard that the articles on Britannica are created by experts, but I don't know if that's true or not. I don't think I've seen Britannica be used as a source in other articles, I however have used it as a source before. Lyricca (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Britannica:_a_"strong_reputation_for_fact-checking_and_accuracy"?. Editors views on it's reliability seem pretty mixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Britannica's RSP entry. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Like both the discussion and the RSP entry above point out, WP:SECONDARY sources should generally be preferred over WP:TERTIARY, and Britannica is a tertiary source. Though WP:TERTIARY also points out that these sources can be helpful in determining WP:DUE weight for material to include. Siawase (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In Kari Lake, her date of birth is sourced to this article at world-wire.com. World-Wire used to be a press/news release distributor (about a dozen-and-a-half mainspace articles link to press releases that used to be available from it) but appears to have transitioned to be a conservative news website providing "quality information content for Conservatives, politics, current events and affairs from USA and around the globe." Here is their editorial policy. Any thoughts on the acceptability as a reliable source of the cited article or of world-wire.com as a whole? – Archer1234 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This falls under the WP:DOB part of the WP:BLP policy and would require the information to be "widely published" to be included. The world-wire "editorial policy" linked above appears to be boiler plate copy and paste that is in used on a large number of clickbait sites, see google search and as such it seems the site is very far from reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Siawase (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GEMNCNY who has been around for some years appears to only add what appears to be linkspam to articles - often when there is a perfectly reliable alternative source that can be used. Sources used are:

• https://golfreviewsguide.com/
• https://dailyhomelists.com/
• https://dailyhomelist.com/

Old edits also include:

• http://www.bettingpro.com.au/

I would welcome views on these sites and propose that they be blacklisted.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Velella, the recent edits done today was when I noticed broken links being used. Thanks for querying. GEMNCNY (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

So how should I interpret this edit where you introduce link spam and give the reference your user name. Difficult to AGF with this?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is obvious linkspam, I removed a few more instances of these links. GEMNCNY should be blocked and/or the urls blacklisted if it continues. MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem I understand and I feel the same, just to reiterate, the following all criticize the aforementioned theory by S.R. Driver, further developed by J.J. Collins:

Many of these are given by Collins:

Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton

Young and Baldwin.

The studies of C. F. Boutflower,

D. J. Wiseman

Gerhard Hasel,

K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965)

W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis (1983)

Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978)

Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." (2008)

Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).
— User:Billyball998

Please chime in if these sources count as WP:RS, especially in view of WP:RSAGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

My position is that the underlying facts and analysis have not changed principally since the relevant works were created (except one issue, arguably in favor for the works, certainly not discrediting). Unless it can be demonstrated that a work is relying on an antiquated set of information that is distorting their findings, it should be treated as relevant.

"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine." Wikipedia:RSAGE

The article is clear that "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" not that they are inherently outdated. Billyball998 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And Wegner, Walter E. "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls." (1958). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't how you present an RS query. Nobody is going to go through a list of allusions to sources, like that presented in the first part of your quote, trying to find out what they are. In the second part, you give us no publishers' information or details on the author. You give no information on the claim you wish to source, which means uninvolved users lack any context to judge reliability.

In terms of the RSAGE query, when we are talking about the Book of Daniel, anything from the nineties onwards is almost certainly fine unless there was some earth shattering discovery in 2003 that changed what everybody thinks about the question; like, I don't know, archaeologists finding a lion's den with "Daniel was here, but I'm nor actually a Hebrew" written on the wall in Aramaic or something. A 1965 source should probably be considered outdated if it espouses views that are no longer current, but may be included as part of a discussion of the history of the debate on a question, or attributed to an author with the book's age mentioned in the text.

Having said that, my initial feeling is that this is not a reliability issue,Boynamedsue (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• • I would not trust the 1965 source. It was written by Kenneth Kitchen, a so-called biblical maximalist who has spend his career defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He does not even accept the documentary hypothesis, he is that much of a fringe voice. Dimadick (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• When you say: "As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza..." I would note that you do not need to be looking further back in time to look for current updates on scholarship but forwards. Anything older than a 100 years is almost totally void in terms of modern scholarship except as an example of the history of the modern scholarship. For current updates on a debate you are looking at the last two, three decades max. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This quotation is not a helpful addition here, what do you actually want from people on this board? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I simply want to know if the sources championed by Billyball998 (talk · contribs) may be used inside the article Book of Daniel. That means if those may be used in order to show that there is a controversy about its dating inside the mainstream academia. Since IMHO such sources do not WP:V the claim that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so what you would do in that case is to present the sources individually, giving details of where they are published and links to them in the case that this is possible. What you really shouldn't do is post quotations from a discussion between yourself and another user, which is impossible to understand without context. I have added a section below for you to clearly post the sources you believe to be questionable with as much detail as possible. Links to them would really help here, but it is essential that you state who published them (author and publisher/journal) and whether they are books or journal articles. If these details have not been provided by the other user, then there is no debate to be had, as the claims can not be considered to have been sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be a waste of editor time and effort. I think even the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources acknowledge and discuss the "controversy", but the discussion should be the nature of the debate and how to put in proper context. That discussion can't be had while editing such as this and this is ongoing. As tgeorgescu puts it a controversy raging in the mainstream academia and looking at Billyball998's edit and arguments, the clear answer from WP:RSN should be no, that's an inappropriate use of sources, move along. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I understand your position but could you explain what about the sources dont hold up for you, ie they are missing crucial information. Billyball998 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I no longer play your game, that's sealioning. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

you are asserting the sources are not appropriate for seemingly no reason, it is not sealioning to ask you what your claim even is. I'm not even asking for evidence at this point Billyball998 (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In answer to @Tgeorgescu and @fiveby. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, if you don't want to discuss the reliability of sources, this is probably the wrong place to be. As Tgeorgescu did bring this here, I thought they might want to discuss the reliability of some sources. I seem to have been mistaken. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: As far as I am concerned, the final verdict fell with what Fiveby stated. I take their advice to the heart. Further prolonging this discussion seems unnecessary. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The truth is that it seems @Tgeorgescu wants to deny my sources all my sources in one fell swoop without even explaining the assertion against them, unfortunately. Billyball998 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

An unpublished Master's thesis will never amount to a WP:RS, here at Wikipedia, for a start. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If the complaint is Mark Haughwout's work cited is unpublished, then I would point to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Definition of published. If you need help finding it, please let me know. If your complaint is that it is not published with a mainstream publication, I would ask why you believe that would disqualify it, assuming it represents appropriate scholarship? Also that would apply to only the one source, the other sources aren't affected by the assertation. Billyball998 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your statement only shows that you completely lack any WP:CLUE. E.g. no WP:RS claiming that such controversy is raging in the mainstream academia in the 2000s, or in the 2010s, or in the 2020s.

But, of course, why your position lacks any WP:CLUE is only apparent to those who have a WP:CLUE. We are the cabal of cluocracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to use the brief comment by Fiveby as support for your position on the talkpage. No consensus yet exists on this page as to the reliability of the sources you have questioned, largely because you have not posted them here in a format which can be understood. You have also decided to continue to bicker here, instead of engaging in constructive discussion. This is very bad form, and a waste of other users' time. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I took your advice to the heart. As you see, there are only two sources published in the 21st century, one of which a pious editor like StAnselm finds that it isn't WP:RS. And yup, there even is a source from the 19th century.

A safe assumption is that Beckwith reflects the situation of the debate up to and including 2001 AD, i.e. more than 20 years ago. And Thompson (2020) is in fact a 1993 book, i.e. not written in the 21st century. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Can i ask why post 2000 vs pre 2000 is an important distinction for you in the scholarship? thanks Billyball998 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the quote by Iskandar323 above. Please list 10 post-2010 works listed in the annotated bibliography, i.e. Thompson (2020).

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389
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.

---