Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287

I was wondering if this Fox News article, https://www.foxnews.com/us/a-torn-9-11-flag-is-repaired-one-loving-stitch-at-a-time, is reliable to support the sentence that an American flag flew outside 90 West Street after 9/11. I think it may be reliable, but wanted to have a second opinion, since this is a 9/11-related topic. The specific text is:

Following the attacks, a large American flag was flown outside the West Street Building,^[1] which became a "symbol of hope" for 9/11 rescuers.^[2]

epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Fox would be reliable for that. In general, the major American cable news networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) are considered reliable for their basic news reporting, and less reliable for opinion and analysis segments. When in doubt, use in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Generally news reports are reliable sources for news, not things that happened 14 years ago. Reporters aren't trained historians and at this point there are better sources for 911 which should be used. Also, it's questionable whether something published in one news source 14 years after it occurred has weight for inclusion.

Can't find ought in the archives; what do we think of this? It looks like a "local paper", but covering multiple counties—so how local is that? I'm not sure. I'd like to use it for facts about a local resident if possible (rather than opinions, of which it doubtless has many and can keep, from our point of view). Happy Sunday all! ——SN54129 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for local news. Gannett, the parent company of the generally reliable USA Today (RSP entry), owns a large portfolio of local newspapers including The News-Press. I wouldn't be concerned with the paper covering multiple counties. Gannett covers many geographic areas in the US, and how the company splits these areas among its papers is a business decision that shouldn't impact reliability. — Newslinger talk 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's great news for me, Newslinger, and I appreciate the promptnesss of your info! Happy Sunday! (What's left of it) ——SN54129 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! — Newslinger talk 02:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've come across this site being used as a reference and I don't see it on the list of reliable sources. There's no info that I see on the site as to who really runs it and how they do vetting. I'd have to lean away from it being reliable, but hoping others might have some inside info. Thks.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering about that one myself recently. Note that there is a "Search the noticeboard archives" box above, that can sometimes be helpful.

IMO earlier comments like has it right, it's nothing we should use, especially not in BLP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, agreed. From a quick look, their articles have by lines, but no indication of who the authors are, whether they have an editorial process, where any of the information comes from, etc. Can't see any reason to give it credence as an RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion #Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist, Beetstra said that these links should just be added with a rather low bar. I hence propose adding some more sources to the list: see User:Feminist/CAPTCHA exemptions. These sources are not discussed enough to merit inclusion on RSP, but they should be uncontroversial additions to the list: they are all professionally-run publications routinely used as sources. The list is not meant to be exhaustive. @Newslinger and Beetstra: pinging editors involved in the previous discussion. feminist (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is great. I'll add more domains as I find them. — Newslinger talk 08:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

At Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data, the above source and some content was introduced in this edit which does not appear to be reliable (or accurate by our standards). A review of the source shows that the numbers are maintained by a self-proclaimed "...group of first generation Chinese immigrants in the United States...[who] built this real time coronavirus/covid-19 tracker for US and Canada to bring more transparency to the public and increase awareness about the global epidemic." It seems to be a self-published source, as I mentioned at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data#Quality of Sources. However, the person who introduced this material has reinserted it again as he maintains it is reliable but hasn't addressed my suggestion to check it here. I couldn't find other sources to verify the numbers being introduced in the edit either. What do others think about the source and content? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable currently, per WP:SELFPUBLISH, although they do source their reports to other reliable sources which may be useful. Unless someone associated with the group is an established expert, or the page is verified by another party of verified experts, or expert status is conferred upon them then it's the equivalent of any other blog. Koncorde (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

1point3acres aggregates news bulletins about coronavirus infections and post tallies.

I found the site https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en more reliable than https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 . Both sites are just counting coronavirus infections.

1point lists it sources arcgis does not, or at least I don't know how to find them. Therefore 1point is more verifiable. When viewing updates 1point is often 24 hours faster than arcgis. Also arcgis seems to have missed a few updates, but unable to verify since it doesn't list it's updates.

The content dispute? At the time of this posting 1point lists 634 U.S. infections, arcgis lists 607.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: Of the two sources is one more or less self published than the other? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not about content differences, but about reliability of the site used as a source. One source is John Hopkins, an indisputibly reliable source (an absolutely minimal check of the source would be obvious https://systems.jhu.edu/). 1point3acres in contrast has no standing, and it's contributers are basically unknowns of no verifiable notability. We are dependent upon them both maintaining their speed of updates, and their accuracy in interpreting secondary sources. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

John Hopkins sounds impressive but if they don't list their sources and the other does, which is more verifiable? At least with one we can double check they haven't made mistakes. I'll take verifiable over big name. And yes, it is very possible that 1point slacks off, at which point we can switch to something more reliable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to verifiable vs big name, it is obvious to me that one is doing a much better job than the other staying up to date. Right now the differences are larger, and it has been taking the slower site 24 hours to catch up. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, you obviously have not looked at the WP:SELFPUB standards or you wouldn't be asking why we trust an internationally reputable organisation, a specialist in the field of diseases and at the cutting edge of research with its own technology department that have put together a tracker that is being referenced by numerous other reliable sources. If you do not understand why John's Hopkins University is inherently reliable with the data it published then I am not sure how me explaining it to you will help. If you value being 24 hours ahead so much, rather than being sourced to one of the leading names in medicine in the world you would take the word of 6 random blokes that likely have good intentions but hold none of the relevant standing, notability or duty of care, then there is nothing anyone can do to explain how stupid a question you've just asked. Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

How much trust do we want to put in a big name to count cases? Doesn't take a genius to do that. It is self evident which is more reliable. In addition to self evident, weight should be placed on which is verifiable. If John Hopkins told us how they are counting cases that would be great. Are they just taking WHO reports and putting in their website? Wouldn't it be better to trust someone who is directly adding up the numbers regardless if they have a PHD in epidimiology? And please don't be stupid again ignoring my arguments of verifiable versus a reputable source and the evidence that one is doing a better job. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If by self evident the answer is Johns Hopkins, then I agree. However your arguments are fallacious. The basic premise that somehow because we can see their sources we can verify that they are a reliable source is not how reliability works. That we don't want to put our trust in a "big name" is utterly ridiculous. On which basis I am noping the heck out of this ridiculous argument with someone who patently doesn't understand the basics. Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Just so others can understand since Koncorde is unable to comprehend. The argument is that one source list it sources and thus we can verify if the information is accurate. The other source comes from a reputable source but does not list it sources therefore we can not verify ability to gather all the sources and count correctly. So the question becomes, which is more important verifiability or reputable? Again to me, the ability to see the list of sources is very important. I think most wikipedians will agree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

did you actually bother to look at the Hopkins map? They literally list each source for the data. Praxidicae (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for the info. I see sources now listed as WHO, CDC, ... I'll withdraw my argument. Those sources are stale compared to 1point, but I doubt that will matter for this situation. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just want to clarify in case anyone else was concerned, they have identified their sources on the map and in their blog since they launched it. They are not stale, they are the most reliable sources whereas other maps such as the ones you've linked are using crowdsourced information and reports from social media. Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can https://medium.com/@seandexter1/beware-safe-the-scaled-agile-framework-for-enterprise-an-unholy-incarnation-of-darkness-bf6819f6943f be used to back the claims made here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Sean Dexter is a "Senior UX / Product Designer" at Cigna, according to his LinkedIn. While he can arguably call himself an "expert" in a colloquial sense, he does not meet Wikipedia's standards to be considered a subject-matter expert: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (WP:SPS). A search reveals that Dexter has only published material on Medium (RSP entry) and other self-publishing platforms. — Newslinger talk 08:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• My simple response is, who?Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Can https://agileforest.com/2018/06/24/why-safe-is-not-the-scaled-agile-approach-you-need be used to back the claims made here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The Agile Forest book is published on Leanpub, which is a self-publishing platform. The Agile Forest website (agileforest.com) is a self-published blog. I cannot find any indication that Renee Troughton is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as required by WP:SPS. — Newslinger talk 08:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• No.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just told someone no on my talk page but am having second thoughts. The issue is how do we know they are of these riots? Is there any way they can be seen as reliable? My opinion is that they aren't reliably published, but thinking about it we obviously use photos that aren't reliably published. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots already uses one photo contributed by Banswalhemant. Why are these additional photos an issue? NedFausa (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, image caption/description should be cited except in some cases per WP:WHYCITE. These images need sources or should be deleted from Wikipedia (not Wikimedia commons).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam according to the content guideline WP:CITE, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. If you are challenging the authenticity of Banswalhemant's photos, please explain why you suspect they are fraudulent. NedFausa (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I am not "challenging". You just don't get what it is saying. I don't have to challenge an unsourced material, unsourced material should be removed or tagged as unsourced. It is on the other party to bring a reliable source not on me to challenge it. The policy is talking about unchallengeable material like 5+5=10. I hope you understood now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam according to the behavioral guideline WP:GOODFAITH, It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. I am confident that Banswalhemant has provided his photos in good faith to help Wikipedia. Per WP:CITE, inline citations are required only for material challenged or likely to be challenged. No one has disputed his photo that has remained online since 4 March 2020. It remains to be seen if anyone besides yourself might challenge any other of his generously contributed images, should we add them to the article space. And since you refuse to explain why they are not authentic, I believe we should proceed to discuss not whether to include them, but which to select to best illustrate our narrative. NedFausa (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec)@Doug Weller: - it's a good that you are reconsidering the idea that photos on Wikipedia (or on Commons) need to have some sort of reliable source. There are likely tens of millions photos uploaded by the photographer which don't have a "reliable source" saying that this photo is what the uploader says it is. Going down that road would likely be a path to removing 80-90% of user generated photos, which are likely at least 50% of all illustrations on Wikipedia. From the very beginning we've accepted the photographers word on good faith. I suppose the "caption needs a source" idea has some limited applicability, but the idea that anybody could get rid of any photo they don't like by saying "the caption is not referenced" would really be a no starter for anybody who has donated photos. Having a good reason to doubt the caption really should be required. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a policy that says that we should cite every material except WP:SKYBLUE material. Uncited material should be removed or tagged without any additional discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not quite... the policy is that we must be ABLE to cite everything... but not that everything has to be CITED. The policy says we must ACTUALLY cite in two situations... a) when someone challenges it, or b) when we think the information is likely to be challenged (thus effectively peempting a challenge). The same holds for image captions. We can assume good faith in a lot of situations... but the more controversial the topic, the more likely it is that ANY information (even images and captions) relating to it will be challenged. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar The article North East Delhi riots is controversial. Banswalhemant's photo captioned "Burnt shops at Shiv Vihar" has gone unchallenged since being posted on 4 March 2020. What do you make of that? NedFausa (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Blueboar has it right - that when editors upload their own photos at Commons and label them as something that otherwise may be difficult to validate, we care going to take them at their word, unless we're talking an obviously incorrectly labelled image, an image that we know has routinely been impossible to get (eg a photo of Kim Jong-Un by an editor) or a clear copyright violation (like taking a Gettys image to make their own). Yes, the more images that user uploads that have easier objects to verify to show that they are in the area and thus likely able to capture other images from the same area, the better, but we're not going to judge that at immediately. We will assume good faith to start. --Masem (t) 22:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to have seen the GPS information in the extended details; but, even if I am to assume good faith, and there is no reason not to, it is very important to have some more information about the pictures. Is this a Muslim-owned business or a Hindu-, a Muslim home or a Hindu-, a Muslim street or Hindu-, to the extent that streets are segregated by religion? It is important to know that because we can't very well have, say, two pictures of Hindu homes or Hindu-owned businesses as representative illustrations if we are saying in the lead that at least two-thirds of homes or businesses destroyed were Muslim. I've asked the uploader these questions on Talk:North East Delhi riots Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I upload a Picture of Rajdhani School [] Which was damaged by mob in North East Delhi riots. In description, there is a link of NDTV through which you can verify my work. user:Banswalhemant

It was I that raised this concern. It is based upon the fact that over the years various social media have had doctored or "miscaptioned" photos used to spread rumour innuendo or false hoods. I was thus unsure if wp:or would apply to user images, and going forward I can see that if we indeed do allow this we may become victim to just this kind of hoaxing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Just want to say, I saw this subject header in my watchlist and read "photos of the Delhi riots" as "photos of people rioting", which presents all kinds of BLP issues. But this is about a photograph of the aftermath. Is that the only photo, or are there more people had in mind? We allow user photos of notable buildings and places all the time. We would also allow photos of buildings taken at different times if changes, including things like fire damage, were significant to the article. I don't see how this is different, unless used to create some kind of emphasis not found in the sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is (maybe not with these images but going forward) is how do we know when an image was taken.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You can also see "Metadata" in which you can get the information about date and time of capturing of image. Like in this picture ([]) you can find Geo-tag and other things Banswalhemant (talk)

• We need verification that this was caused by Delhi riot.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with most of what has been said---we should assume good faith on the part of the uploader---though I think it's a bit moot. Our manual of style (see MOS:PERTINENCE) is explicit that our images need not be provably authentic: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. The images look like what we're trying to illustrate, so I don't see a reason not to use them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If we required verification of all images used in all articles WP would be a rather bare place. Of course some images, or what they actually show, may be challenged (and on this highly POV-contentious topic may well be), but initially we should assume AGF. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of putting it. In my opinion the line is where there are multiple significant points of view among reliable sources, and the photo only supports one of them. If there is no dispute that buildings were damaged by fire, only what lead up to that, a photo of fire-damaged buildings is not partial to one point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Quick update: there is an image that has been verified. I would say that images that are not controversial shouldn't have to be cited. Images that are controversial, can be challenged etc then there needs to be a citation so it can be used in Wikipedia. WP:OR also applies. An example would be ancient kingdoms maps, they need sources and WP:OR applies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• New problem: We used this image and the source next to it. However, Slatersteven added "Failed verification" tag although the images are of the same places. Pinging those who participated @Masem, Someguy1221, Johnbod, Banswalhemant, and NedFausa:.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)additional ping @Wugapodes:.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Because the "source" is not the source for the photo, nor do the two images even show the buildings in exactly the same state.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Also we now have a claim the pictures have been edited, if so how []?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) As well as circular sourcing [] is being used as a cite for the picture on our page, to quote the source "Photo Credit: Banswalhemant, Wikipedia Commons".Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I remedied your concern about circular sourcing by rewriting the footnote, which now reads: Photo by Banswalhemant is original. The following reference to a published source that includes the same photo is offered solely for context. We make no claim that Eurasia Review is the source of our photo. NedFausa (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting that per MOS:PERTINENCE, it is not necessary that a source be provided to authenticate images. For obvious reasons, the vast majority of self-produces photographs would not and could not be authenticated with a published source. Having lat long in the EXIF is nice and all, but EXIF can be edited too. So if you think someone is lying about a photo, the EXIF doesn't really solve your problem. GMG^talk 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, what's frustrating about this discussion is that, so far as I can tell, no one has actually accused Banswalhemant of lying. Instead, those who oppose using his photos focus on their lack of publication by reliable sources. (Even though one of his photos was published two days ago by Eurasia Review—not a perennial source but not a deprecated source either.) NedFausa (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

And now we have the circular referencing I was afraid of.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven as stated above, I remedied your concern about circular sourcing. Why didn't you respond there instead of here? NedFausa (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, this is not the first time I have seen this dispute. How exactly do I know that this photo used on Karate is atually "children practising karate in the dojo of the Jack and Jill School in Bacolod City, Philippines" as the file suggests? I don't. And people making this argument are ignoring the fact that a consistent application of the principle would result in the removal of millions of own work images. The only time we actually do apply this standard is for things like charts and graphs that depend on accurately representing a data set. Other than that, if you want to doubt the authenticity of an image, you need an actual reason to do so, not merely the absence of proof of authenticity. GMG^talk 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, without impugning the good faith of any editor involved here, I must point out that being devoutly opposed to showing property damage caused by predominately Hindu mobs is indeed "an actual reason" to dispute the authenticity of an image—albeit not a good one. NedFausa (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That may be a reason to try to obstruct the inclusion of the image, but it doesn't speak to it's authenticity. To say that I have no opinion on relations between Hindus and Muslims in India is an understatement. I just don't like this tired argument being plodded out over and over again when it's contrary to the applicable guidelines. GMG^talk 17:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

While I think I share the lack of concern about having to demonstrate the "reliability" of user-uploaded photos, I would suggest we may want to establish a discuss to enshrine this as police either at WP:RS or at WP:IMAGES or somewhere else, rather than here. I feel we need to have something in writing to point to in case this comes up in the future. --Masem (t) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's already written into MOS:PERTINENCE, which is a guideline, and WP:IMAGES is neither policy or a guideline. GMG^talk 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

For the past couple of months, I have been working on expanding an article on a fictional character known as Billy. In terms of sources, I found one that gave some VERY insightful information. However, it is a video from the notorious Getty Images so I am not entirely certain that it would constitute as "reliable". On one side, it IS an interview with the actor who played the character and gives some short but insightful information on his time as the character (Which is the ONLY alternative interview with the actor outside of the "Making of" documentaries on the film). On the other, it IS Getty Images (license purchasing and whatnot), so it is rather difficult to decide whether or not I would be able to use it. Just wanted to get a proper consensus before I decided to add it or leave it out. Here is the link: Robert Mann- 'Black Xmas' Los Angeles Premiere Interview--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

My edits on Barbie Girl and other pages such as Party All The Time and The Final Countdown are in the name of removing biased journalism sources such as Top 10 lists obviously written to appeal to a youth demographic (for example Blender's 50 Worst Songs Ever list). However, others believe I am "mass blanking credible sources", even if the obviously biased Top 10 lists are coming from said credible sources (like Rolling Stone).

Do you believe that Top [number] lists of any type of song are a true source of credible information? 2601:199:4181:E00:52C:5B78:548C:ABE1 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and not discussing on the Articles Talk Page is usually a great way to have your opinion ignored.

With that said, perhaps highlight on the talk page the more questionable, WP:Undue references used. Certainly seems there was piling on in some of the sections and less than relevant sources were used but Rolling Stone, VH1 and an award that has a Wikipedia article are likely DUE. Slywriter (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Still, I believe that there is a fair amount of bias. --73.123.30.85 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

On Peppermint’s article “Born Kevin Moore” is contentious information under an RfC mainly because it misgenders her as a trans woman. Kevin was on the article from the start with no sourcing, a second “legal” name, Agnes Moore, was also added with no sourcing and both have been edit-warred on and off since then. Agnes is complete fiction, never being used by Peppermint, she actually has expressed no need for an offstage name. We need some expert assistance as to which sources can be used in the article to support the statement.

• People^[1], the present version has been amended to remove Kevin, Peppermint said People got the information from...Wikipedia.

• USA Today^[2], and Gay Italia^[3], these references also have removed Kevin. All three of these rely on old archived versions to support the statement. It’s possible all three are WP:Circular references.

• Newsday^[4], and Bay Area Reporter^[5] both use Kevin and Agnes, Agnes is a completely fictional name with no connection to Peppermint besides her Wikipedia bio, so it's likely these two are also WP:Circular references.
• ^[6], this might be a self-published source(?), and certainly a primary source and only lists Kevin “Peppermint” Moore as a cast member, with no other information.

Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Gleeanon409, It looks like all the references to non-Peppermint names are questionable and should not be used per WP:BLP. buidhe 18:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Buidhe:! I’m hoping for more eyes as well to get a consensus. And will report back to the article which is presently locked down. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

although it's not considered a rs, imdb has that other name. if you read imdb you'll see why they "maintain" the other name - in short because any credits keep the same name as originally credited unless imdb changes its policy.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m only interested in RS, but thanks. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. A highly active RfC is taking place at Talk:Peppermint (drag queen).--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This effort is specifically to get fresh eyes on the sources being used, by editors experienced in such matters. Please allow others to look at the matter. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Inside the Criminal Mind

The article basically contains 3 sentences and lists 3 sources all of which are TV Recap/Review sites. From the way the article is written it is hard to determine which site is the source for the info provided but I am mainly questioning whether these articles can be determined to be "reliable sources"

References listed:

"Stream It Or Skip It: 'Inside the Criminal Mind', Netflix's Docuseries About Dark Psychology". Decider. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind' - Netflix Original Series Review". Ready Steady Cut. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
"'Inside the Criminal Mind'". Geeks. Retrieved August 1, 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeOmega (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This website is run by the economist John. H. Boyd, and was added as the source of cladograms to 62 articles   by Videsh Ramsahai a few years ago. I shall quote the author from here:

Unlike other checklists, this one is based on genetic studies to the highest degree possible. With one or two exceptions, it relies on published studies (including those available “ahead of print”). The strong focus on genetics means that previous morphological studies are often treated as second-class citizens. This is especially true when they aren't consistent with the genetic data, even if the genetic data is somewhat soft. Nonetheless, I rely on such analyses to fill in the gaps left by the genetic data.

My approach contrasts with most checklist committees. They usually put substantial weight on traditional classifications, and try to avoid speculation, even when its clear that the traditional classification is wrong. In particular, they try to avoid making erroneous changes, and put a premium on stability.

This checklist has a different purpose. It exists to speculate, to map out potential changes in the taxonomy. The price of focusing on speculation is to give up stability. I try to avoid erroneously maintaining the status quo, and try to keep abreast of the latest findings, even if incomplete.

The truth is that much of the genetic analysis is incomplete. It is still the case that only part of the avian tree has reliable results. For the rest, some is still relatively uninvestigated, some has results that are not clear cut or even contradictory, and some studies are not well executed. In some cases I've taken my best guess based on available data, sometimes speculating well beyond the genetic data.

The instability of the TiF worldlist may make it unsuitable for everyday use, although it should serve the useful function of highlighting potential changes regardless of your preferred checklist. Unlike a printed checklist, the TiF web list can be easily updated as new information, corrections, and better interpretations come to my attention. The “What's New” button at the top will show you the latest changes.

Previously, only the combination of Sibley and Monroe (1990) and Sibley and Ahlquist (1990) or its precursor in the Auk (Sibley, Ahlquist, and Monroe, 1988) had attempted anything of this sort (the famous “tapestry”). From the beginning, the TiF list has used an explicit family-level tree. That has now been extended to a genus-level tree for most families. In some cases it has been pushed to the species level, and in a very few cases, to subspecies.

While I admire the effort of putting all of this together, I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia as it is self published and as a Economist he is not a recognised expert in the field of Ornithology, and the clade names he uses are non-standard like "Raphini" on the Columbidae article for instance. I think part of the reason that he hasn't been replaced is that cladograms are a pain to syntax in markdown and so nobody wants to bother. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree being an expert in one thing does not make you an expert in everything.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeking help as to whether the website marriedceleb.com might be considered reliable. They say they verify information, but to be honest I consider info about them limited. I've not used it for anything yet as I'm hoping to get some input, but a page that I'd look to use it on would be Mark Wallace. This is the link where they give some info about themselves. https://marriedceleb.com/about-us In this particular example, the only source for the couple's divorce is pagesix (listed on reliability page under NYPost)(all other sources list pagesix as their source with respect to this couple) and it has no consensus with respect to its reliability and emphasizes it's "gossip". Thank you.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no. Name isn't everything (Stuff (website) is something I think is generally reliable), but says nothing about who "we" are. The three articles I clicked on were written by "Manish" who "starts as an intern in 2019." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• No no no no no. This is another one of those famousbirthday variants. It's never an acceptable source and at best it's just refspam. Being correct doesn't mean reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

i would say no, no evidence it is reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I agree with Praxidicae that Married Celeb is similar to Famous Birthdays (RSP entry), which is currently blacklisted for repeated violations of the biography of living persons policy. Another point of comparison is CelebrityNetWorth (RSP entry), which is considered generally unreliable. Married Celeb doesn't publish a staff list, but I found three author profiles: a blogger (Selena) and two interns (Bibek and Manish). I consider Married Celeb a self-published source, which is unusable for claims about living persons. — Newslinger talk 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Sorry, but I agree with the above, it looks like a gossip blog, there's no way we should be repeating claims based on the content there. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. I'd say it's a consensus. The shame is that the article they had that led me here appeared to be good and corroborated info on another source that's yellow. The shame of it is, it's stopping me from fixing two people's pages because the only other source is from pagesix which took me a bit to find on the list under ny post and another user deleted my post saying it wasn't reliable. Thanks to all again.

out of curiosity, what causes a source to go to the reliable list? Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mikethewhistle-original, the problem with this sort of corroboration is that if none of them are reliable, we don't k ow whether they're all just repeating the same Internet rumour, or even just copying from each other. You will find plenty of websites that corroborate the idea that the world is flat, it doesn't mean we should use them. The criteria for reliable sources are at WP:RS - we then discuss here whether or not we agree that a source meets  them, and whether they're suitable for a particular assertion. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like opinions to see whether my thinking is incorrect regarding placing a "citation needed" tag where information is sourced with a permanent dead link, as well as marking a citation as "dead link" in the text of the article if it is already identified in the list of references as "permanent dead link". I recently removed information from Billy Graham because the source was marked as a permanent dead link (). Another editor (in good faith) reverted me, stating that "it's never OK to remove a dead link WP:DEADLINK" . After considering it, I agreed that the information should remain in the article. Since the link is dead, I added a "citation needed" tag. Since the link is not identified in the text of the article as dead, I also added a "dead link" tag () so that other editors would know that a new source is needed. The other editor removed both tags with the comment "no a permanent dead link can be replaced, but not removed and there is a citation there" . So for future reference I'd like to know if it is inappropriate to add those tags when a link is determined to be permanently dead. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it should be marked with ^{[dead link]} an archived version can be found. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Having the original reference is vital to fixing link rot by hand. Often it is still available elsewhere. Sometimes I've been able to get the site to restore the link. But I cannot do these things without the original reference; it is the deletion of links rather than their going dead that causes a permanent loss. There is no need for a "citation needed" tag. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be sure I understand, the link in the list of references indicates "permanent dead link", but in the text of the article there is no indication of a dead link. I think it should be added there; otherwise the reader doesn't know it's a dead link unless they go to the trouble to look in the list of references. Does that sound right? Sundayclose (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The readers regard notations in the text as clutter. If they want to know about a reference, they hover the mouse over it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

One more question. How long should information tagged "citation needed" or "dead link" remain in an article? I realize that sometimes a dead link can be fixed, but sometimes it can't. I looked extensively for the particular source in this particular case and I believe it is no longer available. In this case I can find another source that partially confirms the information. But in other articles I've seen questionable information remain tagged in articles for many years. Where do we draw the line? Thanks again. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I would see nothing wrong with both, right there, inline in the text, so that we're not misleading readers into thinking a statement is well-supported when it absolutely isn't. A dead link is not verifiable, and WP:V is policy - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

But this isn't always correct. There is no requirement that a source must be online for verification. This comes up with newspaper sources, as in those cases if the same story also appeared in a physical paper, and the citation information is sufficient to find that story in the physical paper, then it's misleading to suggest the dead link means it's not verifiable. Otherwise you get the weird scenario where the presence of the link means the information is 'not verifiable' but the absence means it 'is verifiable'. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the information may be in a physical publication, but the link cited is dead (I looked extensively and couldn't find it archived or located on another website). So the link should be marked dead. That's not misleading. It tell editors to look for the information elsewhere. It's not misleading to indicate that a link that is truly dead is, in fact, dead. The "citation needed" tag also tells editors that the information needs to be sourced. Otherwise the information stays in the article without adequate sourcing indefinitely. I have seen many "citation needed" tags that were ten or more years old, and the information was dubious. The old tags let editors know that the information needs a source, or it needs to be removed. This is not a WP:BLUE issue, it's a clear violation of WP:V. Sundayclose (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• No need for {{citation needed}} Just mark it as a dead link because it is referenced. Someone viewed the reference when it was alive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree if ^{[dead link]} is inline. Otherwise most editors won't know it's a dead link. Sundayclose (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed the indenting format, but I won't correct it. See MOS:INDENTMIX.

No, a {{dead link}} is not required to be inline. That's been stated above. It's now part of the reference and will be in the actual citation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought in response to your comment I should indent one more space over. Feel free to correct me on my talk page if that's not appropriate. Anyway, I realize it may not be required inline, but my point is that most readers don't know it's a dead link if it's not noted inline. I think it should be inline so editors will know to try to fix the dead link or look for another source, as state above by David Gerard. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Which readers need to know it's a dead link: the ones who look at the citation number and nothing more then move on, or the ones that click on the citation and want to read about it? I'd argue it's the latter, and they're the ones who will see that's it's dead. Adding in in-line (and I assume you mean after the ref) is clutter to the majority of readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's "clutter" that informs them they can't check this supposed reference, and as such it does genuinely useful work. I think lying to the readers about the status of a cite is bad - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're suggesting <ref>ref contents</ref>{{dead link|date=March 2020}} rather than <ref>ref contents{{dead link|date=March 2020}}</ref>, then yes, it's clutter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Permanent dead link" can be misleading for a couple reasons. 1. Archives sometimes exist at other providers and are waiting to be discovered. 2. Providers have the archive, but keep them offline then restore them later, for technical or policy reasons (this happens surprisingly often). 3. The original archive URL has moved to a new archive URL and requires sometime to untangle the redirects. 4. The source URL is archived, but under a different archive URL (similar to the last case but involves changing the source URL); or the source URL is currently live under a different URL under the same domain, and the archive should be removed. 5. The source URL can be replaced with a new link to a new domain (eg. a Reuters story might be available at different sites). There are probably other cases but demonstrate how complex it can be. -- GreenC 15:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that sometimes a link marked as permanently dead may be recovered (or the same information can be found in another source). But that doesn't negate the fact that sometimes a link is, in fact, permanently dead. I think we should err on the side of upholding WP:V and tag the link inline as dead so that editors know they should try to revive the link or find another source. I agree with David Gerard that what some consider "clutter" may serve a useful purpose. Taken to its logical extreme, it could be argued that most inline notations, including legitimate "citation needed" tags or even the citations themselves, should be removed as clutter. This is the nature of an encyclopedia that has no professional editorial oversight; the inline "clutter" sometimes is necessary. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You have shown repeatedly that you do not understand what verifiablity means. It does not mean that a link can be clicked on and the contents read. It "means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I'm not sure how you can confuse such a simple concept. If the source is a book, you cannot click on the reference to read the print version, but it's not dead. Similarly, most online sources may not actually be unavailable. It is assumed that someone vetted the information as well, and so it's not even likely a bad source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Walter, thanks for your comments and feedback. Please don't personalize this discussion, toward me or any other participant in this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is about your misunderstanding not about a misapplication of policy, manual of style or guideline. I'm not attacking you but neither will I coddle you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem regarding the personal comment. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion about this being about a misunderstanding, whether my misunderstanding or anyone else's misunderstanding in this discussion. It's about how we interpret and apply policies and guidelines, which often have different interpretations. That's why we have these discussions. Thanks again for your input. Sundayclose (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

But you've referenced WP:V several times and made it seem that it means that we must be able to see the content of a cited source. I quoted directly from the first sentence of the policy. It does not support that claim. David Gerard has made similar implications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree and see if anyone else weighs in. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You want me to agree with allowing you to carry a clear misunderstanding of a Wikipedia policy? In what way does this statement make sense to you? If you don't want to understand policy correctly, then the best option is to walk away from the English project. This is not a case of "I see it one way and you see it another". It is a case of you not clearly understanding a policy.

Others have weighed-in and you push-back with your clear misunderstanding at every turn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they more have the right of it than you - you're arguing that a permanent dead link is hypothetically verifiable so the tag should go, we're arguing that a permanent dead link is not practically verifiable so the tag should stay - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No sir. That is not my argument. I am not saying it is hypothetically verifiable, I am saying any reader can see if it is or is not a reliable source. That's what WP:V is about. You do understand that, don't you? Your argument appears to be "I can't click on a link so I can't read what it has to say." That is not what WP:V is about. But by all means, quote from the policy to show me where I'm wrong. I'm open to updating my misunderstandings of the policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion at the Kyle Kulinski draft currently hinges on whether he meets WP:ENTERTAINER, against which there has been no dissent after ten days with three editors in agreement, and whether he is independent of Jacobin magazine. Please comment there as to whether the subject is presently notable. EllenCT (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we use hitconsultant.net and beckershospitalreview.com as reliable sources?

• hitconsultant.net usage
• beckershospitalreview.com usage

--KartikeyaS (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no on hitconsultant.net. It seems to be a personal blog written by a single person and his wife. The guys only qualification for being an expert in the field, and therefore has a right to used as a reliable source, is that he's a "seasoned health IT strategist." Whatever that means. Same goes for his wife, who's qualifications are that she is a "seasoned marketing and communication professional." None of that makes them usable. The particular source you want to them for, Luma Health, is just a company press announcement anyway, but that aside it's clearly not a reliable source for the reasons I've given. Personal blogs just aren't acceptable. More so though considering it's not written by authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. Same goes for the other source. None of the editors there seem to have authoritative qualifications. The main editors only accolade is that she's the editor of that website. She isn't even claiming to be a healthcare professional or to have any connection to the industry outside of the website. She actually went to a law school. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I agree that HitConsultant looks like a personal blog. I'd like to see more about advertising policies at Beckers (I searched and failed to find anything), but in the absence of that, I'd opt to say unreliable.Dorama285 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you Adamant1 and Dorama285 for your review. Any words on the other source beckershospitalreview.com? --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried to download the Beckers media kit, but it looks like they will only provide it if the requester works in the medical industry. That's the information I would need to confirm (or not) that it's a pay-to-play scheme. Dorama285 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

This source has been used in multiple instances for Coronavirus cases including 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States and here and I am not sure how reliable it is. In any case it would be helpful to come to a consensus on whether this is an admissable source or not. I tend to think that it is not for similar reasons that were discussed above for 1point3acres, it seems to be a self-published source. --hroest 17:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming this is true [] seems an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In general, the [Worldmeters about page] indicates that it is a legitimate source and for many of their other statistics pages they use official government sources. But for the US coronavirus, the sources are a mix of news sources (all of which look mainstream) and state health officials. You can roll over the sources here []. It that ok? Many of the states with numbers listed for Mar 12th have no sources at all. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries scroll down. Is that ok? Or should we only use state and federal government numbers? Seatto23 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think is really a question of whether a mix of local news and government sources that can't be directly traced back to federal or state government-released numbers is considered a "reliable source". Also we don't know the degree to which humans are involved in quality control of the worldmeters numbers. I don't have enough experience with what Wikipedia considers a legit "reliable source" to know whether of not its ok. Also it shows "recovered" but we know that is not being tracked by states (yet). On the flip side, it is definitely a simple page to use and to archive with a nice time-stamp. Seatto23 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Linkedin considered a reliable source for anything? It's currently used in more than 9000 articles(feel to correct me here) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Linkedin&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Recent article i noticed was used is List of highest-grossing video game franchises,used twice. People post data on Linkedin be it game sales, game budgets, game marketing budgets, retail sales, other stuff not mentioned anywhere else. Timur9008 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2020(UTC)

It's a primary source. Consider it a WP:SPS and treat it the same way as you would a personal website or personal blog. Valid for use to describe non-controversial information about the individual that published it and nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

But not (I would argue) for things like how much something has made, its self serving.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. As a social network, LinkedIn contains mostly user-generated content which is not usable in most cases. If a LinkedIn account is confirmed in some way to be operated by the person it represents, then statements or claims from the account can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. However, unlike some social networks such as Twitter (RSP entry), LinkedIn does not have an account verification process.

  In 2013, LinkedIn acquired the news aggregator now known as LinkedIn Pulse, and transformed it into a blogging platform similar to Medium (RSP entry) and Blogger (RSP entry). Blog posts on LinkedIn Pulse do not undergo editorial oversight, and should not be used unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the content is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. LinkedIn Pulse articles can be identified by their URLs, which begin with linkedin.com/pulse. There are currently 597 articles that cite LinkedIn Pulse, and most of the citations are inappropriate. — Newslinger talk 05:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no oversight at L. Even IMDb has people who at least look at info being added even though they are terrible at stopping bad or fake info. The point is that anyone can post anything about themselves and noone verifies whether it is accurate or not. I would deprecate its use as a reference and doubt whether it ev3en belongs as an EL in Wikiepdia articles. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Medcitynews.com can be used for citations as a reliable source? --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage

Some not reliable. They do some native advertising which is typical for business journals. An example native is this article. It says "Sponsored post". This is a required flag by the FCC to notify readers it is an advertisement. -- GreenC 13:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. First, a minor observation: With respect to GreenC's comment, I'd like to point out that the FCC does not regulate websites. The FTC regulates commercial activity, but its track record on native advertising hasn't been one of aggressive enforcement.

After looking at MedCityNews' media kit, the more significant issue that I see is that they have loopholes established to avoid native advertising enforcement. One example: Sponsoring a panel session at one of their events will get you on the panel as a speaker and an article about the panel "written by MCN Editorial [and] published on MedCityNews.com" (no disclaimer needed!). It doesn't say how much panel sponsorship costs, but sponsored posts on the website start at $3,500.

To summarize: This looks pretty clearly like a pay-to-play operation. Dorama285 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Editorial" content is in a different category from reporting. Editorials are non-neutral and promotional by design (Editors give their opinion about who to vote for because those politicians match the politics of the editors). If it is marked an editorial it is no problem because we don't use it anyway. They are open about native advertising, marking some content as sponsored. Otherwise it would be like a conspiracy theory, they must be hiding something because their revenue model depends on some native advertising pieces, thus none of the content can be trusted, and we can't trust the government to do their job so we should ban the site. -- GreenC 17:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy! Just a business model. I noticed their marketing kit also offers "bylines or ghostwritten articles" and "eBooks and whitepapers." (It doesn't say what they will ghostwrite, but it seems pretty broad.) There's a significant grey area they can safely operate within. Larger news websites are often more transparent because A) They want to be credible and B) They are regulatory targets. When you only get 1.25 million page views monthly (which is what MedCity claims), the only readers are pretty much all people clicking through from Wikipedia. Dorama285 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering it is used in 35 articles on Wikipedia they must not be doing much business :) Anyway, I don't thing we should use supposition without some evidence. The articles are mostly signed by journalists with a staff page with their picture and bios, it doesn't look shady to me as if they are not disclosing native advertising. -- GreenC 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have reliable sources (https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/21/WS5e4f30e6a31012821727930c.html from China Daily) that linked to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the 2019-20 Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak? --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking if chinadaily.com.cn is a reliable source? -- GreenC 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)