Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288

Youth Ki Awaaz is being used as a source in a handful of articles (73 articles) over here at the English Wikipedia. Youth Ki Awaaz is a user-generated crowd funded platform (with internal checks) in India and I wondered if it was reliable enough to be used extensively over here during referencing in the future. DTM (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• No.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• While it does have Community Guidelines, the content is not generated by trained journalists, but by independent users. I am not sure how much content is verified? I would say it is unreliable. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Youth Ki Awaaz is a community-based thought sharing platform/website^[1]. The guidelines describe it YKA is a people’s platform. That means thousands use it daily to share their thoughts and opinions[...]. Opinionated articles are published by anyone without any verification on this platform. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously unreliable per WP:UGC. buidhe 19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable per others. Glades12 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable platform has very much poor editorial standards, it allows user generated content which are enough not to pass WP:RS. I have changed indent to bullet. -- Brihaspati (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have a proposal for a change to Wikipedia policy / guidelines (maybe a change to Manual of Style guidelines or Reliable Source guidelines). I want to propose something along the lines of: "When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls". I've noticed that the tendency of some editors to use individual polls when aggregate polls exist creates unnecessary headaches, edit-warring and tendentious editing. The big issue is that editors may cherry-pick (whether intentionally or not) individual polls that are consistent with a particular narrative even though these polls are inconsistent with other polling. I've seen this in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as in various individual congressional races over the same period. There is no upside to using an individual poll when there is aggregate polling on the exact same issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly, in non-list articles, aggregate polls should be favored over one-off polls. This is for the same reason we generally favor meta-analyses over individual studies for medical content — it reduces the risk of citing outliers. Citing aggregate polls also avoids the "house effect" of individual polling companies. And it's more consistent with an encyclopedic summary style. Neutrality^talk 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Any type of polls can be included if they are from reliable sources.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• A month ago, you appeared to express support for creating a policy change (rather than implementation of this on a single article), so that this commonsensical proposal would get accepted across Wikipedia articles. Now, you appear to insist that no policy change is necessary. Why the change of heart? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• As for the substance of your comment, no one is claiming that an individual poll is necessarily unreliable. The argument is that aggregate polling will not only be more reliable and have greater long-term encyclopedic value, but it avoids cherry-picking of polls, debates about which polls to include/exclude and tendentious editing. This is not rocket science: let's say there have been 20 polls that measure support for Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary (a page you've edited a lot on)... which of those 20 polls should we use (because it's certainly not feasible to cover them all)? Someone who wants to portray Bernie as unpopular might pick his two worst polls whereas a supporter may pick his two best polls. Why isn't the commonsensical solution to use aggregate polling, and thus take the discretion from individual editors and reduce edit-warring and pointless bickering? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have two policies that should suffice: Due and undue weight and RS. Specifically, we should emphasize the polls that mainstream media deem most important, which could include aggregate polling, and ignore polls that are considered outliers or insignificant. Unfortunately, any set of rules is only as good as the editors applying them. If editors come with the motivation to make Sanders look good or bad, then they'll find excuses for whatever they do. Even worse, the existence of multiple rules confuses editors and allows tendentious editors to find loopholes. There's no reason to think that aggregate polls are more reliable. There are competing aggregates and they can be skewed by including outliers. Also, they cover polls over a period of time. So for example they could include polls taken both before and after candidates dropped out. Polls for Supertuesday for example showed Biden doing much better once Pete and Klobuchar dropped out, hence aggregate polls would be misleading. TFD (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, those two policies clearly do not suffice. In the same way that the RS guidance has to spell out to editors that academic sources are usually preferable over non-academic sources, we need to clearly spell out that aggregate polling is usually better than individual polls. As for your arguments against aggregate polling, it's absolutely mind-numbing to read them (and astonishing that someone could actually hold these views): (i) Aggregate polling is skewed because they include outlier polls? Yes, that's the point of aggregate polling: all reliable polling is included, and the aggregate includes the outliers, as well as the polls that are not outliers. How is it better that editors have discretion to pick random individual polls, including the outlier polls (which POV editors are far more likely to do)? (ii) I see absolutely zero confusion in recommending that editors use aggregate polling from a RS in a situation where such polling is available. What loopholes are editors going to find in that? It sets a clear guideline that takes discretion away from tendentious editors. (iii) Regarding your last comment: There is nothing that's more misleading about using aggregate polling than individual polling in that situation. If anything, aggregate polling provides greater clarity in who is included in polling over time than randomly picking individual polls over time periods. Anyone looking at the 538 national polling visualizer for the democratic primary can clearly see that Biden spikes in polling just as Buttigieg and Klobuchar leave the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of any poll is individual notability for inclusion in an article about polling itself, and how far/close they were to accuracy once the elections are over. They have -0- lasting value beyond the latter. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like some opinions on Rolling Out as it's the single argument for a BLP's notability. Doesn't really have readily available staff/publisher info but it appears to be run by this guy, who appears in turn to own Rolling Out as basically a one-man show (the Steed Media Group website is down.) Feels bloggy, and I can't find examples of major mentions by clearly reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really an RS issue so much as notability. But I doubt this is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like an RS and even if it were I'd say it does not establish notability, because it's basically full of hype. Guy (help!) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting comment (or editing) on whether a YouTube video is a reliable source as claimed here for what appears to be an unverified (or bogus) COVID-19 cure at Deschampsia cespitosa and Calamagrostis epigejos. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming its a verified account it is reliable for the claim "this TV station has claimed...", and that is about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; another editor has resolved it per WP:MEDRS. Doremo (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question Can we make an FAQ that people are requested to read before posting here, and have the first one be that "YouTube" is not a publisher but rather a medium, and therefore a "YouTube video" is no more or less reliable than any other source, depending on who the actual publisher (channel owner) and the content being attributed to it? It's obvious from the OP's wording that they consider "a YouTube video" to be some statement on the reliability of the source, and this kind of claim comes up over and over and over again, even when the actual source is, for example, a video lecture published by Yale University. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of this https://pubpeer.com/publications/87D82A8CA1C4CB9B74A0C1B111AC4F# and of the fact after exchanging with Springer editorial board, nothing happened not even an answer from the authors... Walidou47 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We'll need more than a blog post by a "Blechnum Maximum" and a single complaint to add that journal, especially if it's just an brainfart from people who interpreted the sentence to mean "other NSAIDs tend to be...". Like other sources often do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that muflihun.com is used in our Wikipedia articles for Islamic material. Recently, I saw Koreangauteng add a muflihun.com source. But it doesn't seem that muflihun.com passes our WP:Reliable sources guideline.

Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Muflihun.com describes its editorial processes. Muflihun.com is cited within Wikipedia. Koreangauteng (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the hadith in question. It (and similar) are available from other sources. It is not the ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʻīf of any given hadith. It is the reliability of the source which publishes it. I appreciate the matter is sensitive but WP:NOTCENSORED Koreangauteng (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already noted that it's cited within Wikipedia. That it's cited within Wikipedia doesn't make it a WP:Reliable source. And why cite this website instead of a reputable media source or academic source? This isn't about WP:NOTCENSORED. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this source, but being cited in Wikipedia is an indication of absolutely nothing. Bad sources are used all the time on Wikipedia. But if it's bad and cited, what that means is that it should be removed, not cited more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I pointed editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources here for more opinions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Sunnah.com a WP:Reliable source  ? Koreangauteng (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, either one. Muflihun's About page shows that it is someone's personal website and thus fails WP:SPS. It is also sectarian (i.e. promotes a particular POV within Islam). Sunnah.com is of anonymous origin and so is also unreliable. Note, though, that much of Muflihun.com and nearly all of Sunnah.com appear to just be the text of Islamic hadith or other religious texts. Many of the pre-existing cites to these sites are probably citing hadith (and note: I agree that pre-existing cites on Wikipedia count for absolutely nothing in terms of reliability). Might it be okay to cite these websites to cite hadith? No, they are not trustworthy, and we should not be citing hadith anyway per WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:PRIMARY. It helps to analogize it to Christianity, with which many of us are more familiar. Would it be proper for an article explaining the Christian viewpoint on marriage to just cite the Bible, or, say, Catholic saints that Protestants don't view as authoritative? No, because these sources have varying interpretations and/or are viewed as authoritative by only some parts of Christianity. For an editor to interpret scripture is original research. To cite a figure viewed as authoritarive by only some Christians and treat his POV as "the" Christian POV constitutes religious evangelism. The same hazard exists when covering Islam. As always, we avoid this by sticking to sources that meet WP:RS and WP:PSTS, especially academic sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Korean site https://playdb.co.kr appears to be a site listing stage acting credits (at least), based on a conversation at Talk:Han Ji-sang#Credits. Perhaps a Korean-speaking editor could evaluate whether it should be considered a reliable source? My concern is that it may be another user-contributed site like IMDB. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please explain to me, why I am not allowed to use Wikileaks as a reference. On Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks Newslinger linked to a discussion about a Jehovas Witnesses letter that was not published on Wikileaks. How does that prove anything? If Wikileaks is not a reliable source, there must be some erroneous document on their website. Please either provide that, or let me use Wikileaks in a reference. Thank you. --Raphael1 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing the mislisted discussion to my attention. I removed it from WP:RSP § WikiLeaks at 21:38, and struck my comment which mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses letter at 21:36. Please refer to "Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors for being inadequately authenticated.

  Your attempted edit to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface article (logged at Special:AbuseLog/26184477) needs to be supplemented with a reliable secondary source, since the claim is contentious and WikiLeaks is a primary source. A blog post from Purism, which you cited in Special:Diff/944416302, is self-published and not considered reliable. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks does not edit (as far as I know) or even check veracity, it just publishes what is handed to it. We are not even sure much of what it publishes is genuine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wikileaks does no fact-checking. Therefore, they don't count as publishing for WP:V / WP:RS purposes, which requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if we did count that, they would still clearly be a WP:PRIMARY source (although I don't feel they can be cited in even that way - even a usable primary source has to do basic fact-checking.) Remember that anything noteworthy there will be cited elsewhere, and we can just use that secondary source instead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks does indeed authenticate all documents it publishes and has never been proven wrong. Wikileaks does not claim, that all documents it publishes only contain factual correct statements, but they do check, that the documents are genuine and come from its respective authors. I.e. the discussion here refers to a document put together by the pilots union. Wikileaks doesn't claim that the list is correct, in fact it even states, that it "may contain inaccuracies". So yes, Wikileaks should be classified as a reliable source for WP:PRIMARY sources. --Raphael1 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Raphael1, authenticating is not the same as fact-checking. Pretty much by definition, anything that ends up at Wikileaks got there because someone has an axe to grind. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The motives of Wikileaks sources are irrelevant. It is a fact, that Wikileaks has never been caught publishing faked documents. And that is all that should matter to an online encyclopedia, that tries to publish true information. —Raphael1 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

​Responding to "tries to publish true information", you may find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to be a useful read. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Only source Wikileaks if the information you are citing from them has been confirmed. Otherwise, not appropriate. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. Wikileaks does not usually provide much commentary on the documents it publishes. On notable occasions it has partnered with media organisations to publish documents and under this arrangement the commentary is provided by journalists from the other organisations. Wikileaks has created tools that allow researchers to use the Wikileaks databases more easily. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However there will be occasions where it is useful to link to the original document in the Wikileaks database and, as pointed out by an editor below, there is a template for this, at least for the cables release. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Burrobert, given your inexperience of Wikipedia';s sourcing policies, I am not surprised to see you make this error. They may well check the person who submits the documents, but they do not check for selective release, and in some cases forgeries have got past them so they don't seem to check for that either. It's basically self-publishing by anonymous people. Guy (help!) 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  It is good practice when making claims to provide a supporting reference. Do you have a link to a forged document published by Wikileaks? How you know what Wikileak's does regarding whatever you mean by "selective release"? Do you have an inside source? Burrobert (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Re the claim that Wikileaks has never been proven wrong, there is another WL-related discussion further down the page where this article was cited, which includes clear instances of WL publishing fake documents. It also often includes misleading and inaccurate summaries of its documents. I agree that it should be treated with caution as a primary source and not be used without independent verification of its content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself but, since the Wired article has been mentioned, here is my comment from the section below:

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

Burrobert (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Skwawkbox is currently in the unreliable section. The site is fully and independently regulated by the UK's only Press Recognition Panel-recognised regulator, IMPRESS, with a published and binding complaints procedure^[3]. It is also fully green-lit by Newsguard, including for transparency, credibility, differentiation of fact and opinion and for factual accuracy and sourcing^[4].

It has got some things wrong, like any news outlet. It has published corrections where appropriate and it follows IMPRESS rulings where complaints are upheld. But it has a far longer track record of exclusives and information that later prove to be accurate and which have often been used by so-called "reliable" publications.

It has a completely transparent political-editorial position and in that it is no different from any of the UK's supposedly mainstream press, most of which follow a right-wing line versus the left-wing of the Skwawkbox.

But that has nothing to do with reliability, nor does the "self-published" barb some use, as this is negated by its IMPRESS regulation. Just because some disagree with it politically or dislike the news it breaks should not allow a 'consensus' to put it in an "unreliable" section with a list of publications that can claim none of what it described above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.134.69 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Why would we want to base any content on a left-wing news blog? That's what it is, after all. Guy (help!) 11:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, being under IMPRESS regulation does not negate SPS concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. As mentioned in the 2019 discussion, The Skwawkbox is a single non-expert person's blog, which makes it a self-published source. Third-party regulators and browser extensions might not take whether a website is self-published into account, but Wikipedia's verifiability policy does, and that's why we generally shouldn't use this site. — Newslinger talk 21:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't see what left- or right-wing has to do with reliability, 'Guy', or is Wikipedia a right-wing organisation now? Of course regulation is relevant, Slatersteven. If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of an article, they have a means to do so via an independent adjudicator who issues binding decisions. It's nonsense. Ultimately any news publication is published by "non-expert" people, the accuracy of the published material depends on the qualifications of sources and contributors and the Skwawkbox has a record of very good sources and demonstrable accuracy in its fields of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.134.69 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but not self published. The point is he writes and edits it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am notoriously right-wing. Guy (help!) 17:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Sun is deprecated anyway, but it's especially a problem on BLPs. Please see discussion I started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general) - how to filter this, and technical details of how to hamper its use on articles and especially on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem, AFAIK this link reports citations to The Sun on all BLPs (or at least all articles in the category "Living People") and there are zero hits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That a category, not all articles that fall under BLP (such as articles about clubs) may be on it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think insource: is needed to search for text in citations. This search returns just 3 citations in BLPs, which is also pretty good. There are only 23 articles (including BLPs and non-BLPs) that still cite The Sun or its regional variants. — Newslinger talk 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This website () is being used on surprisingly many articles on relating to arcade games (an area with a shortage of media coverage); however, it does not seem particularly reliable. It is basically a group blog according to the about page, and no editorial oversight is mentioned. Immediately removing all use of the website would be reckless at this point, so please discuss the matter. Glades12 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC), updated 07:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If its a crap source remove it, and it does not look RS to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:FANSITE to me. Guy (help!) 22:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (Here via WT:VG notification) Why "reckless"? The site has no hallmarks of reliability: reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, editorial policy or even staff listing. Remove on sight. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I believe i brought this up in the past and reached the same conclusion as CZae and JzG.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• It's a fansite. The about page is just "we love arcade games" and doesn't indicate any notion of them having editorial oversight or even journalism experience. I'd say it's unreliable. Plus a lot of the information they have is already covered by reliable sources anyway, so I don't think we're at a real loss for getting rid of this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this source (book by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. and published by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs) a reliable source?

It was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran and it was used for this information:

• "In August 1971, many leading members of the MEK were arrested by SAVAK, and by the end of October, most MEK members had been arrested. While in prison, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book disassociating the MEK from radical leftists. There was split between the current (Muslim) MEK and the "extremist secular splinter group. − − Vahid Afrakhteh, who led was responsible for the assassination of three U.S. officers in Tehran in 1973 and 1975, also attempted the assassination of surviving MEK leaders. The splinter group also killed Majid Sharif-Vaqefi, an MEK member who was later honoured "for defending Islam" (Arya Mehr University of Technology was renamed Sharif University after the revolution, before Rajavi and Khomeini had their falling out).^[1]

Ypatch (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This report looks like it could be a good source for our article Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, but I'd like community input on whether Tortoise Media is an RS for these purposes. It seems a serious venture , but it doesn't seem to have an established reputation yet. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What claims in the article would you like to support with this source? It seems to me that most sources for COVID-19 articles, especially one about misinformation, would be required to meet WP:MEDRS. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Could someone with a better sense of WP:MEDRS and how it's applied please check over Didier Raoult#COVID-19? I am particularly cautious about any claims of efficacy of COVID-19 treatment at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The project talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, is a good place to ask - editors experienced in WP:MEDRS are all over this topic right now, for obvious reasons - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer! --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be an ok source, but should they be used in preference to official stats? (Hint: that's what people are doing). Worldometers often gives a higher result than the cdc and state health department websites and it's unclear how they learn about new cases before they're posted. Furthermore, it fails MEDRS... buidhe 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

i wouldn't use it because there is no information about who they are or how they determine their stats. Also, there is a limited value of tertiary sources. We should not insert raw statistics without analysis. TFD (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are at the bottom of the page. They look okay to me. This is a WP:TERTIARY source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As a question, are they still a reliable source if they do licensing for the counters?. I ask because of this edit from a related discussion regarding a potential CoVid-19 source. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would use John Hopkins info @ https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html instead; the data is reasonably authoritative and comes from a non-profit source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, a separate (and highly unusual) RFC was started elsewhere, two days after this request (and with a very unusual interpretation of consensus), and there are indications in that disucssion that this is NOT a reliable source. Someone needs to rationalize this mess, because we don't determine local consensus via a 50% or more vote when a general discussion is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Source IMO is fine enough. This is a balance between uptodateness and reliableness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Doc - see RUSA rating which is a division of the American Library Association. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding that they include a column titled "Sources" which lists the sources they used to gather the information, and that makes them a reliable secondary source which is a bit better than using primary sources like the CDC, although it is always good to corroborate the information. The fact that they exercise oversight and correct errors is a plus for their fact-checking abilities. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is not reliable enough and it actually hinders our update efforts if it is used to replace official sources. Worldometer uses either official statistics or press reports. We should use these official or press reports directly. If we had done this in the first place, we wouldn't have needed to revert changes to Angola counts multiple times in one day because the underlying source for the first case was a viral WhatsApp audio that was denied by the authorities. Or we wouldn't have needed to edit war over an obvious transcription error of Spain statistics. Or attend edit requests from users reporting a wrong report on unusual high death count in Pakistan. Worldometer is doing a great job on keeping the most fresh data overall, but that comes at the expense of reliability. I'm using it daily to prioritize countries to update and sometimes to find new sources, but I don't think it is reliable enough to use directly. --MarioGom (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with MarioGom. Worldometers had a huge jump yesterday in cases in the United States (~38,000 cases) which they eventually rolled back. I tried quite hard but was not able to find a single source supporting that number, including those cited on their site. I think that Worldometers should be treated as a great source for prioritizing updates and finding reliable sources, but not as the only source for numbers that conflict with more reliable sources. Eitan1989 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins is at 35,000, this site is at 39,000. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Big jump appears to be based on this "According to Cuomo, New York now has 20,875" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reporting by worldometers of Ohio's stats is definitely suspicious -- they say they're sourcing to Ohio Department of Health, but ODH is reporting only cumulative cases and deaths, and worldometers is doing arithmetic to arrive at a number for "active cases" for Ohio, which is then apparently being used to assume no recoveries in Ohio since worldometers is also reporting a "recovered" number for the country as a whole, so they must be aggregating stuff that can't be aggregated. At best they should be reporting "reported recoveries" and "cases reported as active" if they're getting that level of detail from some depts of health. --valereee (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• They look good - quite readable, more up to date than what WP could do, open on sources with their sources are presented in the drilldown by day re GMT+0. Could wish their per nation display showed days-since-data as some nations are not providing timely reporting. (While I’m wishing, I could also wish for a confidence level against reports of whether medical experts think the data has timeliness or underreporting issues.). I see concerns on aggregation, but think that’s inevitable in any summary. e.g what one nation defines as ‘serious’ isn’t what another does, the hospitalised counts may be more an indicator of hospital availability than of need, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I keep finding Worldometer updates where underlying source is not cited. Also updates where numbers do not match with the cited source. Yesterday I updated at least two countries where Worldometer figure for recoveries was lower than the cited source. There are other problems like Canada figures including not confirmed cases (presumptive cases), which makes other editors repeatedly updating figures to wrong counts. Their world totals may be double counting some territories whose cases are listed both in their own entry as well as in another country (e.g. France and its overseas provinces). This is really not a realiable source for Wikipedia standards. Reliable sources with up-to-date data DO exist. See reference section for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data or the work-in-progress list at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force. --MarioGom (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The link^[1] to latest data about positive cases, dealths etc. caused due to COVID-19 published by BNO News is being circulated by many people everywhere. Can it be considered a reliable source?

• Yes. The information and the data looks probably correct to me. Also, the data represented for every country is being retrieved from the official governement websites of the respective countries and have specified links to those websites. I am not so sure about the day-wise timeline of the incidents but seems that it is also derived from the linked official government sources for respective countries. The data representation is easier to understand the overall impact of the spread of the novel coronavirus 2019 globally. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  No. The company does not provide information about its editorial board and most articles are not bylined and/or transparently derivative is this a copyright violation? For disease information especially, it is important to use a reliable source. buidhe 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Preferably, no per above. They also host a donation link so I don't think it's appropriate to link as a source while other websites provide same info. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No per Buidhe - I can't find anything on their website about editorial board, who writes their articles, or specifically where the information in this Coronavirus table is coming from (beyond saying that it's 'updated by our team'). Not being obviously wrong isn't enough to make it RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

What weight can be afforded to normally-reliable news outlets, such as CNN or The Guardian, who write an article based on nothing more than a Tweet by someone, or a Facebook post? Normally, by WP:BLPSPS we would discount the source as primary, or use it with caution, as long as it did not contain e.g. claims about a third party or is not unduly self-serving. So when a WP:RS reporter picks it up and puts it in an article, do we suspend BLPSPS and go right to giving it the weight due to an independent primary source? Do we assume that they exerted some measure of editorial oversight and fact-checking on the Tweet (even though they probably didn't, and rushed to press with it)? If the Tweet makes a claim about a third party, is that claim now valid because it's been filtered through a reliable primary news source? Inquiring minds want to know! Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, if the Guardian say that someone tweeted something, that's a good source to use to assert that the person tweeted something. If they report it as fact, I'd probably fall back on 'it depends' - is there a particular case you've got in mind? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Birthday Cake for Breakfast is a legitimate reliable source? The writer is based in Manchester, and I came across it because it seems to have several interviews with bands (including one I'm doing some research about, called Field Music) but I had never heard of the site before, and looking at it I can't really tell if it's a legit site or just some blog. Visually it appears to be the latter, but the interviews made me wonder if it's not? — Hunter Kahn 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just somebody's blog. It says so at the bottom "Create a free website blog at wordpress.com" and the sidebar exhorts you to "follow the blog via email". Note that wordpress.com is listed on WP:RSP as a generally unreliable source, except in areas where the author is a legitimate expert.

That said, if they have interviews with notable people, it could probably be cited for statements those people make about themselves, but primary sources are to be avoided if secondary sources exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Anachronist slightly. A self-published source (blog), even for a validated identity, can't support statements about other people. Anybody can start a wordpress blog and publish fake interviews. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, generally that's true. You'd have to exercise some judgment, though. In this case the interviews seem legitimate, considering that a band he interviewed republished it on their own website. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point, and yes, I wasn't saying these interviews were fake; just that they easily could be. But if Birthday Cake for Breakfast is used for a source on an article and any editor objects, there's not much to stand on. It's a self-published source and, as best I can tell, not by a recognized expert, just a serious fan. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, and a blog with under 300 followers, at that. Seriously, it's a blog. Just... no thanks. Guy (help!) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• newsweekly.com.au  

News Weekly is used as a source in over 60 articles right now. From the About page:

News Weekly has been published continuously by the National Civic Council since 1941, and was originally called Freedom.

The National Civic Council (NCC) is an organisation which seeks to shape public policy on cultural, family, social, political, economic and international issues of concern to Australia.

Five Primacies of the NCC:

• Promoting the national interest
• Assisting small enterprise
• Supporting the family
• Fostering the tested values derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage
• Defending life

In other words, this is not a news organisation, it's the newsletter of a Christian-right group, the National Civic Council. Anti-abortion, of course, and also anti-gay and apparently Dominionist.

I don't think this is suitable for any use other than WP:ABOUTSELF. What do others think? Guy (help!) 11:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you may not be paying close enough attention to our longstanding PAGs about what is and isn't a RS, or how we can use sources. Is your plan to rewrite those guidelines? BTW, are you quarantined at home with too much time on your hands? ^{[FBDB] Atsme} _Talk 📧 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, from our interactions at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think I'd back my understanding of Wikipedia policy on fringe sources over yours any day. And I was self-isolating before it was cool. I work from home and have done for a decade. Guy (help!) 09:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the site, I find headlines like this:

• Victorian Road Map smooths way of NZ anti-life clique to abortion 'reform'
• Where's the evidence for man-made global warming?

Obviously, this isn't a publication dedicated to objective reporting. The non-neutral descriptors and obstinate ignorance of science speaks volumes. Definitely not a reliable source for reporting facts in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed except for historical things they were involved in. Had a quick review of the places that it's used and it doesn't seem like they're the sort of things that should be sourced to it. I would add that the NCC is a very significant organisation historically and is relevant to many different Australian topics, so it might have wider WP:ABOUTSELF usage than your average source in this position - I don't want to find myself having to argue to keep it in articles talking about stuff the NCC did down the track. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From a policy/guideline standpoint, attributed statements from advocacy organizations (and their publications) about third parties fall under WP:BIASED or WP:RSOPINION instead of WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether these statements are appropriate to include in a relevant article is a matter of due weight, and organizations that are more prominent are more likely to be due. — Newslinger talk 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's less statements about third parties than about themselves - historically, the NCC were effectively built as an "anti-Communist Party of Australia" (working along much the same organisational basis as the CPA with the intention of countering them) and their tentacles run right through certain flavours of political and industrial history over several decades, quite often (at the time) covertly. For example, they effectively took over and ran several extremely important trade unions from the late 1940s to the 1970s. It's a situation where it (in many situations) essentially takes the form of an active historical participant talking about stuff they did: they're obviously biased, but their opinion about/recounting of what they did is generally going to be very relevant in a whole bunch of historical contexts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, interesting. Of the 65 current cites to the website, which do you think are likely to be valid? Guy (help!) 09:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Extremely few of them, but something like this is the kind of thing I'm getting at. It's an 80-year old publication of an organisation that was fundamentally involved in important parts of Australian industrial and political history, and they're absolutely a relevant (if obviously biased) source about things they were involved in. We shouldn't give two hoots about their opinions on climate change or science because it's crankery, but we should absolutely be interested in things they publish about (to give two examples from a much longer list) the Industrial Groups or the Federated Clerks' Union, two things that they effectively ran. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it would be helpful if you could flip through some of them and add WP:ATT where you think it's a valid source. The ones I have looked at so far have clearly not been, but you know more about this source than I do, evidently. Guy (help!) 14:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, that source I cited might well be the only one in current use. It's obvious to me that the site is widely being cited inappropriately and that those uses should stop. I've just got the historical background to know that there's a limited but important subject area where they've got a valid use (and a subject area that still needs a lot of improvement so wouldn't necessarily cite it already). The NCC are cranks, but once upon a time they were very influential and somewhat less-cranky and I don't want to find my hands tied writing about the NCC and their shenanigans over several decades to not be able to cite them for their side of the story. I would be content with something like "do not use at all on general topics, use with caution on topics relating to Australian history in which the NCC were involved". The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, sure - and in order to qualify, it has to be an objectively significant viewpoint represented in proportion to its acceptance and with compelling evidence of its significance, in the form of third-party commentary. Otherwise we'd have a crank climate change denialist group cited in "rebuttal" to every data point on climate change, for example. It all comes down to WP:UNDUE, in the end, and the fact that this website is not RS for statements of fact, only for the opinions of the site's publishers, right? Guy (help!) 09:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement that we should absolutely not cite them on climate change or on current-day issues more broadly. However, it is the 80-year old publication of a once-very important organisation, and they were involved in some really important stuff in which their opinions about what they did are absolutely relevant. In those cases, they absolutely are objectively significant - because it helps tell their side of the story. I also think it's over-egging it slightly to say that it's only RS for "the opinions of the site's publishers" - they have published/will publish relevant things that are not so much their opinions as opinions they approve of, and they should be appropriately cited in context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• infotextmanuscripts.org  

The home page says "I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial", and further down "We have scored two victories, in particular an out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police after a raid at the behest of Imperial Zion in 1993". I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say this site isn't reliable for anything in any article under any circumstances? FDW777 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Depends for what exactly. Many sources seem to be things like , which have no relationship whatsoever to the holocaust/conspiracy theories in general. But for anything from this Alexander Baron, or anything Jewish/Nazi related, in general, it's a complete wackadoodle source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It does host various primary sources through the 'David Webb Virtual Archive' which might be permissible under WP:ABOUTSELF though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this not (in effect) an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the scope of this noticeboard is as stated in the banner above: Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context. IN CONTEXT being the descriptor. It appears that quite a few of the most recent discussions are not about context at all; rather, some are about sources that have published opinions which tips the scale as far as "fact"-checking and what WP:SOURCE dictates as being an independent RS. That is why context is important when determining whether a source is suitable for inclusion. I'm of the mind that choosing sources that publish opinions we may not agree with and asking for input in general rather than in context if the source should be deprecated is not the best way to handle WP's use of sources. By doing so, are we not being noncompliant with (1) the scope of this noticeboard, (2) NPOV, (3) WP:RS or WP:SOURCE, and probably more that I haven't factored in? I can certainly understand and appreciate why Project Med created MEDRS, and I applaud their efforts, but when the sourcing issue involves opinions, such as the case with politics, or threatens to eliminate all but the popular scientific POV while eliminating the not so popular scientific view, are we not opening the door to POV creep in defiance of what science actually supports; that being the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment? By eliminating context are we not opening the door to the potential of censorsing all substantial views? Again, it goes back to CONTEXT and facts vs opinion. It could be a source that published well-sourced information that was cited to a source that not all editors are able to access. Use it, cite it and if another editor has access to the better source, then cite it instead. To do otherwise may prove detrimental to the project, and that is my major concern. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Got, say, three clear examples? - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, David - I think you can begin with any question above that asks if [XXX] is a reliable source. Such a question begs generalization of an entire source (and opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise) rather than affording editors an opportunity to reach a consensus by discussing the inclusion of specific material published by that source and its suitability of the material per context, which is the scope of this noticeboard. I'm of the mind that discussions here that involve the deprecation of and/or dismissal of sources as unreliable or questionable (other than the most blatantly obvious junk sources, of course, rather than sources that are debatable) should involve community-wide discussion at venues like the VP that has a much wider reach. Examples off the top of my head begin with some of the questions asked here regarding the reliability of an entire source. There are also some sources on the perennial list that are rated generally unreliable (partly because they are state-owned), yet Al Jazeera is not among them despite being owned by Qatar. Fox News is rated generally reliable but it states: Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows). How is that a NPOV? We see nothing like that for MSNBC or CNN, the latter of which clearly demonstrates a biased opinion. It is difficult to leave POV at login when we have such a list guiding editors. Does the perennial list by its sheer existence tend to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V and NPOV? I am concerned that it may which is not a good thing for the reasons I mentioned above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree in context is a bit vague, what context? Usage, policy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the following will clarify context: (see WP:RSCONTEXT)

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand the context. There have been a number of recent RfCs that are focused not on, "is this source reliable for this claim" but instead, "should this source be deprecated". Here is an example []. I have no idea if "Grayzone" should or shouldn't be a RS but the RfC is an example of what I think Atsme is talking about. My feeling is we should be less reliant on general RfCs and spend more time looking at specific examples. Springee (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's inconvenient and troublesome when trying to delete thousands of URLs to think about context. -- GreenC 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also context must include the context of the reliability of the source in general "st Ralph the liar" cannot be a source for anything, even his own opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Many sources are found to be unreliable generally, but reliable for some things ie. contextually reliable. -- GreenC 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not be going back in time to delete thousands of urls, particularly if it's being done without consideration for context per WP:V which is one of our core content policies. For the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding ^{[citation needed]} as necessary (based on certain criteria). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, yes we should, if the thousands of urls are the result of people not thinking about reliability. Wikipedia has evolved from the barn-raising phase when we were trying to build as much content as possible as quickly as possible, to a global resource and one of the most visited and trusted sites on the internet. We have, rightly, become firmer about the sources we use, not because we have changed our policy, but because we now recognise that we need to be more consistent in meeting our own standards.

The media landscape has also moved on. Over the last five years there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media. This is a pressing problem for Wikipedia: some editors think that the right wing media bubble has parity with the mainstream, but mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative.

To address the question of verifiability, my (long) experience has been that if you tag a citation as self-published, dubious or whatever, it pretty much never gets fixed. A statement drawn from a questionable source will stand indefinitely. If, however, you remove the source and replace it with {{cn}}, it often will get fixed. There are Wikignomes who specialise in sourcing or removing unsourced statements. It's one of the few instances where an unsourced statement, identified as such, is actually better for the encyclopaedia than a sourced statement. Especially in a world of fake news and disinformation where state sponsored propaganda can appear like legitimate news sources, as has been seen with Russian websites masquerading as Ukrainian news sources.

Incidentally, you'll note that I proposed a more robust process for deprecating and blacklisting widely used sources. That would seem to me to be a good first step in alleviating any concerns over weaknesses in the review of deprecations / "generally unreliable" classifications. Guy (help!) 10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, I disagree, particularly your opinion that "there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media." It has been demonstrated time and again that the transition from print to internet, increased competition, and clickbait has effected all media. For you to single out right/conservative media is very disconcerting. I am also concerned over your denigration of FoxNews despite clear consensus here, as well as voicing your generalized criticisms of conservatives and the Republican party. Responsible editors, particularly administrators who are supposed to be above the fray, are obligated to leave their biases at login. With regards to your repeated references to the Griffin BLP - an incident that took place 5 years ago and one that you misconstrued and are repeatedly misrepresenting - keep in mind that this noticeboard is for discussing the use of RS, and should not be used to harass or hound editors with whom you have an opposing view. Your constant dredging-up of the past to discredit me and diminish my input is unconscionable, particularly for an administrator. Let's not forget that you were warned over your behavior at the Griffin article, and argued until the acting admin removed the warning from the DS log - we call that professional courtesy in the media industry. You were clearly not happy with the consensus that favored my position, so please stop spreading misinformation in your attempts to discredit me in an effort to gain traction for your proposal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, he's right and I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. More broadly, old nonsense from bad sources is nonsense from bad sources, and lots of it is a cleanup task, not a reason to claim it has tenure. The cleanup task is quite doable too, I got WP:THESUN from 8000+ uses to 5 in a few months of chewing away at it, and WP:DAILYMAIL is now below 20,000 from about 26,000 - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know there is a policy that says that poorly or unsourced content can be removed, there is no policy that says we must include information. We are not requited to have everything here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

David, which part of my comment do you consider incorrect? In my initial statement above, I agree with you in part which is why I said "...the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding ^{[citation needed]} as necessary (based on certain criteria)." Please consider the following: the sources that have recently been depracated or are being considered for it, and the sources being considered questionable or poor may have been part of a discussion at RSN or an RfC in the past and were approved by consensus for inclusion of a particular statement (in context). We cannot simply ignore that history and start wiping out sources. See DGG's statement below wherein he stated, No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. I'm of the mind that wiping out sources after the paradigm shift (analog to digital, & from print to internet), or when/if there has been a change of ownership or management may turn out to be a huge mistake. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme you're welcome to disagree, but that view comes directly from published sources, e.g. Network Propaganda by Yochai Benkler. It's also visible over time in analyses of media bias such as this - note how the conservative media all cluster together with a substantial gap between them and mainstream sources that is simply not present in the left-leaning media. So, yes, you're free to disagree, but my reading of the literature says that makes you wrong. Guy (help!) 14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy - but we have had this discussion before and I have cited several, not just one, highly reputable academic sources as well as interviews with highly reputable journalists/news anchors that dispute your position, including "The War on the Press: A Conversation with Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel", and this CJR report about media bias. There are many more, such as Cornell Library which cautions about adfontesmedia by stating they are ...a useful adjunct to your own research and evaluation of the news sources that you rely on provided that you evaluate these rating systems with the same care that you use to evaluate the news sources directly. And Gallop, and on and on. Many highly reputable sources TNT your theory about right and left leaning sources, bias and clickbait. Surely you're not putting all your eggs in the "Network Propaganda" basket. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The relevance of the Ad Fontes chart is simply that it provides a clear visual picture that illlustrates Benkler's findings. There are many within the Benkler book as well. The thesis is not that right-wing media have become more biased, inherently, but that previously mainstream conservative sources have changed the feedback mechanism from fact-checking to ideology-checking. You can see this in the increasing discoinnect between Shep Smith and the bulk of Fox reporting, leading up to his departure from the station.

The CJR report you cite says Academics are making advances in large-scale content analysis, with new machine-driven techniques and more sophisticated yardsticks with which to measure content. Such approaches can reveal much about news outlets’ choices of stories, sources, and language. - that is exactly what Benkler's analysis is. He and his co-authors used sophisticated network analysis techniques to analyse cross-sharing between media, and found that over a short period of time the conservative bubble effectively isolated itself from the mainstream and its "fact-checking dynamic".

It's very clear that over a relatively short period, conservative media has turned almost entirely inward, forming a positive feedback loop that amplifies tropes regardless of factual accuracy, and this contrasts with a fact-checking dynamic that dominates in the mainstream. Left-leaning sources care about what the mainstream media says about a story, so tend not to publish egregious bollocks, whereas the conservative media bubble does not care at all: when mainstream sources disagree with a conservative narrative they merely dismiss it as "lamestream media" "fake news" and carry on. And yes, that has changed over time, quite profoundly.

And this is consistent with a lot of other research. Example: Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity describes the effect of closed media bubbles, and numerous subsequent studies have verified Pew's 2014 finding that liberals consume a broader range of sources than do conservatives. Conservatives cluster around Fox News, they distrust mainstream media, and they reward (with likes and shares, that drive advertising revenue) ideologically consonant information rather than factually accurate informaitont hat contradicts a conservative narrative. Liberals do, however, selectively avoid conservative media. So you now have two disconnected media ecosystems, with different systems of incentives (because only one contains the mainstream). Guy (help!) 14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If editors followed policy correctly, the majority of discussions would be unnecessary. Editors should always seek to use the best sources available and only provide information that meets weight. A lot of discussions are about using obscure sources for information that does not appear anywhere else. It's only topics that have received very little coverage in mainstream sources where one would expect that obscure sources would come up for discussion. These would be articles about local history, minor political figures, minor novelists and musicians, etc. TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Lots of sources are so unreliable, they are unusable in any context except for WP:ABOUTSELF. It's okay to establish that here. We don't need to discuss every single use individually of, say, Breitbart. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard since they fall under the corresponding policy. However, due weight does partially depend on the reliability of the publication. If an opinion from an insignificant individual or organization is either self-published or published in a questionable source, that opinion is undue. If the individual/organization is significant (in the context of the article), or if the opinion is published in a reliable source, there is a possibility that the opinion is due. Reliability plays a bigger role in determining whether a factual claim belongs in an article. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, yes. This is where we establish whether a source is reliable for statements of fact, NPOVN is where we discuss whether a source that is not reliable for statements of fact, is, nonetheless, appropriate for citation in a specific article. That seems pretty clear to me, and is not a particularly difficult distinction to draw IMO. Guy (help!) 10:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In July, for using a review mentioning an art gallery by Theodore Dalrymple i.e. an opinion article, Newslinger didn't say "questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard", Newslinger said here on WP:RSN that it was among items that "should be removed because they constitute WP:UNDUE" so an RfC on WP:RSN "addresses" the use. Subsequently David Gerard removed, with a confusing edit summary, the review was in Taki's Magazine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Taki's Magazine (RSP entry) is considered a questionable source, Theodore Dalrymple's opinion piece in Taki's Magazine holds a similar amount of weight as a post on Dalrymple's personal blog (i.e. minimal weight). The opinion piece does not qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, as The New Art Gallery Walsall is a third party. If Taki's Magazine were not determined to be questionable, then Dalrymple's opinion piece would have been eligible for inclusion, and the best venue for a discussion of the piece's due weight would have been the neutral point of view noticeboard. But the result of the 2019 RfC is clear, and this discussion is moot. — Newslinger talk 22:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor JzG says it is appropriate to cite the student newspaper Iowa State Daily as a reliable source for content about the film God's Not Dead. The citation is here. I am challenging the reliability of this source to use. In the context of critiquing this film, is this source really appropriate? It strikes me as essentially quoting a college kid's thought on the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• God's Not Dead (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iowa State Daily

It is asserted that a review in Iowa State Daily is unreliable in God's Not Dead because "you cannot cite a college kid to make an overall claim about a film. The content in question is:

though, as Michael Heckle of Iowa State Daily noted, "the movie provides no actual intelligent debate, instead opting to use common stereotypes of atheist and straw man arguments".(ref)

It seems to me that this is a curious view: not only is the statement WP:ATT, rather than a general statement of fact, but college students are both the subject and the target audience for the film. The statement is neutral in tone, not hyperbolic, and backed by other analyses of the film and its sequels: the consensus of independent reviewers is that the characterisation in the film is woeful. This argument would appear to preclude, on the same basis, Harvard Crimson and other student newspapers. Obviously some are unreliable (Liberty University's student newspaper is controlled by Falwell) but I don't see this as an unreliable source for this content? Guy (help!) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally no comparable rejection was registered for the inclusion of an entire paragraph on the reaction of the creationist fringe group Answers in Genesis sourced from two links on their own website, or (and entirely reasonably in this case) to the Catholic News Service's review: "There might be the kernel of an intriguing documentary buried within director Harold Cronk's stacked-deck drama, given the extent of real-life academic hostility toward religion. But even faith-filled moviegoers will sense the claustrophobia of the echo chamber within which this largely unrealistic picture unfolds.". In other words, even if you subscribe to the Christian persecution complex fallacy, this film is still bad. I think Heckle's comment is actually much more rational, in that it points to a specific issue with the way David A. R. White habitually portrays atheist characters in his films, a matter of both mockery and frustration among the atheist community. Guy (help!) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think we can live without it. A college newspaper can be a reliable source, but it is generally considered to be second best compared to more seasoned sources. If there were a shortage of secular reviews of the film, we should put it in, just to balance out the multiple religious reviews. (There are a large number of religious reviews listed; even including half that don't like the film!) But we already have reviews from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The A.V. Club, and The Washington Post, which are far more reliable, and are saying basically the same thing, so we don't need a student paper. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, Normally I would agree, but this seems to be a source uniquely well qualified to comment, as the film is both about and for college students, and the commenter is writing with apparent knowledge of the specific class of subject that is being falsely portrayed in the movie - college age atheists. WaPo and the others do not go into the specifics of this caricature presentation. That seems to me to be a pretty solid reason for including this specific voice, but with caution and attribution, as I did. I can find a bazillion atheist blklogs that make this point, and a couple of hillarious episodes of God Awful Movies, but this is pretty much the most cogent and least hysterical presentation of the matter I've come across so far. Have you seen better? Guy (help!) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But the quote it was being used for, above, doesn't mention anything about college students specifically. It just says strawman and stereotypes. Basically that can be found in the other 4 bigger name reviews: HR: "the film is clearly designed as propaganda"; "Radisson is a pretty one-dimensional tyrant"; "plot gimmick is pretty tacky. It cheapens the issues"; AV: "designed ... to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds"; "preaches to the choir"; "any legitimate critiques of Christianity are ignored in favor of suggesting that all atheists are just haters"; "The movie’s deck-stacking arguments could be refuted in a matter of seconds by a pro-atheist subreddit"; "reduces all of its characters to props in an object lesson"; Variety: "The Almighty deserves better advocacy than he gets in this typically ham-fisted Christian campus melodrama"; "about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head"; "just might be the Almighty’s worst advocate since William Jennings Bryan.The movie’s risibly myopic worldview...". Honestly, if you really want to use almost those same words, you could write "the movie was criticized for using straw man arguments and common stereotypes of atheists instead of any actual debate", and cite these 3 reviews to back that, I would support you. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, OK, I am happy with that. Guy (help!) 10:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is more one of WP:DUE vs UNDUE weight than one of Reliability. Any paper is a reliable PRIMARY source for stating the opinion of that paper’s movie critic. The question is how much weight we should give that critic’s opinion. Given that this is a student paper, I would say: very little. So... omit it. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• This seems similar (in the mirror sense) to what I saw over at Unplanned, an anti-abortion propaganda movie which mainstream critics panned but critics at papers published by anti-abortion organizations liked. Somehow they are all placed side-by-side as though they're equivalent sources for film criticism. I don't think this is just a due/undue issue (although it certainly is in part). There's the reliability of the critic and the publication to consider. On this board we ask is [author] writing about [subject] in [publication] a reliable source for [use] in [article]. I don't think it's a good idea to lump film critics in with any other opinion. Some are better to include than others based on who they are, where they're writing, the kind of film they're writing about, etc. A student just isn't as good of a source for film criticism as professional critic, and criticism in a paper published by a church about a film relevant to the church's ideology just isn't as good of a source as a mainstream publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If Xinhua News Agency is an state-run news agency, is a reliable source. By the following reports of this article, 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

With attribution maybe, what is their reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy: Context matters. What is the exact usage you are referring to? In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Government sources and state-run news agencies from a few countries are so far the most reliable sources for some claims, such as confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Use with attribution. China has extremely low press freedom (ranked #177 out of 180 countries on the Press Freedom Index in 2019), which is an unavoidable issue that is brought up in discussions on any Chinese news source. However, Xinhua News Agency is the largest news agency in China (and in the world), and anything it publishes is certain to be representative of what the Chinese government intends to communicate. (Contrast this to the Global Times (RSP entry), which publishes incendiary opinion pieces that do not necessarily represent the Chinese government's position.)

  For the coronavirus pandemic, statistics from the Chinese government are certainly due in the relevant articles, and Xinhua is probably one of the best available sources for this information. In-text attribution is necessary, because it's unclear how accurate the statistics are (see reporting from Financial Times (RSP entry), Fortune, CNN (RSP entry), CNBC, and PBS NewsHour for details). — Newslinger talk 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: Note that this is not a Xinhua-specific issue. Xinhua figures for China come from the same source as Reuters': the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. So this attribution issue is independent from the usage of Xinhua as a source. On the other hand, Xinhua is publishing quick reports for many underreported countries (e.g. in Africa) that, as far as I can tell, are as reliable as any other, since they are just informing about figures from the corresponding authorities (example). --MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I agree with you here, since health figures in underreported countries have very little to do with Chinese politics or affairs. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute if used at all, Xinhua does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial independence and they are headquartered in a country with one of the least free press ecosystems on earth (not to mention a part of a government which has an overwhelming and current record of spreading disinformation through official channels). The use of Xinhua should be avoided entirely in articles that are controversial or political, whether COVID-19 related articles are controversial or political I will leave up to others to decide. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am interested in using this article for User:Jlevi/Tom_Kawcyznski, but I want to check for reliability first. I am specifically interested in adding details about Kawcyznski's prehistory, such as his (brief) runs for Congress, his time in the Free State Project, and possibly details on his wife.

This source seems valuable because most other sources only cover Kawcyznski's life since moving to Maine, whereas this article starts much earlier. However, its bombastic style and the fact that I don't see many citations (for the source on Wikipedia or in the article itself) makes me interested in checking it before adding it to a BLP.

Here are some arguments in favor of the source:

1. A related article from the same publisher and author was cited by The Daily Beast for their own article on Tom_Kawcyznski, so this author and publisher have been used by larger sources.

2. The about page for the publisher indicates that their is a stable editing staff, a set of writers, and physical publishing for the paper in Maine.

Thoughts? Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Newsblog from real paper, if small; real journalist, discussing his work (the sort of things newsblogs publish). Should be fine with attribution - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Use with attribution, overall it looks pretty good. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is {{WikiLeaks cable}} a prime example of making it easier for people to do something they should not be doing? It seems to me that linking to the leaked US cables on Wikileaks is a bad idea on several levels, and providing a template so this continues to work as WikiLeaks male changes also looks ill-advised. I would have thought that, per Wikipedia policy, if we're discussing any event in the leaked cables we should be doing so via reliable independent secondary sources, not directly from WikiLeaks, because the secondary source may be expected to have authenticated or contextualised the content, where WikiLeaks does not. Guy (help!) 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it. Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However, there will be occasions when we want to link to the primary document and this template is useful for that. Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has on numerous occasions leaked documents that are incomplete and thus lack context. Further, WikiLeaks intentionally misrepresents the documents that they are leaking, providing completely false explanations of what a particular document is saying. Thankfully, reliable sources have started to treat WikiLeaks more carefully than they did in the past due to this history of intentional deception, which is perhaps why fringey Wikipedia editors now increasingly seek to insert primary source WikiLeaks content into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And, just as relevant, the material that ends up with Wikileaks is itself selective. It's an axe-grinder's dream. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is used for, but if its BLP's that would be an issue, as would the use of illegally acquired material.

As to rumours of faking stuff [], its just has not got that much coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

Burrobert (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, with fewer than 1500 edits, an average of one every other day since you registered, I don't think you have sufficient experience to comment meaningfully. Guy (help!) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of edits, what you're calling experience, doesn't automatically equate to judgement, which is what counts. But, then, I've only made an average of 1.8 edits a day over my own Wikipedia career, so what do I know?     ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A WikiLeaks cable is not a RS and shouldn't be used as a source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if it is verifiably from Wikileaks and has been through the rigors of substantiating originality as with all the other leaked material they've published. Wikileaks material is as useful as were the memos in the Steele Dossier which few editors objected to including in our articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what "rigors"? See above. There are none. And no, the meos in Steele are different, the primary sources there were assessed by the former head of MI6's Russia desk. Material published by WikiLeaks has been assessed by no verified subject matter expert. Guy (help!) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this article may help shed some light. Wikileaks provides analysis as do news sources (like the NYTimes) that engage in investigative reporting and publish leaked info by anonymous sources. Wikileaks about page, dated 03-Nov-2015, lists their awards/recognition & partners (at that time), the latter proving most interesting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not provide expert analysis. They are a primary publisher of stolen information, and as such, we should never base any content solely on a document on WL. That should not be controversial. Guy (help!) 23:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this website that has a nicely written article on something I'm planning to write about called The Hustle. It's articles are written in an informal writing style and it caters to millenials, sort of like Vice. Is it a reliable source? Kalimi (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kalimi! Per their about page, I'm sceptical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article about them in DigiDay. Kalimi (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's strange that The Hustle (thehustle.co) lists its investors, but not its editorial staff. The site appears to be a tertiary source, since most of its articles are summaries of news pieces from secondary sources, which are linked in the articles. After a spot check, I don't think The Hustle does any original research or reporting of its own. I would prefer to use the secondary sources linked in The Hustle instead of The Hustle itself. Which specific article are you planning to cite? — Newslinger talk 08:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This article. Kalimi (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. "The man who won the lottery 14 times" is a two-part long-form article unlike most of the content in The Hustle. This article is definitely a secondary source. While I am still disappointed in the publication's lack of transparency in its operations, I am impressed that the article included a properly labeled error correction after they were contacted by Stefan Mandel's attorney. I would consider this particular article usable for uncontroversial facts, but contentious claims about living persons (including Mandel) should also be supported by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Aight, thank you very much. Kalimi (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am less sure, this "Stories and insights you wont find elsewhere" is either a lie (thus they may be unreliable, they tell lies) or is true, which mean they must right their own stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Stefan Mandel story has been covered in many other publications and it is likely that The Hustle based its story on them. So it's better to use the other publications. Also, the claim in the article that the odds can be beaten goes against received understanding, hence WP:REDFLAG applies. TFD (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tatler hasn't appeared on this noticeboard before as far as I can tell. I am interested in what other contributors think of this source, especially for BLP information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, as far as I can tell they comply with https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ and have an editorial complaints policy https://www.condenast.co.uk/complaints/policy/. Did you have anything particular in mind? Vexations (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Conde Nast gives them points - CN is reasonably good at fact-checking. Is Tatler a dubious example of a CN mag? - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable print magazine with full staff, long history (1901), no evidence of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Probably reliable for fashion and high society which they cover.--Eostrix (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely suprised this isn't on the perennial sources list, currently has 84 articles   using it. As far as I am aware Guido Fawkes is simply a right wing political blog with no editorial oversight and is Daily Mail and Sun tier in terms of quality for fact checking. It shouldn't be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia for the same reason The Skwawkbox isn't. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Would agree. Why is this used?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's one of the more long-running political blogs, but in the end it is just a blog and shouldn't be used, except in its own article and Paul Staines. There may be other odd exception where something that it's written has been picked up by RS and become notable. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we would use those.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, absolutely. I would not use this any more than I'd use Occupy Democrats (which I successfully proposed for deprecation). We also know that Paul Staines is not above using smears and falsehoods. It's unclear how much of his blog is written while sober - he has a documented issue with alcohol abuse. Guy (help!) 09:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: The source has been mentioned five times before on the noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5, with the general consensus being that it is an unreliable source, so I definitely think adding it to the perennial sources list is pertinent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 - generally unreliable at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is one of the more respected UK political blogs out there, breaking items that are often reference by media, it is still a blog. I agree it shouldn't be used.--Eostrix (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, for some values of respected.... Guy (help!) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Detested as well, certainly. But the likes of the British Broadcasting Corporation do WP:USEBYOTHERS Fawkes: . In the upper echelon of blogs, but still a blog.--Eostrix (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Recently spammed by 182.69.143.56, once frequently used by RichaChaudhary (76 links) and Rameshpoonia1 (12 links), currently used as the only reference of articles like Government Medical College, Jalgaon by Soumitrahazra (30 links), with a huge history of additions on many wikis (see meta:Special:PermanentLink/19939844 for the last 190 additions), but apparently often removed later (see Special:LinkSearch/https://*.aglasem.com for the few remaining links on the English Wikipedia).

• Is aglasem.com a reliable source, especially when it is the only one in an article?
• Soumitrahazra, do you have any connection to aglasem.com?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok... I do not have any connection with aglasem.com. However, these colleges exist that's clear from their own website. Wikipedia needs some independent link supporting this...that's why I use that. However, it is necessary to include as many references as possible. Some students of this college will eventually do that.

Soumitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumitrahazra (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)