Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399

• Hersh, Seymour (February 8, 2023). "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Retrieved February 8, 2023.

1. Can this source be linked in a list of works at Seymour Hersh?
2. Can this source be cited with attribution at Seymour Hersh?
3. Can this source be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think the answer to #1 is "yes", because it's not being "used as a source" (WP:SPS), it's a significant work by the subject of the article, and including a link to it is helpful to the reader. We're not using it to source any content in the body of any article, under #1. For #2 and #3, I'm not as sure, I think it comes down to WP:ABOUTSELF #3, which is "it does not involve claims about third parties", and the source does involve claims about third parties (governments of US and Norway), and we wouldn't use the source in either article as a source about Hersh, we'd be using it as a source about the sabotage and who Hersh alleges is responsible. So for that reason I lean 'no'. On other hand, since we're already including this content in both articles sourced to other reliable sources (The Times, Reuters), it seems like what's the harm of including a citation to the original piece for the convenience of our reader? So for that reason, I lean 'yes'. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My gut reaction is quite similar to yours -- sure to #1, and okay to #2, given that the information already exists elsewhere. I would personally say no to #3, basically because I would see that as implicitly giving the work Wikipedia's imprimatur of reliability, and I don't think that's warranted. As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be on board with that Solomonic decision. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Same, unless we are revaluating substack and independent publishing as a whole, Hersh decided to publish without editorial oversight and by our policies is of limited use. It's also investigative journalism, which is usually Primary anyway. That said, we should strive to provide readers with Primary materials that aid their own reading and understanding of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

We routinely source, say, Donald Trump's views to his Twitter account in his article. How's that different from sourcing Hersh's opinions to his blog? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Do we? Take another look at Donald Trump... There is only one use of a twitter account as a source and it isn't Trump's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage article there is literally a paragraph section about a tweet, with the tweet used as a citation, that goes on longer than the section about Hersh. Spudst3r (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

They didn't say 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, they said Donald Trump. There is no reason for that page to be using tweets either, they're entirely redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all three.

Hersh is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who broke multiple truthful stories using anonymous sources, including the May Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the secret bombings of Cambodia. All of this reporting came with smears against his reputation and gaslighting that he was lying that was latter proved wrong, irrefutably. Meanwhile, later stories like his coverage of the Bin Laden story and Syria are more disputed and the historical fact is not so clear on his side.

With this substack story both the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries are relying on it to demand that the U.S. provide explanations. If a substack successfully triggers a diplomatic incident like that, and receives news coverage the way this story has, then it's worthy for inclusion for the reader. Omitting it is weird -- like an attempt to censor the reader from the core sources driving the valid encyclopedic entry. Spudst3r (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Levivich: I started drafting a similar question here, too. You were first :)

As a background, Hersh is a Pulitzer-winning American investigative journalist who first uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib torture, and a few other scandals involving the US administration. He mostly published in The New York Times. Recently, he switched to self-publishing for reasons explained by him here and so, his newest piece of investigative journalism appeared on a personal publishing platform.

In my view, this situation is governed by WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We are therefore free to consider this a reliable source within the scope of its author's expertise. Also, denials/criticism of Hersh's investigations coming from the US administration, even if reported by big titles, should in my view not influence our decision. So:

• Yes to #1
• Yes to #2 if the actual authorship is not in doubt
• Yes to #3 for reasons explained above (WP:SPS).

(That said, I don't think it was wise to publish this investigation now, before the war is over.)

— kashmīrī ^TALK 21:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this situation is governed by SPS, however SPS seems to explicitly forbid the use of this source... It can only be used as long as "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;" which this one does, its only claims about events not directly related to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing the sections. The quote you refer to is under "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" and with an important note: they can be used without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field. This policy mostly allows us to source a company's financials to their investors report, or someone's place of birth to their personal blog. This does not refer to expert views published by experts themselves. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What part of "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." doesn't fit Hersh's blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please show us evidence that any of the three applies to that particular piece of journalism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hersh has a poor reputation for checking the facts, as the WP:RS which covered this story noted (hence the "disgraced" in "disgraced investigative journalist"). By everyone's agreement there is no meaningful editorial oversight here, I don't believe that's disputed. According to WP:RS the entire article is based on a single anonymous source whose claims WP:RS have not been able to substantiate, thereby "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:EXPERTSPS v. non-expert WP:SPS. I'm not sure that Hersh is an expert within the meaning of EXPERTSPS. What is he an expert in, and what are his credentials? I wouldn't call Woodward and Bernstein experts, either, but maybe I'm wrong. Are investigative journalists experts? Levivich (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Woodward and Bernstein would be experts on journalistic practices, and Woodward also on the larger business side of that since he's been an editor at a paper-of-record for some time. Long careers at the top of their field do imho give them acknowledged expertise in that field. But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, you wrote "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" but that's exactly what this is about. This is about whether or not use Hersh's blog post at Substack as source for his unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations within the wiki article. Notice: This topic's question states: "Hersh, Seymour, "How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline". Substack. Can this source [Substack] be cited with attribution at 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage?". And the answer is No. Substack is a social media blog so should not be used as a source per WP:SPS. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Substack is a publishing platform (i.e., an IT system), not a publisher (company). Just like Wikimedia Commons is an image distribution platform and not a publisher on its own. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

He mostly published in The New York Times. He left the NYT in the late 70s or early 80s. His Abu Ghraib reporting was published in The New Yorker, not the NYT. The concern here is that his more recent work has come under increased criticism over its sourcing, with the New Yorker eventually declining to publish him anymore given concerns about it. Clearly, if he had published this in the NYT or the New Yorker, it could absolutely be included as a source. We need to assess, though, how to interpret the fact that he DIDN'T publish this in an RS, and what that means about the content. As such, I'm inclined to agree with the discussion above and say yes to 1 and 2, no to 3. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Since the White House responded and the response was noted in reliable sources, a sentence or two is acceptable. Linking to the (unreliable) source is not, since it lends too much credibility to it--as does the whole "investigative journalist" appellation. That was true decades ago. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the question being asked here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1 and 2, no to 3, Hersh should be attributed for any controversial statement and his self-published journalism is still self-published. Andre🚐 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, no to 2 and 3: A "source with direct knowledge of the operational planning" is insufficient attribution for a credible SPS, even from a reputable journalist. The anonymous source is quoted over a dozen times, but not once is their position, authority, or reason for requesting anonymity characterized. That doesn't meet current standards for the use of anonymous sources, which I'm sure Hersch understands. Δπ (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Sock strike Levivich (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify, RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." Hersh posted his blog post in a social media blog named Substack. WP:SPS says "social media postings are largely not acceptable, as sources. Also Substack is WP:NOTRS, WP:QS whereby Substack does not fact check their blogger’s works and has no editorial oversight.

For #1, Yes under certain conditions. RS Reuters calls his piece a "blog post." Therefore, under the condition that it's under the correct Subheading "Blog Post on Social Media Blog" I'd be a yes & agree with Levivich and Dumuzid on #1; otherwise, I'd be a no.

For #2, No due to WP:UNDUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTWEBHOST and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL According to RS, the "subject matter" in Hersh's blog post includes unsubstantiated allegations against a living person and others . And because RS report that Hersh's subject matter about the living person and others include details that media outlets have not verified and have not corroborated , I am concerned we'd run into WP:LIVING issues.

For #3, No due to WP:NOTRS, WP:QS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:AGEMATTERS and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL, and for reasons Levivich & Dumuzid stated. In fact, because of the reason I just stated, I feel the current paragraph on this is too lengthy & should reduced to just a few sentences at most, and possibly removed completelty.

Thanks for posting this Levivich! :) Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, 2 and 3: The way this has blown up: obviously, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: here is a balanced WP:SCMP article covering Hersch's article and the official U.S. response. Δπ (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem so reliable to me: "The September explosions were blamed by Western countries on Russia", "Western fingers have continued to point at Russia" – these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article (because the statements are a fiction). "The decision was made in secret by US President Joe Biden to cut off Moscow’s ability to earn billions of dollars from natural gas sales to Europe" is another fiction – Hersh, just like Western governments, stresses energy dependence, not money. It's perhaps an unbiased article, but it's so poorly written that I wouldn't use it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that the story is an Agence France-Presse wire, are you saying that the AFP is publishing poorly written fiction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Learn the difference between an existential and a universal quantifier. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Learn how to identify a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not fiction that the West largely blamed Russia; Poland and Ukraine all but officially blamed Russia, while US officials and other officials from EU countries were mostly just saying that it seemed very likely that Russia was to blame. Regarding these claims are not corroborated even by our Wikipedia article -- there's a reason AFP journalists are AFP journalists and not Wikipedia editors. Endwise (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise:, You're spot on! the AFP article is not fiction. See my comment below to Kashmiri where I give RS links showing wiki's RS concurred with the AFP article. Best wishes~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, wiki's RS do say 'the West blamed Russia' and that the 'West pointed fingers at Russia.' Here, "Russia shrugged off Western accusations of its complicity in mysterious explosions at the Nord Stream pipelines in Europe this week” , here "World leaders quickly blamed Russia for explosions along the Nord Stream undersea natural gas pipelines." , here "Western governments have stopped short of pointing the finger directly at Russia" , here "Western officials were quick to stress on Tuesday that the explosions appeared to have affected Russian-owned assets.. Plenty more RSes say the same thing. And, those quotes from RS should be included in the wiki article & I've often wondered why they're not. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We do not use headlines as sources.

US News beyond the headline: Though Western officials have so far withheld blaming Russia directly, some have hinted at complicity from Moscow – it says that the West did not blame Russia.

Elsewhere, no report of any named Western government official publicly blaming Russia. There were a few (very few) hints, insinuations, anonymous (!) "officials" sharing a "widespread belief" (in the WaPo piece; the anonymity of their sources is even more annoying than with Hersh's), but there was nothing official. Nothing especially coming from the "collective West" as the AFP piece suggests. The Guardian piece sums it up best: [T]he idea that Moscow would dare to step up by targeting western undersea pipelines and cables in the Baltic Sea and elsewhere remains hard to believe. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of the AFP all you have to do is open a new discussion under this one. You can't dispute that in this conversation as we have a clear consensus on their reliability, you would need to change that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm questioning the factual accuracy of this particular news piece, and you want me to challenge the reliability of the entire AFP? Idiotic manipulation at its best. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Then open a discussion for the factual accuracy of this particular AFP piece... See if other people agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all three. It seems like there is some disagreement about the third question, but I think there shouldn't be any considering that it has been covered by plenty of reputable sources Der Spiegel, RFI, South China Morning Post, La Vanguardia. Hersh satisfies the WP:SPS criteria as his work has been published by multiple sources. Alaexis_¿question? 21:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis: The third question is whether or not the blog post published on a social media blog should be used as the source cited in the article about Nord Stream. So, since the content has been "covered by plenty of reputable sources" why not just use those reputable sources, as opposed to using the blog? Especially since blogs are not RS. Best regards ~

BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison Substack is NOT social media, please. Read this: Substack. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Yes, Substack IS a social media blog where anyone can write whatever they want with no editorial oversight and with no fact-checking control. Substack does not ensure the veracity of what any of their bloggers write and does not monitor its own content. That means Substack bloggers can post any false content, conspiracy theories, or propaganda they choose to post. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri may be correct that “social media” may not be technically the correct term for Substack, but BettyRMadison is certainly correct in describing it as a blogging platform. At any rate there is no doubt that a Substack post falls within the SPS category in the same way as a Wordpress or Facebook post or a newsletter in the old-fashioned sense does. There is no editorial oversight of any kind. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison, I think this gets a bit theoretical. We would write the same thing ("Seymour Hersh wrote that US blew up the NS pipeline based on an anonymous source") whether we cite his substack or any of the RS which reported on it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis:, I agree and disagree, here's what I mean: Yes, I agree we would write about what Hersh alleges if RS report on it. No, we would not write about Hersh's allegations if the only source is his blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, if his blog were the only place to say it would be undue to mention it in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, it is not true that blogs are always not RS. WP:V says that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Hersh is a subject-matter expert in the Nord Stream sabotage, or Nord Stream, or sabotage, or the Russia/Ukraine war, or the Biden administration, or the CIA, or the Norwegian government, or anything else even remotely relevant. Arguably he might be an SME in My Lai or Abu Ghraib, but not in this. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One could argue that he *is* a subject matter expert in various covert operations of varying nefariousness. Alaexis_¿question? 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One could, at the risk of sounding quite foolish. For one thing, neither My Lai nor Abu Ghraib were covert operations. But let's assume they were. A journalist who breaks two stories--35 years apart--about two covert ops does not thereby become a subject matter expert in covert ops. (The same holds true if you substitute anything else for "covert ops"). A subject matter expert in covert ops (or any other subject) would have (a) a PhD, or (b) a decades-long career in covert ops (or in that subject), like a retired CIA operative. Hersh is no more an SME in covert ops than Woodward or Bernstein, or any other journalist who ever broke a govt scandal. Levivich (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Alaexis: That is not true either. Hersh is not in expert in "covert operations." Hersh had never planned, organized, facilitated in, or participated in a "covert operation" so he is not an expert on that. As someone wrote above: Woodward and Bernstein may be experts in journalistic practises, "But neither would be experts in the subjects they covered during that career." Same goes for Hersh, he may be an expert in journalism, but he's not expert in covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  Are you implying that no journalist can ever break a story revealing anything about covert ops, Nord Stream, sabotage, underwater gas line explosions, or even gas lines? Sounds like the death of any investigative reporting on wikipedia, no? Spudst3r (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis:, You are mistaken. Hersh is not a "subject matter expert" on Nord Stream, on underwater gas pipe explosions, or even on gas pipes for that matter. And, Hersh has done no previous work in "the relevant field" of Nord Stream, underwater gas pipe explosions, or gas pipes. Therefore, the portion you quoted does not apply to Hersh or Hersh's blog. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that Hersh could be considered a SME on this topic. It’s a highly technical topic and he has zero qualifications to authorise his reporting on these technicalities. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not 3: I think we can let RS do the donkey work in that case (and I imagine plenty of them will be doing it).Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not 3: Per WP:FRINGE. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: #3 is essentially about sourcing Wikipedia articles to self-published content on Substack (because evaluating Hersh's individual blog entry is outside of RSN scope I believe). It's worth noting that editors commonly source content to Substack – almost 1,000 occurrences – and this has not been questioned to-date. It's unclear why Hersh's post should be an exception. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How in the world is evaluating the reliability of a source in a specific context outside of the scope of RSN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all 3 as per Alaexis answer.--Mhorg (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not 3. This is a self-published source without editorial oversight. Hersh is not a subject-matter export on this topic; being an investigative journalist does not make you an expert on anything that you are investigating. I think there was a point in his career when you could consider Hersh an expert on national-security matters; a review of his record (and how reliable sources write about him) over the last decade suggests that this is not the case now. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, No to 2 and 3. There is just no way around the fact that our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy explicitly forbids using questionable sources in those ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to one, iffy on 2, no on three. WP:ABOUTSELF seems to apply, and that seems to only clearly cover case 1. As others have noted, 3 is not needed as other sources that don't need special exceptions already exist. 2 is not the worst, since it is on his own article, but I have questions about WP:UNDUE; Wikipedia doesn't need to list every self-published blog post, and I'm not sure a case has been made that this one bears special mentioning in even his own article. --Jayron32 14:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Of course the pipes were blown by Russian saboteurs, but this is hardly relevant. Can a primary self-published source for a conspiracy theory be linked if the theory was also covered in a number of valid secondary RS (as in this case)? I would say "yes", why not, simply for a convenience of a reader. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @My very best wishes:, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you feel Hersh's blog post should be used as a cited source "for convenience" to a reader? If that is what you're saying, then I disagree and here's why. 1) Hersh's blog is WP:NOTRS & WP:QS so should not be added. 2) Hersh posted his blog on Substack which is also NOTRS & QS. 3) I don't feel "convience" for the reader is a reason to violate WPNOTRS & WP:QS. 4) Wiki is WP:NOTWEBHOST so, if a reader is curious to see Hersh's blog, then they can 'google it.' Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can be used by making an additional link in content about his theory that should be described using other secondary RS that are not self-published. I do not think it would harm to make such link. If we had only the self-published article and no secondary RS that discuss it, I would say "no". My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• I suppose it could go as an external link, if convenience is all that's wanted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  It does not fit any of the WP:ELYES criteria for the relevant articles. I think what mvbw is saying is that we shouldn’t use it as a source for facts but secondary coverage suggests it’s mildly noteworthy, and it doesn’t hurt to include the primary source for ease as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." would cover it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: I disagree and here's why - the "information (details) about the subject" of Hersh's blog are not corroborated and not verified by any "knowledgeable sources." In other words, other than just 3 RS writing, Hersh wrote a blog post, there is not a single RS that I'm aware of who has verified the "information about the subject" from any "knowledgeable sources." In fact, one of the RS used in the wiki piece on Hersh's blog debunks Hersh's allegations about the "subject." For those reasons & reasons @Bobfrombrockley: stated, I don't that WP:ELYES applies here. Best Regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, I meant that Hersh himself is a "knowledgeable source", that doesn't mean he is an expert, if he was, I'd say cite him directly with attribution. It's just an external link, no biggy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Sorta no to all 3 but with conditions. My views are somewhat similar to My very best wishes except that I have not analysed the secondary source situation enough to comment on whether there is reason to include. In other words, while I don't think the blog post can be used by itself, if secondary source coverage of the blog post means it is mentioned in some article, I don't see any harm in including a link to the blog post. I've fairly sure we do this all the time in fact, it's no significantly different from the way we may include a link to a tweet or Facebook post when these are covered in reliable secondary sources even though there are generally not RS by themselves. However to be clear, I have no view on whether secondary source coverage is enough to warrant mention in any article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, this means the link should only be for context, further reading and convenience. Since it's not an RS, it still cannot be used as the sole source for any detail which is not covered in secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to all 3, given that his accusations have been met with denials and been covered in third party secondary sources. With that, including the initial accusation by a notable and noteworthy commentator is fine. nableezy - 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• 1-Yes and source it to WP:RS not his blog 2,3-NO as per WP:SPS he is not an expert on nordstream or explosions --Shrike (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to all 3: His reporting has prompted a response from the White House, making it extremely notable for the subject of question #3 especially. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The White House has also previously made statements to deny the existence of UFOs, so that means people who say UFOs exist are reliable sources? FOARP (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The question being asked is about reliability not notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is right, we know it's noteworthy because of secondary sources, so why not cite the secondary sources instead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not 3 - Self published blog, per WP:SPS. Hersh also obviously not a reliable source nowadays generally, since he has previously authored highly unreliable pieces (e.g., his account for the Bin Laden raid, which is denied by all involved, and does not match with any of the evidence). FOARP (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to 1 (provided it is under subheading clarifying that it is a blog post self-published). No to 2 and 3 per WP:SPS, WP:QS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:FRIND. -Location (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to #1 under certain conditions. Absolutely not for #2 and #3, per comments by BetsyRMadison at 22:41, 10 February 2023 and Location at 16:28, 21 February 2023.

It's not a blog, but same difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's a self-published source we can only use on the author's biography here. In no case can it ever be used to comment on a living person anywhere at Wikipedia. That's BLP 101. The only way we can document what it says is the exact quotes from it that are cited by secondary and third party RS. So reexamine how it's used and clean-up/delete improper usage.

Someone elsewhere wrote about him: "Journalism published on Substack is still journalism, not blogging." That's utter BS. It's no better. If an author, even a renowned, non-fringe journalist, wants Wikipedia to use them as a source, let them publish their views at an independent RS. Then we'd be happy to do so. Substack is a platform for independent authors. There is zero editorial oversight or fact-checking, so treat it like a blogging diary. Use what Hersh writes there only at his biography article here, and only about himself, not others, especially not his conspiracy theory BS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Compromise suggestion - What if we allow it to be cited/linked but only alongside an RS that supports the content, e.g. no using it on its own for anything? This gives the reader the convenience of access to the primary source without Wikipedia using it to support any content. "Piggyback required". Levivich (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong no to #3, but neutral on #1 and #2: Hersh is another one of those people who have basically "done an Assange"; someone who came to prominence for needling The Powers That Be, eventually got high on his own supply, and started going off the deep end. His past body of work is laudable, but when the decline in trustworthiness has been as notable as it is, it doesn't translate to current reliability, in the same way that Gemma O'Doherty's past journalism doesn't mean her far-right rabble-rousing as of late is reliable. At the very least, it's a major WP:FRINGE issue too. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a bit of a kerfuffle about this today, and seeing as the only mention on this noticeboard for this site is a vague mention by me here, it’s probably worth having a discussion.

Basically, ianvisists.co.uk is the blog of Ian Mansfield, a freelance journalist with decades of experience, who has written for The Guardian (also ) and whose blog has been name-checked on The Guardian () and BBC News. () So I believe it does meet the WP:SPS criteria of an "expert" as regards London transport and architecture; while it's not suitable as a main source, which should be reserved for books such as The Story of London's Underground (Day/Reed) or The Subterranean Railway (Wolmar), it might be okay to use sparingly as a source for recent facts. It really depends what is being cited and where, of course.

As a particularl exception though, one of the principal sources of his I like are a set of 3D axiometric maps of every London Underground tube station, which Ian appears to have obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the government, and doesn't appear to be officially published on tfl.gov.uk. Significantly here, although Ian hosts the content, he's very careful to say that the publisher is Transport for London, who hold the copyright, and appears to be hosting it as permission. So I'd say the maps, specifically, are as reliable as anything else published by TfL.

As another interesting data point, the site comes up via a Google News search, which is probably how many different users have decided to add it.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Previously I wrote;
"here he writes an article for the Guardian but here the WSJ describes him as an enthusiast and Engadget and the BBC both describe him as a blogger."
Looking again I find this Independent article that also describes him as a blogger, but the whole Independent article is based on Ian's article. There's also some books that reference the site from seemingly reliable publishers, Routledge, Simon & Schuster, Springer. Last time I said unreliable, but on second thought I don't think that's quite right. Reliable sources describe him as an enthusiast blogger, but treat him as something closer to an expert. So maybe not unreliable but not quite generally reliable, more considerations apply?.
Separately from the discussion on the sites reliability I see no reason to believe that the diagrams aren't from TfL. If they weren't the site would have been called out long ago on the matter by TfL and enthusiasts who work for TfL. Nothing suggests that the site is duplicitous, and as such the 3D maps are as reliable as anything else published by TfL. It's similar to the situation of findagrave, which isn't reliable but the documents it hosts can be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As with any map care must be taken that it only supports basic information, not interpretations on what the map contains. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion at User talk:10mmsocket#ianvisits.co.uk and SPS. The best option appears to be to replace with a etter source if one exists, and mark as {{better source needed}} where there isn't one. I can't see any reason why links can't be used in the external links section separately from referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If anyone finds newer/better sources than I've found please ping me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I started a discussion at User talk:10mmsocket yesterday regarding this site, as I'd missed the entry here - I won't lift the discussion over here directly, but it would be worth having a look at the discussions there, in particular points raised by HJ Mitchell, Bazza 7 and Mattdaviesfsic, as well as 10mmsocket (all pinged here as a courtesy), which give some useful viewpoints to consider. Mike1901 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I would consider Ianvisits a freelance journalist who runs their own website rather than a mere "blogger". I agree with @Ritchie333 regarding the expert Wikipedia:SPS point. Many of their posts - such as their recent Bank and Monument stations post - are covered in the mainstream/specialist press anyway. They're clearly invited by bodies such as Transport for London on press trips and other things, so that's worthy of consideration. An enthusiast blogger wouldn't get an invitation! Turini2 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: what you call a bit of a kerfuffle would reflect more positively if you hadn't immediately responded with accusations of incivility to what was a reasonably civil question, involving calling 10mm a complete jerk with a temper tantrum, suggesting he's only likely to get a civil answer if he asks about Ritchie's arm (!!!) with patronising guff about going and "special:diff/cuddling the cat" to feel better, and finally accusing 10mm of lying and being called an idiot ...Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, anyone?! *facepalm* SN54129 14:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I was having a bad day and apologised to 10mmsocket, who thanked me for that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Mansfield is a subject-matter expert when it comes to London rail transport, in the same way Chris Marshall (of roads.org.uk) is a SME when it comes to British roads. I'd lean on the side of reliable. Sceptre (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Following a deadlock at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust#Hoffman, I'd like to ask here for opinions on reliability of this source: Hoffmann, Stephen P. (1986). "Review of Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German Occupation, 1939-1944". The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. 84 (4): 442–444. ISSN 0023-0243. JSTOR 23380962. .

The author, Stephen P. Hoffmann, is a professor of political science at Taylor University (now retired). The Register is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Kentucky Historical Society. (journalsearches.com, "About" at muse.jhu.edu, journal hompeage).

The journal was used to source the existence of the review published in it of the book in question (The Forgotten Holocaust), per WP:BOOK's recommendation that the Reception should "quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. ... Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations."

However, several editors have argued that this review should be removed because "Barely known journal; barely known IR academic with no training in the topic area" (edit summary for removal) or "Is Register of the Kentucky Historical Society an RS? Probably, for Kentucky history. Not for WWII history. Not for the Holocaust.". (A related criticism is whether inclusion of this review is WP:DUE, although I completely fail to understand how an academic review of a book may be considered undue on a page about said book, unless it is unreliable?).

I'd therefore appreciate comments on whether 1) Stephen P. Hoffmann is RS 2) The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society is RS 3) whether they can be used as RS in the area of WP:APLRS and 4) whether this specific review should be kept or retained in the article it was recently removed from. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is certainly in the grey area between WP:RS and WP:DUE; reviews are generally seen as pure opinion, and as such, aren't subject to the same kinds of assessment we do for statements of plain fact; what we're saying is in essence "Here is what this person says" and then paraphrasing the person's actual words; the place where they wrote the words directly is self-evidently reliable for what the words themselves say. That all being said, I think that there's a valid point to be made that reviews are generally more WP:DUE when coming from recognized subject matter experts, and published in recognized subject-matter sources. On the second of those, I don't think that the Kentucky Historical Society is, in general, a recognized source on the subject matter in question (World War II history or Holocaust history, etc.) nor are they a widely recognized general-history source (which may be even better). Per the Wikipedia article "It is an agency of the Kentucky state government that records and preserves important historical documents, buildings, and artifacts of Kentucky's past. (bold mine). In other words, neither is it an organization that focuses on WWII history NOR a well-known generalist history source. Thus, we're putting extra emphasis on Mr. Hoffman's personal reputation with regards to being a well-recognized subject matter expert on the topic at hand. I mean, I'm sure he was a fine political science teacher, but I can't find any indication his particular opinion on a book about the Holocaust bears special emphasis. Again, this is strictly not a WP:RS issue; we're sure Mr. Hoffman really wrote the review in question. It's simply a matter of "do we care what he has to say" rather than "is this source reliable for verifying that he said it." --Jayron32 15:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• State historical societies are hit and miss, rarely would I advise using them for information not directly related to the history of their state. Pieces that are not directly related to the history of their state are generally only published in the historical society's journal after the author failed to get them published in neutral presses and had to turn to a friendly press with low standards. Also just a note that while I am not familiar with Hoffman's work Taylor University has an incredibly poor academic reputation... They do God's Work first and scholarship second and God help scholarship if it ever interferes with God's Work. So in the order asked the answers to the questions would be: probably not, no (at least for stuff not related to Kentucky), no, and no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• I would definitely hesitate to use this review as a source of factual information about non-Kentucky history. However, I can't see anyone trying to use it that way. I only see it used as the source of the reviewer's opinion, and there is no reason to suppose that the reviewer's opinion is not reliably reported. So RS is not a valid reason for exclusion, which leaves only the question of whether this reviewer's opinion satisfies WEIGHT. Zero^talk 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Is the source reliable? Yes, as established in the above remarks. Moreover, the journal in question reviews a large variety of books, not all connected to Kentucky or even the United States. Should the source be used in the article? That is a question for the editing process and the article talk page. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Zero, the source is reliable and due because it is a review of a book in question. It makes common sense to summarize the author's views in an article on that book. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Biruitorul, the source is reliable. I also agree with Zero. --evrik ^(talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Based on the foregoing discussion, I see no basis for excluding the views of Stephen Hoffmann on Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi:: Why are Hoffman's views on the book relevant? What are Hoffman's qualifications or reputation within the field that make his views worth noting? We need no reason at all to exclude such views, we need reasons to include them. What is your rationale for including them? --Jayron32 15:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Like everyone else, I agree it's not an RS issue, it's a DUE issue, which is for the article talk page, not RSN (where I've already said why I don't think it's DUE). Levivich (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Three years ago I removed the source, and I stand by that edit. François Robere (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Previous threads: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Considering the low number of participants in the above discussions, I have little hope that this one will attract more attention. But can we at least alter the description of WP:RSP#Investopedia to something like this:

{{cquote|Investopedia is a website offering news and general info on finances. Previously owned by Forbes, it was bought by ValueClick in 2010, then by Dotdash in 2018. It is a tertiary source. Quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only for basic information.}} (struck through, see new suggestion below)

My arguments for the above are as follows:

• Investopedia has a useful dictionary on basic financial terms, as well as people and events. For example: Real Estate, Supply and Demand, Net Operating Income, Karl Marx, Brexit. Note that all these articles are written by one person, reviewed by a second person, then fact-checked by a third person. All people involved appear to be experienced.
• The website has a Financial Review Board with experienced people.
• This entry at mediabiasfactcheck.com says that the site has a low bias. It cites this article on small-cap stocks, this one on the trade war between the US and China, and this article about Donald Trump as examples of fairly neutral reporting.
• Quora threads: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A few comments:
  • "While Investopedia is great at teaching different things about finance and investment, I would avoid using them as a scholarly source. Depending on your criteria, investopedia would not pass tests (like being peer reviewed)." (direct link)
  • "I was an editor there for several years so I can confirm (...) that they have a lot of very smart people writing and working for them. Everything written for them is reviewed and verified by several people with industry experience." (direct link)
  • "I find investopedia quite informative for those ones that want to start learning about the industry. They have so many definitions, great explanations, (...). However, they make mistakes and that is why someone trying to make any investment decision using their information should be really careful." (direct link)
  • "The majority of their content is actually pretty good, but some of it is laughably inaccurate. The problem is, to be an encyclopaedic source, it’s not good enough to be right 90% of the time. While all sources have some inaccuracies, I think Investopedia is inaccurate often enough that you really don’t know when they can be trusted and that makes them useless as a reference." (direct link)
• Reddit threads: 1, 2, 3. A few comments:
  • "Their glossary is awesome and helped me learn (still a newb myself). Their news section should be taken with a grain of salt if you're using it as investing advice, just like any other financial news." (direct link)
  • "Investopedia is a mixed bag of helpful contributions, plagiarism, and outright wrong definitions. Quick lookup? Often fine. Useful source for papers or discussions? Definitely not. For instance: Investopedia: Contingent Convertibles. Financial Times Lexicon: Contingent Convertibles. Not that the latter is perfect (it does not even contain a definition) - but Investopedia is outright wrong." (direct link)
  • "From my experience, investopedia's pretty decent for learning the basics. You'll eventually probably want to move to books, textbooks, and some online lectures (plus some news articles on sites like FT) for learning more in-depth or advanced information." (direct link)
  • "It is good for very general definitions but doesn't go too into detail." (direct link)
• There is an interesting comment at the fourth thread about Investopedia, which points out that it has been cited by scholars and news outlets.

- Manifestation (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would advise not citing Investopedia at all, especially for basic information which can easily be found in a plethora of reliable sources (and if it can't then it isn't basic information, is it?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Can you explain why exactly you think Investopedia shouldn't be cited?
Here's the reason why I opened this thread: a while ago, I wrote the article Private label, which Investopedia has a nice page about. The article is written by Marshall Hargrave, who is described on the site as "a stock analyst and writer with 10+ years of experience covering stocks and markets, as well as analyzing and valuing companies". It was reviewed by Robert C. Kelly, who is described as a "managing director of XTS Energy LLC, and has more than three decades of experience as a business executive". It looked good to me.
Yesterday, someone came along and removed all instances of Investopedia from Private label. While writing the article, I of course read many sources. The Investopedia pages were very helpful, and had specific pieces of info that I could not find anywhere else. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that its good advertising for Marshall Hargrave and Robert C. Kelly. What exactly is their relationship with Investopedia? Kelly appears to be using their presence on Investopedia to plug a blue hydrogen project they are associated with. Also note that the company Hargrave works for, Bridgewater Investments LLC, is an unknown company and should not be confused with the similarly named Bridgewater Associates. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: No offense, but that's a cynical argument. According to that logic, everyone who writes an article under their own name is self-promoting and therefore unreliable. - Manifestation (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being cynical, Kelly is not being subtle about plugging their nascent blue hydrogen project. He doesn't appear to have any editorial qualifications, literally the only reason I can see for his involvement is self promotion. How else do you explain it? These aren't academics or recognized experts in their field, so why are they writing it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Discussed on WikiProject Finance and Investment here. It is certainly a convenient source, but some of the articles have serious problems, which would seem to militate against reliability. At a minimum, higher quality sources should be preferred. John M Baker (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  @John M Baker: Hey thanks! I didn't think of looking at WP:FINANCE. I've left a notification there. - Manifestation (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable, however suffers from the same problems as other WP:TERTIARY sources and should be used with limitations accordingly. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  To elaborate, I encountered errors similar to the ones that are being discussed in this thread in major textbooks on investment, risk management etc. To complicate the situation, some topics in this field are POV-based: defining short interest indicator in terms of whether it is bearish or bullish instantly comes to mind - there are three different "right" answers between FINRA exams, Investopedia and various papers one may find in Google Scholar.

  I don't think Investopedia problems are sufficient to declare a single source unreliable, as they seem to plague the entire topic area. When Investopedia (or any other source) conflicts with others, regular procedures for dealing with POV or WP:EXCEPTIONAL should be followed. This applies to all sources per WP:V and WP:NPOV. A blanket statement in WP:RSP#Investopedia would be concerning, as it would result in an unspoken implication that "reliable" sources on investment exist that can be used to state something in this topic area without cross-checking other sources.

  I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject. I think most of its articles are useful to determine weight of different sections at the very least.

  Secondary sources should be preferred to Investopedia or any other tertiary source for citations. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the general sense in prior Wiki discussions, on reddit, on quora, etc., that it's not reliable enough to really be reliable. Mostly OK but sometimes way wrong, and its authors aren't really experts. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally unreliable - I consider it as having a poor reputation for fact checking. Additionally, I feel that the idea you can't find information elsewhere but can find it on Investopedia and thus must be used a very weak argument. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request exists. Hundreds of textbooks on finance and investing exist. Just because it's a convenient Google result does not mean we should use it. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok people, how about we put this at WP:RSP#Investopedia: {{cquote|Investopedia is a tertiary source on financial content, owned by Dotdash. Its quality is reportedly inconsistent, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is advised to cite Investopedia only on aspects for which no other source can be found.}} (ok... see my third attempt below.)

According to SimilarWeb.com, Investopedia has over 50 million views per month. Google often puts it in its results when searching for financial terms, so a lot of people encounter it when researching financial subjects, myself included. A lot of users will try to cite Investopedia in the future, so we better put some sound advice at WP:RSP#Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean that Investopedia should never be cited when they're the only source that can be found? See WP:EXTRAORDINARY Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Right; if they're the only ones on earth to publish something, it's probably wrong.

What's worse: in practice, Investopedia is overwhelmingly used by people who can't/(won't?) access books or academic papers, to support statements that have hundreds or thousands of proper, harder-to-access reliable sources. It's only very rarely being used for unique perspectives or statements that can't be sourced elsewhere. So that RSP entry would basically amount to a deprecation. Not the intended outcome, I assume. DFlhb (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited for clarity 07:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• My experience is that Investopedia isn't reliable. It's accurate most of the time – but I've seen errors often enough that I wouldn't trust it for information that I can't independently verify. For example, their page about jelly rolls gives a completely incorrect example (a combination of long and short straddles instead of a synthetic long position and synthetic short position).

That said, I've sometimes found that Investopedia is the only source available for accurate information aimed at retail traders. I cited it in Jelly roll (options) a couple years ago – but if I were working on the article now, I don't think I would. At the time I was less familiar with Investopedia as a source, and I know from pre-existing knowledge in this area that the claim I cited is true, but now I don't know if I would trust Investopedia for the information if I didn't have that existing knowledge. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia. I would suggest not to rely on Investopedia for them. And I agree with others suggesting that if other sources are available then we should not use Investopedia. And that leaves no room for Investopedia at all. Retimuko (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Mx. Granger. I use Investopedia a lot. Some entries are sterling, some entries are barely-edited blogging, and some entries read like crypto spam. I'd put it somewhere between yellow-rated and GU. It's like using a wiki that's pretty good with some terrible bits. I really wouldn't consider it Generally Reliable, even as it's frequently excellent, because it's frequently not at all excellent - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say that "aspects for which no other source can be found" are not notable enough for Wikipedia.
That's a good point, Retimuko, but...
I can imagine that there are cases when Investopedia is hard to replace with alternative sources because they may not provide succinct high-level coverage of the subject.
Exactly, PaulT2022. Here's an example: when I wrote the article Private label, I put in a bit about private-label credit cards (PLCCs), i.e. store cards. I wanted to describe the difference between PLCCs and co-branded credit cards. One difference is: the former does not feature the logo of the payment network (Visa/MasterCard), the latter does. However, PLCCs do use that network for transactions. That statement is (currently) in the article, and was sourced from this Investopedia page: "They are also similar to other credit cards in that while private label credit cards do not carry a payment network's logo, they are still backed by a payment processor and issuing bank". This was a detail I could *only* find on Investopedia. - Manifestation (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If you've only ever found that information on Investopedia how do you know its true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that private-label credit cards use a payment network. What else would they use? I just needed a ref to confirm it, and Investopedia came in handy. I wish I could replace it, but with what? - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So you did original research and then went in search of a source? Thats backwards, we work from sources to create content not from content to sources. We don't edit through Manifestation (popular psychology). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

I would also propose keeping the icon, which according to the legend means: "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question." Manifestation (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

contest -> content, and I'd suggest changing to "reportedly range from high to low quality", since I've seen other entries where editors treat "inconsistent quality" or similar wording as if it were a quasi-deprecation. Other than that, seems like a good proposal. DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC); edited, I think the case for GUNREL has been well-argued 14:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that we do actually appear to be approaching a generally unreliable consensus in this discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that way. To be considered unreliable the quality does not have to be consistently bad. It just has to be inconsistent. And it is not clear how would we judge on a case-by-case basis. So I would suggest to say just that: there is consensus not to use it. Retimuko (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both of you; the "generally unreliable" side has presented solid arguments, and I'd support a GUNREL assessment. DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's about time to wrap this up. I must say I'm disappointed. This is not the outcome I hoped for. But I have to face facts, it is the outcome I got, so here's what I propose as the entry at WP:RSP#Investopedia:

Combined with a label of "Generally unreliable". - Manifestation (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented: diff. - Manifestation (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite a few Iranian government sources seem to be getting a free pass as reliable sources at present, with the exception of WP:PRESSTV.

A few discussions have been launched on the subject, and a list of the various Iranian government news channels can be found here, and I would particularly like to draw attention to several news sources with close ties to the IRGC that are possibly flying under the radar at present.

The most spurious among them are the Fars News Agency, which is run by the IRGC, and once posted a story about a time machine and also claimed the US was influenced by extraterrestrials. There's one past discussion here.

The Tasnim News Agency also has links to the IRGC and called Covid-19 an American and Jewish plot at world domination hatched by Henry Kissinger. There's one past discussion here .

Then there is Mashregh News, which has also been described as close to Iranian intelligence, appears to repeat government writ verbatim and has been implicated in several content controversies as well - though of the three it's probably least concern.

Given the general freedom of the press issues, the additional issues with news outlets with close ties to a notorious IRGC, and the specific content issues noted above, I think it would be worthwhile getting some renewed community input and firmer consensus on whether these sources should be being used, and if yes, in what context, with attribution or not, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think this discussion is necessary at this moment? Does the use of these sources which indeed can be problematic cause problems? If yes, in which areas? Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fars is in about 500 articles, such as Islamic State, Al Jazeera, Hugo Chavez and COVID-19 vaccine.

Tasnim in well over 1,000, which look like fewer are contentious. Examples include COVID-19 pandemic in Iran, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

Meshregh is in over 400. Examples: Iran–Iraq War, COVIran Barekat, and various Syrian war articles such as Syrian Army.

If the sources are indeed problematic, we might want to review these articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page say that any question should include the content being supported by the challenged source. Since it's not provided, I think that there can be no definite answer. Alaexis_¿question? 15:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there are much broader questions to be asked here. First, Iran is considered one of the 10 worst countries in the world (RSF) for press freedom. From this starting point, we are then drilling down to sources that are not just politically affiliated, as in WP:BIASED, but affiliated very specifically with the IRGC, whose mandate it "to ensure the integrity of the Islamic Republic" and Iranian intelligence platforms - affiliations that do no exactly scream editorial independence. The stated aims of many of these news platforms are no less shaded with a deep-set ideological streak. E.g. the mission statement of the Tasnim News Agency is to "[defend] the Islamic Republic against negative media propaganda campaigns and providing our readers with realities on the ground about Iran and Islam." ... and one might well ask: And whose realities would those be? This is a far cry from a news outlet mission statement that might for instance read: "Our mission is to provide the best in independent news and reporting to our readers..." By their own words, these media organizations do not really even claim to be independent outlets, but state ideological purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Iskandar323, I think a more deep analysis is required. We need to analyze the articles too where these sources have been used.

See this how Iranian media is influenced by its intelligence agencies. A list of media outlets is highlighted here. SpunkyGeek (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)