Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421

According to the 2021 RfC, the GNIS database is unreliable for "feature class" designations such as "populated place". A question was raised at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z about whether it can be used to support list entries that have no other sources. Does the reliability issue only apply to notability for standalone articles or does it cover all uses including lists? (pinging involved user Buaidh) –dlthewave ☎ 23:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The RFC was clear that the GNIS was unreliable for feature classes like 'populated place'. Not sure how anyone can twist that to mean its not okay to use as a reference for notability on an article on a populated place (because its unreliable as to if its populated or not), but can be used in a 'list of populated places' as a reference somewhere is a populated place without some major mental gymnastics.

Those lists are 'List of populated places' with the scope being 'current or former inhabited places' and 'current and extinct populated places', which the GNIS has found to be unreliable for. If the GNIS is the only source for it being a populated place, its not reliably sourced and should be removed from the list per WP:V. Those lists are not named 'Lists of places GNIS says are/were populated places but probably are not'..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Geographic Names Information System#Populated places has several interesting links We have found that a significant number of these Populated Places are road intersections that may have been more populous or otherwise significant in the past.p. 5 and Some entries in the GNIS or on maps are erroneous; or refer to long- vanished railroad sidings where no one ever lived or have fallen out of use and memory.p. 3. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, GNIS is generally unreliable for everything: Articles, lists, claims that the sky is blue. See WP:GNIS for a description of cases in which manual errors in the GNIS have led to ridiculous WP content. I'm in the middle of a long campaign of eliminating articles on nonexistent California locales based on one user's liberal overinterpretation of the "unincorporated community" category in GNIS. If GNIS says New York City is populated, I would consult a second source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstood: As a retired Professional Engineer and former surveyor, I’ve worked with United States Geological Survey benchmarks and maps, National Geodetic Survey benchmarks and datasheets, and the Geographic Names Information System for more than 50 years. I believe that many Wikipedia editors misunderstand what the GNIS domestic names feature class “Populated Place” means.

Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes.

Once a place becomes populated, it remains a GNIS populated place even if it loses all of its population. Thus, any of the more than 1,500 Colorado ghost towns may be assigned a GNIS populated place class (although many ghost towns disappeared before the USGS could locate them.) I track these ghost towns which are very important to the history of the western mining regions.

Many towns were built during the construction of the western railroads, mines, mills, tollroads, tunnels, and later, highways. Most railroads established section houses for housing maintenance crews at intervals of approximately 6 miles (10 km). Section houses were often located near stations, road crossings, or sidings, but many had to be located in remote areas. Sometimes an extended community would develop around the section house. Most section houses were eventually abandoned, thus creating an extinct populated place.

As discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS, no article should be created for a GNIS populated place unless at least one other reference confirms the GNIS entry. If I find a GNIS populated place in a list for which I cannot find another reference, I mark it as a [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS place]]. It is a mistake to delete list entries unless you can prove that a GNIS populated place has never been populated. (Proving a negative is almost always impossible.) Deleting a GNIS populated place list entry could destroy valuable historical information.

If you are certain that a GNIS populated place has never been occupied, you should contact the United States Board on Geographic Names at BGNexec@usgs.gov to identify the error before deleting the list entry. I know many of you like to sneer at the GNIS, but over the years, I’ve found it to be remarkably accurate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

But academic sources have questioned the the reliability of, and shown errors in, places marked as 'Populated Places'. Including showing that the published form and the database don't align, and some places were never populated. If you want to go through and help USGS find and correct any errors in the database that's up to you, but until they are the use of the database is in question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Like all government agencies, the USGS and the USBGN have limited resources, so I think it is incumbent on all U.S. editors to provide whatever assistance we can. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm one of the four editors who isn't in the US. Reliable sources are one known for having a history of fact checking, not ones that editors have check the facts for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but i think this is really the wrong question to be asking. GNIS is really just a convenience, and the sources (in an outside of WP sense) are the USGS products and and the Board on Geographic Names work cards. In my (limited) experience if a name appeared on a USGS map product there will most likely not be any problem finding a bunch of sources. The work cards are a different story tho, the ones i've seen are a pretty skimpy bit of documentation, with penciled in notes and no real indication where any of the names came from. But in many cases, by searching state or county historical societies, Chronicling America or the WPLibrary newspaper achives, and using alternate names found on the card, something will probably to turn up. But that still doesn't warrant including in a "Populated Place" list. A nineteenth century town, maybe with big dreams for growth and important for a couple of years, but eventually abandoned is the usual story, and maybe could generate a few sentences of prose for content. So where should you put that prose and those sources within WP and is the effort even worthwhile?

An online historical WP:Gazetteer would be a tremendously useful thing, but WP:Wikipedia is not a gazetteer until it can figure out how to be one, and per Only in death lists of "Populated Places" are not right and not really useful. fiveby(zero) 14:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Questionable GNIS populated places in a list can be marked with {{efn|name=GNISpp|This [[Geographic Names Information System]] place may require additional verification.}}. This preserves the location for further examination. I've done this for the List of populated places in Colorado. This is certainly preferable to deletion. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to preserve information, however the entries I removed have already been checked and no other sources were found. We really shouldn't leave these in mainspace indefinitely after verification attempts have failed. As an alternative, would you like me to start a separate list or table in wiki space to save the deleted information? –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a good idea. Please see below. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the tags aren't absolutely dictionary definitions, and the details state they are not meant to be. So places of human activity get marked with 'Populated Place' even if no human has ever lived there. This is all fine for the database, but once you start building articles or lists of places of human habitation off of that tag there's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Colorado repository: Following the advice of User:Dlthewave, I’ve created a repository for questionable Colorado GNIS populated places at Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/GNIS places needing verification. I’ve moved the places Dlthewave identified in the List of populated places in Colorado to this new repository for further investigation. I would appreciate the help of anyone who can identify questionable GNIS populated places in Colorado. Other U.S. states may wish to do something similar. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking for secondary sources that might be helpful while revising the wikipedia article on Kriyananda, which currently relies heavily on primary sources. Is Whole Life Times a reliable secondary source for information about the life of Kriyananda? For example, could I use this article to support the claim that Kriyananda wrote 150 books? Perception312 (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That "About us" section is really discouraging for treating it as reliable, as that article is presumably from 2013, and the history of the mag says absolutely zero about who was running it when it was revived in 2008, until its takeover by a new head in 2016. Better information would be needed to give this status as reliable. The "150 books" claim is aggressive, and is open to wide interpretation (even if there is some basis for the count, it may rely on treating translations as separate titles.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source. It looks like the kind of page that would copy from Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

According to its Writers Guidelines, this magazine relies mostly on freelancers but it asks for verification info, so there's some level of fact-checking and editorial oversight. However, I'm leaning toward no for the Kriyananda article with respect to the 150 books, as "150 books published in 30 languages in more than 100 countries" seems a bit generic and vague to me. 23impartial (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Perception312 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that the writer guidelines you cite first showed up in that location in February of 2015, so we cannot be sure the same guides were in place in 2013... although it should've been under the same regime, so it's likely. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch. Thank you. 23impartial (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Years ago, I started a thread for WhatCulture, a low-quality entertainment website that should be written off as unreliable. I made the same point then in seeking to build a solid consensus about its usability, and if memory serves, I was also asked whether I favored deprecating it, and perhaps also blacklisting it. I never responded, which I regret. Anyway, it was unanimously declared unreliable, a verdict I stand by.

A bit has changed since the 2020 discussion. In 2022, Future plc ignominiously acquired WhatCulture. "Ignominiously" is an understatement, considering that Future is behind many, generally high-quality publications. A reader familiar with the company and its publications should thus be assured of the quality of this website's content. Instead, what one gets is still the same old farmed content whose authors attempt little, if any, serious journalism and which is comparable in contemptible ways to what one sees from YouTube channels like WatchMojo, which is not listed at WP:RSP, but has been found useless by WikiProject Video games and previously here on the RSN. A word of note—and it still surprises me—is that at least one author, as was brought to light in this discussion, apparently has worked for other websites (though I could not verify whether they are the same person). On top of that, the policy that "You do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" seems to have disappeared in mid-2023—the good part. The bad part is that it still exists in a different flavor: "Experience isn't necessary, but it helps."

All things considered, WhatCulture has been, and still is, a classic stereotype of McJournalism. It prioritizes article quantity over quality, utilizes clickbait, and at the expense of that seeks to maximize article views and profits. It is not another New York Post Metro, or The History Channel, but the equivalent of the Daily Mail, The Sun, and other sources of information that we wish did not appear in our search results. I suggest we deprecate it. It may also be prudent to put an edit filter over the source since I suspect it has been inserted into articles by users either engaged in spam or not knowing Wikipedia's concept of reliability. FreeMediaKid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement from me that this is a trash source. For anyone interested it's currently used in ~850 articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Appears problematic. However, I do not think it is the equivalent of the Daily mail or the Sun since its scope and focus is different. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

First, a bit of context: The Falun Gong is a new religious movement centered around China-born Li Hongzhi. It is headquartered out of a compound called Dragon Springs in Deer Park, New York, where Li Hongzhi also lives. For more on the extremely controversial Falun Gong and its various media arms, like the conspiracy/Qanon superspreader The Epoch Times, here's a very recent article from NBC News on the whole matter.

As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents. We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and their leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts at controlling Wikipedia coverage (see for example Lewis 2018: 80).

On to the matter at hand. Like many other religious groups, Falun Gong is persecuted in China. Li Hongzhi started it there in the 1990s before moving his operations to the US. Yet it is tough to get objective information about what exactly is going on over there today. This is partially because over time the group has cultivated a very cozy relationship with NGOs like Amnesty International and Freedom House. This friendly relationship has also attracted the attention of scholars, who have noted for example that "the press often quote Amnesty International, but Amnesty's reports are not verified, and mainly come from Falun Gong sources" (Lewis 2018: 80 & Kavan 2005).

Freedom House frequently also uncritically cites Falun Gong sources, especially Falun Gong's "Falun Dafa Information Center". Here is for example Freedom House citing Falun Gong for demographic information (specifically falundafa.info, ref 31, p. 126), for example.

Now, Wikipedia does not allow for citing Falun Gong arms like The Epoch Times—we've had enough Qanon, Trump truther, vaccination conspiracy, anti-evolution this or that, and January 6 stuff over the years, just as the tip of the iceberg—but we have editors over at the Falun Gong article that say we should be citing the Falun Gong's claims if Freedom House cites them. Personally, I see this as little more than laundering a source, the same source no less that brings us all stripes of conspiracy theories via the Epoch Times and by way of various other less visible organizations.

So, to put an end to these tedious discussions, should we cite claims from Freedom House that come from the Falun Gong, including information that Freedom House takes directly from Falun Gong websites? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Cutting through all the irrelevant background on the topic, the issue at hand is that Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher. Sennalen (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently that translates to all media coverage of the group from the past several years. I rest my point. Anyway, note that this is clean start account that has quite likely edited extensively on this article in the past. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats an important thing to note... There appears to have been a significant difference in how sources treat FG as they've gotten more and more fringe and more and more involved in American and European politics over the last half decade or so. An insistence on overusing sources from before then instead of the most modern ones would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for the above unsubstantiated personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Freedom House is a long-established reputable advocacy think tank that has been discussed many times before at RSN. It is a reliable source, but because many, of not most of its articles are opinion pieces reflecting its editorial position, citations to it as a source should be attributed. Looking at the specific article and reference in the OP, the Freedom House article appropriately attributes the demographic figures to their sources, which to a discerning reader is neither endorsement nor criticism. I do not think that this objection is well-taken. Banks Irk (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the secondary sources we have about similar NGOs, I note that Freedom House does not inform the reader that "The Falun Dafa Information Center" is in fact simply just another arm of the Falun Gong. It takes some digging and familiarity with the topic to know this. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that, I think its so obviously a part of Falun Gong that saying so is almost redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Most readers are not going to know that the Falun Gong and Falun Dafa are the same thing, and the site does not clearly identify itself as a Falun Gong entity. RS usually identify such sources as at least 'Falun Gong-aligned' or 'Falun Gong-associated'. Freedom House does not. It's the same situation with The Epoch Times: we know it's Falun Gong because we're used to the grou's approach and have plenty of RS on it but nowhere do they inform the public. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think most people will even notice that they're significantly different. Epoch Times is a different story, if it was the Falun Times I think people would get it... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like more a due weight issue than a reliability one, yes Freedom House cites FG sources... But cherry picking just that info from those sources to include in the article isn't due. I hear your concerns in terms of Freedom House being used to get FG sources which we otherwise couldn't use in the "back door" per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the entire Freedom House report which has separate chapters focusing on religious freedom of Buddhism and Daoism, Christianity, Islam, Falun Gong, and Tibetan Buddhism. The chapter on Falun Gong cites from The Falun Dafa Information Center among other sources. Other chapters cite the reports of victim organizations as well. For example, the chapter on Christianity cites from China Aid, a Christian human rights organization; the chapter on Islam cites the Uyghur American Association's report "China's Iron-Fisted Repression of Uyghur Religious Freedom"; and the chapter on Tibetan Buddhism cite sources including The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interviews of Tibetan Buddhists. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  And why should we treat their coverage of FG different from their coverage of all of those other topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. There is a well established protocol in this kind of situation. The source is reliable, and it should be used with attribution both of the source and of it's own attribution, e.g. "Freedom House reports that FG claims # of X". This is exactly like conflicting casualty claims by combatants for a battle or war. If some other reliable source has a different figure for the same stat, also reflect that. Banks Irk (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bloodofox are you aware of Ownby's opinion here? Probably appropriate to consider, tho not specific to Freedom House. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You might provide some kind of quote or page number for what exactly you're referring to. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry i was referring to his discussion in the preface on the use of Falun Gong sources by the human rights advocacy orgs. His is probably still the most respected general introduction to the topic. He fully admits to a "sympathetic" view, that there is no "proof" of many things, and that he is really unqualified to add anything more. There are of course other perspectives, to the extreme of accusing Amnesty International of being a "mouthpiece of Falun Gong". The quality sources are well-aware of the heavy bias and propaganda efforts in the sources of information we have, from both CCP and Falun Gong. So what are we doing here in this RSN thread but attempting to substitute our own opinions for those of the sources we should be looking to build content?

I can only go by the edits you made to the lead section, and have to say those edits look very bad. Freedom House on it's own doesn't warrant a prominent placement probably, but given the totality of sources and discussion, i think you are way out on a limb with what seems to be an effort towards complete removal. fiveby(zero) 14:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, as you are, that we have several sources discussing the very cozy relationship between these NGOs and Falun Gong. I've brought the reports from Freedom House and Amnesty International in question because they cite Falun Gong websites for data, and we have RS discussing how this relationshiop is problematic. Neither the Chinese government nor the Falun Gong are reliable source for information on the Falun Gong. Full stop. As always, find some reliable, recent sources or expect pushback. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A disappointing yet common attitude in my opinion, push back against other editors before attempting to serve the reader first. There's an MOS page out there somewhere which advises as to how to craft summary sections. When introducing an article for something like a car model, first tell the reader it's a car. I think in general, seeing the resulting summary you've created, you are neglecting the reader and forgetting that there is first a car here to describe. fiveby(zero) 15:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You'll likely get better results if you don't speak in riddles. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, consider my feedback—or don't— i really could not care less which. But by posting on a noticeboard you are asking for feedback, and i don't really have the time or motivation for unproductive argument. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the Falun Gong is a new religious movement centered around Li Hongzhi and based in Deer Park at the Dragon Springs compound? That's what the lead says. I am honestly at a loss about what on earth you're complaining about. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

An RfC has been made here regarding whether Carpenter opening Taylor Swift's Eras Tour should be mentioned in the lead of Carpenter's biography article or not. You are invited to participate. ℛonherry☘ 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Kingship and Colonialism in India’s Deccan 1850–1948 for citing historic events? Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The author is a history professor (Benjamin B. Cohen) and the work is published by respectable publisher (Springer), so it should be reliable. Is there any particular detail that you're interested in? No source is always reliable, so context is important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am checking about the military conflicts between the kingdoms of Deccan during 16th century. Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

By context I meant an specific details, rather than the whole subject. As an example the book might be generally reliable, but include one specific statement that goes against academic consensus and so would be unreliable for that claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to utilize the information from the second paragraph on page 47. IA (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Which information specifically from that paragraph do you want to use and what statements to you propose to add to the article? Banks Irk (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested page 47 should be available here. I can't see anything exceptional, but it could be taken out of context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

While looking for information regarding the Venezuelan opposition article, I encountered this article. Having encountered this source multiple times before I decided to look into it.

BNN Breaking has been linked over 200 times on Wikipedia. The website is a product of Gurbaksh Chahal. It has over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, 140,000 followers on Facebook and on Twitter, it previously had billions of impressions per month (according to BNN). Recently, BNN Breaking got into a legal dispute with Twitter (X) and was removed from the platform. This resulted with the personal Twitter profile of Chalal receiving half of a million followers.

An October 2023 article titled "'Fake news' site publishes more false stories about San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston" by the SFGate said that Twitter accounts linked to BNN Breaking "were banned last year for violating policies on spam and misinformation" and that three BNN articles about Dean Preston were "negative" and "each contained misleading or false information." SFGate goes on to write: "One of those stories, which was bylined by BNN Breaking founder Gurbaksh Chahal and was riddled with inaccuracies, referred to Preston as 'arguably the most attention-seeking, spineless, and downright insufferable politician the city has ever seen.' Two sentences later, Chahal boasted that BNN maintains a 'commitment to impartiality.'"

Is there more we can do to determine the reliability of BNN Breaking? Should we take a look at the articles that contain information from BNN Breaking? Or, should we just keep and eye on the BNN Breaking for now? WMrapids (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

They sound like a fake news site but if not it should be easy to find out because they say Day after day, esteemed outlets like The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, CNN, The Daily Beast, and Yahoo News, turn to BNN Breaking for credible insights. Softlem (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability issues at the POV Venezuelan opposition could keep this page busy all month.

Like the other sources used to cite the undue content: "During her speech following her victory in the 2023 Unitary Platform presidential primaries, María Corina Machado used the seven-star flag of Venezuela on stage behind her":

• https://primiciasvenezuela.com/2023/10/24/usuarios-de-las-redes-sociales-estallan-contra-maria-corina-machado-por-mostrar-bandera-de-7-estrellas/
• https://www.elinformadorve.com/24/10/2023/destacada/maria-corina-machado-aqui-todos-estamos-convocados-a-un-proceso-de-construccion/
• https://el-politico.com/actualidad/noticias-el-politico/maria-corina-machado-los-venezolanos-derrotaron-una-forma-de-hacer-politica/

... there are no About us or Contact pages upon which we can judge things like staff, editorial oversight, fact checking, and they all have the same look and feel, designed to push info via clickbait for social media like Facebook.

Perhaps these websites provide a new extension of chavista propaganda (the Venezuelan branch of "fake news"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it, I should also point out to one of the latest reports of the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa: #CiberalianzaAlDescubierto: El Mazo y las redes anónimas se unen para desinformar. ("#CiberallianceUncovered: El Mazo and the anonymous networks join forces to misinform"). It dsicusses how government astrosurfing campaigns and disinformation networks, which previously targeted leaders such as Juan Guaidó or Leopoldo López, now take aim at María Corina Machado shortly before and after the opposition presidential primaries. One of their tactics is precisely impersonating reliable news outlets, and an eye should be kept out for the upcoming presidential elections next year. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sample, note:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20090824115648/http://www.elinformador.com.ve/quienes-somos

Versus:

• https://www.elinformadorve.com/ (no about page)

And then there's Bolivarian Army of Trolls.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, the sources all look similar and may be related; don't unilaterally close off discussion (there are plenty of well-informed editors who can and will do that here if/when necessary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

background Project:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS and Project:Reliability of GNIS data

• Sprekelsville, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Sprekelsville, California — "Original Citation: Occidental College. Accessed from classic.oxy.edu on 15 December 2005"
• http://classic.oxy.edu at the Wayback Machine (archived 2005-12-15)
• Stockton, Arizona (AfD discussion)

Failing the Sprekelsville test:

• https://california.hometownlocator.com/ca/el-dorado/sprekelsville.cfm

Failing the Stockton test:

• https://roadsidethoughts.com/az/stockton-xx-mohave-profile.htm — The non-existent people at an uninhabited former mine from the 1890s don't self-identify as "Stocktonians".

The subject of GNIS regurgitators has come up again at Alden, Colorado (AfD discussion). Dlthewave has mentioned these before; and hometownlocator and roadsidethoughts are two of the frequently used ones, cited as sources to — ironically — bolster or replace the known-unreliable GNIS. roadsidethoughts in particular makes it very clear that it is a GNIS regurgitator, and they all have all of the problems associated with the underlying GNIS data.

Aside: The Sprekelsville Test is quite useful in other ways. There is a Spreckels family in California associated with a lot of stuff, historically, some of which is linked from that page. But that is Spreckels, with a c. On the presumption that someone from Occidental College did say something about the Spreckels, even though that doesn't pan out when one consults the Wayback Machine's archive, the fact that they got a mis-spelling and the site of the El Dorado Limestone Mine on Shingle Mine Road by Deer Creek south-west of Shingle Springs, California into the GNIS by a wholly wrong name in 2005 should be telling us that the GNIS, which famously mangled names for EBCDIC purposes anyway, is unreliable for even names.

So we really should have something in the Reliable Sources lists that points out that the GNIS regurgitators are just as bad as using the GNIS directly — which effectively one is as it's all machine-generated from the GNIS computerized records.

Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; in fact (as creator of the Sprekelsville PROD) I wouldn't be averse to a "generally unreliable" evaluation of GNIS, RoadsideThoughts, and HometownLocator (and the like) all around. The latter sites are SEO garbage, and I'm appalled by the number of United States geographic articles sourced only to them (see my recent PROD nominations for examples). And some of these sites appear to get data from Wikipedia, creating an Ouroboros of trivial (if not patently false) geographic misinformation. This is as much a WP:GEOLAND issue as it is a reliable sources issue, but if we can get sources declared unreliable for geographic purposes, that's a step in the right direction. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - These aggregators are worse than the databases they draw from because the sources are unclear and there's no apparent effort to fact-check or maintain accuracy as required by WP:RS, they're simply duplicating the data along with all errors. I can't imagine a situation where an aggregator is a better source than readily-available GNIS or census records. –dlthewave ☎ 14:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

GNIS is really not that bad, you just have to use your head a little. Normally I wouldn't comment on a thread like this, but I happen to specifically climb mountains using GNIS quadrangles of Shingle Springs, and they're fine for all my own purposes. I agree that sources which obviously procedurally aggregate and republish GNIS data are no more accurate than GNIS itself, though. jp×g🗯️ 23:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The quad maps are a USGS product which predate and were one source for GNIS. I don't think anyone has questioned the reliability of the topo quads. fiveby(zero) 02:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Err, Sprekelsville is on the recent quad map! Never seen this before. Did anybody ever figure out what happened here? Hmm, El Dorado Lime and Minerals Company "also known as Sprekels Quarry" fiveby(zero) 03:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Uncle G is there a discussion of this "Sprekelsville Test" anywhere? Not that it shouldn't have been deleted or that GNIS doesn't have problems or the aggregators are junk etc. ,but just for my own curiosity as to how this ended up in a quad map. Claus Spreckels is spelled as Sprekels often enough in newspapers to make me think it possibly wasn't a misspelling and the family might have just changed the spelling. There were works in the area before the El Dorado Limestone Company and limestone is used in the refinement of sugar beets. It's not too improbably that there once was a place called Sprekelsville and GNIS is correct, i'm just wondering how it ended up on a quad map. fiveby(zero) 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a reliable source for the Mongol Battle Standard shown in vexilla mundi, and this website has an article on just that. Is this website a reliable source? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Vexilla Mundi is a hobby site run by a non-expert, the relevant policy is WP:SPS. It not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. I can't find any use of it by on afe.easia.columbia.edu, could you clarify what you're asking? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to source the use of war tugs by the mongols, and there's an article on there about just that: http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/pop/genghis/standard_pop.htm. I'm not asking if vexilla mundi is a reliable source, only the site I linked in the title. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I agree with Banks Irk's comments below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Academic site, qualified authors/editors. One caveat: The site is designed for elementary and secondary school educators in developing lesson plans. As such, it is sort of like a textbook. College level texts are recognized as reliable sources, but typically not lower level texts. But, in this case it is probably OK, but I would prefer a better source. Perhaps the references on the site will provide a stronger source.Banks Irk (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Does Hello Magazine meet the requirements for WP:RS when it comes to an actor's personal life? I can't tell if it does or if it's a gossip magazine that shouldn't be used. Kcj5062 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly a gossip magazine, often with fawning interviews and profiles, and frequently pays vast sums to its subjects for exclusive coverage in concert with their publicists. Don't use it for a BLP for anything remotely questionable or controversial. Banks Irk (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In current reporting of Sam Altman's sister's accusations of sexual assault against, controversy has been stirred over in Talk:Sam Altman over one particular source: Specifically this article on The Mary Sue, cited in the context of: "The lack of initial news coverage this got at the time has been more recently criticized as being motivated by the lionization of Altman in the press."

1) While accepting that The Mary Sue is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial, there is argument that the article is an opinion piece and cannot be used to defend the claim it was linked to (above). What is your viewpoint on this assertion?

2) In the edit, reporting of his sister's allegations was backed by two other sources before it: Slate and Times Now News. Numerous additional sources have also been suggested in talk, including VentureBeat, Genius (company), 20 minutes (France) , Koran Jakarta , The Independent (Turkish edition) , The Thaiger , Liberty Times , Yahoo News (Taiwan edition) , and about a dozen others. What is your viewpoint on these sources being sufficient for use on a WP:BLP article?

Thanks in advance - I'll respect whatever the consensus is here. Rei (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReiThat article is definitely an opinion piece. It ends with the sentence "What we need to remember is that we, together, can save ourselves, and that all-powerful “tech bros” are only as powerful as we allow them to be." The Mary Sue is already tagged as being considered opinionated by some in the list of perennial sources, but I think that by ending a piece with a call to action like that marks the transition from "opinionated article" to "opinion piece" - yet the article is reachable under the "News" header right now.

I checked The Mary Sue's section on opinion pieces, which contains a whole two articles - from 2013 and 2015. Both pieces merely have a tag at the bottom instead of marking the article as an explicit opinion piece at the top. I think, Altman aside, that The Mary Sue has a tagging problem here

Addendum: I don't question for a second that the assault is real. That's not an opinion. However, the article does contain the aforementioned call to action, accusations against the press in general regarding this case as well as scrutiny of tech bros etc.Cortador (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the somewhat long discussion at Talk:Sam Altman#Sister's tweets the issue appears to be one of DUE rather than RS. The sources maybe reliable, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion.

As an aside, and as it comes up a lot, the last article isn't by Yahoo news, it's by Mashdigi. Yahoo news is simply acting as an aggregator. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, both of you (I'll wait a few days to see if any other comments show up). With issue #2, it seems thusfar like the consensus is "Yes to RS, but DUE needs to be resolved on talk". With issue #1, it's really two issues: 1A, whether it's an opinion piece; and 1B, whether it can be used as a citation for the text ("The lack of initial news coverage this got at the time has been more recently criticized as being motivated by the lionization of Altman in the press."). Thusfar, the view seems to be that the answer to 1A is "yes". What about 1B?

Again, thanks for the replies! People who take the time to comment on pages like this really hold the site together. -- Rei (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think stating that there wasn't enough news coverage initially is fine if attributed to The Mary Sue in-line. Cortador (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine to quote an opinion piece as the opinion of its author. So, for example, if I wrote an op-ed in the Grauniad saying:

/b/ used to be good, but now it's a pile of shit.

This would not be suitable:

As of 2023, /b/ used to be good but now it's a pile of shit.^[69]

It would, however, be fine to write this:

Famous poster JPxG, writing for the Grauniad in 2023, said that /b/ 'used to be good' but has since turned into a 'pile of shit'.^[69]

Assuming, of course, that there were some reason for my opinion about posts to be noteworthy. jp×g🗯️ 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I see no reason why an opinion piece on from a generally reliable source cannot be used to source a factual claim, especially one that is also trivially verifiable (e.g. so-and-so has accused X of Y, and we have access to the original accusation). - GretLomborg (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconding everything Banks says--the anon account is not a source, she's just reached for comment (Kamilla, who does not disclose her full name to protect her privacy, said in tweets and via direct message that she is not White.) and the word "expert" is never applied to Kamilla in the slightest. Unless the article has been edited, that word only appears once: Still, Depp-focused creators have continued to feed his fanbase with new content, including takedowns of the creators, journalists, academics and domestic violence experts who have spoken in defense of Heard. Just wanted to add this because I find Tenbarge's journalism pretty good in her space and don't want there to be any question that she's acceptable. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, the original complaint appears to completely mischaracterize the article it's complaining about. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In a recent discussion on Talk:Space Race#German influence on Soviet space program @SchmiAlf has confirmed he has been using his own cloud website at “owncloud.birkenwald.de” for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web. Appears SchmiAlf has done this for articles and talk pages. Examples I have identified include:

German influence on the Soviet space program

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/KwbxkbCmynYMfPs

Talk:Space Race, Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program & Helmut Gröttrup

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/NWbxo4XkpW86WfC
• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/QD7rdfAXcMrfWps
• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/o8TDDTKN3NH3PFr

I assume that these are not reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:USG, but would like other Editors views.

I also invite @SchmiAlf to provide comments, including an explanation of how he obtained this information, plus disclose any other articles / talk pages he has used his own cloud website to provide information. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Can it be conformed these documents are genuine? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea at first glance. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

With no provenance to show where the documents came from, and no way to verify that they are genuine they are unusable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some relevant points from the assessment of Wikileaks as a source. "Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. ... [L]inking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK". Burrobert (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Obvious copyright concerns, and absolutely no means to verify the material. Cannot under any circumstances be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

But these are not from Wikileaks (a third party), but from a Wikipedia editor. An argument could be made that Wikileaks as a publisher is reliable (not an argument I would necessarily agree with), but a Wikipedia editor is defacto not considered reliable for sourcing purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• It’s not so simple. Remember that there is no requirement that a source be on-line.

So… A LOT depends on where the editor found these documents. Did he find them in his grandmother’s attic, or in a publicly accessible and cataloged archive (such as a university library)? If the latter, THAT ARCHIVE is what should be cited. A scan can sometimes be included with the citation as a “courtesy link”, but it is the ORIGINAL that gets cited. The reputation of the archiving venue is what determines whether they are authentic (and thus reliable) or not (a university would have a good reputation for authenticating documents, your grandmother would not).

That said, no matter where they were found, these documents would be considered primary sources… with all the cautions and restrictions that apply to the use of primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Regarding https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/XTAeeiz4wfbS3X7 SchmiAlf has advised “The Zvezda document was handed over as a printed copy to Ursula Gröttrup, Helmut Gröttrup's daugther who grew up on Gorodomlya.” . I’ll let him provide details of the other documants. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be akin to “found in my grandmother’s attic” and not considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelming reactions, indeed. All of them are courtesy links to make these documents available for Wikipedia users and discussions. None of them is my own work or own source. In detail this is explained as follows:

German influence on the Soviet space program

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/KwbxkbCmynYMfPs

This document can be publicly found in the archive of the Deutsches Museum as part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" (Gröttrup's inhereditary), see also DM archive info 2/2017

Talk:Space Race, Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program & Helmut Gröttrup

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/NWbxo4XkpW86WfC

This is the transcript of Ursula Gröttrup's commemorative address on behalf of her fathers 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/QD7rdfAXcMrfWps

This is the transcript of Olaf Przybilski's commemorative address on behalf of Helmut Gröttrup's 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/o8TDDTKN3NH3PFr

This is the Russian Zvezda document "70 Years Gorodomlya" together with a German translation. The pure Russian version is available via Звездные страницы and was scanned from an original which was handed over to Ursula Gröttrup. Unfortunately, the document was never published on the web. However, an 2016 archived version of the Zwezda plant news is available here to reference this 70 years event.

To add for future discussions:

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/24bT4cP4f2xLCYR

Helmut Gröttrup's publication of April 1958 "Aus den Arbeiten des deutschen Raketenkollektivs in der Sowjet-Union" in DGRR (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and now fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup#Publications

• https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/BHp4MDDZZTcGnpG

Helmut Gröttrup's 1959 publication "Über Raketen - Allgemeinverständliche Einführung in Physik und Technik der Rakete" (About rockets - General introduction to the physics and technology of rockets) (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup#Publications

Due to Wikipedia guidelines, none of these documents could be shared via Wikipedia Commons. --SchmiAlf (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, even WP:PRIMARY sources must meet this requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely within the remit of policy to cite offline sources. If something hasn't been published online, we can just cite it to wherever it has been published, and whether the person citing it happens to provide a convenience URL is immaterial (whether it goes to nasa.gov, imageshack.us or whatwhatinthebutt.cheapsupplements.biz.su). If the things are part of some archived collection, well: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_published. We have articles that cite treatises from the 1600s and newspaper articles from the 1800s, et cetera. If they've been published, then they should be cited, and if homeslice wants to give convenience URLs we should be thankful for it. If they haven't been published, then they shouldn't be cited, and the URLs don't matter either way. jp×g🗯️ 22:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Offline sources are of course fine, any URL even one to an article on a website is still only for convenience (with title and website name you should still be able to find it). But I don't think it's clear here whether all of these have ever been published. If they have then it's not an issue, but the question isn't about them just being offline. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify if these exist in a museum archive that other editors can access (however complex gaining access might be) then it's fine, if it's the personal papers of an individual then it's not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

How many of these links breach WP:ELNEVER re copyvio (are they so old they are public domain), and if they don't have copyright release from the original holder, should they even be linked on this page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Would suggest that @SchmiAlf provide some further information on how he obtained these sources to determine if they have been published, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_published. For example, how he obtained the scan of “an original which was handed over to Ursula Gröttrup.”, how he obtained the transcripts, etc. If these have all been “published” then no problem.

Was also thinking that there maybe copyright issues, but thought it best to raise the issue here first. If these sources are determined to be reliable, the copyright issue can be dealt with separately, most probably via Media copyright questions board. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If it helps smoothing your concerns, I can add the following:

• The Zvezda document was printed with an edition of 2,000 copies (which is noted on the bottom of page 11 together with the name and address of the printing work). It has been distributed to Zvezda employees, business partners and other people (like Ursula Gröttrup). She lent me here sample for scanning. So we both can affirm that it exists as a real printed document.
• The transcripts are of secondary relevance and not used as arguments in our dispute. The speeches (in front of about 200 people) were recorded and later the personal scripts were aligned to the speeches, approved by the authors and put on the web for interested people.

With regard to your copyright concerns: I thought you are interested in finding Russian sources (which Anatoly Zak was still missing in 2012) "to collaborate claims about the extensive influence of the Gorodomlya team on the Soviet rocketry". So it is not a copyright issue, just a question of putting things together under the conditions of fair use. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

SchmiAlf has now provide further information, so I invite @ActivelyDisinterested, @Selfstudier, @Burrobert, @AndyTheGrump, @Blueboar, @JPxG and @SandyGeorgia to review and hopefully finalise this request. In particular, SchmiAlf has stated on Talk:Space Race#German influence on Soviet space program that the Zvezda document is a reliable source that should overide other sources, for example, the conclusions in Asif Siddiqi (2000) 'Challenge to Apollo, the Soviet Union and the space race, 1945–1974, p84, specifically “after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet space program was marginal.” Would appreciate any comments on how we should treat the Zvezda document from a reliability perspectice. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

have any RS commented on the "Zvezda document"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

none that I know of, will ping @SchmiAlf Ilenart626 (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So it fails "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They may also fail " been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." as the publisher is not a reputable party, they are "some bloke on the internet". Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nyet, basically not RS. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like using primary documents to overcome secondary sources, it's not something I'd be comfortable with. Is there no secondary sources commenting on these documents? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say no... People are free to disagree with this but I would rather we have a source which can't be directly accessed than have a source hosted on an editor's cloud. That is a slippery slope and I don't like where it leads. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this was already covered above, but we cannot link to a website that's violating someone else's copyright (or that we reasonably suspect violates copyright), as a user's cloud storage copy of an offline published document probably is. That is contributory copyright infringement, and our policy forbids it; those links should be removed. If there is no evidence of permission then we should presume that no permission has been obtained from the original copyright holder. If the user is doing this in multiple instances, their site should be blacklisted and they should probably be blocked as well. And as others said, there is no requirement for sources to be online, you just have to provide enough information in the citation that somebody else could locate the source and verify the information cited, if they wanted to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There is no requirement that a source be available online. We frequently have editors post excerpts (or sometimes entire documents) from non-online or paywalled sources as a courtesy on talk pages or elsewhere. But we can't link to those courtesy copies, especially when it's a copyright violation. Banks Irk (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To address the copyright concerns have now raised this issue at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#using_your_own_cloud_for_providing_documents_which_cannot_be_found_otherwise_in_the_web Ilenart626 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@SchmiAlf: I haven't followed this discussion, like, at all, but if these documents are significant, can't you hand them over to a reliable source so they can write about it and verify their authenticity? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently I was trying to see if I could get the battle standard of the mongol empire (The sulde) onto the page. I found this source that was completely in my favor, but I can't tell if it's reliable or not. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The institute is a membership based charity, not an academic institution. The presentations are by amateurs, with no indication of editorial oversight, and this particular presentation is described by an attendee and fellow presenter as merely conjectural. Banks Irk (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would make a distinction between member reports presented to the society and authoritative works such as Flying Flags in the United Kingdom which are creations of the institute itself. Member reports presented by subject matter experts would likely be usable, but ones presented by amateurs would not be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This source was brought up in an AfD discussion. The specific reference link is here. There was a previously discussion at RSN but I do not really see a consensus in that discussion. It is currently being cited over 400 times in Wikipedia so hoping we can get a consensus in this discussion. It has an editorial policy, but also allows contributors and sponsored posts (note the example they show of a sponsored post is not marked as sponsored). I also see a lot of disclaimers, including on the specific reference link above, that claims "Readers like you help support MUO. When you make a purchase using links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission." CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have little confidence in the reliability of MakeUseOf and its usefulness on Wikipedia, seeing as its content mainly consists of how-to guides and listicles. As a Valnet-owned property, MakeUseOf's fact-checking policy is heavily similar to those of sister sites Screen Rant and Game Rant, except that it doesn't include a section on "Checking for Official Comment" like them; it also doesn't list its staff on its about page, which both sister sites (SR, GR) provide. I additionally found many of the authors' bios to be too vague in sufficiently asserting their credentials and experience (example here). Ultimately, I would mark MakeUseOf as unreliable, extending the status to its pre-Valnet work as well; a Wayback Machine snapshot from 2018 shows that the site didn't even have an editorial or fact-checking policy despite providing a list of its staff on its about page then. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Over the last few months, there have been several reports of The Smiley Company giving legal threats to individuals on Etsy and Ebay over selling smiley face-related products. An edit () was made to the company's article regarding this, but the source given looked... really bad.

I checked the RSN archives, and while I found a previous discussion about breakinglatest.news, an alternate source was found for that topic. I can't find any other source covering this one, so I reverted the topic, but I figured I should report it here, just to be sure I'm making the right move. miranda ^:3 02:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's LLM written dross. See this where there was an error generating an article. There's also piles of ads as articles, no editorial board or bylines. Unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

And another one where the article is pasted into the title field. I don't usually like to endorse things for the blacklist on such short notice, but this really does seem like a giant pile of shit. jp×g🗯️ 23:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Breakinglatest.news   shows that we have over 60 uses for this source. I think given the LLM stuff there's no need for deprecation and it should go straight onto the blacklist as spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• That entire site is a mess. We should blacklist them for the LLM content alone, let alone the lack of an editorial policy. Cortador (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Is that reasonable? I tagged it for too many primary and selfpublished sources as well as needing 3rd party sources, they were almost immediately removed by User:Vjmlhds with the edit summary "Honestly, there are no real issues with the sources. All legit media news outlets, and there is no better source to tell you what a TV network telecasts than the network itself". I see that List of programs broadcast by NewsNation has had an OR tage for for about 15 years. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller For innocuous, non-controversial information such as broadcasted programmes or company personnel, primary sources are okay. However, if half the sources in an article are primary, it brings up another question: how notable is all of that? E.g. the "Evening news programming" subsection has a whole two sources, and both are primary. Unless someone can provide non-primary sources, this indicates that their evening news programming isn't independently notable, and that the section should be deleted. In fact, that goes for the whole "Programming" section, which has only one non-primary source. Cortador (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, I saw in my news feed on my Android a Washington Post article about John Clauser, specifically about a Nobel Prize winner pivoted toward climate change denial. I was not familiar with the subject, and the article remains paywalled (naturally), so I took to Wikipedia to read about the subject. As expected, there is a section about Clauser's denial with the Post's article newly added, but I also noticed a footnote adjacent to it, which points to The Daily Signal. I thought, as editors, we were not to use The Daily Signal. Have I been incorrect? The source has been removed and can be added back in if this discussion finds for its reliability. FreeMediaKid$ 20:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion appears to be this one in archive 334. The general consensus of that discussion seems to be cautionary due to it's relationship to The Heritage Foundation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As of yet, no user has reinserted the source, but it may be because I urged them to do so only "if this discussion deems it reliable." Reading the Post's article in archive.today to bypass its paywall (an administrator may need to redact this part of my comment if it is indeed the wrong thing to post), I was able to verify the material sourced, and The Daily Signal's piece, published in August, was remotely related to Mr. Clauser's denial, which he professed in November, anyway, so there is nothing to lose from deleting the citation or gain from adding it in. I still lean toward the understanding that The Daily Signal is at best no more reliable than an average think tank publication and publishes undue content. There are better conservative-leaning sources out there. FreeMediaKid$ 01:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS, specifically WP:RSCONTEXT "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." And remember that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Although WP:RSCONTEXT is true it doesn't hold for all situations. For instance WP:CIRCULAR sources will never be good, and reliable self-published sources can never be used in BLPs.
  Also WP:V states verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, you would need a very good WP:IAR argument to ignore that, and if other editors disagree with your evaluation of a source a talk page consensus would be WP:LOCALCON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  • User:ActivelyDisinterested - for those it still depends on context -- both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:BLPSPS state when you can use them. I would think one *should* use them in such context, but suppose it might depend on specific cases. Cheers

    You've mixed up WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS, third party self published sources can never be used in BLPs. From the policy - Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer, bolding in the original. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There is not an official Wikipedia council that dictates what sources are always good and what sources are always bad. You have to look at the context in which a source is used, fire up the ol' noggin, and think about it. jp×g🗯️ 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The OP contains a detailed description of the context in question. Maybe your knee-jerk reaction also requires someone to fire up the ol' noggin? 50.232.6.4 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether the Daily Signal is reliable for this statement depends entirely on the journalistic merit of the specific citation being referenced; the OP gave a Washington Post article. Digging through the revision history of John Clauser we can find this, which I presume is the article in question. The claims being made here are pretty straightforward. The statement it's being used to back up, in the article, is He has concluded that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet, and stated “there is no climate crisis". Here is what the article says:

The International Monetary Fund canceled a talk with physicist John Clauser after he said, “Climate change is not a crisis.” [...] According to the educational climate organization CO2 Coalition, where Clauser serves on the board, Pablo Moreno, director of the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office, read the flyer for Clauser’s lecture and “immediately canceled,” or technically “postponed,” the event. [...] Moreno did not respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiry regarding concerns that Clauser’s lecture was postponed due to his views on the alleged climate crisis."

It's written by Virginia Allen, who is "a senior news producer and podcast host for The Daily Signal". There does not seem to be anything really objectionable here. What exactly is the claim -- he didn't really say that, and they're making it up? jp×g🗯️ 02:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep as it says in the header While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy, you can offer advise or take the advise given. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I added an Archive URL for the original Washington Post article, which should be accessible to all now. I've not checked, but I hope the article confirms what The Daily Signal wrote. Please keep in mind that if an article is hidden behind a paywall, it can usually still be accessed via an archive website, such as archive.org or webcite. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this article in FrontView Magazine a reliable source to support the statement in Berman Brothers (producers) that The Berman Brothers have received a Grammy Award for the Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in 2001? I can't see anything on the magazine's website about its journalistic policy, and there is no byline. I can see it has been used about 40 times in en.wiki as a reference in music articles. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be a problem, as the official Grammy website lists the Baha Men, not the producers, as the Grammys for individual recordings go to the musician (producers are listed for the album awards, and "song of the year" is for the songwriter.) Additionally, that FrontView page appears to be a press release, given that the text that starts off the article is attached to songs from the album it discusses on YouTube. As a press release, it falls into self-published source territory, which means it can't be used for boastful claims about the source... and claiming the winning of a Grammy is indeed boastful. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken the claim out of the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reached out to @Superastig: to refrain from posting first party references from articles with mostly first party references which all came from the same Facebook account. The editor ignored my message from their talkpage and removed it, without directly responding to my concerns. This editor continues to post first party facebook links in different Wikipedia articles.. Posting first party references from social media accounts is against WP:SPS TheHotwiki (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the Facebook account of GMA Network who broadcast the programmes in those articles. It's not a great source but WP:ABOUTSELF allows for this type of referencing, -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the ratings itself? Surely that needs to be provided by a third party source, instead of the Facebook account of the network broadcasting these shows. I've reviewed the episodes section of those article, and they have no other source for its reference, other than the Facebook account of the network (GMA Network) broadcasting those shows. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something in the edits I don't see any ratings being added. Any ratings or other such claims would need secondary sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For the past several months, you never bat an eye whenever anyone, including me, updates the episode titles of every TV series with the kind of sources you indicated. I'm puzzled as to why you got triggered about it today.

There's really nothing wrong with update the episode titles of every GMA TV series. I never claim ownership of every episode list I create. Yet, you seem to get in the way by making strict rules, from not having a separate page for episode lists to requiring us to indicate sources of every episode title. Meanwhile, several editors update the episode titles of every ABS CBN TV series, List of Batang Quiapo episodes and List of Dirty Linen episodes without posting sources about the episode titles.

You've made a big deal out of this issue for a very long time. And it's clear that you don't want anyone to create episode lists or update episode titles of every GMA TV series. Nothing personal. I'm just being honest. ASTIG😎🙃 12:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from resorting personal attacks. You're accusing me of things I didn't do or say. Do you have evidence that that will prove that I don't want anyone to create episode lists or update episode titles of every Gma TV series? TheHotwiki (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

How am I resorting to personal attacks when I'm just being honest with what I said? Common sense, men. We've had this kind of argument numerous times.

This started sometime in August 2021 with Ang Dalawang Ikaw. You nominated its episode list for deletion, in which the list ended up getting merged. With this move, you prompted me to stop creating a separate page for episode lists for every TV series upon its launch.

Not long after, in the same page, you reverted by update and said "again post a reference, you've been told many times to add references". We even had an argument about it. Prior to that, you never reminded anyone to do such. With this move, you prompted me to add a reference everytime I update an episode title.

These prove that you get in the way of creating/updating episode titles of every GMA TV series.

This is never a personal attack. Not even an accusation. All of these were based on our past arguments. And it's the truth and nothing but the truth no matter what. ASTIG😎🙃 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You were making separate articles for TV shows, when the article for the TV series themselves weren't even long to warrant a separate article for episodes. It was the main reason why I nominated that article for deletion. You are accusing me of "not wanting a list of episodes and not wanting anyone to update episode titles", which are both false. If I didn't want a list of episodes, all your contributions when it comes to episodes list would have been deleted a long time ago. You were asked to provide third party references in those episodes section (since there wasn't any), which you failed to do so. I brought this issue here, since you didn't cooperate when I messaged you in your talk page and you just removed my message in your talk page. Now you're spewing false accusations toward me, which is a form of a personal attack. How is that civil? TheHotwiki (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You were making separate articles for TV shows, when the article for the TV series themselves weren't even long to warrant a separate article for episodes.

I used to, just like Mc Eduard Figueroa did. But, when this discussion came, I began understanding WP:SPLITLIST. From them on, I never created a separate page for list of episodes upon the time every TV show starts airing, especially when it hasn't reached 100.

You are accusing me of "not wanting a list of episodes and not wanting anyone to update episode titles", which are both false.

Really? Then you should've let the episode lists of such GMA TV shows be rather than making a big deal out of something small, like the "need" for episode titles to have a source. Real simple.

You were asked to provide third party references in those episodes section

The sources I used for episode titles are no big deal at all. In fact, I don't see a requirement for episode titles to have a source. In all of the episode lists Mc Eduard Figueroa created, such as Kambal, Karibal, there were no sources indicated for every episode title. No comment about the sources for the ratings. Be thankful I did away with sources from Yera Calma.

when I messaged you in your talk page and you just removed my message in your talk page.

I have the right to remove your messages because I don't want to get into a heated argument. I'm getting tired of your complaints regarding episode lists. I'd rather have peace of mind.

Now you're spewing false accusations toward me, which is a form of a personal attack.

Those are never false accusations. Those were based on the arguments we had several months ago. Yet, you failed to read any of the links that I indicated in my previous reply.

Even if we keep arguing about this all day long, this is never a personal attack. And there's nothing you can do about it because I am really telling the truth. This is the last time I'll respond to your post. I'm tired of explaining. I'm not gonna waste my time in this discussion ever again. ASTIG😎🙃 16:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe Superastig's telling the truth here. Superastig never engaged into a personal attack on HotWiki. They're only explaining about HotWiki's complaints. However, HotWiki made it hard on Superastig and other users involved in episode lists by "requiring" them to add sources for episode titles. I don't think it's required for episode titles to have sources.

Based on my research from what Superastig said, in past episode lists like List of Kambal, Karibal episodes and List of Contessa episodes, there are no sources for episode titles, but there are sources for ratings. Even episode lists of TV shows aired on ABS CBN like Ang Probinsyano (season 6) and List of My Dear Heart episodes don't have sources for episode titles. In the talk page of the creator of the mentioned lists here, HotWiki scolded him for advanced episode counts and creating articles of then-upcoming TV series too soon, but they never scolded him for not adding sources for episode titles. Again, I don't think it's required for episode titles to have sources. What I agree is legit sources are needed for ratings. Kutsero (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• This seems less like a discussion for RSN and more one for ANI, as it's essentially entirely about editor behavior rather than discussion of sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I was just about to say the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was recently trying to find sources for banners of the mongol empire, and I stumbled upon this. It has an article on mongol banners, but I can't tell if this is a legitimate academic source or just some self-published nonsense like the Charles Fort institute. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. its operated from research institute that belongs to Mongolian government. it looks pretty legit to me. But debatable facts should be not sourced. It needs some fact check Gologmine (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to source about the events of mongol history that could be debatable/biased, I just want sources that the mongol war tugs were used in battle. Could I use it? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall yes, I guess. As i said that looks pretty legit reliable source. Gologmine (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

References to pesticideinfo.org have been removed from articles (mainly) due to its characterization as a "Generally unreliable source" in the widely used user script User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. For non-BMI, this judgement is unfounded and actually contradicts the evidence:

• Assessment of toxicological databases: PAN Pesticides Database met the inclusion criteria and ranked in the midfield of the evaluated 21 databases
• Arizona Department of Agriculture: This environmental group maintains a pesticide database that presents current toxicity and regulatory information. Notable features: sources for information (including EPA) completely transparent; site is very easy to navigate.
• Statements by provider: Sources & Methodology, About

pesticideinfo.org has been listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force#Tools / Resources for 13 years. Moreover, there is a Wikidata property (PesticideInfo chemical ID; no opposing votes to the proposal).
In my view, the tabs Ecotoxicity, Usage and Regulation may be generally usable. On the other hand, the content of the tab Health should not be used per WP:MEDRS. To get an impression of the database, you may want to have a look at some example entries (nonanoic acid, paraquat dichloride).
In conclusion, I would like to propose that pesticideinfo.org is no longer considered a "Generally unreliable source", but a generally reliable source for non-BMI content. Leyo 11:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone interested the last discussion appears to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. The main concern in that thread is that pesticideinfo.org is a work from Pesticide Action Network a group that advocate for alternatives to pesticides. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur. If that's the only source then something's up. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: That's why the NGO has been putting resources into the development and the update of this database. There is no evidence that the content of the database is biased. I'd guess that for the NGO, it is important that this database is perceived as reliable to actually be used by other stakeholders. The same would of course apply to an industry database. --Leyo 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Just one point on it is important that this database is perceived as reliable to actually be used by other stakeholders, it's not Wikipedia job to help improve the perception of the database.
If it meets the standard of a reliable source it should be used, if it doesn't it shouldn't, but anything else isn't an important factor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't mean it in the way that Wikipedia should do anything. I gave the reason why they strive for an unbiased, reliable database. --Leyo 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be some misunderstanding of my comment, I was just highlighting the last discussion as the header and edit notice ask you to do when opening a new discussion. I'm not stating any opinion on the source itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerning If that's the only source then something's up.: As detailed in Sources & Methodology, the data is available in the original (many) sources, too. However, the data from multiple sources is compiled in the PesticideInfo database. For example, in the tab Regulation, there is information on the regulatory status internationally, in the U.S., in California as well as on allowable residue levels in various regions. --Leyo 15:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Then use the reliable source (if its content is DUE is another question). Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean the original sources? They might not be easily identifiable to all users. Especially, if a user intends to add all of the regulatory information mentioned above, it is much easier to cite one reference.

I noticed e.g. that among the first 10 substances in Rotterdam Convention#Substances covered under the Convention, only one article mentions the listing in the Convention with a reference. --Leyo 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

About "if that's the only source", the fact that it compiles information from other sources means that those other sources can and should be cited. PAN is an advocacy organization, and we should cite its advocacy positions only with attribution; where it presents matters of objective fact, we should confirm, by citing the original sources, that the information we report is untainted by advocacy. This is no different from what we would do with any other source maintained by an advocacy group. And we should regard "statements by provider" through the same lens.

In the opening post here, two independent sources are cited as vouching for the website's reliability. For , it's important to note what the authors say about what they were trying to measure. First of all, they say in the very first sentence of their abstract that they are evaluating sites for use by health professionals; Wikipedia, on the other hand, writes for the general public, and health professionals have skills in evaluating the quality of health information that the general public, and editors here, lack. The authors then say that "we evaluated toxicological databases for their ability to answer practical questions about exposure and prevention." That's not a general endorsement of non-BMI information, nor are "practical questions" the same as, for example, scientific questions. For , the PAN website is listed only under "Chemical Identification", that is, for determining the chemical structures of pesticide compounds, not for any other kinds of non-BMI info. And the chemical structures of these compounds are widely available from many other sources. So I'm just not seeing a problem with using other sources in preference to PAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Even though the evaluations were not done exactly for the same purpose as it would be in Wikipedia articles (as reference or potentially also in the External links section), none of them showed any issues with the reliability, transparency or similar. I have not seen any evidence of such issues either.

I just wanted to mention that industry associations (that have similar but opposing interests as the NGO) are cited in several articles, e.g. CropLife International (19 articles) and American Chemistry Council (58 articles). These sources seem to be considered reliable, too. BTW: Here, we are discussing the PesticideInfo database only, not the PAN website. --Leyo 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated was caught publishing articles by AI-generated writers per Futurism. See Awful Announcing's coverage also . The articles in question were apparently removed but this bears watching. Jessintime (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I had come here just now to post the same thing. This is quite disturbing. It's not so much that they are using whatever technology to write these, but that they are apparently lying and deliberately misrepresenting the product of doing so. Like -- fake authors with GAN profile pictures? You've got to be kidding me. This is like, www.best-reaI-news-4u.co.biz tier shit. jp×g🗯️ 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason. Generally, reliable sources acknowledge their mistakes and publicize their corrections. So far Sports Illustrated has done neither. To me that isn't a good sign. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Both Sports Illustrated and Men's Journal are now just content farms for Arena Group. Neither should be assumed to be reliable sources going forward. Nosferattus (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Saw this too. CNET did something similar back in January, and we downgraded its reliability to "generally unreliable". May need to consider something similar for Sports Illustrated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Second time this has happened and again the source outfarms responsibility to a third party, which is understandable as they were outfarming their content creation to content farms. The fact their reputation goes in the trash doesn't seem to be a factor, only accepting any old drivel in a bad attempt to increase page views. Someone should right an essay about sources no longer being reliable once they start shipping AI content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure whether I'm the right person for that, but we should adapt a policy that sources who use AI-written content are automatically considered to be unreliable unless a discussion/RfC says otherwise. Cortador (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

AP and the Washington Post have reported on this. Apparently SI hired a third party that did that, but per AP denies that the articles were AI-written. I don't buy their excuse that only the pen names were AI-written - who would use AI for that, exactly? - and I think SI should be downgraded to "generally unreliable" for the time being. Cortador (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ouch. If their internal editorial standards and operations are that low, then we should definitely bring Sports Illustrated down to "generally unreliable". :bloodofox: (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated does still have some good human reporters who do good work. But, their overall content has gone downhill. Some of their content is still usable, but we should be cautious on what we use and what we don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the way forward is to mark it as "special considerations apply", as "marginally reliable" in circumstances where the authorship can be easily determined to be a human. I think Cortador's proposal is something worth discussing further, as well. AI is going to be a serious problem for verifiability and reliability, particularly when distinct AI sources start referring to each other. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems it's heading this way already, but would it be time to open an RfC on SI? The Kip 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The biggest red flag to me is that Arena Group has not been forthcoming about the issue. They have instead tried to minimize and deflect the criticism (both regarding SI and Men's Journal). This indicates to me that they don't take the issue seriously and don't have any real editorial standards (other than profit). I think an RfC on SI would be warranted as it is a very commonly used source on Wikipedia and we risk creating circular sourcing of misinformation. Nosferattus (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am currently searching for reliable sources that have info on the Mongol Banners (tugs). I found an article on the Charles Fort Institute website about this very topic (https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-spirit-banner-of-genghis-khan.69644/) and I want to know if I can use it. Sci Show With Moh (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Trying to view that link gives the message that my IP address is banned. That's interesting; so far as I know I've never been to that website, let alone interacted with it. A link to a forum for an institute presumably associated with Charles Fort doesn't inspire confidence. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not an article, that is a discussion forum, so we cannot assume there is editorial control for factual correctness. This makes it a self-published source. Such sources can be used for statements not about living people so long as the self who is publishing it is an acknowledged expert in the relevant field. In this case, the post is from "MrRING: Android Futureman", so you might understand my dubiousness as to the level of established expertise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, even if we ignore the forum/self-published aspects here, I can't imagine what that could possibly be useful for. It looks like there's plenty of random speculation ("Another place where the banner could have been hidden is right under the monastery. ... Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if there are other, larger caves in the area and if someone took the opportunity to hide relics there.") and stories told second hand without sufficient information to possibly corroborate ("My guide, a Western expat, had once climbed its slopes and had had an unexpected "accident" there. She broke an arm or leg. Her Mongolian friends immediately took her away, and insisted she never go back, because the place was taboo.") This is completely unusable as a source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

well yes, that's clearly not useful in any way as a reliable source Mujinga (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post copying bits from Wikipedia? The opening paragraph of this WP article about the Musk MM4A lawsuit included this line, "For almost 20 years, the nonprofit Media Matters for America has been known for its aggressive criticism of conservative outlets and journalists, and it has worked to get advertisers to boycott Fox News.". Here is the last sentence of the Wikipedia MM4A article, "It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News"." The two sentences are very similar. Note, the rest of the article is not a copy from the Wikipedia entry. Springee (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

They are similar but they are summaries. I dont think the words aggressive criticism mean enough or are rare Softlem (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If the goal of this is to suggest that the WP is relying on Wpedia and is thus not a reliable source itself, no. The WP has certainly done enough coverage of MM4A over the years that it has established the information in that sentence, whether or not we had an impact on its presentation. (And if that is not the goal, then I'm not clear why the matter is at this noticeboard.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue WashPo is unreliable based on that one sentence even if it was copied from Wikipedia. I thought it was worth noting and wasn't sure if where it would be best discussed. Springee (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if WaPo copied a Wikipedia article word-for-word, but independently vetted all of the copied statements, it would still be a WP:RS. If we catch a source copying bad info from Wikipedia with an apparent lack of vetting, that would be a problem for that source. BD2412 T 17:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No. Banks Irk (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No what? Are you staying the sentence isn't copied with mild changes? Springee (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Banks Irk (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the 4 sources cited in the wiki article, none have a sentence that would be a close phrasing of what we have. The WashPo sentence very much looks like a copy paste with a slight change. If you want to say it's not technically a copyright violation, sure. It's just one sentence. However, it certainly is evidence that WashPo is looking at Wikipedia for info and copied part of our lead with only mild changes. Springee (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek is more blatant but they buried the cut paste deeper in their article . "Media Matters for America is a left-leaning 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and media watchdog group founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock. It was established as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center and is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."" Springee (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence was added to Wikipedia here and here by User:Safehaven86 in September 10, 2015. Safehaven86 was likely a member of a politics-oriented sock farm, possibly with a political agenda. Who is behind this? Clearly some kind of attempt to shape narrative. The earliest echo of the phrase is Fox News itself December 2017, and a Google search finds many other instances. Way to go Safehave86, job done. IMO it should be deleted from the article, but the damage is done, the meme has spread widely. -- GreenC 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed this phrase from the article, and started a talk page discussion. -- GreenC 21:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar note: There is no WP:RS requirement that requires WP:RS's to be based on wp:RS's. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the hallmark of RS in some areas is that it is based on unreliable sources. For example in sci/med we want sedondary sources (reliable for Wikipeida) which analyse, synthesise and comment on primary sources (unreliable for Wikipedia). The supposition is that expert sources can sift and use unreliable source in ways which no Wikipedia editor is entitled to. Bon courage (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If we start to see a pattern where a news outlet is frequently using WP in its reporting, then we definitely need to re-evaluate whether we can use it as a source for WP. We want to avoid circular referencing (WP citing a source which is based on WP). However, a single sentence in one news article being similar to a single sentence in WP is not a pattern. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah. Reliable sources using non-WP:RSes is not, itself, a problem, as long as it's going through their proper system of fact-checking. For specific sentences and statements that seem taken from or inspired by Wikipedia we might be cautious about relying too heavily on the exact wording or focus in that one sentence for WP:CIRCULAR reasons (though it's important to remember that they might just be looking at the same sources we are and therefore paraphrasing them the same way - for example, in the quote above, the first part is a close paraphrasing of a NYT article.) If we feel they're doing it frequently, and especially if we suspect that Wikipedia is their sole source and they're not doing any further fact-checking, then we'd want to be a bit more cautious in general for that reason, and if they're using Wikipedia to the point where they're mirroring us then that makes them unusable. But RSes are allowed to use non-RSes (including us) - to a certain extent taking things from non-RSes and using their fact-checking (and reputation for accuracy) to vet them and turn them in to proper reporting is the entire purpose of a RS. If we didn't allow RSes to use non-RSes as sources then we'd have no sources at all, since ultimately all coverage traces back to someone examining something that we wouldn't consider a valid source. So simply using Wikipedia isn't itself a problem as long as they're doing so judiciously and not just automatically accepting everything here as truth (and by default we'd assume that they're using us properly if we consider them an RS, since that sort of care is part of the definition of an RS.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced so please correct me if I'm not going about this correctly. I've noticed that a vast number of aviation articles utilize information sourced exclusively to https://simpleflying.com which is a content farm that regularly plagiarizes other publications, doesn't have a reputation for fact checking, or otherwise being reliable. I began removing citations to simpleflying but realize that given how many articles utilize it, I should seek input.

I found a previous discussion that seems to agree with my perspective. It contains a lot of information but anything that's noteworthy in the aviation/airlines/airports space will have gotten coverage from more reliable publications or local news.

I believe that it should be "deprecated". Avgeekamfot (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Avgeekamfot,

I've read the previous discussion on this and would agree. The website seems more like a re-sharing platform and if you look at many of their articles, they state a lot of news but rarely share the sources, at which point, it would be much more reliable to just find and quote the actual original source than simpleflying.

For example, the following article (https://simpleflying.com/how-el-al-has-adapted-its-operations-to-the-conflict-in-gaza/) talks about El Al's strategy managing its flights during the Isreal-Hamas war, and although it contains a quote from El Al's CEO, non of the other information is sourced so there's no way to actually verify what they're publishing. Resharing information doesn't make it a secondary source, so in terms of wiki articles, I'd agree with you that it shouldn't be used.

Starlights99 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi I'd like to get opinions on whether The Economic Times is a reliable source when used at Phoolan Devi. It is taken as India's leading financial newspaper by other newspapers such as Washington Post, Guardian, NYT, Times. It's not in the list of perennial sources and searching the RSN archives doesn't give a conclusive view. At Phoolan Devi, two citations are used three times:

• "Main witness of Behmai massacre dies, court yet to pronounce verdict in 1981 case is used to back The court case concerning the Behmai massacre began in 2012; of the twenty-three people facing charges, sixteen (including Phoolan Devi) were dead by 2020. Of the seven remaining suspects, three were on the run (including Man Singh). A verdict was expected in January 2020 and then delayed because important case documents had been lost.
• "Eye on Nishad votes, Akhilesh meets Phoolan Devi's mother" is used to partly back Mallah people were happy to have someone of their caste representing them in parliament for the first time and she was generally popular among Other Backward Classes. She visited her constituents in their villages and listened to their concerns.[32][33] and Also in 2021, tributes marking the anniversary of her death were made by Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Chirag Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) and Tejashwi Yadav of Rashtriya Janata Dal.[33][70]

Thanks for any help. The previous discussion about this is at Talk:Phoolan_Devi#The_Economic_Times Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times is owned by Times Group, which also owns the Times of India. The Times of India has a mixed reputation based on our list of perennial sources. However, that doesn't mean that all news outlets of Times Group are automatically unreliable. Reuters states that Indian news in general has tough times due to government suppression, and that freedom of the press is low in India. That said, freedom of the press doesn't determine the quality of journalism - you can have a free press that consists of nothing but tabloid rags. However, the low freedom of press combined with borderline promotional pieces like this about Modi, which The Economic Times is unreliable with regards to the Indian government. Nevertheless, they may be reliable for reporting that doesn't step on the government's toes. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The Economic Times is considered a reliable source. Perhaps it is worth adding a note of caution on The Times of India in regards to India related articles. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not, there has been no significant discussion on it previously and the related ones that have occured don't lead to such a conclusion (2013, 2021). There is also nothing unique about The Times of India (TOI) for a note like that, there are many others of its kind with some variations here and there.

Regarding the question, it is true one musn't paint all publications under a particular owner with the same brush and instead assess them individually. That said, in this case it is very valid. Times Group (BCCL) is known for having pioneered the strategy of paid news, as in selling advertisement space in the place of articles and having hidden advertorials which masquerade as news pieces, through its flagship The Times of India, which was then quickly adopted into The Economic Times.^[1][2] The same goes for the pro-government orientation, these two things are actually quite related because a lot of the times the advertorials are coming from the government.^[3] The practice itself is also a big liability if the government is dissatisfied with them so you can generally expect these kinds of newspapers to loyally toe the government line regardless of whether the articles are paid for or not (forget concern for factual accuracy), to the point that their normal articles are even discernable since there are no disclosures, this is also in the context of democratic backsliding and the present government's crackdown on independent press generally.

Also, for Indian newspapers generally one can also assume that the assessment of a company's flagship newspaper (The Times of India (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry) The Hindu (RSP entry), etc) is applicable to their business newspaper (The Economic Times, The Financial Express, The Hindu Businessline, etc) as well. They are usually packaged together or even come as a supplements to the flagship newspaper, and tend to be organisationally conjoined, sometimes even sharing staff. Now, this wouldn't apply to say some publication like Bangalore Mirror which is also owned by Times Group.

As for the specific article, the information is probably accurate but for the lack of doubt, it would be preferable to replace them with better sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other opinions on whether these specific sentences are appropriately sourced? Mujinga (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Purely in my own selfish interest of not having to think about Phoolan Devi any longer, I'll chop out the citations to ET, which were only queried because it has the same owner as ToI. The whole time I've been working on this article it's been a challenge to get editors to comment on anything, which I guess more than anything else indicates systemic bias. I still find it hard to believe that a leading business newspaper should be judged on the policies of its sister publication, rather than specific context, but here we are. I wouldn't want this discussion to point to any real consensus on how to use Economic Times more generally, because that discussion simply hasn't been had. Mujinga (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've went to the article and have restored some of the material with other sources, turns out there were in fact mistakes in the first ET article. For instances, the case did not begin in 2012, it began long ago, the charges were introduced against a few more suspects in 2012. And the number of people accused seems to have been wrong as well. The term "leading" doesn't mean anything for our purposes, other than it being well known and having a wide circulation, TOI itself is "leading" and so is say the Daily Mail. Regardless of whatever reason people may have questioned it at FAC, if judged on its own merits one does see that BCCL has introduced the same practices in ET as it has with TOI which causes the same issues. That said, generally good work on the article, and congrats on getting it to FA status.Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, per WP:FAOWN I'm going to revert your edits to Phoolan Devi and we can discuss, what you deleted / changed has been discussed quite a lot already. My point here is that using ET and even ToI at Phoolan Devi should be context specific, since nobody has convinced me that reporting on her was subject to paid editing or political bias. There weren't mistakes in the ET article by the way, the court case was reinstituted in 2012 and there number of people accused included the three who are on the run. Mujinga (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If one is going by the standard of FA article to have the highest quality sources they really should not be used. One can not always distinguish between what article is paid for or not, moreover an article doesn't even need to be paid for specifically, under condition of private treaties, a company can simply promise positive coverage for an individual or entity generally beyond publishing specific articles. The second example in this discussion could easily have influence of these practices but we couldn't say definitively. It's a systemic problem.

The first article does have mistakes. The case was neither started nor reinstituted in 2012, rather 4 more accused were added. The initial accused were 35 in number.^[1] The ET article has inconsistent number and mistakes the charges against the new accused as being the first time charges are being framed against all its accused. It's not like this care so much about rigour that they can't make such mistakes that too on topics that is not even in their mainstray. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the reporting on the trial is really messy in terms of numbers across all the sources. I think we are talking about different discrepancies as well. In any case, I've taken the ET refs out, so the discussion here now is done, although I will look at the talkpaghe now. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)