Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

Discogs is entirely deprecated as a ref. But should the text in photos of record labels and album jackets (only) be made an exception? Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Discogs images)

• Yes. Lets think this thru: works are their own refs, and the photos are accurate representations of the actual work to a 99.9% level of confidence. The label text is not user-generated absent an elaborate hoax, so who uploaded it is immaterial. It is as impossible to mislabel these photos as it is for a movie title screen etc (you can't pass off the label of record X as being the label of record Y). The alternative is continue our current practice: assume the article editor has not made a mistake, and to verify the reader has to get a copy on eBay or whatever. This is not better.
• Yes. How would anyone ever know that an editor is using Discogs vs. a copy of the album that they own? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Primary sources are reliable about themselves and users can include courtesy links for the aid of verification. This is true in all case. As to Discog it's not deprecated, it's unreliable as it's user generated. The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts, they are reliable in a primary way even if the rest of ancestry/com isn't reliable. None of this changes anything, the references aren't to Discog they are to the primary object (the album in this case), any link to an image on Discog is just an aid for verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My points still stand, see my response below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not bold voting in this RFC as Discog is not deprecated or prohibited, it's unreliable as it's WP:UGC. Nothing in this RFC will change that, and nothing about it being unreliable prohibits the use of a courtesy link to an image of a primary object. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• The source is the physical record itself, so Discogs only has to accurately convey the contents of the records. This isn't something it's guaranteed to do, since anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that Discogs should only be treated as an aid for verification purposes, not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. "not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work" just isn't so, if one thinks it thru. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can also upload a scan claiming to be of a book, or upload a picture claiming to be of the subject of the article, and yet that is widely done too. Cortador (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why in-practice, it's fine to cite it. It's just that a physical copy would take precedence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As of now, we rely on some editor just using the information from a copy of the album they presumably have at hand. I support this provided this is limited to actual scans.
• Is that even making an exception? If you find a photo of an album on ebay, amazon, or Jeff's Music Blog, we don't need consensus that those are reliable sources to use it, right? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  This point was repeatedly raised in the discussion prior to this RFC, see WT:RSP#Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but as a URL within Template:Cite AV media. A point that nobody here has mentioned is that the physical music release is its own reliable source, just like a book. It has a catalog number, a title, a publisher, a date. If we add a URL pointing to a scan of the same material, it would be a welcome convenience, assisting others with verifiability. The likelihood of someone uploading a false scan is very low; we can address such instances as they arise by comparing to other scans of the same release. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• No. Seems like I'm in the minority, but it's unnecessary and a bad precedent. I use Discogs every day--it's riddled with errors. Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations, etc.--thousands of mistakes across the site, I imagine. It's appropriate only as an EL. As mentioned above, the album itself is the source; we don't need an inline citation to "help with verifiability". If an editor really wants an image for an inline citation, they can take the time to find one from a source without Discogs' problems. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to turn something that takes 3 seconds (scrolling to the EL, Googling outright) in to something that takes 1 second. And Discogs as an inline citation is constantly abused, with editors using it for exact release dates, genres, album sequential number, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations are all relevant to text hosted on the site, not the text legible in images of release packaging. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Let's not compound the issue by using such a flawed site for an inline citation when there are much better options. Or again, simply cite the liner notes. Caro7200 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  What "better options" are there, and what makes their scans preferable? Cortador (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right, if the Discogs photo has the wrong songwriter or whatever, the actual record label is going to have the same error.Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  For what purpose? Again, it's totally unnecessary to use an image to "verify" or "prove" any credits, at all. Cite the liner notes and use Discogs as an EL. Given Discogs' thousands of UG errors and how it's misused as an inline citation, take the second to scroll to the bottom of the article page. No burden whatsoever. Caro7200 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Editors might easily add an edit summary such as "this discogs photo matches the record in my own collection". If the photo is uploaded to Wiki or Commons, that same explanation would also be useful. The textual contents of sleeve notes / liner notes are already permitted as a valid source for album credits, this just adds secondary validation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - The images only. The images are just an easily accessed record of the primary source, which is usable as a citation for itself. There should be nothing wrong with this, just be careful to keep it limited ONLY to direct images of the primary source itself, not to any user generated content. User uploaded primary sources should be fine as primary sources. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• No If somethings need to be sourced to an image uploaded to an unreliable UGC website then it very likely isn't worthy of inclusion. I don't even understand what exactly is being proposed here, using images of an album to determine who wrote it...? If no reliable sources that Johnny Doe wrote some album then we won't write that Johnny Doe wrote it. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Even RS sources don't always give all the information on a label or don't always accurately report it. I'm not sure why any discogs editor would ever want to falsify what's printed on a label e.g. by photoshopping it. Yes, a label image would be a primary source, but it seems it would still be very reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the rule that "works of art are their own reference" is actually horrible and way way outside our usual comfort zone. For obscure works especially we are effectively saying "OK editor, we'll take your word for it". That's not a whole lot better than "something I saw on the internet" as also a usable source.

But if we didn't -- if we required published reliable secondary sources for material on works of art as we do for most other articles -- our coverage of works of art would be very very much less that we do have. Very few movie and book articles would have Plot sections or would have short incomplete ones, which would leave the reader blind. In fact, most of our movie and many of our book and record articles would have to be destroyed or stubbed -- they don't have any secondary sources. You can't get a cast list etc for most movies, really you can't get anything, if you're sticking to secondary sources. Very few album articles would have track listings. And so on.

It's a problem and its a big problem. Why pretend otherwise. But what else can we do? Cut our coverage of films and books and novels by 75+%? Not going to happen.

I mean c'mon, a reader saying "wait, I thought that song was written by Smith not Jones" is not going to hunt down a copy of the actual record (which for many would be quite difficult or expensive) to verify that. Get real. For a lot of these records -- 78's and records from 1930 etc -- there is, basically, no way for the reader to verify the text. Unless they to go to Discogs or someplace like that -- which I guess they shouldn't -- they'll have to be like "oh well, I'll never know I guess".

Here's one method we could employ to cut that back some. Why would we not want to do that. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The reader can verify that if they've got a copy of that record in their collection. Classic WP:OR, of course. But I'll try and "get real". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me a notable album that cannot have this key information sourced elsewhere? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. Just albums, or singles also? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Either or Traumnovelle (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If this were anything else, the obvious point here would be: if it's not sourceable in an RS, then it is not key information for the purposes of our encyclopedia! Why are we treating this area of information totally differently? Remsense ‥ 论 01:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what is on the label? If you cannot find a reliable source to cover who wrote/performed it then the work is almost certainly not notable unless it is notable for something non-typical. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not allow an editor to use this resource to reference this easily sourced information? Yes, the information could be sourced elsewhere if the target is notable, but why disallow something that makes life easier for editors, and ALSO... and this is more important... make things easier for someone who wants to USE the reference. References aren't a game we play here at wikipedia, there's a purpose to citations and referencing everything. They are to provide the references to users who want to use the information themselves. Referencing the album art for information about itself can be USEFUL to users, and this website has them online for easy viewing. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it can be an external link. I still don't see any album being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have basic information on unable to be sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is able to be sourced—in the liner notes of the album. Compare to referring to the copyright page on a scanned book to source information about publication. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle You're failing to consider that non-notable musical works that are covered in other articles. In the Bobby Floyd (musician) article, I included albums in the discography section that were not covered by the AllMusic reference using {{cite AV media notes}}. I did not add the eBay links where I viewed the liner notes, but I should have, since that is more honest to anyone verifying the article than implying I actually own the physical CD package. It seems straightforwardly ridiculous to argue that albums the musician played on (and one he released under his own name) are undue for inclusion in their own discography section. Mach61 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We're not a database. If there is no source beyond the actual material itself it won't merit inclusion. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• No. You don't need an exception (nor should we give one), you just need to treat the pictures as authentic, we have a very low (almost non-existent) standard for treating images as authentic, something along the lines of the 'good faith uploader reasonably believed it was a picture of the thing and so does the good faith editor'. But the citation then is not and never should be to the picture, it is to the label/record/album/cover itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• No – I'm pretty baffled. User-generated sources are not reliable by their very nature—for any other area of the wiki, the fundamental idea is that information that cannot be reliably sourced is not considered for inclusion in our encyclopedia! No one has provided a logical justification, only a pragmatic one that I resent strongly. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC) See replies. Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that a primary reference would be reliable:
  {{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |publisher=Record Label}}
  So why would a primary reference with a curtesy link be less reliable:
  {{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |url=courtesy.url |publisher=Record Label}}
  There's no need for an exception, as this is already allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, so it seems the terms of the discussion have shifted somewhat from earlier then. I'm going to strike my !vote in that case, since I'm indifferent to this as the operative question. Remsense ‥ 论 20:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the exact question of the RFC is, I've already pointed out that Discog isn't deprecated it's unreliable as it's UGC. Reading through the comments editors have bold voted both No and Yes while agreeing that it can be used as a courtesy link, so good luck anyone who closes it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Editors should feel free to link to Discogs or eBay or Amazon or any other source normally considered unreliable in {{Cite AV media notes}}, because the reason those sources are considered unreliable have nothing to do with false/mislabeled scans, the way some publishers may be considered unusable for what would normally be considered WP:ABOUTSELF interview quotes if they have a history of manipulating them. Mach61 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's incredibly lazy to cite a purely commercial vendor like eBay or Amazon--one just isn't trying very hard. I always remove those links; any information on those sites can be found through much better sources. I can only conclude that editors want to link to Discogs solely for the pretty pictures; again, citing the AV notes is enough. We don't need to link in the body of an article to a site that is full of thousands of errors and typos, even if it's just the image. If there's disagreement over something like, did Donald "Duck" Dunn play bass on track two or three of Album Example, and the AV notes are cited, then it's a matter of edit warring, and you can involve an admin. Discogs is only appropriate as an external link. All the text in this thread so far has not made the case that it's necessary--or even helpful--to cite in the body. Caro7200 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Can someone explain to me how it's not a WP:USERG issue? I feel like I must be misunderstanding the situation to have so many people say "yes" so far. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  See my earlier comment, Discog isn't being cited it's being used as a courtesy link. Also my comment even earlier as to why I don't think this RFC is even necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with your comment then. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as long as it is solely album jackets and liner notes being cited directly as primary sources. Discogs itself, as mentioned, is unreliable per WP:USERG (see its entry on RSP at WP:DISCOGS), but as long as it is the images being cited and not the user-generated text that supplements them, I don't see a problem. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Needs a strong caveat, but yes for 'what is written on the record' The images faithfully reproduce the records and their covers. The sources in this case are the records themselves and their covers (the {{Cite AV media notes}} template is relevant). The images on discogs merely provide verifiability. They are often (but not always) primary sources. For what is written on the record and its cover the images are reliable. The reliability of the records/covers for external facts depends on the label/publisher/artist of the record. If we fail to include this caveat in e.g. a RSP entry, we may give the impression that every liner note or song attribution etc. can be used as a reliable source. They absolutely cannot. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Discogs images)

N.B.:earlier discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources# Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs? Headcount was 3-2, maybe 4-2.

N.B.:The RfD is not proposing that these photos be required to ref, just that the editor is allowed to use them if she wants to without another editor deleting them as disallowed.

• We kind of do this already a lot, we include a link to Discogs in the "External links" section, in fact we even have {{discogs release}} etc. to facilitate this. Problem is this removes the link down away from the the material being ref'd -- bit less than excellent. And if the editor doesn't include that, the reader is usually going to go to Discogs anyway if she wants to verify; it's just more work. Second, c'mon: hella editors are using Discogs to get their info anyway (I know I do) and that can't be stopped. So the current situation is kind of kabuki, and that also is sub-excellent. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

NB: if an editor provides a proximate link to a Discogs photo -- attached directly to a line of data-- just as a courtesy, whether as a bare URL or using a citation template, it will be indistinguishable from a ref. Other editors will see them as refs, and possibly tag them for {{better reference}}, but far more probably delete them, and perhaps the material also as being now unref'd while they're at it I believe we can count on this. (it still wouldn't be unreffed, but it might seem so to the casual editor not knowing the rule for works). And in fact since using Discogs as a ref is clearly prohibited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, you might be in for a scolding. So I wouldn't do it.

As I said, an external link at the bottom of the article is extra work for the user and just more mediocre. Why do that. But that is currently the only use allowed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Re "anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record" and "[is not necessarily] a guaranteed accurate representation of a work", that just isn't true. A photo of the label for "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" can't actually be a photo of the label for "Love Me Do". It's flat impossible. Of course, as anywhere in the 'pedia, we are indeed subject to be fooled by an elaborate hoax using photoshop skills. But we assume no elaborate hoaxes absent some indication of such, and to do so regularly would be kind of paranoid... And for instance photos (putatively) taken and uploaded without modification by Wikipedia editors are far likelier to to hoaxes or just wrong and for good or ill we accept those. I guess we would accept a photo of a record label taken by an editor to be shown in an article to be sufficiently reliable, why can't she upload to Discogs and use it as a ref.

Re "The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts". I did not know that birth certificates or whatever that Ancestry hosts are considered unreliable, that is a different issue -- I suppose the birth ertificates for two different Joe Smiths might be indistinguishable etc. This doesn't apply to the matter at hand.

Vetting reliable sources is tricky if you drill down. Most sources are reliable for some things, and not others. But if the Daily Unreliable were to host material that -- by some magic -- we were certain was true to 99.99% confidence, yeah we could use it I'd think. The label photos are 99.99% sure of being accurate, n'est-ce pas?

Sure our rules have to be blunt instruments ("Do not use the Daily Unreliable, period"), we can't get overly nuanced. but if it is possible to make a rule less blunt by logical proof of an reasonably broad exception, and an editor has bothered to do it, it would be mediocre to just be like "enh whatever nah". Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How will this RFC change this in anyway? Discog will still be an unreliable source in general, so anyone blindly following the colour applied by a script will still see the same colour. I would suggest making sure the title of the reference is something like "Courtesy link to image of the album reverse showing the song listing". If you add a bare url it may get reverted, the same happens to edits without summaries, if other editors don't know why you're doing something they might revert you in mistake. Clearly explaining goes a long way to mitigate that.

Nothing at RSP "prohibits" the use of Discog, the specific wording is The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. That is routine wording, all user generated content is considered generally unreliable.

It's prohibited for refs I believe. I want it usable for refs. Your quote basically makes the argument "We can't use any Discogs material for refs, because we don't use any Discogs material for refs" which is circular. Look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that these photos are not accurate to a sufficient level of confidence for a ref. You can't because they are. How can that not matter. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not prohibited, and if you think my argument bis circular you have misunderstood it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My point about ancestry/com is that it is unreliable, but that the primary documents it hosts are considered reliable (rather than the other way round). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As to hoaxes Discog is as likely to be hoaxed as any other place that are user edited, Wikipedia included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hoaxing the Wikipedia can have ideological advantage in many places. Making a hoax record label is pointless and also requires some photoshop skill. There probably are hoaxed images on Discogs (altho their hivemind would catch lots of them eventually you'd think). However, surely it is way less than one in a thousand. A 99.9+% confidence is way more than sufficient for a ref. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the hoaxes on Wikipedia are not ideological, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. The main reason people create hoaxes is basic trolling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Mnmh. Well, Wikipedia is a magnet for all kinds of hoaxes, but its very different, all of those are text hoaxes -- articles or passages. It's different. Plus Wikipedia is very visible, its the go-to place for hoaxing, Discogs is not. Plus realistic photoshopping takes a level of skill that... idk, one person in a thousand has? (Maybe not in your circle, but overall.)

Photoshopping a record label is just not the same is all. Altho... now I think of it, you could photoshop your own name as the writer or something, either for lulz or some personal advantage (impress a girl or whatever)... but even so: are more than 1 of 1000 images in Discogs altered? Remember, there are a lot of images on Discord... 1 in 1000 would mean there are hundreds of hoaxed images on Discord. Many would have been caught, and/or bragged about. I haven't heard a whisper of that. And I mean the internet has a lot info, what my neighbors dog had for breakfast is on the internet.

I mean sure anything's possible... more that 1 in 1000 Discord images being hoaxes is not literally absolutely impossible... but you'd really be going down a rabbit hole to think its realistically possible. Maybe the New York Times doesn't exist and is an elaborate hoax (have you ever been there?). Maybe all the rest of us and the whole universe is illusory and you are just a brain floating in space (in which case there would be no reliable sources I guess.) But how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go.

Nobody in this thread has made the argument that more than 1 in 1,000 Discog label images are significantly altered. It'd be an extraordinary claim, and there's not one single source, even a unreliable random blog or whatever, for that, that I know of. I think it's safe for us to dismiss that possibility. Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Summing up, to this point anyway

So, seems to have died down a bit. So let's see.

So, my goal here was to add text to the effect that "Except that images of record labels and jackets are OK" at the Discogs entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That page is for "sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here... it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" to avoid having to go over some sources over and over. Discogs is rated as "Generally Unreliable" With the circle-slash "prohibited" icon. This represent the consensus of the various previous discussions, and is mainly used for answering editors who aren't sure, but could also be used to quell pointless local discussions on the matter. And that is fine. (I was told that here rather than there is place to have this discussion).

So, let's see -- by headcount, its 7-4 in favor of "yes" (most people from the other discussion voted here, but one didn't, and was a "yes" so 8-4 Yes). As to strength of argument, well, not for me to say, but... I didn't find the "no" ones very convincing, to say the least. You can't pass off a photo of record X's label as being record Y, no matter how many people don't get that, you still can't. The photos themselves are technically user created, but I mean so is "I have the album right here, take my word for it man" and that's less reliable and the reader sometimes can't check it at all without unreasonable effort. "We can't use Discogs at all because we don't use Discogs at all" is not a strong argument; "We don't use Discogs at all and that works OK so let's keep doing that" is better, but pretty weak IMO... could be used against any change anywhere... "works OK" is arguable and "works better" is a worthwhile goal. But that's just me, and I'm biased, so make your own conclusion about strength of argument.

Anyway, for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a "a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" has to include this thread, and with more weight than something from say 15 years ago. So it's most probably not true that a summarization of discussion can be said to reveal a consensus against Discogs label photos as refs, anymore. More the opposite. (If there are a number of fairly recent, well- populated, and decisive discussions that might be different -- but since label photos as a separate thing were discussed little or not at all (I'll betcha), most probably not even then.)

And the nutshell at that page does say "Consensus can change...". So...

Make sense? I will talk to the Perennial Sources people, OK? They will probably agree to the change.

But here is the thing. So far we are talking about if a fact (is there consensus) was or was not established.

But... for rules its different. At WP:USERGENERATED (part of WP:RS, which is technically just a guideline but has the weight of a strong rule) it says "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are... Discogs...". Well is 8-4 and (if you think so) weight of argument enough to change a rule? Mnmh... well the at WP:RS it's just one example. Removing it doesn't change any rule, at all. And dollars to donuts that the people writing that list of examples gave zero thought to Discogs label photos specifically, and we're not "originalists" bound to exact text.

So yeah I'd say changing that text (most probably just removing it, since its only listing some examples, and less confusing) would probably be appropriate.

But suppose we would have to have a discussion over at RS tho. We'll see. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone involved in the RFC I would suggest leaving it to whoever closes the discussion.

As to UGC as I said above this would change nothing, at best it would add a sentence at RSP that links to images can be used because if other pre-existing policy considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC OurCampaigns

Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 4,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
• April 2021: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"

To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the 1830–31 United States House of Representatives elections (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the IL At-Large election cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.

In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.

Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists Caleb Cushing as running as an independent against the National Republican candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the page again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the MA Bristol page for the first trial, the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.

My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this edit to the 1864 United States presidential election in Kansas where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, even though he was only a candidate for the electoral college on the National Union ticket.

There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend A New Nation Votes, a website created by Phil Lampi and run by the American Antiquarian Society, for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the Tribune almanac and political register (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on archive.org (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 (also on archive.org) (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on WP:RSPS as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Wikipedia, IMDB, Discogs, etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, It should be blocked. If it is't then people will keep using it, instead of other sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience

Over at Graham Hancock, @Bill the Cat 7: has argued that an appearance by Hancock on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast is a reliable source [1] for the following statement Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". [2]. For context, the article already states Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist cited to the New Republic (a reliable source). I think that while obviously statements on podcasts can be used for non-controversial non-self serving information per WP:BLPSPS, that the podcast is not usable to call the accusations by the SAA defamatory, which I also think is a WP:TONE issue. As far as I can tell, the SAA did not actually call him a racist or white supremacist (see the letter they sent [3]), and therefore the addition by Bill the Cat 7 misrepresents what the SAA actually said. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's such an obvious BLP violation that it's not worth spending more words and time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "BLP vio" framing is confusing, It makes it seem like the BLP vio is against Hancock when it is not. I definitely disagree with the addition and think it's essentially flat out wrong and effectively soapboxing, but calling the statement by the SAA, an organisation not a living person, "defamatory" is not necessarily an obvious BLP vio, though I understand how it could be reasonably understood as a BLP vio against Daniel H. Sandweiss, the president of the SAA who signed the letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I was confused, thinking Hancock was referring to some articles published in the SAA record, not the letter. I still think a wikivoice statement that claims made in the letter are defamatory would be a BLP violation. It's written as expressing the organization's concerns, but it's definitely Sandweiss's letter, starting with "I write this open letter ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The SAA Archaeological Record did publish an issue responding to Graham Hancock's book America Before in 2019 [4] (it's even cited several times in his article), but as far as I can tell it does not call him a racist or a white supremacist and Hancock is most aggrieved by the 2022 SAA letter about Ancient Apocalypse rather than anything in the SAA Archaeological Record. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As a further addendum, I'm not sure if this is intentional on Bill the Cat 7's part, but the part of the video he linked was as far as I can tell about the alignment of the constellation of Orion with the Great Pyramids, and Graham Hancock's rejection of white supremacy/racism is not within several minutes either side of the timestamp. If you're going to cite a 4 hour+ podcast, you need to provide accurate timestamp, just as you'd provide a page number when citing a book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please link rv in question. While I think editors refer to WP:Mandy often inappropriately, this is a good example where it's unnecessary to say 'I'm not a racist', precisely because the very next sentence is the slightly-more-substantial statement, "expressed support for native rights". The former says nothing (and really often just makes the BLP subject sound ignorant and defensive), while the latter is at least somewhat informative and may get the reader to actually click the source if they have any interest. As you point out, this is not an RS issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

On SAA defamation, if the podcast doesn't firmly support it, that's a WP:Verifiability problem. (We don't have a V noticeboard, and we really need one.) Obviously you can't say something disputable or controversial that's not explicit in the source, before even considering RS. (I replied to the initial post too quickly.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure verifiability would really need to be a different noticeboard. A statement is verifiable when it a) can be found in b) a reliable source. B would be in scope here, and A would be in scope on WP:ORN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify further, I've jumped ahead of myself: why is it WP:V? Because first you need to make "defamatory" a direct quote, not a wikivoice summary as it is now (you'll notice that in the diff it is not even an indirect quote) -- but that can only be done if Hancock literally says "defamatory" in the interview, and if he doesn't (which I don't suspect he does, but I'm not listening to any podcast without a timestamp), then it's a failed WP:Verification. [I take it on good faith that the editor's intention was some approximate quotation, rather than some kind of inference that might be interpreted as OR. Regardless, unless it was said explicitly, then for equally various reasons mentioned by everyone here it's incorrect.] SamuelRiv (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the Joe Rogan Experience making statements about Hancock, this is Hancock making statements about themself in an interview. So this is less WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS and more WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB (the two are duplicates policy statements) as Hancock is talking about themself.
It's reliable for Hancock statements about Hancock. Editors on the talk page should decide if it's self-serving or due for inclusion per WP:MANDY, but that's NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely WP:ABOUTSELF – allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record is a statement about something other than himself. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you're correct, only this denial would be reliable not the details of what he was denying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we not be asking is this podcast an RS in general, I would say not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Most podcasts are WP:NOTRS due to being SPS, there's no real reason to consider JRE an WP:EXPERTSPS so the only interesting (non-trivial) question is whether it might qualify for an exception, like ABOUTSELF. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well it can be seen as self-serving, so arguably no. Much better would be third-party coverage of any denial. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least, as written, by my reading, it is calling them defamatory accusations in the article voice, which is utterly inappropriate when using a primary WP:ABOUTSELF citation to his own words. But even if it were attributed I would avoid it. The balance between NPOV, RS, BLP, and DUE allows us to state the simple fact that he denied it (ie. in a completely neutral wording like X denied the accusations, saying nothing else), but sort of dry unexceptional statement of denial is the limit of what we can use WP:ABOUTSELF for; when it starts to get into characterizations and explanations and other detailed framings, that's unduly self-serving and requires a non-ABOUTSELF source. If we're going to imply that they called him a racist or a white supremacist, this absolutely requires an independent reliable source (ie. non-ABOUTSELF); it's not something that can be cited to a podcast. --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A source that says X (e.g. Hancock saying he is not a racist) is always reliable enough to support the mere claim that that specific source says X. In fact, it is the most reliable possible source to support that particular claim. How could it ever not be?

Reliability of such a source only matters if you want to use it to support more than the bare fact of what the source says. An accused party's denial of an allegation is typically not going to be a reliable source to support claiming, in Wikipedia's own voice, that the allegation is false (even if that source is otherwise considered reliable). Nor is it going to be a reliable source to support a characterisation in Wikipedia's own voice of what the accusations are, since people or organisations who have been criticised often distort the nature of the criticism against them into a less reasonable, more easily rebuttable version when they publicly respond to it.

The text you say this citation was meant to support mixes a statement that Hancock denies the allegations against him with a statement (in Wikipedia's voice) of what those allegations were. It is reliable for the former purpose and not the latter one.

(The denial may not be significant enough to include regardless of the above, but that's a judgment call that isn't purely about source reliability - although whether reliable secondary sources have reported on the denial is at least relevant to it.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely a podcast appearance, with audio and video of someone saying something, is a reliable source as to the statements made in said podcast appearance. This seems to be a dispute about the appropriateness of including the statement and how to frame it per Wikivoice, due weight, MANDY, and numerous other policies, guidelines, and norms, as well as the marginal value of this statement (and source) in the context of what is already presented in the article. Any determination about how to resolve this particular content dispute should not rely on the general reliability of The Joe Rogan Experience. In the event that a statement, especially a direct quote, warrants inclusion it seems absurd to rule against citing the actual source. Time stamps should be provided and possibly links to multiple sources of the audio or video and transcripts. -- MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been very busy lately (I just saw this). Please give me 72 hours and I will respond formally. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Formal reply follows. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FORMAL RESPONSE - (GH = Graham Hancock, FD = Flint Dibble, SAA = Society for American Archaeology)

1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things.

a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix

c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled

d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis

e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/

f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298

g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881

i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html

2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations.

a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19.  

b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". . He has also has expressed support for native rights.

3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies.

4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7

a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)"

5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site.

a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH.

a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is. 

6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic."

a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true.  According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false.  

7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what exactly is being claimed and why. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, must be included in the article.

8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved.

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable.

Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is not about your actions, but whether or not the Joe Rogan experience is an RS, for this content. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true to a certain extent, but I just wanted to provide context. It's about whether a youtube video is an RS for a specific rebuttal in the subject's own voice (i.e., not WP voice). Can you please explain why GH is not allowed, per wiki policies, to do that? I would also truly like you and others to respond to my above points on the GH talk page. Seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No need, we can respond here (we should be discussions in one place, not spread over multiple talk pagers). And they have been addressed (or rather the question has, as non of the above affects this being an SPS). Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say this is not a general forum, and anything other than reliability should be discussed elsewhere. Discussions of behaviour or wikibullying are not appropriate here.

As has been said above the podcast would be reliable for a denial per WP:ABOUTSELF, but not necessarily for the nature of the allegations themselves. So using the subjects own words may not be appropriate, as the nature of the allegations are details about someone other than the subject (see the second point of ABOUTSELF It does not involve claims about third parties). Also if there is disagreement about the exact allegations it may be at odds with the first point (The material is neither unduly self-serving...).

There is no requirement to use the subejcts own words only to report that the allegations behave been denied (see the final sentence of WP:BLPPUBLIC). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable. No, this is utterly untrue. The only requirement is the bare statement that he has denied it (ie. X denied the allegations.) In fact, we are often unable to say any more than that. The reason is because there are multiple conflicting requirements here, all of which are important. We cannot use an WP:ABOUTSELF source, even with attribution, for something that is unduly self-serving or which touches on third parties; if someone says "I didn't commit the murder, X did!", we absolutely positively cannot put that quote anywhere in Wikipedia unless we have an independent secondary source. All we can use that source for is a paraphrased non-quotation saying that they denied committing the murder. Even that is sometimes controversial because it rests at a point of tension between the unduly-self-serving limitation of WP:ABOUTSELF and the needs of WP:BLP; but limiting it to an unemotive bare minimum paraphrase of the fact that they denied it is generally seen as a way to thread the needle and meet both requirements. BLP absolutely does not give anyone any article subject some sort of special privilege to put their own personally words, opinions, or broader views on the issue in the article via a non-RS simply because they chose to frame themselves as being under attack (which is what your suggestion here would imply); it's a shield, not a cudgel, which means X denied this is all that it can guarantee. If their broader views about the subject are credible and worth covering, some secondary source will have covered them; if none has, they cannot be included via a primary non-independent source, not ever. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is this not a textbook example of WP:ABOUTSELF? As an aside, I would strongly suggest Hancock's response should be in there, given the WP:BLP aspect. If we make it look like someone is saying he's a racist and he's said nowt, the reader may be left with the impression he has tacitly accepted the claims.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at the article, the denial is already sourced. I don't really see the need for more information than that.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah those were my original thoughts. The issue appears to be not Hancock's denial (which is already included), but insisting on using the exact quote of Hancock's denial. ABOUTSELF is reliable for the denial, but not for the details of claims made by a third party. As far as I can tell the SAA doesn't directly claim that Hancock is a racist or white supremacist, but Hancock's denial states that they have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

More than anything we risk a BLP violation against Hancock himself by reporting Hancock's words about the SAA. The SAA actually claim his work is informed by outdated racist tropes rather than claiming racist animus against the man himself. I don't think even his most vociferous critics accuse him of actively holding or expressing racist viewpoints, rather than subconscious bias informed by the "scientific racism" of the past as well as the biases of past pseudo-theorists.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by breed

In the pit bull article there is a controversy on whether any medical journals can be used to cite claims that pit bulls are the cause of the most severe dog bites, compared to other breeds, because medical doctors are not dog experts. Nevertheless, there are many papers in medical journals that report that pit bulls cause the most, and often worst, dog attack injuries. For example, this review says, Of the cases in which the breed was known, the Pit-bull was responsible for the highest percentage of re-ported bites across all the studies followed by mixed breed and then German Shepherds. Currently, no prior studies exist that examine bite severity by breed. Therefore, the relative risk of biting and average tissue damage of bite, calculated using the 240 cases seen at our in- stitutions, was used to determine an overall "risk to own" (Fig. 2). Mixed breed and Pit-bulls were found to not only have the highest relative risk of biting, but were also found to have the highest average tissue damage per bite. and appears to be representative of the literature.

A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association [5] makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.

A third concern is whether certain papers in medical journals such as this one [6] that cite advocacy websites like Dogsbite.org and/or Animals24-7.org, previously asserted to be unreliable for Wikipedia purposes [7], [8] should be thrown out because they inherit that unreliability. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have some initial thoughts. Looking forward to seeing what others have to say. Reliable medical sources (MEDRS) should be cited for information about human health effects of bites from pit bulls relative to other breeds. The review article appears to qualify but its relevance needs to be considered in light of the body of published literature. In this case, the AVMA's lit review also appears reliable. While a veterinary medicine professional society would not typically be reliable for human health, they have relevant expertise for questioning the conclusions reached by medical sources. It goes too far to say that the AVMA piece makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable but the AVMA seems to me to be a reliable source to counter some of the findings from the (human) medical literature.

The problem with this article (Khan, et al) is that it a primary source. Primary sources should not be used to support a conclusion that is debated among reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I saw on the Talk page that the question of whether you can cite a generally reliable source if it relies on Animals24-7 or another unreliable source also came up in relation to a Time magazine article. Similarly, the issue is that popular press is generally unreliable as a source for controversial topics in science.

The whole dog attack and death risk section has sourcing issues and probably needs to be trimmed down. I appreciate that this has been contentious. -- MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 23:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's late here but quickly on the last point, no a sources doesn't become unreliable because it uses sources that editors consider unreliable. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, those guidelines are for the purposes of Wikipedia they won't be universally applicable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org, which as stated by Geogene, were previously determined to be unreliable sources by this community to cite dog bite prevalence among a breed.

WP:RS has guidelines on determining source reliability. The cited source in the article is Time, an otherwise reliable source. They are citing dogsbite.org / animals24-7.org's information about dog statistics in a topic that Time does not typically cover.

WP:USEBYOTHERS states If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

So wiki guidelines point to not including it. If the original source of that citation is not reliable to be cited directly, then using WP:USEBYOTHERS is not advisable for including that source, if it's cited by a source that is publishing a topic outside their principal domain.

So now lets flip that to medical journals citing animals24-7 and dogsbite, and using them to reference unreliable data. Do medical journals typically publish about dogs, dog breeds, factors that affect the prevalence of dog bites? The answer is no. Its information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source outside that sources principal domain. Especially when, you have journals that do cover this topic at hand as their principal domain, stating that breed visualization, which all these medical journals relied upon, are unreliable as proven by multiple studies. In fact, the CDC[9] itself, stopped tracking dog bite data partly because visual identification is unreliable and the inability to make reliable conclusions based on the data. The CDC.

Now, as to A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association [47] makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.

No one said that medical data in medical journals is unreliable because of what AVMA and Veterinary Journals say in theirs. That is a misrepresentation as all data was not the argument. Strictly about information outside their domain. Medical journals are not in the field of criticizing dog information presented in a study. Veterinary Journals are. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.. Medical Journals are not reliable sources for dog information, especially when Veterinary Journals contradict their claims[10][11][12].

Open to other interpretations to WP:RS Guidelines though and appreciate anyone willing to dive into this hot topic. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org no it's not. If the source is otherwise reliable it doesn't have to follow Wikipedia's internal policies. Editors should be careful of sources being whitewashed, but experts can use sources we don't like. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to cite the CDC about the history of France? It's a reliable source, so it doesn't need to follow Wikipedias internal policies right?

Or, is it not the most appropriate source for the topic, especially when you have the National Museum of France can be cited counter to the CDCs claims.

I am having a hard time understanding why any wikipedia editor shouldn't evaluate different reliable sources to determine what source is the most reliable on a given topic. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it would be appropriate not cite the CDC for the history of disease in France. Editors absolutely should use their own good judgement and the relevant policies and guidelines when considering the reliability of sources. But the issue here is disagreement between sources, and that is sometimes best described in the article rather than simply rejected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• doi:10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002 is primary research and generally unreliable for WP:BMI. It shouldn't be used, and especially not to undercut WP:SECONDARY sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sources are primary or secondary in context. What about the part of the paper where Khan et al. comment on the status of existing literature? Geogene (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  And also, for example, this social commentary: An area of contentious challenge between dog lobbyists and medical providers is that of breed identity, which seems to be a lightning rod for some dog lobby (principally pit bulls) enthusiasts who contend that identification of "the pit bull terrier type dog" is challenging and imprecise. There is precedent for countering this challenge in legal court briefs: "There exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. (American Dog Owners Association vs Dade City, Florida; No 89-771-CIV; 1989) and furthermore "pit bulls are readily identifiable...both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel (State of Ohio vs Anderson, Supreme Court of Ohio brief No. 89-2113; 1991) Breed identification via genetic confirmation is not necessary to gain a firm understanding of this area of dog related trauma. I'm concerned that applying MEDRS to this entire paper but not veterinary papers will hobble the ability to source medical POVs in a multi-POV controversy. Geogene (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source may be useful for WP:NOTBMI though a primary research item is never going to be the best. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• The trouble with the "secondary" bit of primary sources is that it is almost always selected/framed/spun with the goal of bolstering the primary finding (one wouldn't want to do the opposite, for obvious reasons) and so not indicative of knowledge in the field generally. This is why MEDRS is as it is: use reviews articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews or better. Primary sources, not. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  In any case, I trust that this primary veterinary poster presentation [13] about animal shelter volunteers that Unbiased6969 posted above isn't usable to make claims about breed identification in attack risks for the same reason? Geogene (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not usable for WP:BMI, for sure. For other things, dunno - not my area! Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, it's not trying to be used for WP:BMI. It's being used to show that claims about dog breeds inside medical journals are widely known by the Veterinary Academic community to be unreliable. It's also a visual representation of a study that was done by the authors, and not just some poster as was stated. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dog pages are wild. It's a reliable source. Primary research is likely due in this case, and the secondary parts of the paper are certainly due. Most sources on dog breeds are written by aficionados of that particular breed and suffer from extreme neutrality problems.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Going though this I'm a bit lost, am I being naive that medical experts would be more knowledgeable about injuries to humans than vets? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is questioning whether medical experts are knowledgeable in the field of injuries. It's questioning whether they're experts in statements made by dog breeds in their work.

  They're not. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's like saying medical journals can't be used to say cigarettes cause cancer because medics are not tobacco experts. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, that's a false equivalency. You visually identify different types of cigarettes reliably and make a reliable decision of their effects.

  As pointed out my veterrinary academia, you cannot identify a dog breed visually in a reliable manner and make a meaningful decision. As concluded by the CDC itself in my first comment. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  You reflect what the good sources say. If they say smoking causes cancer, reflect that. If they don't go into the weeds about "light" variety cigarettes or menthol ones, don't say that. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Understandable. I'd go one further though. I'd say you primarily present the academic concensus on the topic, then briefly mention the minority/controversial view point. So in this case, present primarily the academic concensus that no breed has been reliably determined to be more responsibe for inuries/deaths. Then mention that some medical studies have made this claim, but relied upon breed identification, which is known to be unreliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are next to no proper scientific papers on dog breeds, outside of those on health problems and wolf DNA. A medical paper which indicates that injuries reported to be by pitbull type dogs represents x per cent of their case load or whatever is entirely reliable for that claim, and is likely to make it due. The fact that sometimes people misidentify pitbulls can also be reported where that is cited. However, we cannot disqualify a RS reporting "people say pitbulls do this" because another RS says "sometimes people mistake pitbulls for other types of dogs".--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no proper scientific papers on dog breeds? Have you dived into the topic to make such a bold claim?

I can show you multiple genetic studies performed on multiple dog breeds trying to isolate aggression to a gene, but repeatedly coming to the same conclusion that aggression in dogs is universal and likely a remnant of their predecessor wolves. Seems like a lot of science from academics to be deemed unreliable.

I disagree with your last point. The context of sources should be evaluated and if an otherwise reliable source is being used to make claims outside their domain, which is in counter to information published by those that study the topic, then using that source outside to cite the information in contradiction to academia is improper without giving more weight to academia. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Genetics-based studies on dog breeds and aggression do not usually meet the standard for reliable scientific research. It's all "from our sample of 50 dogs" and "reports of aggression by owners". There is not going to be a "gene for aggression", because that isn't how the genetics works.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait why are genetic studies unreliable but the medical ones brought up earlier aren't?

The Khan paper has a sample size of 182 patients and relied on patients to report what type of dog bit them. The Essig paper calculated bite severity based on a sample of 240, again, relying on patients to report breed.

A cursory glance at canine behavioural genetics research is showing sample sizes of 1,975 with behaviour based on owner questionnaires [14], sample size of 6,818 w/ questionnaires [15], sample size 397 w/ questionnaires [16] (notably this one also says "Pit Bull-type dogs showed reduced risk of owner-directed aggression"), sample size 9,270 dogs with questionnaire [17], etc

Why are owners* untrustworthy for reporting aggression, but reliable for reporting dog breed? (*inevitably many of the patients aren't the owner since some are strays, etc.)

Dogs aren't really my field so I don't know what papers on pit bulls specifically are out there, but behavioural genetics is absolutely a real field of scientific research. More complex than there being a "gene for aggression" sure, but genetic predispositions to aggression based on certain mutations is a legitimate topic of study

(also fair warning I might not reply to/notice any responses to this comment... real life is busy rn. feel free to ping me a couple times if you need me to respond) CambrianCrab (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

oh quick clarifying comment tho, no idea if the papers I linked are relevant to the overall topic of this thread or the article in question, just referencing them for methods CambrianCrab (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be asking for speculation, but okay. Is it not possible that pit bull owners might be less likely to report aggressive behaviors than other dog owners because they perceive their dog as unfairly stigmatized? Are dog owners even able to consistently recognize aggression? The Bailey paper [18] (PMID 33136964) that was much praised earlier says that even the aggression tests used by animal shelters are controversial and often wrong.

What percentage of dog attacks are perceived by the owner after the fact as having occurred "without warning"?

Also, dog attacks are extremely rare overall. Is a sample size of 10,000 pet dogs that have (presumably) not attacked before large enough to make actionable predictions about dogs that attack?

Why would a dog owner know their dog was a pit bull? I assume that's because they researched breeds of dogs, then decided they wanted a pit bull, and then bought a shorthaired, muscular and mildly brachycephalic dog that resembled a pit bull through a "pit bulls for sale" ad. If so, then it seems reasonable to assume their dog is a pit bull until evidence is produced otherwise. Geogene (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

oh, not trying to invite speculation, I might have just been unclear, sorry. My point was just that both genetic studies and the dog bite studies rely on owners/laypeople to report something (behavior and breed, respectively) that some sources say is, at least to some degree, unreliable.

From what I could tell, Boynamedsue was saying that because owner reports of aggression aren't always reliable, a scientific paper that we might otherwise consider reliable, but uses owner reports of aggression, doesn't meet the standard for reliable scientific research

In contrast, the dog bite papers that use layperson reports of dog breed, which have also been reported to be unreliable by various sources, remain reliable regardless.

Essentially, I'm just confused as to why we would discard one set of sources (behavioural genetics) because they use a metric that some consider unreliable, but we aren't discarding the other (dog bite studies).

If both types of studies are published in high-quality journals by experts in their field, I'm hesitant to say that we as editors should be making that type of judgement call on either to say "these methods are bad so this source is unreliable".

The sample size bit was mainly in response to the "from our sample of 50 dogs" which I assume was hyperbole but didn't seem to reflect any of the sources I saw.

CambrianCrab (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The 50 dogs one wasn't hyperbole, it referred to a genome study of cocker spaniels. But yes, my main point is that if you wanted to find out about the behaviour of humans, asking their mums and reporting the findings uncritically would not be the best methodology.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you ask, my belief is that owner reports of their dog's level of aggression are entirely subjective. It is asking an owner to evaluate and judge what they believe to be a beloved member of the family for a negative trait. Owners frequently reassure people their dog is harmless, despite it clearly not being. Nobody knows a dog worse than its owner.

I consider reports on the type of dog that attacked a patient to be more reliable. Most people know what a pit bull type dog looks like, and given the victim is most often the owner, a member of the family of the owner or a friend of the same, the victim will often have actual knowledge of how the dog was sold.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Aight I have an extra 15, so quick reply: What I was trying to say was we shouldn’t decide that an entire sub-discipline isn’t “proper science” just because one of their methods has been criticized (for behavioral genetics or the medical dog bite stuff). I think Bon courage said it better (or at least more concisely) CambrianCrab (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the questionnaire based studies would certainly be reliable for the statements "owners report pit bulls have low level of human-directed aggression", we could then discuss how due that might be.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just for a slight aside, there are cases where you can have instances like this. In the entomology world (I know it's not an insect), spider bites are often misidentified, and it's a real-world issue that's been brought up related to human doctors. So yes, doctors could be misidentifying something, but there would need to be MEDRS sources making that claim rather than someone trying to claim medical professionals don't have sufficient expertise like what you're responding to. That's the key distinction, but I can unfortunately see how easily the argument being made came up too. KoA (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Medical professions are certainly reliable to say, thats a dog bite. However, not reliable to say thats a dog bite from this specific breed. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is not "exactly" what I said, quite the opposite. KoA (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  This reminds me of some other arguments other the definition of words, with one group using a more general sense and the other using a hyper specific sense.

  Maybe the solution is to describe the issue in the article, noting the research results but then mentioning that the general idea of a pit bull doesn't match the veterinary definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are then giving WP:FRINGETHEORIES the primary narrative in an article, and allowing the academic concensus on a topic take the back seat. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think fringe is applicable when discussing articles from a high quality source, describe the discrepancy it's one that is common place even outside this specific issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, if I am hearing this correctly. Your opinion would be that it's okay to cite vaccine skeptics's claims about autism in x% of people, in the Wiki article about vaccines, so long as those fringe theory claims were sourced from a reliable source thats making those claims outside their principal domain of publication? Because that's the equivalence being applied here. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, because the WP:BESTSOURCES on vaccines say different. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  When we have strong WP:MEDRS like PMID:33136964 there is no reason to use primary sources, in fact that's exactly what not to do. I can only imagine this topic has a POV-problem if editors are promoting low-quality sources and swerving quality ones. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Medical journals are reliable for medical information. They're not reliable for dog breed related information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that one needs to evaluate whether the source is the appropriate for the claims made. In this case it's not, especially when it goes against the vast majority of Veterinary academia. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  They're certainly reliable for medical information and almost certainly reliable for dog breed information related to it, peer-reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP in high-quality, WP:SECONDARY, peer-reviewed sources is top-notch however you look at it. If there are equivalent veterinary publications purely on the quesion of 'dog breeds' then they would be preferable, but for dog bite effects on people - which is what this query is about - we'd need MEDRS. Luckily, it exists. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  For dog bite effects on people, sure. However that's not what trying to be done on the article page. Instead, the medical journals are trying to be used as sourced to write that pit bulls have a outsized portion of injuries as determined by visual identification, when studies have show that visual identification is unreliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  PMID:33136964, which is a golden source, says:

  German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature. Our recommendations to physicians and to researchers, activists, and legislators are also included. However, these data must be heeded and acted on to further understand and minimize severe dog bites in the future, especially those inflicted on children.

  and it also says the dog breed recognition is often flawed, which complicates this finding. Wikipedia should reflect this knowledge. It's not hard. Bon courage (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is the source that should be used, with mention of the issues of identification. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any attempt to relate severity of bites to dog breed obviously involves assessment of 1. the severity / damage inflicted by the bite (a medical matter in which doctors and academics of medicine are experts) and 2. the breed of the dog responsible (not a medical matter, not one in which those same people are experts).

But surely point 2 is a red herring - no medical professionals are going to publish papers in medical journals in which they are relying on their own inspection of dogs to determine the dogs' breeds! Papers are likely either blindly believing patient or witness reports about a dog's breed (probably unreliable - the critics have a point) or have collaborated with relevant experts (police / animal charities / whatever other entity is responsible for breed identification after a dog attack in their jurisdiction) who do have expertise in breed determination, in which case the criticism has no sting at all. To determine which category any given paper falls into, and therefore whether its breed-related conclusions can be trusted, read the paper and see how they say they determined breed. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine if a high-quality source can be trusted. The job is rather to reflect what it says. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is question-begging; if a study's methodology is junk, it's not a "high-quality source" in the first place. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a wiki editors job to evaluated the context of sources to determine whether the source being used is the appropriate one for that information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source's quality (including that of its methodology) is determined by the journal editors and peer-reviewers, not by amateur Wikipedians with an axe to grind. This is fairly basic. Bon courage (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A medical journal is more than qualified to review about medical information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. Its quite clear that using medical journals to cite information about dog related topics, when veterinary journals contradict their claims, should not be viewed reliable based on WP:RS. editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Its possible to cite contradictory information from Veterinary journals, so unless someone has a bias for medical journals that affects their decision making, I am not sure why this is even a issue. Medical journals are good for reviewing medical information, not dog breed information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You can't decide you don't want medical sources on articles that talk about dog bites. They are clearly relevant.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2. would be something valid under the medical purview. Causes of injuries or disease are something medical professionals have to assess all the time such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. and strains of those causing that. If a paper calls for it, you'll likely involve epidemiologists or even more specialized specialists who work on the causative organisms primarily. Frankly, that statement looks like a severe misunderstanding of what epidemiologists do and publish on. KoA (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will point out that studies have shown that visual identification is unreliable, even among professionals. Not sure if that changes your mind on the latter. [19][20] Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Advocates target all pit bull types, and support BSL, which is proven not to work. They also tend to be relentless in their quest to include media hype, misinformation, and/or malinformation from police reports that often contain incomplete information primarily based on visual IDs during a traumatic event. Those reports are also used as the basis for the information used by some science/medical journals, and so it goes. It is expected that some of our best editors can also be misled based on similar circumstances, causing them to latch on to a position that results in major time sinks and debates that never seem to end...and here we are now.

1. Fact - all dogs bite. Many dog owners have been lax in the proper training and socialization of their dogs, particularly strong, muscular dogs, regardless of breed. Chihuahuas can even do serious damage. Bites typically result from improper training, purposeful mistreatment, or leaving small children unattended with dogs, especially children who are unfamiliar with dog behavior.
2. Fact - visually identifying a dog as belonging to a specific breed can be an exercise in futility. Some dogs may look like a particular breed but DNA testing may prove differently. Dogs that are registered with one of the reputable breed associations such as the (AKC, KC, UKC, are better able to positively identify a dog by its pedigree, records of which are kept by the respective breed registry. In many cases, there will be DNA evidence to support the pedigree. For accuracy, DNA testing is required, but rarely done when a child or adult is treated for a dog bite, or when police take eye-witness reports right after a traumatic event. Even some dog owners have been known to misidentify the breed of their dog, referring to them as a "pit bull" when it's a mixed breed. This practice of misidentifying dogs has gone on for decades and has proven harmful to modern purebreds such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, and the like, dogs bred specifically to be show dogs. Granted, dogs are being bred illegally as fighting dogs but those dogs originate from specific strains purposely bred for combat, and are not the modern show dogs registered with reputable breed registries.
3. Breed doesn't determine personality - in a most recent study ..."the largest study of its kind, the team compared the genetic and survey data of nearly 2000 dogs—most of which had their entire genomes sequenced—and survey results from an additional 16,000 pooches. The pups included mixes and purebreds, with 128 breeds represented." See Science.org
4. Pit bull advocacies have been referred to as racially motivated issues according to the following study The racialization of pit bulls: What dogs can teach us about racial politics.
5. CDC is against BSL - The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). See this report. Quote: "No breed owns any particular trait." ELAINE OSTRANDER U.S. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
6. Pit bull or pitbull is NOT a breed of dog - there is only one recognized breed with "pit bull" in its name, and it is the UKC's American Pit Bull Terrier which is not recognized by the other breed registries. "Pit bull terrier" is a ubiquitous term used by people who, quite routinely, are uneducated about dog breeds, and don't know the difference between mongrels and mixed breeds vs a modern, registered dog with a pedigree and DNA test results documented by a dog breed registry. Those dogs are bred to be show dogs, or dogs that compete in obedience trials, tracking, etc. Scores of innocent dogs have been/are still being euthanized as a result of misidentification and misinformation.
7. Pit bulls are the most frequent targets of breed-specific bans, despite the misidentifications; other breeds that are also banned may include Rottweilers, Dobermans, and boxers.
8. Another example of malinformation: see this diff wherein Geogene cites a news article by the BBC which states: After the tip-off to the police, Lola was measured and assessed. An American bulldog crossed with an English Staffordshire bull terrier, she was classified as pit-bull-type. Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 alongside the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brazileiro. I question "assessed" - was it a visual assessment or a DNA assessment? It also states "Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under ...." yada yada. Pit bull terrier is NOT a breed. I consider this information to be questionable at best.

• Sadly, staunch advocates against pit bull and terrier types refuse to relent. WP doesn't allow advocacy editing, so this needs to be addressed. Our project has had more than its share of advocacies, and one of the worst was a multiple sock editor who first went by Nomopbs. WP:PAG do not allow the inclusion of incorrect, misleading, or malinformation, much of which may be motivated by a misplaced fear of dogs, or inspired by hyped-up media reports with visual misidentifications of dogs, and/or based on incorrect/incomplete police & hospital reports that used the ubiquitous term "pit bull", not to mention small studies of behavior analysis based on the aforementioned. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Atsme:, are you able to explain what's wrong with my diff [21] you just posted? You seem to be accusing me of wrongdoing there. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think her issue may be with the phrase "banned breed"; arguably there is no such thing in the UK. Government documenation at https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs stresses that in the UK we have banned "types" (defined by physical features/appearance), not banned "breeds" (defined by ancestry). However, I note that despite this it is common for media sources and police spokesmen to use the term "banned breed" and that basically everyone refers to the UK law as BSL (breed-specific legislation); arguably usage in mainstream sources vindicates using the term "banned breed" in the UK context even if strictly speaking it is a misnomer. I take no position for now; this argument doesn't belong on this noticeboard anyway. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Geogene, even the title of this discussion is wrong, and for whatever reason, you either purposely refuse or are simply unable to understand that pit bull is not a breed. It's a ubiquitous description that attempts to define a dog by its visual appearance which has been proven repeatedly to be unreliable. Just the use of the term pit bull invokes the horrors of racial slurs from years past that were used to define certain races of people, classifying them as criminal, incompetent, etc. My detailed explanation above covers it. The crux of the problem rests with laypersons not understanding what constitutes a recognized purebred or specific breed of dog vs mongrel, mutt, or mixed breed, and that definitely includes the medical literature. The bite of a Rottweiler mix can be as deadly as a Staffie's bite if not worse. The medical literature needs to stick to human assessments and should seek advice from canine/dog breed professionals.

  The article I linked to said the dog was "assessed" - how was it assessed - by a visual ID, or what the owner of the dog believes the dog to be? Is there DNA proof? Ask yourself what you're defining as a pit bull? If it's not a registered dog, how do they know the parentage? By looks, which is proven to be unreliable? It's a dog - a mutt that bit someone. Using ubiquitous terms has to stop. It's very possible the dog is NOT related whatsoever to any of the bull and terrier breeds or it could be so distant, it doesn't matter. Unless they know the dogs parentage for certain, it's a mongrel or simply a dog...and that's all we really know for certain. And that is what's wrong with your comment in the link, and each time you use the term. The pit bull article needs to be completely rewritten. Atsme 💬 📧 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, even as the wokest person I know, this is the first time I've come across "pit bull is a slur". I would kindly ask you to stop comparing attempts to describe dog breeds to racism. It's offensive. Dogs are animals, you know, the things we eat. If you are shocked by people calling dogs "pit bulls", wait until you find out what we do to pigs.

And your point doesn't make sense. The majority of dog bite victims are the owners of the dog in question, or their friends and family members (just as the most likely person to be killed by a gun is the owner or their family members). In which case they know the breed. If you then answer, "ah, but they may be wrong" then no research whatsoever on dog breeds that does not involve standardised genetic testing is valid. This means we have to delete 99% of our sources in all dog articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ironically, this comment itself feels like an activist screed, and is highly one-sided. I'll put a counter to just two of your numbered points, though I take some issue with every one of them:

  1. Even if we accept as true that bites "typically result" from owner negligence (I don't know if that's true), there's absolutely no contradiction between that and the position that some breeds are more dangerous than others. Multiple factors can contribute to the same bad outcome.

  5. The US government is against BSL? Well, symmetrically, the UK government is for it, and we have it here. Neither can be assumed to be right; it is not a knockdown argument either way.

  Wikipedia needs to present both sides of this argument; certainly there are good sources available for both. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Shouldn't the first question be whether this is even worth adding to the article at all? From my point of view, "dog breeds with the nastiest bite to humans" seems like fairly trivial information. Yvan Part (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is bite risk not a fairly prominent controversy with pit bulls? Geogene (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the (real or perceived, depending on which side of the argument you believe) dangerousness of pitbulls is pretty much the single most notable thing about them; conclusions of studies relating to that are very likely to be significant in the context of that issue and thus worthy of discussion in the article (though not necessarily individually, and not not necessarily mean uncritically). ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is arguing against referencing the controversy around pit bulls in the article. Thats obviously noteworthy and can be source md reliably. Whats being argued is not citing unreliable sources on bite stats because none exist.

  
  

  The controversy around pit bulls is absolutely a topic. However, there are no reliable statisitcs about any dog bite data to cite in the article. The CDC itself, discredited their study for being unreliable. This, along with every academic veterinary organization. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is arguing... - yes they are. In the grandparent comment that this subthread is about, @Yvan Part questions whether this information is even noteworthy enough to include, irrespective of reliability. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see that as arguing against mentioning the topic of controversy. I see it as arguing that the specific quote stated in their comment is of little importance. Otherwise, why quote and not just mention the topic in general? The quote was picked for a reason, and I think it was meant to highlight the subjectivity of the source's language not being impactful to meaningful discussion rather than a critique of the general topic. However, Yvan Part can clarify and prove me wrong. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Settle down, I was just throwing in the idea that, in their haste to discuss whether this is a reliable source or not, editors might have missed the bigger picture that this information might not be worth adding in the first place. I'm not championing that idea and other editors are free to debate its merits without my input.

  The controversy mentioned, I'm guessing around pitbulls in general, seems out of the scope of this RSN section and is probably better discussed on the article talkpage instead.

  @Unbiased6969 I understand that you might be passionate about this topic but trying to convince and replying to everyone is considered WP:BLUDGEONING which can rapidly land you in hot waters. Yvan Part (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the lead on the WP:BLUDGEOMING. Never seen that one before, but I will take a break from here to read up on it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think it matters here whether we are asking if the studies are reliable enough for us to repeat their findings in Wikipedia's voice as objective truth, or whether we are asking whether they are reliable enough to merely neutrally mention the existence of the studies and what they concluded, with critical viewpoints also mentioned and given similar weight.

Different commenters seem to be assuming different about which of those levels of reliability we're arguing about. I was taking as an obvious starting point that peer-reviewed research that isn't unambiguously retracted or debunked is at least reliable enough to cite and mention the conclusions of, though not necessarily as objective truth. To my surprise, though, other commenters seem to be arguing that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Such a position seems to me like it requires an extraordinarily robust case against all the published work in that area. I don't yet see such a case given here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You've read WP:MEDRS? Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you may have been mentioning me on the last point, but if not then apologies and ignore. I think it can simply come down to whether Medical Journals or Veterinary Journals are WP:BESTSOURCES for claims about breed related information. I don't believe that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Medical Journals have great information in them about effects/injuries of dog bite, etc. However, they are not reliable in making determinations about what breed of dog bit, or what rate a breed bites. As another editor mentioned here[22] the errors by medical professionals making claims outside their domain is not exclusive to dogs. If there was not any data out there showing visual identification was unreliable, then I don't see a problem citing medical journals, absent better information. However, there is data showing their methods used to make those claims to be unreliable, and their claims run counter to every veterinary academic organization I have found. As such, BESTSOURCES states When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. I don't see the argument for basing breed related information from a Medical Journal, when Veterinary Journals provide information in contradiction. I have read WP:MEDRS and its talking about biomedical information. A claim about which dogs bite, is not biomedical information, its veterinary and maybe even sociology. No one is questioning the reliability of medical data inside a medical journal, or if they have, I haven't seen it.

Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org, which were already deemed to be unreliable.[23] Currently the article cites Time, which cites Animals24-7.org that independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising only 6% of pet dogs. The claims are contrary to the academic view point and represent a minority view and citing it ignores WP:USEBYOTHERS own text, along with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Only seems logical if a source is not reliable to cite their own information, that using another source to cite that unreliable information is ill-advised, unless said source was an authority in the topic presenting information in support of that previously unreliable claim. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's quite simple. PMID:33136964 says that

1. German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature
2. But dog breed identification is often unreliable, which complicates this reporting

These are both items of factual knowledge which can be asserted. How is this hard? Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So, we are going to ignore WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE then? Because using these "reliable sources" is being used to give weight to fridge theories that run against academic consensus...

WP:FRINGE states it needs a reliable source, but a reliable source is vague, so wikipedia has a whole article about WP:RS where it mentions WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Whixh states 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. Spoiler, the medical journal study is not an appropriate source for dog breed content. Furthermore, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Medical journals are otherwise reliable sources providing information in passing that is outside their publication domain.

There seems to be this bias that Medical Journals are universally reliable for information that is outside their scope and it needs to be addressed. Medical researchers are critiqing medical information in studies, they are not dog experts to be capable of reviewing these claims. I think accepting that not every claim made in a medical journal that is outside their topic domain is needed here, especially when it supports a WP:FRINGE inside that academic area. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you even on about? A medical review article is the best possible source to say what is reported in the medical literature. The secondary observation (that identifying the 'breeds' is likely flawed so the result are problematic) is something that nobody disagrees with (indeed it's what you have been arguing). The invocation of WP:FRINGE is bizarre. WTF is going on here? Bon courage (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The point is, on a dog breed page, there shouldn't be a good arguement for using medical journals to cite information outside their domain, when that information cited is in direct conflict of academia and veterinary research. Just like I wouldn't cite a veterinary journal on a medical page when medical sources conflict with whats being cited. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above this argument, Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org, is wrong on several counts. USEBYOTHERS is a way that editors of Wikipedia can judge if a source is reliable, it has nothing to do with your argument or how secondary sources decide to use sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats whats being done... WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 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. I'm not sure how else to explain it, but it's pretty clear to me that Time's citation in the article is being judged here. The argument is that it's not the proper source for such a claim as it's publications are outside the topic domain and higher quality sources cite conflicting data. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying a medical review article is not reliable for saying what is reported in the medical literature? What? Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that a medical journal shouldn't be the citation source for information relating to a dog breed when the information is direct conflict with Veterinary Journals and wide spread veterinary academic concensus. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit too easy... You could use that trick to screen out whole groups of experts from most topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hooray, so it is at least conceded we an appropriate source saying "German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature". This is undoubredly true and impeccably sourced. Bon courage (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would consider epidemiology, even injury epidemiology, to be "outside the domain" of medicine. If there is an issue with WP:PROPORTION that would seem to be an issue for the other noticeboard, but it seems unlikely anyone would agree to exclude or classify unreliable medical literature entirely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "inheriting unreliability." A random person on the street or a random youtube video are unreliable sources, but if a reliable media outlet uses such sources the resulting article is generally reliable.

Likewise, a scholarly journal can use data from sources we consider "generally unreliable." Unlike Wikipedia editors they are experts and may be able to distinguish unreliable and reliable information. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

This source has been discussed several times before: in May 2011, September 2020, and April 2021. Each time there has been opposition to its use but no consensus recorded anywhere about it being unreliable. The source is currently used on thousands of articles related to composers, films, television, and more, and one such instance is New World Order (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) which is currently undergoing a GA review where the issue has been raised again. My hope in starting this conversation is that a definitive consensus can be reached and recorded at WP:RS/PS that future discussions can point to.

I think the source should be listed as reliable. I agree with other editors that this is a WP:SPS, and therefore it must be deemed a subject-matter expert if it is to be considered reliable. For years the site has been publishing accurate reports about film and television music including announcements about composer hirings and soundtrack details. Its reports have been referenced in other reliable sources, mainly entertainment journalist sites such as Collider and NME. And it is followed on social media by actual composers and industry insiders. I think there is enough evidence to consider it trusted within the film scoring community, and I think the fact that it is used so widely on Wikipedia already points to the trust that many editors have in it (note that I am not arguing we should consider it reliable because some articles already do).

I have notified relevant WikiProjects about this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the website does post accurate information and is widely used on film pages (I routinely remove the site as a source in the infobox once the poster/billing block is released. The website has it correct every time). However, do we know who owns/writes for the website? Their About me page doesn't provide clarity. Therefore, I'm not sure how it can be listed as reliable on WP:RSP without the author/owner details. Mike Allen 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just an aside but the consensus was record in the RSN archives you found, the archives exist to show what conclusions past discussions came two. It hasn't been summarised any where else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As to the sites reliability WP:SPS needs prior publishing by a independent reliable source, who runs the site isn't disclosed so it's not possible not check if they have been previously published. The other way they could be reliable is by WP:USEBYOTHERS and I'm not seeing a stromg case for that.

How often a source is used on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with how reliable it is, Wikipedia is often used as a reference even though doing so is against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I clearly stated that "I am not arguing we should consider it reliable because some articles already do", I am just pointing out that the source is widely regarded to be reliable by editors across thousands of pages. That is noteworthy context for this discussion. If nothing else, it means there will be a lot of clean-up to do if consensus here is that it should not be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying editors think Wikipedia is a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Sources should be judged by policies and guidelines, USEONWIKIPEDIA is not one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that the May 2011 discussion you linked to was from me. Lol. Well my stance hasn't changed much, we still don't know who writes for the website and it's been 13 years later. Hopefully we can learn more this time around. Mike Allen 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So I'm an outsider coming to this website. If the site is used across the board as we say, what is primarily citing? Composers for upcoming films? If its grabbing content that can easily be established by far more trustworthy sources in the future, I'd vouch for failing it as reliable. As MikeAllen has suggested earlier, it looks like the site has not been forthcoming in any way whatsoever within a decade of where their sources come from. If its as simple as that, I wouldn't deem it a reliable source as it appears most of its content can be clarified by other sources who are deemed more reliable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Composers for upcoming films yes, but mostly soundtrack details such as when a soundtrack album is being released and what the tracklist is. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

While I do approve of such details. A track listing is something that can easily sourced to the subject itself later on as it is relatively uncontroversial information and will all be released in time. While release dates can be tricky and trivial to properly scope out, I feel if this is the only key information there is not that much lost that could not be re-traced back to other sources, especially as there is no information on the site on how the information is tracked. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

RIA Novosti

Hi there. I made a post on the BLP Noticeboard about a number of sources I came across on the Karim Massimov which I have some concerns about in terms of reliability. I have already removed one offending source (exclusive) according to the advice I got on my post.

I was wondering if someone here could please advise on whether articles by RIA Novosti such as this article meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria? The outlet is Russian government owned and has links to Sputnik. When I went to remove the Exclusive article above I also found this further RIA article which was mislabelled as Exclusive. Would appreciate a hand from anyone who has a good understanding of Russian media, or just in general as I'm new to all of this. Thanks! Jezzaqueen (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is a fuzzy thing which some sources achieve, others do not, and still others sit in a grey zone where some content can be reliable and other less so. My recommendation is to absorb the content of WP:RS and make an individual judgement based on the large number of factors related there. Further, you could take a look at WP:RSP and compare 'similar' sources to that of RIA Novosti and see how they compare. Mistakes will be made; reversions will happen and some will be fair and others not so. It's part of the overall editing process / experience here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Great to know Ceyockey and thanks for guiding me towards the WP:RSP. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see RIA is used to report on the accusations made the by Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan against Massimov (Karim_Massimov#Removal_from_office_and_initiation_of_criminal_proceedings_for_high_treason) and the claims are attributed. I think it's quite unlikely that RIA falsified the prosecutor's words. Are you asking because you found contradictory information elsewhere? In any case it wouldn't hurt to double-check it, ideally in Kazakhstani sources. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceyockey above guided me to the WP:RSP and I do find it interesting that it is considered reliable for official government statements, which makes sense even on a Biography of a Living Person. As a non Russian speaker it is a nightmare trying to figure out what claims I can take at face value, so this resource is very helpful. There's even a source in this section with comedy bags full of money, so I've decided I'm going to take the information on this Wikipedia article and topic area with a massive pinch of salt. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Btw what made you think that exclusive.kz is unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The exclusive.kz article in question was based on information from LiveJournal and Google Earth, there was a discussion on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard which I have linked above. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• RIA News was discussed already, see Perennial sources. Your example was related to WP:BLP. Yes, one should use better sources about it, and there are such. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

History News Network

The article Hirohito currently states in Wikivoice Deeply engaged in military operations, Hirohito commissioned a war room beneath the Tokyo Imperial Palace to closely monitor Japan's military activities. The extensive resources required for regular updates to the Emperor often drew complaints from military officials. To celebrate significant military victories, he rode his white horse in parades in front of the Imperial Palace which is cited entirely to Five Myths About Emperor Hirohito on History News Network. Is this a reliable source for these statements to be in WikiVoice, or should they be attributed to the author Francis Pike, who is a historian? I'm seeking an opinion here because the History News Network piece seems pretty informal and was written shortly after the author's new book was released and doesn't really cite any sources for the information it is presenting. I wanted to ask before I attempted to attribute the statements to Francis Pike. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

On first reading I thought this was related to the History Channel, which is certainly not reliable, but the History News Network is completely unrelated. In general it's reliable, it's written by a recognise academic in the relevant field and I don't see any concerns with the publisher.

For the specific context it seems reliable for everything bar Deeply engaged in military operations, it says he was interested in military affairs. Engaged seems to strong given the source.

In relation to attribution I'm unsure. There are three statements, the war room, resource expenditure, and riding his white horse on parade. Attribution is good, but can cast unfair doubt if misused.

Certainly the last statement doesn't appear to need attribution, as finding details of Hirohito attending such celebrations on his white horse are relatively simple. The war room one is slightly shakier, lots of ther sources discuss the air raid shelter he had built to receive updates from his generals. Churchill had a similar air raid shelter built, and that is called a war room. The expenditure statement is much harder to gage, I would suggest that attribution is probably appropriate.

As an aside it's nice if secondary sources cite their sources, but they don't have to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh? They don't? There has been large amounts of debate relating to a different subject entirely where editors argued at length that lacking citations hurt the reliability of a text. My apologies, they taught me wrong, as a joke. Joking aside, good to know! I have no experience with the History News Network, and I feel wary by default of things that are formatted as "FIVE FACTS YOU DIDN'T KNOW" (not the exact wording, but still). Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

To be completely honest, if you've got someone that's recently published a book writing an article on the same subject as the book in some newsletter, chances are the claims are also in the book because they (most likely) wrote the article to promote their book. Google Books snippet view would indicate some of the claims might be found around p. 207, for example so if anyone at WP:RX is able to provide, say, pp. 205–210 and maybe the introduction as well, or whatever seems most appropriate. Bloomsbury is fairly reputable generally speaking whereas the primary qualifier for History News Network would probably be EXPERTSPS, they do have editors but present themselves as a "newsletter" so I'm not sure how much additional fact checking they'd bother with. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

True, the claims they're making are very probably in the book. If I get my hands on a copy of it I'll go looking and probably replace the sources with the book. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheung et al in Archives of Disease in Childhood

At Cass Review we are having a dispute about this source:

Cheung CR, Abbruzzese E, Lockhart E, et al Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 14 October 2024. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994

Some editors have argued that because one of the co-authors, Evgenia Abbruzzese, is also the co-founder of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the source should be regarded as FRINGE. Is this correct? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Short answer on the specific question of whether one odd ball amongst the authors immediately disqualifies a source, no it doesn't. That's not to say there couldn't be other issue with the paper, which would require comments from edits with better WP:MEDRS knowledge, but just because one odd ball was amongst the authors doesn't immediately mean their odd ball believes are in the paper. The other authors, and the editors, may well have smooth them out or ensured they stayed within more normal academic ranges.

There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold. So disqualifying a whole work by multiple author because of one of the authors is dubious doesn't work.

Again I'm not saying that the paper is reliable, but that that argument against it is flawed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

An author being blatantly out there on the fringe is a red flag that we can't ignore. What exactly we do with that information is up for debate, but "neglect it" is not a feasible option. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter I'm not sure how this answers the question.

• Do you believe Abbruzese's participation alone disqualifies this source?
• If "yes" can you address ActivelyDisinterested's remarks above, specifically There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold and why you think that doesn't hold here.

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone know if Abbruzzese has published other works besides this one outside of SEGM circles? Whether other researchers have commented on said body of work, that would be a good indicator of publish well regarded work, but I'm having trouble filtering out the other E. Abbruzzeses like Elvira etc from Evgenia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Abbruzzese a reliable source, but they are one of seven authors for this article. I would suggest looking to the quality of the article, rather than fixating on one author. As XOR'easter points out it should be part of any discussion, but it's not the whole discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, it just would have been nice to have a body of work to look at whether it is indeed well regarded, but I'm to lazy to actually look any of them up, especially for the authors that actually do have publications. Though, there are only 5 authors, you might be counting the number of affiliations? That got me a bit too. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Addressing the other authors: none have ever published any research on transgender care or have any experience with it

2) Addressing a glaring issue with the source: right off the bat they misrepresent trans healthcare in the US while situating the Yale Review in the same way SEGM does (ie, framing their position as more accepted than it is)

• Ultimately, these cases hinge on judges deciding between two conflicting perspectives. One side, argued by transgender advocacy groups and supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)22 and the Endocrine Society,23 asserts that medical transition for minors is backed by sufficient evidence, making restrictions unnecessary and discriminatory. On the other side, some states claim the practice is experimental, harmful to youth and that the constitution allows them to protect citizens from unsafe medical treatments.
• They say "transgender advocacy groups", WPATH, and the Endocrine Society support it and states don't - they don't mention every single medical association in the US has opposed these bans - for example the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urological Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Physicians, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.[24] Not to mention the American Psychological Association[25], American Psychiatric Association and more.[26]
• It doesn't mention all the states doing so have done so at the behest of Christian Right anti-LGBT groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, American College of Pediatricians, and, shocking nobody, SEGM.

3) Relatedly, they extend this critique to arguing the authors of the Yale review are politically motivated as they testify against bans on gender-affirming care - ignoring that this is supported by all major medical orgs in the US.

4) The Yale Review called out multiple false statements the Cass Review made (ie: "most trans kids grow out of it") - this supposed review of their critique fails to address a single one.

5) SEGM is treating this review as a total refutation of the Yale Report, claiming the Cass Review is holy and untouchable while hoping U.S. medical organizations and prestigious universities will resist the powerful special interests who have leveraged these institutions' highly-regarded names and hard-earned reputations to shield the practice of youth gender transition (emphasis added)[27] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only asking specifically as to whether Abbruzese's participation as an author is enough to disqualify the source as FRINGE, according to current WP policy. I am not currently asking about any other proposed reasons to exclude the source. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If the question is specifically about FRINGE, FRINGEN would seem to be a noticeboard more suited to the question at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Outside of assessing a news source in general, where we look at the pattern of reliability of that news source.

When we look for reliability of specific articles as references, we don't generally evaluate articles only in isolation (or as you asked, only on the premise of if an authors involvement means we don't also may have other reasons to judge an article for neutrality and reliability), but also in the WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for which it is being planned for inclusion to better assess, which is why @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist posted additional relevant information for this particular article. Raladic (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an(other) aside, even if a source were FRINGE it wouldn't necessarily be outright excluded, as long as it is put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field. Whether a source is suitable always depends on how it is used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no

Posting here for visibility. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true, but they deserve our attention because if they are, these six reporters have a flagrant conflict of interest with respect to the current war. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Allegations according to the IDF, a known unreliable source that seems to have a bad habit of killing journalists, especially Al Jazeera journalists, that write things the IDF doesn't like, denied by Al Jazeera, a known reliable source? Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is easy for those who passionately oppose current Israeli policy in the region to dismiss the IDF's claims as lies, just as it is equally easy for those who passionately oppose the activities of Hamas and other Palestinian liberation groups to label their supporters as terrorists. There is no profit to be had in speculating about the claims yet; the prudent path is to wait and see if anything concrete emerges, and I would like help watching, which is why I posted here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant if one sits on one side or another vis a vis Israel. What is relevant is that the claims come from a party who has a vested interest in pushing a position and that the claims are unverified. TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ps, we recently had an RFC on the publication that the journalists worked for and there was consensus towards the reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No they do not until a third party RS goes "I say, good point that man". Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your reason that they "they deserve our attention" doesn't appear to be based in policy and/or guideline. That would appear to be your own personal opinion presented as something which is representative of the community, don't do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Claims

• IDF
  • Found documents in Gaza
  • Documents prove 6 reporters had connection to militant groups
  • Documents prove integration of Hamas terrorist and Al Jazeera
• Al Jazeera
  • The documents were fabricated
  • Warns IDF fabricated as a justification for targeting its journalists
  • Says blatant attempt to silence journalists
  • Says silencing journalist is to hide realities of war
• Reuters
  • not able to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents

Can't decide between these claims based on any Wikipedia RfC's. Reuters is the most important here. fiveby(zero) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the Time link I gave above:

"Earlier this year, RSF examined Israel’s targeted killing of two other Al Jazeera correspondents–Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi, killed by a drone strike on their car shortly after reporting live from a location near the family home of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh, who had been assassinated in Iran earlier that day. Israel asserted that al-Ghoul was a “Hamas military wing operative and Nukhba terrorist,” referring to the group’s elite Nukhba Brigade. The RSF investigation noted “numerous inconsistencies” in Israel’s evidence, including the assertion that al-Ghoul received a military rank in 2007, when he would have been 10 years old."

CPJ is reported on Sky News saying that they have seen the documents and they "don't appear to be credible" (https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1849549035725607378) Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to show that we can neither:

1. relitigate the RfC with new evidence nor
2. assert any claims in content (RfC irrelevant in this situation)

without multiple RS's telling us the validity of the documents. Unless there is another possible result, what's wrong with: notified and noted. done? fiveby(zero) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

unless there is clear proof we should assume journalists are journalists.

idf claims in the past include refusal to acknowledge killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and even the Committee to Protect Journalists has indicated Israel has made similar claims in the past to justify killing journalists [28] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We know from reliable sources that at least one Gazan reporter was a terrorist (or at least someone holding hostages). Abdullah Aljamal was a reporter for the Palestine Chronicle and wrote one article opinion piece for Al Jazeera.

We should treat these claims with plenty of grains of salt. We should wait for independent reliable sources to report on that. Until they do, the claims by IDF and the counter-claims of Al-Jazeera, a primary source in this case and a biased one, should be treated as claims and attributed accordingly. Alaexis_¿question? 19:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats an opinion piece, not a news article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, are you referring to the CNN article I linked? It's nowhere marked as an opinion piece. Alaexis_¿question? 12:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Think they mean the reporter only wrote an opinion piece for AJ, not a news article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is what I mean. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I've amended my comment. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has had a number of issues and scandals over the years, including failed fact checks, issues around the Qatari state ownership and lack of independence, issues in reporting that differs between their Arabic and English editions with the former being more problematic, employing individuals or participating in discussions and improperly colluding with actors in the conflict, not to mention issues of bias and neutrality. I think this could support a downgrade to at least "needs caution"/"some considerations apply" and perhaps scoped to specific topics such as controversial international politics and A-I conflict issues. Consider other sources that are GUNREL such as Anadolu Agency, Daily Sabah (Turkey), Al Mayadeen (Lebanon), while AJ has a better reputation than those, it has some similar issues and patterns of coverage. Also consider recent discussion on the Jewish Chronicle, and similar treatment of a number of other sources while AJ so far has gotten a pass. While we have to wait to see what comes of this specific IDF document thing, I do think this is an exigency that will cause a new discussion for AJ and likely a new RFC needed when the dust has settled. Andre🚐 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder, the very recent AJ RFCs were snow closed as reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Before this descends into another free-for-all mess like most of the prior discussions on the source, can I suggest limiting the discussion to anything new?

I'm personally unconvinced by of Al Jazeera's independence when it comes to reporting on matter relating to Qatar, but the prior consensus is obviously against me. The consensus of the recent RFC, it's only been a few months, is also very clear on their general reliability.

For this recent issue I think it's a case of wait and see. If other reliable sources start to question Al Jazeera's reliability over the allegations that would change the matter, but I don't see that that's happened yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IDF has released more documents allegedly showing Hamas instructing Al Jazeera how to cover the Palestinian liberation movement and related events. As of now, I can't find news media outside Israel discussing these allegations. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What I don't see irrespective of whether the IDF allegations are true or not is why they are in the least relevant. Are the journalists being accused of carrying arms or directing operations? Have their reports been shown to contain lies rather than journalism? And on that note how many journalists in Israel have not served in the IDF? NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the allegations about the specific journalists are true, then any articles by those specific journalists are probably not sufficiently independent to be considered reliable in this area. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Come back when you know the allegations are true, this discussion is completely pointless, it would have more merit if it was asserting that the IDF were unreliable, for which there is actual evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well Al Jazeera would sack them for that. The point though is what crime deservng death have they committed? I mean that is basically what the IDF are saying they deserve plus any civilians in their vicinity would be justified collateral. NadVolum (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli government also issues guidance to media organizations on how they're to cover related topics, especially when it comes to military capabilities. This is a bunch of molehills that people are trying to call a mountain range for political expediency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As to that latest 'revelation' by the IDF, it just doesn't smell right to me. Some people in Al Jazeer being sympathetic to Hamas I could believe. Hamas instructing or advising Al Jazeer about communication and publicity? Who knows more about that! It just doesn't make much sense, the most I could see Hamas would do if they had such a link is ask that Al Jazeer keep quiet about something they might know. If they're doing what the IDF say then they're incredibly stupid. Even more in printing it. NadVolum (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Oneroof.co.nz

https://oneroof.co.nz is a website for promoting the real estate market in New Zealand. It has no WP:USEBYOTHERS and has no reputation for factual accuracy. I consider content from this source to be quite undue given the entire point of the site being to promote real-estate content, as stated in their FAQ: 'OneRoof enhances New Zealand’s latest real estate'.

The material this source is used for includes providing the home of a BLP: [29], promotional material on how money an apartment is making and that is for sale: [30], and how and how being in the right location can add to your property value: [31]

Overall I fail to see how this source is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, the site's purpose is to promote real estate and we shouldn't be helping it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It certainly looks a questionable source. I can't see how it passes WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Much of the use of oneroof is to their suburb profile pages, which gives dates of construction of housing, e.g. East Tāmaki Heights, second paragraph. I fail to see that this is promoting real estate. I'm not sure why the sale of a house, which implicitly is no longer the residence of the seller, is a BLP violation. The "Grammar Zone" is a well-known phenomenon in Auckland, but I would be happy to see another source used for it.-Gadfium (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's owned by NZME so it's possibly reliable in the very limited circumstances in which it would be WP:DUE, e.g. bland factual information about suburbs. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it. Their suburb profiles contain patently false information: [32], well no that isn't true it dates back to 1860. Perhaps they just mean still extant housing? Well that isn't true Clark House exists. And they even wrote an article about it's real estate listing [33].

How about their article on the CBD? [34] 'the earliest residential housing recorded in the area constructed between 1800 - 1809'. That is 40 years before Auckland was founded and 40 years before William Brown (the first European to settle the area) came.

I could point out more obvious factual errors but I think it is pointless as I've clearly demonstrated the lack of any fact checking for this. Given the repetitive descriptions given it is likely this is automatically generated content created based on real estate data or something rather than any actual research carried out by a real person. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

K-Love

There's a disagreement at an AfD about the reliability of an article from the Christian radio network K-Love. (AfD, source) The individual K-Love article itself appears to be a highly promotional single-source interview and thus non-independent and unreliable, but I am curious for this board's view of K-Love as a source overall. I see no evidence that K-Love is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. However, another editor in the discussion says "Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source." Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much WP:UBO or explicit commentary in other RS, but my impression is that if it has a reputation for anything at all, it would be one of being a cost-minimising radio equivalent of a content farm driving local stations out of business for their own purposes, rather than anything like fact checking or accuracy. Whether such an operation actually cares to pay for a meaningfully rigorous editorial process... well, I'd find it dubious, but what I think doesn't actually matter because it's up to the editors actually wanting to use it to put up an argument that can be plausibly linked to being RS which "it being pasted everywhere" isn't: Both AP and PR Newswire are (inter)nationally syndicated but one of them clearly has nothing to do with an RS. (It also doesn't matter because it doesn't seem to be used anywhere) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick side note, interviews are always reliable for the words of the person being interviewed (see WP:ABOUTSELF). So the interview is reliable in that limited way, even if it isn't independent for notability purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That carries the assumption that interviews are always properly transcribed or not misleadingly edited. In a world where some media outlets have run "interviews" with people whom they have not actually had contact with, there is some level at which we have to be concerned about the outlet delivering the interview. (Note I am not saying that K-Love reaches this level of concern; I have no insight on or judgment of this particular source.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, I didn't mention it as its an extreme situation. Any outlet not faithfully publishing details it that way should be deprecated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC Jerusalem Post

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Jerusalem Post)

• Option 4: the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Wikipedia articles, to cite a few examples on these biases:

• JP has been repeatedly propagating a false claim in its articles in recent months, calling the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by an independent minister. [35] [36] [37].
• On 12 October 2023, JP published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies that had been burnt and decapitated during the Kfar Aza massacre that is still online with no retraction despite being debunked.
• JP propagated another false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, also puts into question its fact-checking processes. [38]
• In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [39] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Have we just not come out of a discussion about this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Like nearly every other source......Options 1, 3 & 4 represent faulty over-generalizations. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option #1Under the current Wikipedia context Option #1 is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that every source is option #2. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. Andre🚐 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post,[40] but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.

  Specifically, you said that for the Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not. What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance.

  However, I have used JP in my editing and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are Option 2 and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @North8000's comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. Unbandito (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - it's a cut below Times of Israel and Haaretz, several cuts above Arutz Sheva and i24 for example, and if it is the only source for some claim then asking for more or better sources is totally reasonable imo. But still a mostly reliable source and citeable as such. nableezy - 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• I glanced over a couple of JP articles while doing research for #IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no and was not impressed by its quality; it seemed to be parroting the government position without qualification or critical thinking. But I dislike how results from discussions like this are often used to purge sources from articles in a manner similarly lacking critical thinking, so I'll refrain from voting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option 1. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation.

Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area.

Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by Hezbollah social services.[41]

In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the Future Movement, a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But Al Mayadeen was deprecated, Anadolu Agency GUNREL, CounterPunch GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, The Electronic Intifada GUNREL, The Grayzone deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), Press TV deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. nableezy - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. [42] The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Wikipedia. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.

Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Wikipedia editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.

The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section.

None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because WP:MREL doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A WP:GREL outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said.

What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions.

I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to have unconscious bias and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to counter systemic bias if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence.

What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at WP:RSN is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation.

Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias.

In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the consistently false or misleading standard applied there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, even critical of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz[43], a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about faulty sourcing for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The only source in the story was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that some guy with 1100 twitter followers was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. nableezy - 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable?

  For context, the WP:GREL Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide".[44] Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?

  Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic.

  From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its WP:MREL status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is WP:GREL because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section.

  My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its WP:POV to negatively affect its reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.

  Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion).

  When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP, same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. HaOfa (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in prior RSN. I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Andrevan and Chess. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Johann Hari. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, though I could maybe be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general. - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and never corrected. The case of "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with this tweet and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by Haaretz, LeMonde and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story.
  
  The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the Pallywood myth. The BBC and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece Danielle Greyman-Kennard continues to work for them to this day as their "Breaking News Writer and Editor". The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards.
  
  This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing.
  
  These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about Sinwar's wife having a 32,000 dollar Birkin bag - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet.
  
  So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post & LA Times

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are these two newspapers still usable sources after the recent interference by the billionaire owners showed that a fact-based reporting can possibly be surpressed by them when it may bring trouble to the billionaires and their businesses by one of the 2024 candidates for US-President? This question is brought to you by the series 'Questions at the Dawn of Fascism'. --Jensbest (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If information comes out about interference with their factual reporting, we should re-evaluate their reliability. I haven't seen anything to suggest that, yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, as bias is not a reason to reject them, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are clearly high-quality sources still. Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's see how many kowtowing of the owners before the aspiring Führer it takes before the quality of the paper will become questionable. -- When did Noah build the ark? BEFORE the flood -- Jensbest (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the opinion desk for actual journalism, and ignoring that this is very much business as usual for the opinion desk. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the editorial board with "actual journalism", but this interference shows that the WaPo under Bezos can't be trusted anymore. --Jensbest (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So have they in fact published any false stories as a result of this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The interfering of Bezos is a signal that the behaviour twowards Trump is changed. Between 2025 and 2029, the Bezos is expected to compete for $5.6 billion in space launch contracts for the Pentagon. Trump referrred to WaPo in the past as "Amazon Washington Post and hurled invective against Amazon whenever the Washington Post publishes articles that he believes slight him or his Administration. Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's chief spokesman, embraced the suggestion that the meeting of Trump with Blue Origin CEO David Limp and the announcement of the non-endorsement were linked. Robert Kagan said:“Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people. Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.” - So it is a clear and proven danger that more interference is about to happen. Which for the moment makes WaPo a non reliable source. --Jensbest (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Every source has some owner who could possibly skew the fact-basedness of their output. We'd kind of have to see that they had done so to judge. (Similarly, every outlet has someone who could decide whether or not they run an endorsement, whether that title is "owner", "publisher", or "editor in chief".) Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups

I would like to get people's input on how we should handle materials from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) - a 40 year old media monitoring organization that tracks anti-LGBT rhetoric in media. In addition to long-form reports[45], they maintain the "GLAAD Accountability Project" (GAP) which "monitors and documents individual public figures and groups using their platforms to spread misinformation and false rhetoric against LGBTQ people, youth, and allies. Some groups have misleading names inferring unwarranted expertise or credibility, when their main focus is advocating against LGBTQ people, and some claiming to be grassroots efforts have ties to national organizations with long histories opposing LGBTQ Americans."[46]

I recently added a detail to the article on anti-trans group SEGM, noting that GLAAD stated "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people".[47] This was reverted with the comment that "This is a self-published, non-independent source specifically about a named individual, completely unsuitable for BLP claims, and selectively extracting the SEGM claims is sidestepping this source's unsuitability."[48] For reference, the "named individual" is a founder of SEGM who GLAAD wrote about.[49]

We use GLAAD ~1,500 times across Wikipedia[50] so I assumed they were GREL and considered akin to the SPLC, and especially usable given the WP:FRINGE/WP:PARITY considerations. I'd like to open this to more commenters as we use GLAAD so heavily site-wide it should be discussed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider GLAAD to be GREL as their reporting does contain factual statements, typically with links to back these up. Even the article that was used for the citation has links to all the relevant facts, which supports WP:V. GLAAD is universally well respected and regularly cited by WP:RS media organizations around the globe, supporting that those organization similarly consider GLAAD to be a reliable source for factual reporting. Raladic (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the "self-published" concept; it isn't an individual publishing their own work, but an organization with a hierarchy publishing the organizations work -- much as The New York Times Company publishes the New York Times. As for the idea that it's "non-independent"... of whom? GLAAD is certainly not dependent on Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the topic if the article. It's a biased source, as the group is in favor of things that SEGM is agin', but all sources are biased. And as Raladic says, this source is frequently cited by mainstream sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

From memory (I participated on that talk page a bit) SPLC and certain dr's were argued to be non-independent because court cases in the US about laws banning gender affirming care often cited SEGM and SPLC and dr's argued against it (I think both were bought in as witnesses). I imagine GLAAD did similar. The argument being they are legally related. I'm not overly familiar with independent being used in this nature but that's the argument being made. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

For non-independence I may have confused GLAAD and GLAD. Mea culpa, but I'm sure you can see how that happens! (Both GLAD and SPLC are plaintiffs in cases where SEGM have appeared as expert witnesses for the other side, so, reliable or not, there's a legal relationship here that is worth bearing in mind) per WP:IIS Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Maybe I'm reading that too broadly, but AFAICT these are organisations briefing against each other in court. Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say GLAAD is GREL, and it's certainly independent of SEGM. But there's a separate question of whether it's a SPS and therefore a BLPSPS violation. WP:USESPS says that "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same," and includes situations where "the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work." However, that essay also states that newspapers aren't SPS, even though journalists' job is to produce articles for the paper/publisher. I don't know whether GLAAD is really analogous to NatGertler's NYT example, both because I suspect that there's more independent editorial oversight of NYT articles than there is of GLAAD content, and because there is no author identified on the GLAAD page — the content represents the organization's view. If GLAAD is not a SPS, then there's no BLP violation. But if it is a SPS, then it can't be used for a statement about "SEGM public members." So if the general view here is that GLAAD is GREL, I'd discuss on the Talk page whether it's a SPS and take it to the BLPN if you can't get consensus on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the SPLC is the best analogy here, and by that analogy I'd definitely say that GLAAD is GREL. I would be inclined to say that they're not an SPS but honestly our rules for what's an SPS are pretty ambiguous so I couldn't say that for sure. Loki (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

BLPSPS is about an individual publishing their own work, not a group like GLAAD. Individuals within the group are not publishing blogs with no editorial oversite by the group. GLAAD is generally reliable for attributed statements in the same way SPLC is used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I believe the argument was raised that SPLC was a SPS as well. I don't really see it myself, but it does mean that the comparison isn't as powerful as it could be. We might end up needing to have some sort of RFC or something about it to settle things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't think an RFC would be necessary, this is just a misunderstanding. It comes from people thinking "This article is written by GLAAD and published by GLAAD, so it's self published", but GLAAD isn't the author - an individual at GLAAD is the author. If a newspaper publishers an article with no byline that doesn't mean the author is the newspaper, and that the article is self published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are clearly a significant number of people who want to dispute whether these organisations are SPS, so ideally we'd want something to point to. Some sort of formal close at least, maybe. I can see SPLC / SPS specifically was discussed previously on this noticeboard before as well, in Archive 230 (Aug 2017) with Kyohyi, NorthBySouthBaranof and a bunch of other people, Archive 245 (Jul 2018), with Kyohyi (for again), Slatersteven, NorthBySouthBaranof (against again) and Drmies participating, in Archive 347 (Jul 2021), with Springee, Nat Gertler (who are already here so I'm not going to ping them), Kyohyi again, Masem (arguing for) BobFromBrockley, MjolnirPants, Peter Gulutzan, Alanscottwalker, Aquillion, Dlthewave, etc.

This seems to be brought up for Science Based Medicine as well (which at least has a NOT SPS bit in its RSP entry), and there's a discussion in Archive 301 (Jul 2020) about BLPSPS more generally, so it seems to me at least it would be a good idea to go through some sort of formal process and then insert guidance, either at RSP or RS or V for these things, becuase while it doesn't seem to be frequent, it does seem to have been discussed a lot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors rely want to discuss it I suggest having it at WT:V. It's how should all sources that are of this type be handled and do they constitute self-publishing, that's a policy discussion not one about the reliability of a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if anyone is wondering about the pings for 245, I stopped adding people after I saw there were over a dozen, and I went through archive 245 after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Really was not expecting to get a ping when the only thing I'm doing anymore is reading articles and editing typos (and occasionally saying hi), but here we are.

So I have two things to say:

1. GLAAD is absolutely a reliable source.

2. Let us follow a bit of logic here.

Axiom 1: The right-wing in this country is currently engaged in efforts to perpetuate what amounts to a genocide against the LGBTQ community, specifically the trans community, from which my best friend, daughter, ex-girlfriend and countless other friends hail.

Axiom 2: I am a militant leftist Iraq veteran with a CIB and a Bronze Star, a large arsenal, a bad attitude and some very strong opinions on who the only good Nazis are.

Axiom 3: Wikipedia's editorship contains multiple outspoken right-wingers and is full of individuals who take offense at the slightest hint of incivility.

Conclusion: It would be a good idea not to ping me in any future political discussion, lest I actually share my detailed thoughts on the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Apologies for the ping, I'll try and keep it in mind. Wish you well in your typo fixing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all good. That wasn't intended as recrimination, just a blunt layout of the fact that I've pretty much exhausted my supply of patience with certain political POVs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In the USESPS essay, newspapers are explicitly excluded. But the general guidance there is "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." If what you're saying is correct, then the USESPS essay should be edited to reflect it. Note that there have been extended discussions about this issue on the talk pages of the essay (e.g., here), WP:V, and WP:RSN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly feel like the issue with our SPS guidance is that it's trying to do too much. We're trying to have a general indicator of whether a source is a well-established traditional source or not, but there's not really a clear way to define that, so we sneak that intuition into WP:SPS and WP:USESPS, which makes it much more difficult to tell whether a source is an SPS.

We're conflating "is the author as an individual the same person as the publisher as an individual" and "is the authoring organization the same as the publishing organization", even though essentially all sources are SPS under the second definition, because some bad sources (like ads) are clearly not SPS under the first definition even though that doesn't really contribute anything to their reliability. I think we need to just bite the bullet and accept that "not an SPS" does not mean "well-established" or "respectable". Loki (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Not, I think, "essentially all sources", but potentially "essentially all websites". https://www.coca-cola.com is written and published by the employees of The Coca-Cola Company; it is therefore self-published.

It is a general principle that whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. So if https://www.coca-cola.com is self-published because that organization's employees decide what to put on their website, then https://glaad.org/ is self-published because organization's employees also decide what to put on their website. And if it's not, then the other is probably not, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, then what is the difference between cnn.com vs coca-cola.com?

Many of the editors and writers on cnn.com are paid by CNN, same as most other traditional media.

Coca-cola.com i'd argue is not WP:SPS so much it has the issue of not being WP:INDEPENDENT. It is clearly a company that promotes itself. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that news media organizations are considered traditional publishers, and real-world definitions of self-publishing exclude traditional publishers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

But why? This is the same thing I'm complaining about, where we're trying to smuggle a vague instinct into a precise definition.

IMO, zero of these examples should be SPS, because drawing the line anywhere else is either absurd (if CNN is self-published everything is self-published) or inconsistent (if CNN isn't self-published but GLAAD or the Coke website are, we have a double standard based on our intuitive understanding of the website's credibility, which is terrible for our evaluation of cases like GLAAD).

The Coke website is not reliable because it's not WP:INDEPENDENT, which has nothing to do with whether it's self-published. Loki (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a mess, having a general rule but then saying it doesn't apply to news organisations (because if it did the general rule wouldn't work) is never going to have good results. The problem appears to be trying to solve many different issues by making this idea fit all of them, rather than relying on different rules. SPS isn't the be all and end all, just because a source has editorial oversite (and in my mind shouldn't be classed as a SPS) doesn't mean it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking.

Self published should be described as an author publishing their own work, whether that's a blog or vanity press doesn't matter. Other issue coming from low quality sources that aren't strictly self published don't need to be solved by this definition. There are many qualifiers and idea about reliable sources, as with other policies and guidelines they can't be taken in isolation - just because it's not an SPS doesn't mean it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say I totally agree with ActivelyDisinterested's arguments here. To say GLAAD is an SPS is a misunderstanding of WP:SPS. If we need tighter formulation of our SPS policy to avoid such misunderstandings, this isn't the place to discuss that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's true, WP:USESPS should be changed first because right now, by my reading, it very clearly is a self-published source. And the whole problem with WP:BLPSPS is that a self-published source can say what they like, with zero accountability, oversight or corrections policy, so I would say by whatever measure GLAAD's website is not an SPS, would then apply to essentially all websites for any activist group, and we get into a BLP minefield. Void if removed (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the question you want to ask is whether GLAAD might qualify for the "traditional media" exemption. That is, would we characterize it as being more like a newspaper than like an advocacy website? If so, then it's not really SPS.

The idea that traditional publishers are different is one from sources, not from Wikipedia. See, e.g., https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-publish, "to publish or issue (one's own book or other material) independent of an established publishing house" or The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, "publish (a book etc.) oneself rather than through a publishing house". It's entirely possible that in what's called "New media", we will develop different ideas about what constitutes being "a publishing house". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cato (GLAAD arbitary break)

I wouldn't treat SPLC or GLADD as a GREL source. They are both activist sources. That doesn't mean unreliable but it means we need to assume they have a motive when providing what could be called negative coverage of some other source. To GLADD's credit, I don't think they have some of the troubling issues that have been reported about the SPLC. Still, if GLADD says something negative about an organization with politically opposed views is that because they are providing unbiased, factual reporting or because they are trying to discredit a source that opposes their own activism/positions? As for the SPS argument, I think it's half correct. When we move from news organization to activist organization it's still reasonable to assume anything they publish has some level of internal review, unlike something published by an individual. However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization. SPS is written in a way that suggests its about material self published by an individual but it doesn't clearly state it only applies to individuals. Consider if we would accept a similar claim from a think tank like The CATO Institute vs GLADD. In both cases the organizations are well known and source frequently publish their views on a subject. If a 3rd party says CATO/GLADD said X on a topic then we could consider it due for inclusion. It's less likely to be DUE for inclusion if we are directly sourcing a GLADD/CATO press release. I would also be more comfortable citing CATO/GLADD on a question of public policy (how will this new law impact people in a given group) vs citing either of them to talk about an organization that would be viewed as their political opponent. In this case it appears that GLADD is being directly cited for a negative opinion of an opposing organization without making their political opposition clear in the article. I would say the removal looks fair based on grounds that are at least similar to SPS (though it may also apply) but also because it's effectively an organization's opinion that wasn't published by an independent RS. Springee (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization This would be the same for all organisations who employ the author, which would include all news organisations.

Whether something is due for inclusion is a different argument, as it's part of NPOV. Verification doesn't guarantee inclusion, inclusion requires that something can be verified. It can be verified that GLAAD has reported these details, whether that should be included or not is a matter for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, for normal media sources the source (reporter) and editorial control are both under the same roof. The difference is the objective. Obstenessively a news organization is publishing on topics not related to the organization. When dealing with an activist organization that is no longer true. The same might be true if a car company published a report talking about the need to improve the highway system or a pharma company taking about drug policy. It might be correct but it's also likely self interested. Either way, we shouldn't treat GLADD like news media. Rather it should be treated like publications from a company (Honda, Roche) or from a think tank (CATO). Perhaps a good question for the group is does SPS apply to groups and if not, what does? Springee (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:ABOUTSELF applies to groups, but as this isn't an instance of them talking about themselves or anyone reasonably judged as connected to the organization, so it isn't relevante here. At most, all this means is that we would add "according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" to the statement (and one of the joys of that group's name is that you don't really have to explain who they are.) Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Nitpick: that's not their name anymore. They changed it to simply GLAAD a few years ago. Void if removed (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes they should be treated like other activist group and similar, with attribution of their statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No. SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities), unless it is shown to be a cover, like a person creating his publisher, or paying his publisher.

The analysis goes the regular route to the CONTEXT, reputation of the publishing enetity, reputation of author, purpose, format, COI, Due, ONUS, other BLP concerns, and continues on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

SPS does not generally apply to groups

That isn't at all what WP:USESPS says, so where is this exception coming from? Void if removed (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The footnote for WP:SPS says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos." Your statement that SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities) is inconsistent with "the material contained within company websites." Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD? 16:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The independent reviewers are the employees of GLADD's publishing operation, just as the New York Times has independent "reviewers" (editors) it employs, except when The New York Times is publishing about itself. Both these reviewer's jobs is, among other things, avoid lawsuits that could destroy the organization when it is independently reporting on others, and GLADD would be even more likely to be destroyed by such lawsuit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume that it's a lawyer, not an editor, whose job it is to avoid lawsuits. Seems to me that if an editor had reviewed the GLAAD page in question, that editor would have pointed out that most of the last sentence – "critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people" – was plagiarized from the source that GLAAD linked to (the sole change being the replacement of "trans" with "transgender"). FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism of one sentence that's your claim? That's not a serious claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that that sentence was the sentence added to the article, I think that has a bearing.

The point here is an opinion from a weak source has been plagiarised by GLAAD and then repeated in Wikipedia, attributed to GLAAD, as a stronger source. Void if removed (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

None of that has to do with self publishing, which GLADD is not, as the NYT, or CATO is not. And there is no need to WP:SHOUT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is coca-cola.com self-published? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a weak claim when it comes to the question of whether the page was reviewed by an editor or not. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is, or perhaps, you don"t really understand plagiarism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

[Edited to add: Here's the GLAAD text:] "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people," and here's the Trans Safety Network text: "SEGM's public members ... [are] outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people," with both sentences linking the phrase "public members" to the same archived page. You don't think that's plagiarism? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you would be surprised at the amount of plagiarism in peer reviewed publications that have been through multiple rounds of editing and review. Not to say it's common, but it happens, and sometimes much more substantially than a sentence or two. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are exactly right. GLAAD noted it, and whether it should be included should be discussed on the talk page, if necessary. Historyday01 (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Cato might or might not be reliable for stuff outside of libertarianism (the last discussion was in 2015 and came to no consensus apparently but to be honest, I don't really care much... I don't think people try to use them as a source too often?) but I really don't see why they would be considered self-published. They should fine for attributed opinion, though I probably won't use them for actual economics instead of like, actual economists (i.e. WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

End of Cato stuff

I would say that GLAAD is GREL and I have cited them many times myself, mainly when it comes to their reports on representation in TV or their blogposts about said representation. I have my grumblings that they don't cover enough series, and miss some, but I'd agree that they are GREL. I would say the comment you got in response by Void if removed is clearly mistaken and a clear misuse of Wikipedia rules on self-published sources. Historyday01 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Historyday01 Can you please explain how this is a clear misuse of Wikipedia rules? WP:USESPS says Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including [...] Business, charitable, and personal websites. Are you saying this is not a WP:SPS? Or have I erred in some other way? Void if removed (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its not a self-published source, in any way shape, or form. I don't mind it being credited to GLAAD, and saying something like "according to GLAAD." If you think it IS a self-published source, I'd recommend you read the guidelines again. As said above by another commenter, GLAAD is "absolutely a reliable source." Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend you read the guidelines again

I'm sorry, but I have read the guidelines, over and over, I'm not being wilfully obtuse - can you please explain how it isn't?

WP:USESPS says:

Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference

It also says:

Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including [..] Business, charitable, and personal websites

And non SPSs are:

The contents of magazines and newspapers [...] Books published by established publishers [...] Research published in peer-reviewed journals

So unless WP:USESPS is very wrong, what am I getting wrong here? Again - this is a genuine question. Void if removed (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I will refer to other comments on this issue, including Alanscottwalker who states above "SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities), unless it is shown to be a cover, like a person creating his publisher, or paying his publisher", as I do not want to get in a long and drawn out argument on this topic. It is clear that your viewpoint on this is unmovable. Also, let us be absolutely clear that WP:USESPS is an explanatory essay, NOT a guideline. So stop acting like it is a guideline. Historyday01 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, but WP:V, which is a policy, says that "Further examples of self-published sources include ... the material contained within company websites." Alanscottwalker's statement is inconsistent with that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I strongly disagree that GLAAD is a self-published source. If you said it was, then reports by every single group ever could be considered self-published, which is faulty. Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:V also says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere and we are going in circles. GLAAD itself arguably falls under WP:ORGCRIT as there are undoubtedly "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." On those grounds we can say it is a reliable source, and hence can be cited. When it comes to BLPs, I understand that guidelines are stricter. In those cases, GLAAD should be cited by saying "according to GLAAD" or something along those lines, as others have noted earlier Going back to what the OP stated at the beginning of this discussion, the following was stated before it was removed from the page, incorrectly, by Void if removed:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) stated "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people."

I would say this is an appropriate citation, for this page, as the organization is cited, and this is stated as a viewpoint of said organization. I see no issue with that, and I'm not sure WHY people are acting like this is an issue. It is not. As @User:Snokalok stated in a follow-up edit, "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations, and GLAAD is properly attributed in text" and Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in circles. You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again: Who are the independent reviewers at GLAAD?

I'm not discussing whether GLAAD is a notable organization, nor whether it's GREL. I'm discussing whether it's SPS, which is distinct from both notability and GREL. Not sure what "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations" means here, as the SPS issue is not about what is said about GLAAD (SPS can be used to make statements about organizations as long as the author is an expert in the field), but about what GLAAD said about "SEGM public members," who are living people (and per BLPSPS, SPS cannot be used to make claims about living people, so it matters whether GLAAD is or isn't SPS). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on Snokalok's statement that "BLP doesn’t apply to organizations" but will say that I'm not entirely sure how BLP or SPS applies here (as I noted earlier it seems to be primarily aimed at biographies, which again have stricter standards than other articles, as Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (cited in the original comment) is an organization, and the quote from GLAAD currently used in the article, "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people" is about the organization's members, not a specific individual. As such, considering the source is GREL and is cited appropriately, I see no issue, and it falls within existing guidelines. Otherwise, I'm not going to comment on your other claims because I do not seem them as relevant because the source is cited appropriately. Historyday01 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SEGM is an organization, but their "public members" are specific living people. The WP edit that led to this RSN discussion was the removal of a quote from this GLAAD page. The quote came from the last sentence of that page, and if you click on the phrase "public members" there, it links to this SEGM page. If you scroll down slightly, that page identifies their public members. They weren't named in the WP page, but much of that GLAAD page focuses on one of those public members, and my interpretation is that the BLP restriction on using SPS to make claims about living people applies even if they're not named. I might be wrong about that, and we can ask on the BLPN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In the source, that statement is cited to another, self-published activist website, that is itself already cited for other matters on the page. The GLAAD source is a summary of material from other sources already cited in the article (a Yale report, Buzzfeed, and this activist website). It is little more than aggregating material from other sources, in terms of depth and quality, and repeating it in this way creates an appearance of independent coverage that simply isn't the case.

Glaad says:

SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people.

The original site says:

SEGM's public members include key figures in the Bell v Tavistock case, and outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people.

The GLAAD page simply plagiarises this and removes the "Bell v Tavistock" claim.

This material from the original site would not be due, because it is partisan and self-published. GLAAD repeating it in a different self-published source doesn't add anything. Also, the name is simply GLAAD now. Void if removed (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if you changed it to Trans Safety Network instead, it could still be cited, as long it says something like:

"The Trans Safety Network stated that the organization is "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and that its public members include "outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on trans people" and key individuals in the Bell v Tavistock English court case."

And then this link would be cited. Citing organizations is fine as long as they are attributed them appropriately. Historyday01 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't relevant. We are talking about this specific source, on GLAAD's website. Not GLAAD as a whole, nor how to get in content from other sources they might cite.

This page is IMO a WP:SPS, and the content is merely aggregating/plagiarising content from sources already cited on the page. Regardless of whether anyone thinks GLAAD are reliable in general, this specific source is a poor source for the material added. Void if removed (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

SPS section in V

We really should be sharing how self-published is described in WP: V. From WP: V " Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:". Further in V "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view.". My way of paraphrasing this is if the organization is trying to get you to buy something, or believe something, the work is internally generated, and it is in line with what they want you to buy/believe, then internal review is not independent review, and is therefore self-published. This isn't just limited to individuals publishing their own web pages or blogs, it applies to organizations as well. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that makes it clear that these activist sort of organizations (both ones we like and dislike) should be viewed as self published. Springee (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear at all. For one, while UC Berkeley library guides might be persuasive in forming our guidelines, they are ultimately not Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Additionally, the literal reading self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives distinguishes the two as different classes, even if we might treat them the same way in some cases. We can, for example, adopt the idea that most random websites are GUNREL and the level of review may vary even with reputable organisations, but that is not the same as considering any biased source self-published.

Going back to the attribution question, I'm not really sure how we'd make their political views any more clear. As Nat Gertler puts it, it's spelt out pretty clearly already in the name. Maybe GLAAD, a media monitoring organisation that advocates for LGBT acceptance? Additional things like that really seem too verbose to make a habit of doing though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The material Kyohyi quoted appears to be part of the WP:V policy (see the note 1). That note references several external sources but the quoted text is part of WP:V. That text specifically says that SPS is more than just one person operations. Springee (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have read the note. As I've said, if you do consider the quotes to be incorporated into V, then you have to contend with the fact that "A or B" implies A and B are separate classes. If instead we treat it as "these first two sentences are how we define A on Wikipedia, these following dotpoints are some external opinions which we find persuasive that we used to arrive at it" then, in my opinion, this has the advantage of at least being internally consistent within the space of a paragraph. It's hardly a fatal failure for the other interpretation, but it seems at least a little undesirable.

Again, if we apply lack of independent reviewers as the rule, we can certainly exclude some organisations. What I am not seeing is that it is clear that we should exclude anything we would consider an activist organisation. I'm sure you've read the same discussion in this section that I have, Springee; please allow me a small indulgence, and entertain for a moment the possibility that they too could have in fact read the 372 words (including both notes) of the very section that has been under discussion for almost a day and a half now. Now, assuming that possibility, that our fellow editors are indeed perfectly competent to take part in this discussion: Said discussion does not seem to me like a clear endorsement of your and Kyohyi's interpretation of that same section. In fact, I would say it is rather less favourable than that.

What is clear is that something needs to change, because it is no good to have policies and guidelines if they don't properly polis or guide. Whether that is inserting some explicit comment in WP:RSP*, as had been done for Science Based Medicine and, apparently, Climate Feedback and Quackwatch as well, or whether we want to make some broader change modifying the phrasing of WP:SPS, or maybe adding a section, either specifically on think tanks and advocacy organisations, or more broadly. Or some combination of more than one of the previous options.

* before anyone says anything, I am also aware that GLAAD is not currently listed on RSP. That's not my point. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RSP is supposed to be a listing of sources that get regular discussions, and a summation of those discussions. It's not policy, and at best it could be documentation of consensus. The problem is that when we are dealing with sources that have strong beliefs tied to them people will engage in motivated reasoning as to why their preferred source is good, while an opposite view source is bad. Though we should be trying to stay WP: IMPARTIAL in our source analysis, editors are human, and suffer from this very human flaw. Personally I would prefer it if RSP documented what type of source things are, and it's editorial structure instead of wikipedians opinions on a source, but that's a different discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RSP is supposed to be a listing of sources that get regular discussions

I believe I've pointed to a few times this was discussed for SPLC. To be completely clear: My suggestion, if we are to add something to RSP, would be to add SPS status to SPLC's entry. I am aware of the fact that GLAAD does not have an entry, and will hopefully not need one. May this discussion never come up again. Noting SPS status is done for other RSP entries as well, not many of them but clearly people do add them when it becomes a issue. Additionally, "not SPS" is not the same as good, and "SPS" is not the same as bad. There are clearly instances where Barrett on Quackwatch, for example, would be a better source than a peer reviewed journal article (namely, when that journal article is low quality fringe bs) even though Barrett would be a SPS by consensus, and the journal article not.

type of source things are, and it's editorial structure

... Is "self published" not a type of source related to editorial structure? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that I think RSP entries should focus more on is it a print magazine, online magazine, published blog, academic journal, (how long has the journal been in publication), are the writers experts in their field, does the publication have a panel of editors, or just one person doing the whole thing, is the publication related to some other parent organization, does it have editorial independence from that other organization. Stuff to help determine WP: RSCONTEXT. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes it clear that these activist sort of organizations (both ones we like and dislike) should be viewed as self published - it seems like you're arguing that WP:BIASED sources are automatically self-published. Would this apply to activist press, then? That is to say, magazines and the like which overtly support a particular point of view, like (to choose a random example) Reason (magazine)? Reason very clearly fits the description of being published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view, since it is published by the Reason Foundation, a think-tank committed to advancing "the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies"; its purpose as a publication is to get people to believe that point of view, so by your logic it is self-published. Or if you still feel it isn't, then what precisely is the dividing line that makes GLAAD different? It seems like, in particular, your argument would apply to anything published by a think-tank (perhaps with some highly-specific exceptions for things with incredibly unusually good reputations, or for the rare think-tanks that aren't trying to advance a point of view) which confuses me because my vague recollection is that you've disagreed with that in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view is a quote from UC Berkeley, not a quote from the SPS policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems to be one a few people are saying we should use as a standard for declaring certain biased sources WP:SPSes; I'm pointing out the implications that would have. If anything published by an "activist organization" is considered self-published, as suggested above, then there's a bunch of things we currently consider reliable that would have to be re-evaluated due to eg. being published by think-tanks and the like. And we'd probably also have to consider the wording of WP:BIASED. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not anything published by an "activist organization". It's content produced, and published by an activist organization, while also related to their realm of activism. The all in one house relationship coupled with advocacy creates a conflict of interest on the review process. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but that describes a lot of sources we consider reliable currently; many publishers are mission-driven and produce things, in-house, that align with their mission and which focus on things related to that mission. I'm not averse to changing policy to treat them as self-published (which would functionally make most think-tanks devoted to advocacy, and anything they publish in-house, unusable for anything related to their mission, outside of a few narrow exceptions), but we'd have to do so to a lot of sources beyond just GLAAD. To get back to my original point - would you say that anything Reason (magazine) publishes that touches on "the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies" (which is basically everything they publish, that being their purpose) falls under WP:SPS? It's a magazine produced and published in-house by a think-tank, the Reason Foundation, devoted to activism on those points. Normally, we say that such WP:BIASED sources are still usable, even for BLP purposes, as long as they are otherwise a WP:RS - that is to say, as long as they can credibly claim editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we don't just say "well yeah but since the editorial controls are being done by activists, it's conflicted and therefore worthless." If we're going to reconsider that, we have a lot of other sources to go over. GLAAD lists authors and researchers for the pieces it publishes, which are distinct from GLAAD itself as an organization; if you don't feel that that's sufficient, what is the dividing line? --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the line becomes fuzzy when we're dealing with what would be called advocacy journalism. And the best response I can say is can we determine if they have an independent editorial board which isn't beholden to the mission of the parent company. Do they publish content that is independent of the mission? That is evidence of an independent editorial board. Do they publish content that would be against the mission? That would be strong evidence. We can argue whether or not a source is more advocacy or more journalism, and exactly where that line is. But there are a number of sources which don't even present themselves as journalism and exist only as advocacy. To make a comparison, Reason would be more akin to Pink News, than either of them would be to GLAAD. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

that describes a lot of sources we consider reliable currently

You and others are confusing self-published with unreliable. These are orthogonal concerns. Please read WP:USESPS which says:

self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".

Please try and separate these two things. GLAAD can be reliable generally and this specific material can be self-published at the same time. The only serious caveat with it being self-published is that you shouldn't use it for BLP claims. Given that the GLAADAP is nothing but BLP claims, that probably means it shouldn't be used, but most of the rest of GLAAD's output is absolutely fine.

GLAAD lists authors and researchers for the pieces it publishes, which are distinct from GLAAD itself

Self-published is not necessarily a blanket statement for everything GLAAD produces in all situations. In this specific case, this is content produced in-house and posted on their website with no identifiable author, no external publishing arrangement etc. It is textbook self-published material.

what is the dividing line

If it was written and published by the same entity - regardless of the size of that entity - it is self-published, unless it falls under one of the exceptions eg. for legacy media/news organisations at WP:USESPS. Void if removed (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

SPS and RS are distinct features. A source can be any of the four: SPS & RS, SPS & non-RS, non-SPS & RS, non-SPS & non-RS. Saying that think-tank's website is SPS doesn't mean that you have to reevaluate whether they're RS. The issue here is the BLPSPS restriction, because the WP text in question is about public members of SEGM, and they're living persons who are identifiable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, this mostly is untrue. Reread WP:SPS; it is largely a category that declares things in it to be non-RSes. The only exceptions are for self-published expert sources when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications and for WP:ABOUTSELF. The core definition of a SPS is that they lack what we would consider valid or functional editorial controls, which normally bars them from being a RS. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, what I wrote is true. I didn't claim that all four categories (SPS & RS, SPS & non-RS, non-SPS & RS, non-SPS & non-RS) have the same size. I'm pointing out that none of those four categories is empty, and therefore the features of being self-published and being reliable are distinct. You just pointed out the two things that fall in the first category. If a think tank has already been identified as a reliable source, that's presumably because the authors have expertise in their field, so if it's a SPS, it falls in the subject-matter expert exception. Can you name a think tank that's a reliable source but where the authors are not subject-matter experts? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What this makes clear is that footnote 1 at WP:SPS is badly written in that it conflates two different things. By comparison, the sources it quotes (in the same footnote) do a good job distinguishing those two things: The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view." (my emphasis); The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work." The problem with coca-cola.com is that the only content on there is about the product sold by the publisher, and everyone involved in publishing it has an interest in that product selling well; this is a good reason to not use coca-cola.com as a source, but it has nothing to do with the concept of self-publishing, and is not analogous in any way to material published by GLAAD.

(Personally I do not consider it shocking that Wikipedia policies are not always carefully or thoughtfully written: they're produced by the same process that Wikipedia is, but without recourse to reliable sources, and with much less scrutiny than any high-profile article.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The GLAAD website is a WP:SPS per WP:USESPS. Void if removed (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a terrible misreading and I'm unsure why you are arguing this point. I would not say GLAAD sources are self-published. Also WP:BLPSPS *only* applies to biographies, NOT to other articles, let's be clear. It is my understanding that self-published sources, can generally, be used, as long it is very minimally. Even so, in terms of GLAAD, it clearly is not a self-published source. Also, as noted above, this claim comes from people thinking "This article is written by GLAAD and published by GLAAD, so it's self published", but "GLAAD isn't the author - an individual at GLAAD is the author." Let's be absolutely clear here. GLAAD reports are NOT the same as some random social media post. There is no equivalence. Historyday01 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Update: I revise what I said above: WP:BLPSPS, generally applies to biographies, not to other articles, especially if biographies of living persons are not cited in said articles.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are arguing this point

Because you keep saying its a misreading without explaining how, other than you disagree, seemingly quite strongly. If your argument is that WP:USESPS is wrong, well that seems quite a fundamental essay to be wrong seeing as it is directly linked from one of the most basic policies.

WP:BLPSPS *only* applies to biographies

My understanding is WP:BLP concerns apply to any BLP claim, even talk pages.

NOT the same as some random social media post

That isn't the issue. The issue is: are they self-published? Are they in any way equivalent to the editorial/publishing/oversight process of an academic journal, a newspaper, or a book publisher? By my reading, SPS is not about quality or size of entity, it is about independence/oversight of author from publisher. Void if removed (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, WP:USESPS is not policy and it never has been. Additionally, I defer to others in noting on the reliability of GLAAD. If it IS cited in a biography, then those guidelines applied to biographies apply, which are stricter than on other pages. Additionally, SPS, if we are to use it, only seems to be applied to biographies, from my reading of the essay. Historyday01 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:BLPSPS *only* applies to biographies, NOT to other articles is false. WP:BLP is quite clear that "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. In any case, I revise what I said earlier to say it primarily applies to biographies. And if a page lists people that do NOT have biographies (and there are many on this website), then it likely wouldn't apply. Historyday01 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it very clearly applies to "any living person" regardless of whether they have an article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, you can go on. In any case, BLPs clearly have stricter standards for sources than other pages. Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's statements about living persons that have stricter standards for sources, regardless of where those statements about living persons appear on WP. It's not that the standards for BLP articles are stricter; it's that there are more statements made about living persons in BLP articles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I would say "there are more statements made about living persons in BLP articles" isn't always true because some BLPs are embarrassingly short (i.e. they are stubs). Luckily, there are some users who work to expand those stubs into better, more through articles! Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a self-published source, and nor are similar organisations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

UN resources etc

By that logic, UN resources published on UN.org are self published, as are most advocacy groups, think tanks, and NGOs.

Since none of the work goes through another publisher, they'd be SPS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is true, that is exactly how I read things, ie, you probably shouldn't use self-published material directly from thinktanks and advocacy groups for BLP claims. It should be pretty obvious why. If it is picked up and covered in secondary sources, with editorial oversight and a corrections policy, use those. Void if removed (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a troubling opinion. UN organs have much more reliability than NGOs, as there is often more expertise, especially if its a report, like a court order from the ICJ for instance. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, TBF, I think the UN is a bit different, as it has different kinds of documents and a publication board, so it arguably depends what sort of document you mean. But even so I don't know where this would be relevant, ie where something like a UN press release would be used for a third party BLP claim, for which no secondary source exists. This is all in the weeds though, the point is that whatever convoluted process we might agree the UN has, and whether that isn't an SPS, has no bearing on GLAAD's website. Void if removed (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. In any case looking at the content removed as noted in the beginning of the discussion, I do believe it was attributed appropriately and agree with the editors who restored your removal. Otherwise, I'll let other users speak to this topic as I've already said enough here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Specific reports from GLAAD, UN, and other advocacy groups such as SPLC often have author lists. I pointed out this example to suggest that by WP:USESPS, since the publisher is the organization, and the author is not the whole organization, reports should not generally be considered WP:SPS.

In particular, if the publishers are biased, we can use WP:OPINION voice and relevant guidelines to state what's happening. But we should not assume all publishers are the same, and that if the publisher is an overarching organization, of which the author is part of, it isn't quite SPS. Simply dismissing all NGOs, advocacy groups such as GLAAD, ADL, SPLC, and the UN as WP:SPS akin to some random guys' random blog is ludicrous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. This is the issue I have with the arguments primarily by Void if Removed and FactOrOpinion in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible other counter-examples I'd argue that appear as WP:SPS but actually are not

• NYTimes editorials where the author byline is NYTimes editorial board. Technically at first glance, looks like author and publisher are both nytimes. [51] [52] Should be used as WP:OPINION, but not under WP:SPS.
• Articles in medical journals that have the byline as the medical journal. [53] Many are also editorials, but doesn't mean we can't use them.

It depends on context and who the publisher is ofc. If John Doe creates John Doe Inc., it probably is a SPS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not all self-published sources are created equal, and such sources which are considered experts in their field are perfectly usable in articles of their expertise. The only time self-published sources are categorically not used is on BLP content. Which has the exception of a source talking about itself. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

These are all exceptions in WP:USESPS, I don't see why you bring this up.

And saying that because something is WP:SPS that means it is akin to some random guy's random blog is a straw man. Void if removed (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From WP:SPS: Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations),

I'd argue that GLAAD, UN, and think tanks etc. are traditional publishers in that they publish reports regularly and have been sponsoring researchers for a long while. I bring up the supposed strawman argument to point out the issues with throwing away reputable organizations based on a faulty definition. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You could argue that, I suppose. But wouldn't that make every organization with some sort of web page a traditional publisher? They all regularly publish some sort of report on their ongoings. Or would a traditional publisher be an organization whose purpose is to accepts or rejects written material from independent authors. In which case, GLAAD, UN, and think tanks are not traditional publishers as they don't usually publish independent content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing independent content with biased content.

Bias is totally allowed per WP:SECONDARY as long as we attribute as per WP:OPINION. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that traditional publishers are in the business of publishing independent content, as in content they don't create in house. These orgs are not in that business, which is why they aren't traditional publishers. Independent content is different from biased content. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

News organisations produce most of their content in house though, and the bit they don't (e.g. from wire services) are usually not subject to their own editing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm unclear what you mean by "in-house" in this context; most news organizations publish things in-house, and generally speaking stuff that isn't created in-house wouldn't even be considered part of their output for WP:RS purposes (ie. if they're just reposting stuff like press releases or news feeds from elsewhere with no edits, the reliability comes from the original source, if it exists at all.) But GLAAD does list authors in the acknowledgements section for papers it produces, who are generally not part of GLAAD itself; it is not self-published in the sense of these authors just throwing whatever they want out into the world with no editorial controls at all. Is your assertion that GLAAD's fact-checking and editorial controls do not count at all (as opposed to merely rendering it WP:BIASED) because the group itself is an advocacy org? --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In house means as directed by the mission of the organization. In essence does the writing/editing staff have editorial independence, or are they driven by the mission of the organization. We assume this is the case for journalism, for advocacy journalism it gets fuzzy, and for advocacy there is no reason to believe they have editorial independence. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly an... interesting definition of in house. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I will add as well - the GLAAD source simply repeats information from sources already cited on the page. Irrespective of reliability, independence, or publishing status, citing it in this specific case adds absolutely nothing. Void if removed (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I think it does add something, since GLAAD is a well-known organization and their viewpoint on this is worth noting. Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If their viewpoint is "Buzzfeed said X", and we're already citing Buzzfeed, this isn't adding anything. Void if removed (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Whether GLAAD or the Trans Safety Network should be included (I would vote for the latter in this case since it does provide a bit more detail) [I proposed some possible text above], can be decided through a talk page discussion if necessary. I don't think the GLAAD page is necessarily bad (the sources generally seem fine and the Buzzfeed article seems to fall under WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), but the Trans Safety Network article is better in terms of the sources cited. That's just my view. Historyday01 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a concern for RSN either way. The point of this noticeboard is to decide if GLAAD is a reliable source (and it is, and it's not an SPS), not whether or not to use it on any given page. Loki (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The specific source cited (the GLAAD Accountability Project pages) simply seem to be taking/aggregating content from other sources, about named living subjects, and collating them - and they do appear to be self-published, like any corporate website. I have a lot more faith in GLAAD's longer-form subject matter reports being reliable, than this sort of content aggregation, where reliability seems to depend on the sources actually being used. And since these specific pages are self-published, none of these should be used on any BLP. Void if removed (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

So, your claim is the GLADD page is republishing, then it is even more silly to talk about self-publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. As I said in my above comment, I think the GLAAD page is fine as bringing together / summarizing multiple sources... which isn't a secondary source supposed to do? And as such, it isn't a SPS... Historyday01 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A secondary source can still be self-published.

Seriously, this is all in WP:USESPS: Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Void if removed (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm at a loss why you think a source copying content from other sources can't be self-published, let alone to call that silly? Void if removed (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is silly. A republishes publishes writing from elsewhere, it is independent and it can't possibly be self publisher of that material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A paid employee copying content from other websites and putting it in pages on a company website is not "independent publishing". Your suggestion means every hack plagiarist is a publisher, which really would be silly. Rather, this is exactly the sort of unaccountable practice lacking in independent editorial oversight that is why we do not trust WP:SPS with WP:BLP claims. Void if removed (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That is still silly. Self-published is not another word, for you don't like it When the Seattle Times republishes a wire service, it is silly to say it is a self publisher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Republication from a traditional publisher (e.g., a wire service) wouldn't necessarily invalidate the original publication, but what if it's a copy of a press release? Not a gently edited press release, but just "Hey, if we fill our ordinary daily newspaper's website with commercially distributed press releases, we'll get more traffic, so auto-post them all" re-publication. Would you call that press release non-self-published now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot more faith in GLAAD's longer-form subject matter reports being reliable, than this sort of content aggregation,

See, if the argument originally made was that some specific parts of GLAAD's website might be less reliable or subject to whatever review process they have, that would be a lot easier an argument to make. That's a claim that I personally wouldn't reject out of hand on my end. I'll take a look at any evidence produced to this effect, but I don't believe it would be appropriate to consider any of these organisations (UN, think tanks, advocacy orgs) SPS as a whole, even if some of them might be unreliable in other ways. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Though I do see the points from YFNS below, which I would consider evidence against the idea that the accountability project is self-published. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes everything an entity publishes is SP, sometimes everything it publishes is non-SP, and sometimes its publications are a mixture of SP and non-SP (e.g., it publishes both an edited annual report and a non-edited podcast). Ditto for whether its publications are RS: it might be all, none, or a mixture. In discussions, I sometimes lose track of that third possibility (mea culpa), and I end up talking about the entity as a whole rather than focusing a specific publication. The question here is whether this specific webpage is SPS, not whether GLAAD as a whole is SPS. There is no author identified for this webpage, and ultimately, I'm not sure how to determine whether it was reviewed by an independent (non-COI) reviewer. I assume that their more significant publications undergo that sort of review. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly my point upthread. SPS is not a blanket status that applies to an entity as a whole, and many sources are mixed. Past discussions on WP:V concur with this interpretation.

As stated in the comment you're replying to: if the argument originally made was that some specific parts of GLAAD's website might be less reliable

That was the argument originally made, about a specific source (ie, a page on GLAAD's accountability project website, and not one of their longer reports). Whether that applies to other sorts of material published by GLAAD is a different question. Void if removed (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I took part in that WP:V discussion. I haven't been editing as much since then, so I've forgotten some of the things that I'd understood at the time, or at least I held them more at the front of my mind then than I do now, which is likely why I fell into discussing whether GLAAD is a SPS rather than whether that webpage is a SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. And I would say it clearly IS a reliable source. Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say there's a difference in reliability between GLAAD's longer form reports, and the accountability project pages on their website, which consist largely of material collated (and in some cases plagiarised) from other sources, as a dossier of claims about living people. This is material collected and published by GLAAD employees on their own website. It ticks every box for a WP:SPS, there's no information about or evidence of independence or oversight, I don't see how you can argue otherwise? From WP:USESPS

If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.

[...]

One characteristic of self-published material is lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those who are not hired and fired by the author, and whose employment does not depend upon agreeing with the author).

IMO GLAAD's content generally is reliable - especially their more official reports - though perhaps requiring attribution as a biased source, but the accountability project pages are clearly self-published, and as such they are not suitable for use in BLPs. Given the fact that some of the material seems just lifted from other sources, I'm not even sure these pages should be used with attribution. Void if removed (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

GLAAD is an advocacy org recognized for their efforts. As such they should be treated as generally reliable though any claims made from a GLAAD source should include in text attribution, as we would for SPLC and similar focused advocacy groups. — Masem (t) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Hill article on Accountability Project

For the record for all, The Hill published an article on the GLAAD Accountability Project[54] which says:

• Now, the media watchdog is expanding the project to hold more than 200 politicians, commentators, organization heads, journalists and other public figures accountable.
• The archive was published before GLAAD could finish a final internal review last month and was immediately noticed online.
• After criticism over revisions, which Ellis said were ongoing at the time, they did take the project down, saying, “no entries are being removed from the project, but additional profiles will be added and an official launch will happen soon.”
• Now the project is up — officially — and GLAAD is prepared for more pushback. But, the group is also open to conversation “for real change” with Singal and others on the list, which Ellis said is intended to be a “living breathing document that will evolve.” “We live in a time where what you say is documented, and that’s all this is, is a documentation,” she said
• GLAAD, a nongovernmental media watchdog, plans to maintain the archive, adding and updating profiles as necessary, as a repository for journalists and other members of the media to consult in their research.

Some key highlights: It's considered a reliable nongovernmental media watchdog, their archive consists of documenting factual statements and quotes, and what they publish there is subject to internal review - so it is not self-published as the authors are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking and can't just say whatever they want. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that suggests it is considered a "reliable, nongovernmental media watchdog" nor that their records are anymore factual than any other group that collects quotes they feel indicate anti- or pro- something. That isn't to say they are always wrong or right. Instead, they are clearly an activist organization and per WP:V they would fall into the group identified by WP:V as self published. (Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos: Advocacy groups shouldn't be treated as outright reliable or DUE for inclusion and this is especially true if they are politically opposed to the group in question. Springee (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned this on the talk page as well, but I would consider treatment in line with WP:RSOPINION to be appropriate for advocacy organisations in general, but I find the argument that they are entirely self published to be bizarre, and still do. DUE is something we need to consider for everything, nothing is treated as automatically reliable (even GENREL sources) or DUE, but arguing it should be excluded due to being self published is a stretch. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to repeat my question above and ask whether this ought to be a general rule for anything published by a think-tank devoted to advocacy, because it seems to me to be inconsistent with your past positions. Do you concede that Reason (magazine) is likewise self-published, and should likewise not be used in situations where it is ideologically opposed to whoever it is describing? It is published by a think-tank with a stated aim of advocacy, which means that your reasoning (regarding its reviewers lacking independence due to a conflict of interest) seems to apply there as well. I'm not necessarily opposed to being stricter about prohibiting the use of sources published by think-tanks and other sources of advocacy, but we'd have to be even-handed if we're making that a strict rule, since it changes a lot of how we've thought about WP:BIASED; and that would start by opening a discussion about sources like Reason, which obviously fail to clear the bar you're arguing here. And if not, then what is the precise difference - what would GLAAD have to do differently for you to consider it to be closer to Reason? Identifying that dividing line would be helpful in terms of both turning this into a workable general principle, and indicating more precisely what sorts of things people who believe GLAAD is reliable would have to produce in order to convince you. --Aquillion (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you read WP:USESPS the answer is in there. It says the following are not self-published:

  The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers (including online-only content of widely-circulated magazines and newspapers)

  But it also says:

  Conversely, properly published sources are not always "good" or "reliable" or "usable", either. Being properly published does not guarantee that the source is independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, or subject to editorial control. Properly published sources can be unreliable, biased, and self-serving.

  To me, Reason looks like it isn't a self-published source (the magazine predates the foundation for starters), though it is very clearly not independent, and likely biased and self-serving too (as an ideological mouthpiece for a libertarian thinktank), and as such any argument against inclusion would be different. So while an SPS like the GLAADAP website more straightforwardly shouldn't be used for a BLP claim, an article in Reason might require attribution even on non-BLP topics because of the non-independence aspect, and probably wouldn't be DUE for a contentious BLP claim that wasn't also in other, independent sources. IMHO. Void if removed (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

So, just to be clear - you say that the issue is whether the author and the publisher are the same. Reason's authors obviously work for reason (as do most reporters), so you can't mean that something is self-published if its authors work for the publisher. Therefore, I take it that your position is that if something has a listed author, it is not a WP:SPS under the interpretation you're pushing for. That is to say, if I could point to where GLAAD lists individual authors for papers on its site, you would agree that they are not self-published? Or is your argument that the description of a "magazine" is paramount; papers do not qualify, but if GLAAD were to publish them as a magazine, using the same authors, you would consider them to be independent? More specifically, I guess I'm asking - what do you feel GLAAD would have to do, that it isn't doing currently, to avoid falling under self-published by your definition? --Aquillion (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

what do you feel GLAAD would have to do, that it isn't doing currently

IMO the content they create would need to be overseen and published by an independent third party with its own editorial process which GLAAD have no direct control over.

This is what the role of a publisher is, be it in books or academia. News organisations are a special case - but GLAAD isn't a news org, it is an advocacy group.

Something like Reason seems to be a bit of a hard case, and no doubt sometimes such relationships are a sham with no actual separation, but thankfully that isn't the sort of hard case we have to decide here, since we aren't talking about Reason, or a magazine, or a sham publishing front, or the meaning of SPS in general for all time, or even GLAAD's long-form reports, but in fact a specific section of GLAAD's website, which they have total direct control over and which is written by their employees in service of GLAAD's advocacy aims, and is quite clearly self-published, like the vast majority of such websites. Void if removed (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

the magazine predates the foundation for starters

Are we seriously going to argue that a guy making photocopies on the university photocopier before the rights were acquired by a bunch of people who liked it that a few years later made a foundation, the part before the making of the foundation is the evidence that it isn't self published? The definition of self-published put forth as part of this discussion seems extremely unconventional, and I do not believe it reasonable to use it unless a widely-advertised RFC explicitly incorporates it in to V. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

it is not self-published as the authors are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking and can't just say whatever they want

From WP:USESPS a self-published source can still have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something.

All that matters is if the authors and the publisher are the same it is self-published - and here, the authors and publisher are the same. And to be absolutely clear that alone isn't to knock GLAAD since A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved.. That might well apply, though didn't seem to weed out plagiarism in this instance. But regardless of overall quality of this resource or GLAAD more generally, and usability as a source in all sorts of ways, the one thing you shouldn't do with an SPS is make BLP claims, and that is precisely what the accountability project is - a self-published collection of claims about living people. Void if removed (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If this is true the exception for books, magazines, and news organisations is patently flawed. Unless we are to believe the incredibly naive idea that none of these are published to sway opinion in anyway. USESPS should be replaced with an essay that actual documents community behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Policy is meant to document. The community accepts the use of similar sources in BLPs, and are equally against using self-published sources in BLPs, so these are not seen as self-published and policy should reflect that. As I suggested before this is probably a discussion to be had at WT:V or the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

USESPS should be replaced

Which is the crux of it - we have a core policy, which specifically links to an explanatory essay, and by that essay, the page at issue is clearly a WP:SPS. The response of some editors is to argue that no-one pays attention to this and the explanation should be changed to reflect it.

Either the explanation of a core policy is fundamentally wrong and everyone rightly ignores it, or it is right and editors are getting away with ignoring it.

I agree this goes beyond RSN. Void if removed (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Essays are not policy, they don't have consensus, and they do not need to be interpreted or over-interpreted poorly either. Your assumptions about GLADD publishing simply don't seem well grounded.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a discussion that would be better to have at WP:V or the village pump. I'd keep in mind that it's possible for diverse organizations, including GLAAD, to publish some content that's SPS and other content that's not SPS, in which case some of the organization's publications might be used for BLPs while others can't be. That is, the simple existence of citations from similar organizations on BLP articles doesn't imply that all of their (or GLAAD's) publications are non-SPS. The question here is whether this specific GLAAD Accountability Project page is/isn't SPS. The contents of a GAP page looks like the accumulation of info added over time. Does every new bit of info get independent editorial oversight before it's added? I don't know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time in my life I've heard that a self published source can have an independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. Since FactOrOpinion added independent to that dot point perhaps they would care to clarify their thinking on the subject? Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031, I'm not sure what I said that you're referring to. Could you quote it? WP:V says that "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content," and I'm definitely not saying that a self published source can have an independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes. If those processes are there, it's not a SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I expect that it was added in error then. I know it was 4 years ago, so it would be difficult to reconstruct exactly what the people involved thought of it (given I am neither psychic nor in possession of a time machine), but I believe the most likely scenario would be that it was added in error as part of a series of larger edits (See Special:Diff/967230320) and the 70 watchers of that page did not find the difference significant. Therefore, I'd agree that there's no evidence that specific passage of the essay has the consensus of the community. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea that you were referring to something on a different page that I added 4 years ago. Looking it at it now, I'm guessing (totally a guess, as I don't remember) that I added "independent" because those bullet points were supposed to summarize content from WP:RS, where there's a statement about sources that "may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review" and thus not be reliable. The problem might have been that I removed "except for the second one" from "A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one" (because the wording of the second bullet point changed), but I failed to add "except for the last one" after I modified that last one by adding "independent." Or perhaps I should have questioned that last bullet point on the talk page, since WP:RS says that a self-published expert source might be a RS even if there's no outside editing or peer review. Either way, I definitely made a mistake. In an overly-long comment on the talk page, I'd tried to encourage more experienced editors to check my edits, as I wasn't (and am still not) that experienced an editor. No one noticed all this time. Hmph. Thanks for pointing that out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion now on WT:V about type in general

Hi all, figured I'd also let everyone still here that isn't watching WT:V know that there is now also a section there, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § SPS definition so that anyone who wants to continue to add to the discussion on SPS in general can add their input there instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is https://www.newageislam.com/ an RS for Deobandi movement

Doug Weller talk 10:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)?

Is there some context to the question? It's contributors include some notable Islamic scholars and it has use by others, but is obviously slanted in a particular way. So the context of how it's used would be important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's used to back "In terms of jurisprudence, the Deobandis uphold the doctrine of taqlid (conformity to a school of thought) and adhere to the Hanafi school. Founders of the Deobandi school Nanautavi and Gangohi drew inspiration from the religious and political doctrines of the South Asian Islamic scholar, Salafi-oriented theologian and Sufi Ismail Dehlawi (26 April, 1779 – 6 May, 1831)." Doug Weller talk 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot to go through. But as a starting point the article[55] is actually a repost from Eurasia Review[56] were its clearly marked as an Op Ed. I can't find much on the author, but it's a not uncommon name and the only info to go on is that he's a freelancer.

Having gone through the rest of the article the answer in context is a clear 'No'. It could be a quite marginal source for Shah Ismail Dehlawi but much better ones are surely available, it doesn't mention the Deobandi movement or any of the details the reference is connected to. I think maybe it was added as additional reading on who Shah Ismail Dehlawi was, but that can be found in the article about him. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this WP:Secondary or WP:Tertiary?

Sometimes text books can be considered WP:Tertiary. However, this genocide textbook is authored by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar), a genocide scholar? Would this be considered a secondary source?

For example,

Examples of Secondary Sources:
Textbooks, edited works, books and articles that interpret or review research works, histories, biographies, literary criticism and interpretation, reviews of law and legislation, political analyses and commentaries.

[57] Bogazicili (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a pretty good tertiary and depending on what it was being used to support, secondary as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's being used to support methods for genocide of indigenous peoples in Americas. I believe the author, Adam Jones (Canadian scholar), would be considered a subject matter expert.University profileFull C.V. is in his personal website Bogazicili (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no dispute about the general reliability of the source. The only dispute is about whether a specific claim in the book is a minority one among scholars in the relevant fields, and whether it is wp:due for inclusion in the article... The book is several hundred pages long, so just being mentioned in the book does not make it wp:due. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, when a typical source says that textbooks are tertiary, they're generally talking about textbooks for high schools or early university. A grad school textbook is not usually a tertiary source.

More importantly, whether we'd classify it as secondary or tertiary makes no difference to the question about whether editors can/should use it, so this is kind of an irrelevant question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter? I am legitimately curious about the wikipedia policy distinction for secondary vs tertiary sourcing. i thought we treated both equally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In theory, we would prefer that an article was mostly from secondary sources (and therefore that more of an article comes from secondary sources than either primary or tertiary sources). We also suggest looking at tertiary sources in particular if there is a dispute over WP:DUE. This is the "check another encyclopedia" approach to balancing viewpoints in an article: If another general encyclopedia has an article on the same subject, and they mention ____, then Wikipedia should, too, and if they don't, then Wikipedia probably shouldn't, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Haitian Report - blacklist

Ever since the Springfield pet-eating hoax, I've repeatedly seen multiple people try to add the website haitianreport.com as a citation (specifically this page). Yes, it's a real-live fake news website in the wild, folks. It's a website with 11 total posts, created to host that very article about eating cats, dated to 2019. There is almost no other content, but it looks like a real news site so it tricked a bunch of far-right outlets, e.g. Gateway Pundit running a story with the headline "‘Haitian Report’ Publication Confirms Disturbing Practice of Cat Consumption Among Haitians: ‘Cat Meat is a Delicacy that Many… Can’t Resist’". Looks like the Sydney Morning Herald fell for it, too. Anyway, it's garbage website that new accounts keep adding (like over at cat meat just now), so it seems like a good candidate for a blacklist. Do we need a formal RfC? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious nonsense. The 'reports' are all by the same person, the images including the one of the author are AI generated, and the comments section of that article gives the distinct impression of trolling. I don't think blacklisting requires an RFC, I believe they just want it to have had a high profile discussion somewhere.

If this keeps getting added in a disruptive way I wouldn't oppose blacklisting it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm surprised they were able to get an AI generated image back in 2021. The only model back then would have been DALL-E, wouldn't it? Would support blacklisting as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Th images may have been replaced overtime. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a website with 11 total posts... That is interesting as Internet Archive snapshots indicate there were over 20. Speaking of snapshots, at least one article was (supposedly) written by a "MASTR P." before it was changed to "L. SLAYER" at some point. Support adding to the blocklist if it continues to be a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I support adding it to the spam blacklist with no RfC or WP:RSP entry. The site promotes exactly one conspiracy theory that will be irrelevant in 4 days when the 2024 United States presidential election occurs. A 30-day RfC would be a waste of time when we all know the result and because the site will not matter after November 5th. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Haitianreport.com. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Check Your Fact

Check Your Fact (CYF) is a "for-profit subsidiary" of The Daily Caller, the latter being depcrecated source due to the 2019 RfC. This fact-checking website was briefly discussed last month, where there appears to be lack of consensus over it's reliability.

As requested by Animalparty, here is an example of CYF as a source being removed from an article based exclusively on the unreliability of WP:DAILYCALLER (see diff). This is where the issue lies: The RfC failed to question CYF; from searching through the discussion, no-one argued that it was unreliable. I otherwise only found one noticeboard discussion (post-RFC) referenced above that was inconclusive.

Currently the CYF url is categorised as deprecated based on WP:RSPUSES, as this was added by David Gerard in February 2024 (see diff) based on this discussion at RSP (rather than RSN notably). So is it correct that Check Your Fact is deprecated, because of the 2019 RfC? Ie was the RfC about The Daily Caller (the website), or the entity The Daily Caller, Inc. that owns Check Your Fact?

To me it looks like it was specifically about the website, hence there was no discussion over it's subsidiaries. Overall it seems like incorrect "book keeping" to include this url as deprecated when it wasn't discussed here, but maybe I'm mistaken or misunderstood something?

And finally the usual question: Should Check Your Fact be considered generally reliable source for use in articles?

What this discussion isn't, for those quick to jump to conclusions or misinterpret: 1. This isn't about changing an RSP listing, this is about the interpretation of the 2019 RfC. 2. This isn't about the article referenced as a diff, this only serves as an example. Thanks! CNC (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As an update, based on deprecated sources archives, I discovered that CYF is in fact not deprecated, so will boldly remove from RSPUSES for now on that very basis. Whether it should be deprecated is another discussion. CNC (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's part of Daily Caller and as factual. Why would it get an exemption? - David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I digree that this wasn't deprecated, it was created as just another URL for Daily Caller content and the source is deprecated not a particular URL it happens to be using. As a general principle going over the same ground because a bad sources find a new outlet would be a waste of time.

Remembering my comment from the last time this came up, at least at first this was no different than the Daily Caller. With it being run by the same staff and using more or less the same content. Over time it appears to have become a bit more separate from its parent organisation, and I could see an argument that it should be now have an exception from the deprecation of the Daily Caller.

As a separate comment 'fact checking' sites are poor sources in general, and I would suggest their use is always attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

should be deprecated if its part of daily caller Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Overall rating (legend/option) for Jewish Chronicle

I have questioned the closing editor of the RfC on the Jewish Chronicle about the retention of the green legend (Generally Reliable in its areas of expertise:) for this publication. More specifically if this truly represents the average views of editors which participated in that RfC. I have NOT questioned any of the text written, so we don't necessarily need to go over old ground again unless there are any further objections. This is purely about the overall interpretation of what has already been written for the labelling.

I've produced a spreadsheet for the 2024 RfC, in which each editors choice of rating is tabulated then counted and averaged to assist this process. As many editors have chosen ratings relating to a wide variety of timescales and subject areas this can only be an approximation. I've separated it into two sections:

Israel/Palestine 'Sometimes ME, the Left, Antisemitism typically from 2015 or 2020' on the left (in which 7 editors chose option 1, 2 editors Option 2, 17.5 editors Option 3 & 8.5 editors option 4) and

'General articles (Some after a cut off date, some no date)' on the right (12 editors option 1, 13.5 editors option 2, 7.5 editors option 3 & 3 editors option 4).

Note, the previous 2021 RfC on antisemitism and the Left was eventually modified to 11 editors Option 1, 1 Editor Option 2, 11 editors option 3. I'm unsure if the disqualifications affected previous RfCs before that. Andromedean (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is just bad formatting at RSP, clearly JC is not GREL based on RfC close as well as the summary itself. Either there are three listings for JC based on the determined consensus of GREL, NC, and GUNREL, or otherwise just turn it MREL. Striked part of previous comment as realise RSP was never updated post RfC close. Based on discussion elsewhere, have updated to reflect closing summary. [58] Other editors can split the entry, improve the summary, or revert if deemed necessary. CNC (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Closers don't necessarily update the RSP, although it is helpful when they do. Interested editor should update it as and when required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the methodology of weighting Option 4 more than Option 3; Option 4 is not an extra level of unreliability.

That being said anyone can see that RfC was an Option 2 generally at best. I agree with the current WP:RSP formatting of tagging the source as WP:MREL then explaining what those additional considerations are. Specifically, that the source is unreliable on Israel, Palestine, and related topics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The use of yearbooks as a source for an external but related organization

 Courtesy link: Draft:Braveland Conference

I am unsure about how to proceed with establishing notability, and to what extent highschool years would be considered independent from an athletic conference, the subject of the article. What were originally WP:OR concerns have been addressed after the author of the draft asked the best way to source the material (see this section on my talk page for the relevant conversation). Would someone be able to advise if they believe a yearbook would be considered independent from the athletic conference? I'm leaning that I believe this would likely survive, or draw due consideration, at an WP:AfD and that is what WP:WPAFC asks of reviewers, but I'd appreciate a second set of eyes given that this would be uncharted territory for me, and I can't find any P&G page that adequately surmises this current issue.

Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A high school yearbook goes nothing towards notability. But it's reliable for things like Bob played the oboe in the school band, or Bob graduated High Valley High School in 1994. WP:DUE applies for most things you'd find in a yearbook though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability and notability are different topics, the year book is probably reliable but it is an indiscriminate list of pupils so shouldn't add to notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another look at Atlas Obscura?

Atlas Obscura has two entries at Perennial Sources. WP:AOPLACES notes that "places" articles are user-generated and generally unreliable. WP:AOARTICLES states that "articles" are professionally written, have editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. It then cautions that other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles. I read through the four linked discussions @ Perennial Sources and I found opinions about the reliability of "articles" more mixed than the entry at WP:AOARTICLES suggests. The most recent discussion here highlighted the difference in URLs beginning atlasobscura.com/articles vs. atlasobscura.com/places.

What drove me to Perennial Sources in this case was this sponsored "article" which is used as a source in List of cryptids. A Google search[59] turns up lots of sponsored content labeled as an "article" at Atlas Obscura. At a minimum, I think the wording at WP:AOARTICLES should be strengthened so as not to suggest that "commercial" content is hosted at "other areas" of the site besides "articles." I would support downgrading the label to "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply." Thoughts? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this matters because the sponsored posts are very clearly marked "SPONSORED POST" right below the article title. They aren't trying to hide it. Sponsored articles are of course not usable no matter who makes them - provided we can tell them apart, what does it matter? I think they're fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear you and I largely agree with the general point. Editors should of course be able to discern that a clearly sponsored post is unusable regardless of the publisher. I was surprised when I read the linked discussions at WP:AOARTICLES to find less agreement on the general reliability of AO than the summary suggests and even more surprised when I discovered the sheer volume of sponsored "articles" on the site. I don't see any downside to addressing that in the summary. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian

Im about to start an article. There are many sources for this article, such as BBC and some human rights groups pages but one of them is The Guardian. Needless to say, I know human rights blogs and the such are not reliable so Ill be careful about what to include among those pages but my question is about The Guardian, Are they reliable? Jeanette The Pink panties girl Martipn (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but also recall that a lot depends on what you are sourcing, news content is not the same as Opp-edds. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Sister! *smiles* Jeanette Not Antonio anymore Martipn]] (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarities sake do you mean The Guardian or one of the many other Guardian newspapers (The Guardian (disambiguation))? The Guardian is a reliable source, but reliability is ultimately about context. Newspaper also report a lot of allegations, if you're writing an article about a living person addition considerations may apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Guardian already answered above, but FYI some human rights groups' work is considered reliable, too. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN

I see that there have been many discussions of CNN's reliability to date, but I believe recent events call for a renewed analysis.

I believe that CNN should be held to the same standards as a publication like FOX when it comes to political commentary, as content published under the heading of "news" by CNN regularly demonstrates a level of bias that renders the commentary inappropriate for use as source material for an encyclopedia.

For example, this recent article: [60]https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/27/politics/trump-rally-madison-square-garden-vulgar-attacks/index.html

- The article uses language that may imply judgment, e.g., “ominous” and “hodgepodge,” which can evoke emotional responses. Such terms subtly convey an opinion, which may impact perceived neutrality.

- Quotes from rally speakers, especially those containing provocative language, dominate the coverage. While including quotes is essential for accuracy, emphasizing controversial remarks could lead to a more negative portrayal of the event if context isn't provided for each speaker’s stance.

- The article emphasizes certain figures (Hinchcliffe, Rosenberg) and their contentious remarks in the opening, which may prime readers to perceive the event negatively. In contrast, Trump’s statements are included later with less detailed context.

- By ending on quotes that critique Harris and immigrants, the article may lead readers to a concluding sentiment shaped by more divisive points. This structure can subtly influence the takeaway from the event coverage.

With a cursory investigation into the writer, Greg Krieg, you might even find him describing himself as "a leftist who hates seeing his political rivals have a good time". [61]https://x.com/GregJKrieg/status/1850745484157092081

For anyone familiar with CNN's reporting, this is just scratching the surface. In the days immediately following a contentious event, they may publish multiple articles every day that contain similar language and framing. Their non-political coverage generally maintains factual accuracy and tonal neutrality, but I believe there is enough evidence to warrant moving CNN down at least one peg on the "political content accuracy" scale. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No thanks. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Rob_Roilen. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bias was not why Fox was judged to not be an RS, making stuff was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bias does not rule out a WP:SECONDARY source, and each source should be seen through a lens of whether any news article is WP:DUE in a specific context. Example, it is probably WP:DUE to include a CNN's reporting on the rally on an article about the ally, as many news sources all showed bias against the comedy. The correct thing to do is to show attribution (see WP:OPINION).

inaccuracy is what causes deprecation Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean in terms of Wikipedia:DUE, but I guess what I'm really getting at is that I think it's only fair to have Wikipedia express through some sort of general policy that CNN's political reporting sometimes contains inappropriate levels of bias (outside of attribution), since editors regularly use articles like the one above as sources to directly describe certain events. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

its up to the editors to decide what is and isn't due, and that depends on article and context. RSN cannot decide a source is too biased, only if it has failures in editorial processes (i.e. writers do not get editted by a traditional editting process such as [62] or [63]) or factual inaccuracies...

You could argue maybe that CNN political reporting could belong in "Additional considerations apply", but honestly that's basically status quo for most sources in contentious categories. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And why just CNN, why not the WP, or nyt? This is an assumption we should be making, it's media it's biased. Thus the issue would not be wp:rs but wp:undue, which this forum is not about. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't want to open more than one can of worms. The Washington Post has also published what I think any rational editor would find to be inappropriately sensational material over the last decade, but its recent decision to not openly endorse a political candidate may indicate that tides are changing.

I'm curious about the distinction between RS and UNDUE - if an outlet is consistently publishing material like the given example, would that not make the reporting somehow "unreliable" in this context? Rob Roilen (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

reliable means it doesn't do too many disproven claims or publishes wrong stuff. So for example, republishing a conspiracy theory or stating wrong numbers over and over again lead to unreliability. An occasional mistake is alright, as long as you have an editorial process that makes sure you do fact checking before you publish.

undue is article dependent and not usually discussed on here. just means that you don't throw everything in. For example, there are now hundreds of thousands of articles about Donald Trump, but it may be UNDUE to include everyone in his article. We only include the ones that capture the majority coverage of the most important events about him.

Arguments about what is and isn't WP:DUE depends on showing a WP:NPOV in an article without creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, you could argue, based on this complaint op-ed, CNN's editorial guidelines aren't open to criticism. [64]Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Also an argument based on some kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE call for parity is flawed. Everything must be judged in isolation, and not as part of some tit-for-tat deals. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

wp:RS=A source that has a reputation for being reliable. wp:Undue=A very minor part of a topic that may not warrant inclusion One is not a topic we discuss here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am arguing that CNN is not "reliable" by definition when it comes specifically to political commentary; that is, their political commentary is not "consistently good in quality or performance" or "able to be trusted" when it resembles the example given.

I think CNN's secretive editorial guidelines mentioned above by @Bluethricecreamman help illustrate this and I would support CNN's political commentary being moved to "additional considerations apply". Rob Roilen (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

honestly, consider posting on WP:NPOVN for npov concerns. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:NPOVN have any influence over Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

no. and bias is not enough to decide if a source makes that list or not anyways (WP:RSPISNOT). but we all watch the same pages anyways, so i'm sure we all will migrate over if you open a discussion there about an NPOV concern. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think, though, only post if the talk page discussion of the article you are arguing over isn't working out and you want more folks to take a look. Do not do it as a first thing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you can probably see on the talk page for the rally article, a lot of my NPOV concerns have been deliberated already and I'm pretty satisfied - I mainly raise the issue here because I was genuinely surprised to find that there is no mention of CNN's blatant political bias on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources while some other sources with similar tilts have a separate category specifically regarding their political commentary, like FOX, HuffPost, and Rolling Stone for example.

Why not provide an indication like this for CNN, or at the very least a mention of its political bias in the summary? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You would probably need a sense of consensus, possibly with a WP:RFC and many more folks agreeing and participating in a convo than just this section.

honestly, i see no real difference with including that a source is biased or not on WP:RS/P, for the reasoning i stated above. It does not prevent its use, WP:DUE in the talk section of the article would. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)