Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
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

RFC: People Make Games[edit]

Which of the following best describes People Make Games's videos in the area of video games?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Option 1 People Make Games is reliable for video game journalism. They've been cited several times by multiple sources we consider reliable (including PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow), and all their contributors are professional video game journalists. You can even see in the WaPo article (and other places) that they follow basic journalistic standards like asking their subjects for comment before publishing a story. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 They seem legit, given that other scrupulously reliable sources treat them as reliable. --Jayron32 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 for video-games journalism. They're a solid outlet, have broken at least one major story in that area, and are treated as reliable by other sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 and I'm glad that people aren't dismissing them automatically because they're on YouTube. casualdejekyll 12:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So am I! Such a nice change of pace from normal, especially for those of us who remember how difficult it was to get consensus on Anthony Fantano's status as a "music critic." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 as it appears to be a self-published source, but could be used with attribution as WP:EXPERTSPS. The authors are the publishers; there doesn't seem to be any fact checkers, editors, masthead, ethics policies, separation of news from opinion, etc. Just being cited alone doesn't make something an RS; this one is just not professional journalism, it's a well-respected blog, but it should be used only with attribution per EXPERTSPS. It's not like CNET or other professional publications. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not that I find too much fault with your logic, but it's a little funny that CNET is the example you give given, well, the discussion basically directly below this one :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lol, true, that was the first tech publication that came to mind, but my mind is outdated ;-) Levivich (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's important to note that while PMG is a small organization and doesn't have all those roles as separate people, it clearly does still have those roles. Its employees are all professional video games journalists and do clearly bring journalistic ethics with them in their role as PMG. So for instance, they do request comment from their subjects (implying some sort of ethics policy and also some sort of fact checking procedure), they do separate news from opinion (because they have no opinion section), they pretty clearly are treated as journalists by the industry (as shown by the many sources citing them, but also it's reasonably clear in the Nuclear Gandhi video that they are treated as journalists by games companies as well).
    An important thing to note here is that they're a journalism collective, somewhat like Bellingcat. They're not self-published because no individual journalist gets to publish their reporting alone: PMG as a whole organization is the publisher while the individual reporter is the author. If a story didn't pan out, it wouldn't get animated by their animator (and presumably the other members of the PMG team would also object to releasing it). Loki (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • As we describe on its page, Nuclear Gandhi is an urban legend that Gandhi in the original Civilization was particularly likely to nuke people because of a bug. However, it's come out recently that in fact such a bug did not exist, nor was Gandhi even particularly likely to use nukes, and that this was purely an urban legend the entire time. On the page, we cite this dodgy Russian-language source (translation) for several important claims about it.
However, the source we cite openly says it got this info from the People Make Games YouTube channel, in particular this video, which originally broke the story. And by all appearances this video is a very reliable source. People Make Games is staffed by professional video game journalists, including the one who broke this particular story, they've been cited by other sources we consider reliable (like PC Gamer, Eurogamer, Polygon, Wired, and even the Washington Post somehow) and the video itself contains multiple interviews with the developers themselves saying no such bug exists. In my opinion, PMG is about equal in reliability to Bellingcat for the specific area of video games, and for basically the same reasons.
Yet not only do we not cite the video here, we don't cite People Make Games anywhere, about anything, as far as I can tell. Even for stories that they broke, we always cite someone else just repeating what they said. I believe this is primarily because they publish in video format, on YouTube, rather than in text, and we don't consider "YouTube" reliable. I think this is a silly bias against video content that we'd never allow if PMG was a news channel, and I'm aiming with this RfC to establish that just because PMG publishes its investigations on YouTube, that doesn't mean they're unreliable. Loki (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I enjoy watching PMG, they are arguably a self-published source, and thus shouldn't be used as a directly cited source for non-self BLP claims, eg their allegations of abusive behaviour by indie developers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bellingcat is also arguably a self-published source, yet they're green on WP:RSP, and have absolutely been used for BLP claims before (e.g. they named several Russian intelligence officials involved in the Skripal poisoning). That's why I brought them up, to prove that we don't have a general policy against citizen journalism even in BLPs.
To be clear, I believe the actual situation in both these cases is that PMG/Bellingcat is the publisher and the particular journalist breaking the story is the author, making neither of them WP:SPS. (This is the same as the situation with, say, the NYT; if we said that every employee of an organization is that organization no source would be reliable.) One of the key distinctions between self-published and independent sources is that independent sources have organizational editorial standards, which both PMG and Bellingcat clearly do. Loki (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Loki, what makes a self-published source self-published is the lack of a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. People Make Games is not self-published; they appear to have an editorial staff and vet their stories as well as any other journalism organization. --Jayron32 12:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by 3 people who all collaborate together, far less than the number of journalists working on Bellingcat, so I don't possibly see how it could satisfy having a layer of editorial control between the writer and the publication of the information itself. Most major scoops by PMG have been covered by regular video game journalism websites, so this is really moot anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the fact that they keep getting covered by regular video game journalism websites shows that other video game journalists consider them reliable, even despite their small size. And just because other sources frequently cover their work doesn't mean that we don't need to mark them reliable. So for instance, they did an interview with the creators of Blaseball that we ought to be able to quote from, even though to my knowledge it hasn't been cited elsewhere. Loki (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Video game websites cover a lot of shit, frequently including stuff like Twitter posts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question Do they have a corrections policy? Do the follow it? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They don't have a website outside of YouTube and Patreon, so, as far as I can tell, not a published one. However, they have responded to criticism of their work before at length. Loki (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Not sure why we need this source when Sid Meier himself has said this is a myth. But it's not the countless callbacks and references that make the nuclear Gandhi story so funny to me. It's the fact that none of it is true. The overflow error never happened at all. (Sid Meier's Memoir!: A Life in Computer Games p. 262) Although it did exist as an Easter Egg in Civ V. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not just Nuclear Gandhi I'm talking about here, they've broken other scoops in the past as well. Loki (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money"[edit]

CNet, usually regarded as an ordinary tech RS, has started experimentally running [1][2] AI-generated articles, which are riddled with errors. Currently these articles are under the byline "CNet Money". So far the experiment is not going down well, as it shouldn't. I haven't found any yet, but any of these articles that make it into a Wikipedia article need to be removed - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since November, no less, per your sources. If they haven't yet given up on it, it's concerning. Could it be time to downgrade CNet? I note that at WP:RSP, they are green, but the RfC is dated. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is very worrying... Its one thing if an AI assisted and human edited article is up to the normal standards but I think we do have a real problem here with the content being so much less accurate than their standard content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm hoping this is one high-up editor or publisher with a bee in their bonnet, and the reputational damage will put paid to the initiative before it spreads too far. I've never been a huge fan of CNet, but even at my most cynical about it I wouldn't have classed it with SEO spam blogs - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have always thought that CNET was a mediocre source, but this is really on another level. I would support downgrading the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is downgrading necessary? These articles don't affect the rest of the articles they make. Just putting a note on RSP that any with the byline CNet Money are unreliable should be good enough. SilverserenC 19:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur - just that for now would be more than enough. Hopefully they come to their senses. FWIW, the AI articles are all under www.cnet.com/personal-finance - I just looked through them all, and Wikipedia has 24 articles with that string in their source, and none are from the bot - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree for now. Seems like there is consensus among the participants here. Do we need an RfC? Or can we just do it? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that if we have some reason to believe that CNET's personal finance section has a lot of stories with material inaccuracies, we should put a clarifying note for editors using this department to reference articles. I'm not sure if futurism.com is a reliable source, but the things they've pointed out seem to be obvious errors (like if you deposit $10,000 into a savings account that earns 3% interest compounding annually, you'll earn $10,300 at the end of the first year). These are the same kind of errors that human writers tend to make, so I don't know if this is a special case, apart from the apparent failure of editorial oversight. jp×g 00:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Futurism is an ehhhh source, a lot of reblogging, but they've been doing some good journalism lately.
On CNet, I'd wait until and unless this is more of a problem. I was posting more to warn editors to look out for this sort of thing.
I do think in general, any source that starts putting up AI-generated text in this manner warrants a close inspection - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just read this article from The Verge, which corroborates Futurism's report. Very concerning, but it would seem only their Money-related articles are affected. At this stage, I wouldn't suggest they be blacklisted, but this scandal should be noted at RSP and editors should be warned against citing Money-related articles published since November 2022. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note, WP:RSP currently has no link to or mention of this discussion, or the brief one from spring last year. The last linked discussion was back in 2015. This may be a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137a (talkcontribs) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564311/cnet-pausing-ai-articles-bot-red-ventures InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a link to this discussion (as well as one other discussion about CNET that has been archived) in WP:RSP, but I have't changed the status or the description yet. 137a (talkedits) 14:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Ventures's portfolio[edit]

Following this, I think it's time to downgrade CNet's reliability. That's just outrageous. Given the reports, it's probably time to check and see if there's anything else we need to do about Red Ventures's huge portfolio, which seem to also employed the same tools and processes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would them stopping a limited section run of AI generated articles be a reason to downgrade them? If they had expanded the articles to any section, then sure. But the article you're responding to is them doing the exact opposite. SilverserenC 06:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's take a step back and consider what we've witnessed here. CNET generated a bunch of content with AI, listed some of it as written by people (!), claimed it was all edited and vetted by people, and then, after getting caught, issued some 'corrections' followed by attacks on the journalists that reported on it ("Some writers — I won’t call them reporters ... "). According to the reporting we've seen so far, they've evidently implemented these tools and approaches throughout their portfolio but won't say exactly where or how.
And why should we believe anything this company says? Red Ventures has not been remotely transparent about any of this—the company could at best be described as deceitful—and the company runs a big stable of SEO-focused content mills across its ecosystem just like what we're seeing on post-acquisiton CNET, including Healthline and an EDU-focused branch (!). It's worth looking into how we're using properties that they own as sources—that is, those that aren't already listed as extremely dubious (Red Ventures owns, as you'll notice, the notorious The Points Guy).
I expect we'll probably hear a lot more about this in the future, as Red Ventures seems to have to date been largely passed over by investigative journalists, but in the meantime we should be tacking stock of what this company is pumping out and where it's appearing on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we should consider splitting CNET into pre-September 2020 and post-September 2020 (when they were acquired by Red Ventures), in a similar fashion to Newsweek and Forbes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would oppose this pretty strongly (for now), given that the relevant articles have all apparently received corrections, and that CNET is suspending this dubious "experiment". Source downgrades are meant to address general reliability problems, not to be punitive. The other properties owned by Red Ventures are not relevant, since the WP:RSP entry is specifically about CNET; and we don't judge one property's reliability based any other media properties that share the same owner. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further on this from Futurism: CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism: CNET's AI-written articles aren't just riddled with errors. They also appear to be substantially plagiarized - the hazard of AI text generators where they spit the source back out. It's possible that this will give Red Ventures pause ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buzzfeed also said it will use AI to generate some content ("interactive" content, not clear if this includes news). Perhaps we should consider listing ChatGPT or AI as its own line at WP:RSP (whether or not individual sources that use it are also listed individually)...? -sche (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of Sources on Azerbaijan and Armenia[edit]

Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of these seem to be good academic sources: Coyle, Hasalni, Kazemzadeh, Levene. McCarthy might or might not be acceptable; would have to be attributed ("according to"...). The Le Temps article is a hundred years old and would have to be treated as a primary source. The others are very hard to evaluate. Basically, we are looking for academic texts by academic historians. There are academic journals on genocide studies which may have useful articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Itsmejudith Coyle's book makes lots of WP:Fringe claims and tries to write Armenians out of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh. Coyle also denies the destruction of the Armenian cemetery in Julfa and has been called out for this by another academic.[3] Hasanli is a genocide denier. The Kazemzadeh source is very old now and was outside his specialty area, I can also quote lines that show he had a bias if you would like. And the reliability of the Levene source isn't being questioned so much as the reliability of a single line within the source, which Levene uses McCarthy as a citation for. Levene also makes a comment in his footnote for McCarthy where he indirectly acknowledges McCarthy's reputation ("though with the unfortunate corollary that McCarthy radically downplays the specifically Armenian catastrophe"); not being willing to call McCarthy a genocide denier shows that Levene shouldn't be considered a reliable source for Armenia and Azerbaijan topics. It seems that Levene's field is Jewish history, and he also apparently disagrees with the UN definition of genocide. --Dallavid (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coyle has been director of Middle East Studies at the US Army War College. You will need a very good argument to show that he is not generally reliable. Hasanli is clearly very close to/part of the Azerbaijan government, but the work cited is published by Routledge. Kazemzadeh, yes it is getting old. Levene is exactly the kind of scholar whose work we should be using. The book review you cite says that his definition of genocide is actually wider than that of the UN. These are just comments on the sources per se, and do not relate to how they are used in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itsmejudith, Hasanli's book was published by well established reliable scholarship such as Routledge 2 years after he joined the opposition, so he had no governmental ties when the book was published.
Firuz Kazemzadeh was a respected historian who wrote a number of published books related to the history of Caucasus. With regards to his book being very old now - I don't think it should be a huge problem, considering that WP:OLDSOURCES is mostly for cases when the subject is science, politics or fashion related, but when it comes to history, the guideline states that historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itsmejudith On page 3 of Coyle book, Coyle calls Armenians "recent arrivals" in Nagorno-Karabakh and claims there were no Armenians before the 19th century, a common negationism in Azerbaijani historiography. Coyle is claiming the Artsakh (historical province) and Principality of Khachen didn't exist. On page 13, Coyle promotes Azerbaijani conspiracy theories blaming Armenians for the Sumgait pogrom as credible, which no reliable source would do. McCarthy has had his work published by the University of Utah and lectured at the University of Louisville, so I do not believe it is safe to assume every source is reliable just because it has an academic publisher. Turkey is known to provide funding to these institutes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may be right but Coyle could only be dismissed as a source on the basis of academic reviews. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coyle has been criticized for academic dishonesty by another academic. Coyle has also been cited extensively by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter to write about Armenians hostilely.[4] --Dallavid (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I forgot to ask an opinion on one more source:

20th-century ones are too old and shouldn't be used because newer sources are available, per WP:AGEMATTERS. The 21st-century scholarship published by established academic publishers (Springer, Routledge, university presses) are the best sources to use (WP:TIER1). Specifically:

  • Baberovski 2010 - I do not know if ROSSPEN is reliable or not. My inclination is not to trust sources that are published in authoritarian countries without free speech protections (like Putin's Russia), especially about controversial matters, especially if this source contradicts other sources published elsewhere, because I don't know if the source will be independent of the authoritarian government. But for all I know, ROSSPEN might have a stellar reputation as an academic publisher, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or another.
  • Balayev 1990 -- not OK, too old (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  • Coyle 2021 - OK, recent scholarship (WP:TIER1)
  • Hasanli 2015 - OK, recent scholarship
  • Kazemzadeh 1951 - not OK, too old
  • Korkotyan 1932 - not OK, too old
  • Le Temps 1920 - not OK, too old
  • Levene 2013 - OK, recent scholarship
  • McCarthy - what is the citation?
  • Mammadov 2008 - no idea, not familiar with the publisher
  • Tarasov 2014 - probably not OK. The source refers to itself as an "essay", so it doesn't look like peer-reviewed scholarship. iarex.ru appears to be a group blog ([5]). It might be OK as WP:EXPERTSPS but I'm not familiar with the qualifications of the author. See my comments above about Russian publications, which apply here as well. Given how much recent scholarship is available, it's probably not necessary to use this source.
  • Volkova 1969 - not OK, too old
  • Hovannisian - not OK, too old

Levivich (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming every source with an academic publisher to be reliable is probably safe at least 90% of the time, but it's still a very flawed reasoning. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey was published by University of Utah Press but has been widely criticized for promoting genocide denial. Armenian History and the Question of Genocide by Armenian genocide denier Michael Gunter was published by Palgrave Macmillan. Turkey is known to funded western academics to promote genocide denial narratives, so it's wrong to assume academic publishers are incorruptible. In situations like this, shouldn't we be able to tell that if a source is full of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE content, it's not reliable? --Dallavid (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see Gunter in this list, so I'm not sure what relevance he has to these sources. It's not possible for a source to have WP:UNDUE content, that's a policy that applies to Wikipedia articles, not sources. (We don't require a source to be neutral.) I see no evidence presented here that any of the scholarly publications on this list are considered WP:FRINGE; maybe they are, but I just haven't seen the evidence presented yet. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Levivich ZaniGiovanni's above comment explains why Coyle promotes fringe theories as fact. And here is the quote that proves Hasanli is a genocide denier. Also, Levene isn't being disputed as a source so much as one sentence from his book, for which he uses McCarthy as a citation. Levene does acknowledge that McCarthy is an Armenian genocide denier but only calls it "unfortunate", for which I do not think Levene should be considered a reliable source for Armenian topics. --Dallavid (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Behind the Voice Actors should not be considered a reliable source[edit]

I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Eldomtom2, I was thinking of commenting on your previous RFC. I think we need more links on their process to make a clearer decision. I see that previous discussions on reliability have been fairly short so probably a good idea to get deeper into this.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is my issue with them. All I can find by looking on their site regarding their process is this and this, and from the descriptions there at best their process is on par with Mobygames, which we don't consider a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note on the Global Times[edit]

We've deprecated the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as well, really - I was chatting to a couple of ex-GT journalists who confessed that they used to make up nonsense specifically so they could get it into Wikipedia! They concurred that deprecating the GT was absolutely the right move. Both are now working for solid RSes, I'm glad to say ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OH. MY. GAWD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
one of them was paying for (well, expensing) the evening out, which is the ideal condition to get journalists to admit things - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, in what area did they do it? Alaexis¿question? 09:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bustimes.org and WP:UGC bus fleets[edit]

Hi all, looking for some further perspective on the matter of UK bus fleet lists.

I might be slightly biased from past contributions to that site, but bustimes.org, a UK-wide tracker of buses using timetables and tracking data from the Bus Open Data Service, began allowing registered users to make edits to 'fleet' sections of operators that have buses tracked on the service.

Unfortunately, I believe that now makes the site fall under WP:UGC, and I'm of the mind the the site should be considered highly unreliable when referring to bus fleets; timetables shouldn't be, however, I don't see any problem due to them being taken from BODS and uneditable by users.

I contend depreciating fleet list sourcing because users are free to change about tracked buses such as about bus type, bus livery and branding (there was a major internal conflict over this making routes harder to see in March last year), and crucially, whether a bus is withdrawn or not, at their own will - there have been edit wars about this in the past, see: [6], [7] and [8]. The site itself also says, very boldly, at the top of fleet list pages:

This is an unofficial and probably incomplete list of [operator] vehicles (or their ticket machines), created purely as a by-product of the live bus tracking system.

Remember: Ticket machines IDs don’t always correspond with the actual vehicles they’re attached to. Equipment is often swapped between vehicles.

Vehicles don’t always track all the time. If a journey isn’t listed, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t operate.

I've removed a few fleet citations using Bustimes already, replacing those with fleet figures from either the operator or local/bus industry news sites, but I was wondering if there was wider consensus on this from other experienced editors. Not entirely sure if this really should be an RFC because I personally think the reliability issue is pretty clear-cut, but again, I'm open to different opinions. Hullian111 (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, anything which can be edited by any registered user is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Unless there's anyone disputing the facts as you have reported them, this seems totally clear cut and in no need of discussion Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that it is not currently an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legacy.com for death date of bio subject?[edit]

Is Legacy.com an RS for the date of death of Truddi Chase? Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like it can be. It works with newspapers. But if there are newspapers on Chase's obituary, it may have better standing - assuming they too are consistent with the dates. I do know that newspapers do get peoples age and dates of birth and death wrong too since many news articles are not fact checked well - with say youtubers who have died.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked into Legacy one other time since this was asked and this is what I found. As part of the obituary process, Legacy requires information to authenticate that a death occured. Usually a contact from a nursing home, or other end of life service. According to Legacy they pass this information onto the newspaper so the newspaper can use it in its own fact checking processes. Since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that "since this was apparently published in the Washington Post's newspaper, which is generally reliable, we can presume this is also reliable" is correct. Most such entries are announcements that someone has paid for, not editorial content. Where does legacy.com state that it requires evidence of a date of death, and that it passes such evidence to a publisher? EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you actually go through the process on Legacy to get an obituary one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death. So it's not Legacy which verifies the information, but the newspaper, in this case the washington post, which would have to verify the information. So the reliability is dependent on the newspaper and not Legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So in other words, the citation is reliable in this case, but this does not mean that Legacy.com is reliable as a general rule. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if an honest-to-goodness reliable source has the information, like WaPo, why do we need to cite Legacy.com at all? --Jayron32 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we don't have the honest-to-goodness reliable source. The editor who added the cite added the Legacy.com page, and I couldn't find the original WaPo article via Google. Nightscream (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do we know that Legacy.com is actually citing a WaPo obituary? If it isn't reliable, maybe that isn't true either. --Jayron32 14:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first three respondents above indicated that it is reliable. Nightscream (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legacy.com works as an affiliate for multiple newspapers for their obituaries. It's not so much that Legacy is citing WaPo, but WaPo links to Legacy for obituaries. If you go to washington posts obituaries, and click the search death notices it takes you to legacy.com's search function for the washington posts's obituaries. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, that just means that the obituary exists at WaPo, and Legacy is just scraping WaPo for the obit. What I am saying is that Legacy.com is redundant here: Either it allows you to find the actual obit at WaPo and read it yourself, which means don't cite Legacy, OR it claims to be doing so, but when you look you find that it can't actually be done, which also means don't cite Legacy. WaPo already exists. Use Legacy if it helps you find the original issue of the Post to find the obit itself, if you want, but cite the original. --Jayron32 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but WaPo providing the link function to search for obituaries is an obvious use by others situation. We trust Legacy for this because WaPo trusts legacy for this. If the original can't be readily found, which would be very likely for local print versions of WaPo, then there is no reason to not use legacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not a "use by others situation" obvious or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How WaPo, a highly regarded source, uses legacy is a use by others situation. In this case they use legacy uncritically by providing the search function from legacy directly on their obituaries page. The death notice search function on WaPo's obituaries page is Legacy.com. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using a search function is not the same thing as using something as a reliable source. This is not a "use by others situation." Many sites use Google to provide a search function, that doesn't make Google a WP:RS RE used by others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you just not follow this entire discussion? The reliability on legacy is dependent on the reliability of the news org publication. Legacy acts as an affiliate for the newspaper, and provides online archival of things that would make it to physical print, but may not be on the online newspaper. Death notices published by WaPo are handled online by Legacy. You can see this by going to WaPo's obituaries and clicking on any of the death notices, they go to Legacy, with a note on legacy saying it was published in the WaPo. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can circumvent this entire question by saying in the article, "It was reported by Legacy.com that Foo Barson died on date", and let the readers decide how much to credit the information. BD2412 T 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't do that. Ever. But Legacy.com is a reliable source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should do that for relatively noncontroversial claims such as the specific date of death for a subject for whom it is uncontested that they are dead. We can never be 100% accurate—even the New York Times makes the occasional mistake—but we can always point the reader to the best available information. BD2412 T 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. We provide the best available information, be it from The New York Times or Legacy.com. We don't ask the reader to work it out. That's our job. If it is uncontested, then we present it to the reader. The reference provides the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about using the "via" parameter in the citation template like I did here? Cite WaPo as the original source, but Legacy in the "via" parameter as the source that reprinted it, where we, the editors, found it? Would that be an acceptable compromise, at least until the original article, or a substitute, may be found? Is Legacy not reliable enough to even do this, as the other editors above opined? (Just asking.) Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to "one of the things you need to provide is a contact from a death care provider and a name of a death care professional which Legacy says may be used by the newspaper affiliates to verify the death"... but does that cover the date of death or merely the fact that a person has died? EddieHugh (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI last month I asked a similar question in a specific case at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344#Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP and the general answer was paid obits are OK to use for date and maybe place of death. I'm not sure how far that consensus goes, but I hope we can put some guidance at WP:OBITUARIES. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I didn't notice that one at the time. I would probably have disagreed, or at least recommended more caution, but it's archived now. EddieHugh (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkeye7:: "We don't do that. Ever."
Well, actually, we do do that, in particular when we need to emphasize the attribution of the information, like when we attribute an opinion to a film critic in an article on a movie, or when we describe positions held by different sides in a controversial matter, or when we present a direct quote, etc.
Btw, hope your legs are healing well. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spanamwar.com[edit]

Noticed this site being added to several articles. It doesn't appear to have the necessary features to be a reliable source, and may be a sales portal for Amazon, but I thought I'd seek some additional opinions. Thanks - wolf 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • My initial reaction was that this was that it's just another of hundreds of military history fansites regularly cited here, that are nothing more than self-published group or individual blogs. But in this case, reviewing the "about us" page, it appears that the principal author and editor is actually a subject-matter expert who has been extensively published in other reliable publications. So, I think that this source, contrary to all expectations, is actually reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meduza and[edit]

Hello everyone, is this work by Meduza reliable enough for mentioning, with attribution, the first explanations for the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash? Mhhossein talk 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also also another source on this matter. --Mhhossein talk 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything controversial here and this is pretty much what was reported by other sources. Why do you (or someone else) think it may not be reliable? Alaexis¿question? 08:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say Meduza is generally reliable though regrettably they often repost social media messages (with attribution). Their own materials are usually fine, both in English and in Russian. Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience it is generally reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FightBack! News reliable enough for citations?[edit]

I'm working on revamping the article Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization), which hasn't had any substantial updates since 2009 despite still being an extremely active organization to the present. The problem is, as a grassroots activist group, it isn't well covered by news, and as a student activist group, student news coverage is often way too difficult to find if there is any. That said, it's very well covered by FightBack News, since most of the articles about SDS are written and submitted by the members of SDS themselves, making it a primary source. The site itself is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but its paper is open to circulating news from groups unaffiliated with the Organization, including SDS.

I would frankly argue it is reliable, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. As someone who's attended some of the protests being written about, it's one of the best sources for information from the perspectives of the organizers. Again, these are often effectively primary sources. It would be a shame if I can't use this as a source as it would basically leave the article as is, which is to say extremely inaccuarate and outdated without much ability to add information about the work SDS has carried out in the last 14 years. Thoughts? -Skyler 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with the article as it stands is that about half of the sources are SDS sources and some of the others are dubious. I would argue that the Alternet source, which needs to have the archive at [https://www.alternet.org/story/49557/the_%2760s_are_gone%2C_but_one_of_its_most_controversial_organizations_is_back] is ok because it is written by Astra Taylor. The whole politics section is self-sourced. Just as I would argue for a right wing article, this needs to be based mainly on secondary sources, and it isn't. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's doable. -Skyler 15:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing needs to be reliable and independent. Sounds like FightBack News fails that second part, if articles about SDS are written by SDS then they are self published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of two Japanese gaming websites (Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media)[edit]

Are Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media considered reliable sources? It appears that both websites have been used in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia (some of which are GA) for mostly Japanese video game/anime subjects, and they appear to be reputable within gaming communities in and out of Japan. I'd like to hear what others think, especially if you understand Japanese. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My take on this kind of tech-related site is that if it is widely known in its industry and appears to have editorial review rather than being crowd sourced, there is no reason not to use it for citations until it is challenged. Industry sites are going to be the only sources for a lot of this kind of material so our usual go-to general news RSs are not going to yield much. That said, I don't read any Japanese so I can't analyze these sites for you to see if they are subject to editorial review or are just printing unvetted articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe both are reliable sources. They both have solid editorial review boards, and they have been used in articles like Stable Diffusion. Japanese gaming celebrities have also given exclusive interviews here, such as Masahiro Sakurai. [9] UnstableDiffusion (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Film Institute[edit]

I've done some work on a BLP about someone whose career is in film and TV, and have been searching for additional references. One of the searches I did was on their purported birth year, in case I could shake loose some acceptable source in order to add it and other biographical info; like many in showbiz, this person has a date of birth out there on the internet, but overwhelmingly on non-RS sites such as IMDb. It has however been added to Wikidata (with no reference), and thus is in other-language Wikipedia articles. I found the British Film Institute page on them also has the birthdate (and birthplace). I find one previous discussion here of BFI as a source, which focussed on its reliability for genres and for films in general, but not its reliability for biographical data on living people. I would consider the BFI an adequate source for a person's filmography, and have used it for that in the past. Is the BFI website a reliable source for a living person's date and/or place of birth? (The page in question is here.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think it is a generally reliable source for factual BLP. However, if it contradicts other reliable sources, then put both and attribute. And if it is the only source saying, for example, "Bradford, 1973" when every other source says "Cleckheaton, 1977", then inclusion may not be justified even though BFI would usually be reliable. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the above. BFI is a generally reliable source, with the standard caveat that no source is perfect, and if it stands out in stark contrast to other reliable sources, go with the preponderance of sources. --Jayron32 14:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, both. I used it to add the birth info as well as reference filmography items, and will add it to the Wikidata entry. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No source is perfect but BFI is about as generally reliable as it gets. Holds major film archives and staffed by real experts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of the Catholic Culture website[edit]

Editor @Horse Eye's Back: has stated that the website Catholic Culture along with everything hosted on it (be it electronic reproduction of material already published somewhere else and hosted on it, or publications by Catholic Culture) are to be removed from Wikipedia, as the user claims this website is not a reliable for any of its content. The user has already begun removing the sources from the website (from 22:43, 26 January 2023 to 22:57, 26 January 2023).

I oppose such a jugement on Catholic Culture (CC). From experience, yes CC is reliable. And it hosts electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which most of the times cannot be found anywhere else, with proper referencing of its original source (e.g. [10]).

The reproduction of documents on CC, from those I have been able to compare, are faithful:

Horse Eye's Back main criticism is the About Us page of CC. I do not see why the user thinks such a page would indicate CC would not be a reliable source. Compare it to the same 'about us' pages for similar websites which as far as I know are considered as RSs: America [11], Catholic News Agency [12], Catholic Herald [13], The Tablet [14], Orthodox Times [15], Orthodoxie.com [16], Christianity Today [17]. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), Christianity Today is not a WP:RS. Not intimately familiar with the others but I'm getting the feeling that you don't really understand what a WP:RS is. I asked you before and I'l ask you again, is there even one sentence you feel comfortable pulling from their about us page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who or what is EWTN? Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EWTN is an extremist broadcasting organization operating out of Alabama. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I see - but what makes you think CC and EWTN are connected? It doesn't seem as if they are. Read that "About us" page more carefully, & follow the links. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they're connected, what gave you that impression? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a) You said: "CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable)", which I misread - you use too many initials that non-Americans won't follow, and b) you keep going on about EWTN - why is that? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP mentions EWTN almost as much in their opening statement as Catholic Culture. Wouldn't have gone on about it except some guy asked "Who or what is EWTN" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the websites I gave are sources used throughout Wikipedia for years and considered as reliable by all people who have regularly worked on WP articles concerning Christianity. Your attack on EWTN is gratuitous; CNA is a very professional and neutral specialised news source. Veverve (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it isn't, EWTN is not a WP:RS. It isn't even a RS for Catholic opinion because they fight with the church so much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
an extremist broadcasting organization, they fight with the church so much: says who? EWTN is not the topic. You appear to be extremely biased, to the point of not being non-constructive. Veverve (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Says any reliable history of EWTN... Given the list of "reliable sources" you just trotted out I wouldn't be throwing accusations of bias around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNA is quite well-respected for its reporting as far as I can tell (alongside its sister publication, ACI Prensa), and it's a well-established WP:NEWSORG. Christianity Today is also a well-established news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Merely being affiliated with a religious group does not make something unreliable, Horse Eye's Back. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNA/EWTN is *not* well-respected and is not well established, its niche at best. What sort of reputation does Christianity Today have outside of evangelical circles? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Catholic News Agency has an editorial structure where journalists report the facts on the ground and editors who review reporting and conduct fact-checking. My understanding is that it's generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church. CNA is also nineteen years old at this point, so I would say that it's pretty well-established; it's certainly not a new upstart like Axios (website) (a WP:GREL source, founded in 2016) or BuzzFeed News (another WP:GREL source, founded in 2011), and I'd find it incoherent to argue that the latter two have somehow had enough time to become well-established if the formermost source has not. ACI Prensa is even older (founded in 1980).
Christianity Today, outside of the mainstream Evangelical population, generally has a positive reputation going back a long time (The New York Times has referred to it as respected as far back as 1972!). I'm frankly surprised that this is even a question. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"generally reliable for reporting on Church affairs, and that it has a good reputation among journalists who cover the Catholic Church" so like I said... "its niche at best" if you want to continue this discussion we can open a section for EWTN/CNA. If not lets focus on Catholic Culture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly here reliable for what is a question.
Age alone is not a solid indicator, or being respected in 1972, as some sources that may once have been reliable may have fallen of late to printing things like The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement as seen with one of the sources referenced in this thread (not that Fidelity Press necessarily ever was reliable). These kind of sources are of course reliable as primary sources for the opinions of the people they publish. What places Eternal Word Television Network as more reliable than The Christian Broadcasting Network?
That a source might have a bias or agenda doesn't impact its reliability (e.g. BuzzFeed News) but once challenged we need to have the discussion of what current editorial oversight and fact checking is taking place. Where did you learn of the CNA's editorial structure and fact-checking? That does sound like evidence of reliability. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E. Michael Jones, the writer of the piece you're referring to, has... never exactly been a reliable guy (there's enough written about him that he may be notable... that's a new article idea). But where is that on the Catholic Culture site? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was published by the same publisher, so they are reprinting material from a dubious publisher, and this was one of the things that Veverve listed as something to cite to Catholic Culture. It's tangential of course, but it does call in doubt to my mind exactly what is being published on the site. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found that through [18] along with numerous other antisemitic publications. Basically the entire publisher looks like garbage.
E. Michael Jones does look like a good candidate for an article. I'll make a stub if enough sources turn up. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DIYeditor: I've created Draft:E. Michael Jones. It looks like the article itself is admin-level salted after socking, so I think it might be better to develop it in the draftspace until it's a fuller article rather than to simply stub it. There are plenty of sources in addition to the ADL profile, including Several pages in Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America, 1950-1985, Reviews of his books (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), a feature piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, etc., so I think there will be enough to demonstrate WP:NBASIC (there's at least 3 pieces of SIGCOV about him here, plus the reviews of his books to help fill in some of the details on his writings). Feel free to join/expand if you'd like; it's currently beyond barebones. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference between CNA and CBN starts at the top: the editorial staff actually has a journalistic pedigree, blending experience in secular and Cathoic Journalism. The editorial team of CNA is led by editor-in-chief Shannon Mullen, who worked for 10 years with the Asbury Park Press. During that time, he was part of the team that was a finalist for a Pullitzer Prize in Public Service and the Frank A. Blethen Award for Local Accountability Reporting from the American Society of News Editors, as well as winning national awards from the National Press Club, the National Association of Black Journalists for various pieces of his investigative journalism. Assisting Mullen as CNA's current Europe Editor is AC Wimmer, who worked as both as a journalist and then as a senior executive in Australia's SBS for a decade before moving to CNA as the founding Editor-in-Chief of CNA's German-language service CNA Deutsch. Zelda Caldwell, formerly an editor of Catholic online periodical Aleteia, is a News Editor.
Meanwhile, it's a bit hard for me to discern the editorial structure of CBN, but it looks like Pat Robertson and his son Gordon are the people making editorial decisions for a large portion of the organization. Neither are journalists by nature, and the whole editorial structure doesn't really hold up to that of CNA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, fair enough, that sounds reliable on the surface. CNA is not the site in question unless it relates Catholic Culture. I've shown them reprinting material from a clearly unreliable publisher, for what it matters. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. My best reading of Catholic Culture is that it's like New Advent inasmuch as it's a reliable republisher but additional considerations apply for original works. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Catholic Herald seems to be a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Milo Yiannopoulos, am I missing something here? None of these appear to be top tier WP:RS and a good number of them appear to be unambiguously bad sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To say "a fringe publication which publishes the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg..." Is just silly - like him or not Rees-Mogg is a senior politician and minister who I'd imagine has had articles in all the English nationals (except perhaps the Guardian, but that's their "fringe" position). Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now do Milo Yiannopoulos. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No thanks - don't know as much about him - he's not on the BBC the whole time, "fringe" broadcaster that they are. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I'l give you a minute to read his wikipedia page. Also RE BBC you understand the difference between a guest and a contributor, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you planning to mention that you'd been canvassed[19] to this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you consider Business Insider to be a fringe publication? It takes more than publishing opinion columns by one person to land one's publication in cuckoo land. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a trick question? Business Insider is not a recognized WP:RS, check WP:RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am asking you whether or not you consider Milo Yiannopoulos to be indicative of the editorial position of Business Insider on the basis that they allowed him to publish a column. Do you genuinely believe that Business Insider has the same political leanings as Milo? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We aren't talking about editorial position, we're talking about reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. I thought you were referring to the use of "fringe" in WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to argue that the source ought be afforded little weight for reasons extraneous to reliability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fringe in the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE is about reliability. How can one make a fringe argument that is extraneous to reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is an RS, but to be treated sensibly. It is a conservative-leaning Catholic site, which makes its position clear at the "About us" page. Opinion pieces reflect this house stance, just like those in the New York Times or The Guardian. It carries extensive texts and documents, such as the official (American English) translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No doubt most of these can be obtained elsewhere, even online, but I don't see why this site can't used. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We generally don't use advocacy sites because they don't separate news and opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not an RS. It's not even close. It's not scholarship. It's not journalism. I see no masthead, no professional journalists, no editors, no fact-checking, no ethics policy, no separation of news and opinion... this is not an RS, it's just an advocacy website, and it says so on its about us page. I don't even see any news that they actually publish... it seems to be entirely commentary and reprints? Levivich (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's got leadership listed on its website, and the person listed as an editor of CWN is a career journalist who has served at numerous publications. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure when you phrase it like that it sounds nice. But it doesn't sound as great as naming those "numerous publications" which are Crisis Magazine, The Pilot (Massachusetts newspaper), Catholic World Report, and Catholic World News. Those are all kissing cousins, he appears to have no mainstream media experience. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any particular reason to consider Catholic Culture reliable? Their about page suggests that they are an advocacy organisation. In cases where they are simply re-hosting things which have been previously published in an unquestionably reliable venue, simply cite the reliable source. In the case of the Modern Catholic Dictionary specifically, their dictionary says that it is based on Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, ([20]) – it is specifically not claiming to be a faithful reproduction of the Dictionary! Their news section appears to largely consist of excerpts from other sources, in which case we should reference those other sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: despite the "Based", the Dictionary on CC appears (I have not checked all 5000 entries) to reproduce word-for-word the original printed material. Veverve (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have the original printed material then there is no reason to use CC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An electronic version is better (ability to ctrl+F, to change the police's size, etc.). But this is off-topic. The Dictionary was used as an example of how faithful the reproductions on CC are, and that therefore those that are hosted on the website can be trusted. Veverve (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can it be an example of that if you haven't actually checked whether it is or isn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a whole article that's available at Sampling (statistics) if you'd like to learn more about how random sampling works. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The about us page of Catholic Culture gives no indication it's a reliable source. I agree with Levivich that it appears to be an advocacy group, and that if a reliable source exists use that instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur with the several editors above who find this source dubious. What reason is there to rely on this, what information is unique to it that can't be found on a clear RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DIYeditor: as I wrote, some of the works previously published that the website hosts cannot be found anywhere else online. And the website also hosts the Catholic World News. Veverve (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the material is available in print why not use the print version? If you use a digital version for searching and cross referencing that is up to you, but I think it should be cited to something published by a reputable publisher. Which brings up another question, are the three works you cited themselves RSs on Wikipedia? The first is a dictionary, a tertiary source, correct? And published by whom? The second is published by someone (Fidelity Press) who features on their website a "Culture Wars" magazine the title of the January issue being The Jewish Racket Known as the Right-to-Life Movement. This seems like a rabbit hole I'm quickly losing interest in descending through. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not everyone can go to a US library to read a paper from a 1950s or 1990s journal on theology, hence why having online editions is helpful. CC for example contains articles from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
The Dictionary is reliable: the book was published by Doubleday (publisher), and is written by Catholic theologian John Hardon who taught at university.
As for the editorial line of Fidelity press in December 1994 (the date the second article is from, almost 30 years ago), I do not know about it. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hometic and Pastoral Review is an Ignatius Press publication not a Trinity publication. Not the first time you've made that mistake in this convo[21]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it does host papers from the Hometic and Pastoral Review, the which is published by Ignatius Press, e.g. [22]. Veverve (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we use Catholic Culture if we can just cite the actual article in the Hometic and Pastoral Review? I can make a blog and host a lot of reliable sources there, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source. Lets also be clear, Fidelity Press is not a WP:RS, you weren't asked about their editorial line you were asked about their reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Now that I think about it: since when is a publication's reliability juged by its 'About us' page? Not all newspaper have to state their hierarchy, the identity of their editor-in-chief, the fact that that they fact-check things (the latter is supposed to be done by all), etc., in such a page; I mean, the About us of the Guardian says nothing of this. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Possibly getting into Whataboutism and WP:OTHERCONTENT territory. If you want to challenge The Guardian that is a separate discussion - and is a discussion that can be had about any source at all. Your source has been challenged, what can you provide as evidence for it qualifying as a WP:RS? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Veverve is saying that the notion that the "about us" page does not describe their own editorial hierarchy is of limited value, not making an argument against the reliability of The Guardian. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sources are not judged by the aboutus page, but they can be useful in seeing how a source sees itself. For instance the Guardian positions itself as a organisation that delivers investigative journalism, now obviously we shouldn't take a sources word as written but it gives an indication of what to expect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment this discussion is another flawed one from HEB. They often hit the nail on the head in recognizing unreliability (like with OrthodoxWiki) but have mischaracterized CNA's reporting standards and association with EWTN. I say we just move on and recognize instances where inline attribution is necessary (for example, on the Crisis pregnancy center article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you planning to mention that you were canvassed[23] to this conversation by the OP? Also we don't appear to use Catholic Culture at Crisis pregnancy center, what am I missing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure a frequent user of a noticeboard who chimes in on a conversation moved off that noticeboard should be characterized as "canvassed", but then again some policies are just not worth remembering when trying to make a point. My comment was exclusively in response to your statement CNA is not a WP:RS (its an EWTN product, nothing EWTN touches is reliable), a bizarre mischaracterization that arouses concern regarding your judgement in this case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's not what happened, you were pinged by the OP [24]. You are Pbritti are you not? What is the mischaracterization? CNA is 100% owned and operated by EWTN, no? EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why OP persistently pings when I've noted to them previously that the noticeboard is on my watchlist and is a priority for me. Look at my record on that noticeboard, if you'd like; I actually ended up here because of my watchlist, noticing the ping after the fact. Your claims regarding the journalistic quality of CNA is frankly absurd and it doesn't take long to find instances where their reporting is accepted unchallenged by consensus-agreed reliable sources such as AP, NBC, NYT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP pings you because they're canvassing people they believe will be sympathetic to their position (note that 2/3 supporters for their position here were pinged by them). So you don't dispute that EWTN is a fringe advocacy organization and that EWTN is the owner and operator of CNA you just say that despite that CNA is reliable because its been used by others? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm terribly sorry that frequent contributors in a subject area have looked into your claims and have disagreed with some of your statements. I am disappoint the OP pinged people on the noticeboard; that's behavior they've been chastised for before. For what it's worth, Austronesier's position on CC is mine. Your spiteful and poorly-supported claims have proved a deficient on this noticeboard in the past year; please reflect on your approach towards editors and this noticeboard and reconsider your understanding of what constitutes reliable sourcing according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The community has repeatedly accepted those "spiteful and poorly-supported claims," if you can't contribute in a subject area impartially I suggest that you don't contribute in it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This site doesn't seem to be particularly problematic, I can see that attribution could be necessary quite frequently as it (like every other non-academic source) is biased. Horse Eye's Back is there some particularly factually inaccurate material on the site that you have not noticed, or are you concerned that is used for notability? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Boynamedsue: what on the site do you think could be used with attribution? Their news reporting is just re-prints of other sources and the people who write their commentaries aren't in general subject matter experts. The "factual" content they do publish is unusable, going alphabetically we find Abortion... The first line of abortion is "Abortion is the greatest single scourge of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, claiming far more innocent lives than any other threat, including war, poverty, starvation and natural disasters." are you suggesting that we can add that to Abortion as long as we attribute it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Only reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF. They have a mission, and their mission is not comparable to scholarly or encyclopedic information. Original material may be citeable as WP:OPINION with due weight (e.g. when secondary reliable sources mention it). All reproduced material however (if coming from reliable sources) should be cited from the original. The URL can be added but should be flagged as a reproduction. I think we can trust that the material is reproduced faithfully without editorial distortions. Or are there any indications that we can't? –Austronesier (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with Austronesier… OK to use in ABOUTSELF and attributed opinion situations… but not for verification of non-ABOUTSELF facts. CAN be used as a “courtesy link” for text of reproduced documents, but cite the original (and note in the citation that the link is a reproduction of that original). Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rocklistmusic.co.uk being used for Top 100 Hip Hop songs of all-time[edit]

I recently removed a link to http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk being used to support the claim that Juicy (The Notorious B.I.G. song) is one of the top Hip Hop songs of all time. The claim still stands, as it's well-sourced to other reliable sources; but Rock List Music is being used throughout Wikipedia, mostly to source "best of" claims. Is it reliable or OK to do that? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should ask as well if it's a copyright violation just to copy lists from other publications, which the source seems to do. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Copyright in lists —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like a SPS to me, should be treated as Julian P White's blog. I don't know who that is, if they're a subject matter expert then the opinions need to be attributed and if not the source should be removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This site has supposed copies of lists from other sources, there's nothing to show it's a reliable source. As the lists are just copies the original source could be used, if it is itself a reliable source and can be tracked down and confirmed. The copying of lists from other copyrighted sources seems rather problematic, not sure if it's enough to blacklist it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chain D.L.K.[edit]

Chain D.L.K. is an English-language Italian webzine that focuses on ambient, industrial, electronic and experimental music (mostly underground genres that don't get written about in mainstream publications). As far as I could find, this webzine was never discussed on here, so I'd like opinions whether or not it can be added to the list of reliable sources.

The website is currently linked to citations in nearly 100 Wikipedia articles.

The webzine's header claims that it was started in 1994, but the Wayback Machine only has snapshots from 2000 on, which is still pretty old. Most webzines don't last this long. From one of the webzine's archived pages, it would appear that Chain D.L.K. started out as a physical magazine in the mid-1990s, before becoming fully digital (which might explain why there are no older digital traces).

The magazine/webzine was started by Marc Urselli and Maurizio Pustianaz, and has had hundreds of writers over the years. I'm not an expert with this website, but I have read several of their reviews and interviews over the last 15 years, usually stumbling on them by accident when looking for information on artists from the genres listed above.

Opinions, please? Bricks&Wood talk 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]