Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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: The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It has an explanatory supplement at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, listing the outcomes of many consensus discussions at this noticeboard. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight or other neutral point of view issues, please use the NPOV noticeboard. If an unreliable source is being over-used or spammed, consider the MediaWiki blacklist, where it can be added to the spam blacklist or a revert list for automated reversion of potential good-faith additions. Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Click here to start a new discussion

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

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

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.

---

Source: Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert, eds. (1995), India: A Country Study (PDF), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, p. 571

Statement in source: "There was some opposition to this move within the cabinet by those who did not agree with referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN. The UN mediation process brought the war to a close on January 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war."

Discussion: Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#6000 casualties figure

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit

Summary: This is a highly partisan topic and is subject to DS. The talk page discussion started by questioning Pakistani casualties quoted as 6,000 killed, citing Globalsecurity.org and a figure of 1,500 killed. There is no consensus as to the reliability of that source but it actually cites India: A Country Study (the subject of this post). The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was initially fought by proxy until the ultimate engagement of both national militaries. It is unclear from the other sources cited precisely what they are reporting as casualties (ie national military casualties v total combatant casualties). The other sources are not great, in that they are largely Indian in origin. The subject edit would add the 1,500 figure to both sides. However, the reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) has since been questioned, citing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Question: Is the subject source (India: A Country Study) sufficiently reliable to support the edit made to the infobox in respect to casualties.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I have no ties to either country.

Comments (India: A Country Study)

• Not a reliable source for the purpose.
  • That being said, what is the end-game? A majority of men employed by Pakistan were irregulars supplied with arms-stashes and money; who had recorded those casualties? There is a reason why even semi-official histories (see Shuja Nawaz et al) skips mentioning casualty-counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• The time of the event is around late 1940's. This makes it very difficult to gather enough information on the casualty figures. Wikipedia was earlier quoting an indian figure which seems to have no official source and was not reliable enough. The 1,500 casualty figure estimate is the most neutral source on the internet neutral source at page 571 and is quoted by global security.org . It is also cited in some university work. No concensus can even be reached on global security.org not being suitable for being quoted. It has been cited in over 25,000 articles and also by Reuters and new york times as well as Washington Post which are considered reliable sources and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar. It is only logical to quote both the 1,500 and 6000 figures as an estimate. Going by what TrangaBellam, that would mean removal of all the casualty section as this argument will even apply for the 6000 figure, which also it not a sure shot reliable source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.

So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The India country Study states 1500 Indian soldiers died, so it's off by 397 from the Indian History of the War. However, it's unclear whether it includes the J&K/AJK/GB/Chitral forces for either side and if it does, it would indeed be off by a wide margin. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There may be some confusion of terminology. Casualty is killed+wounded. It's apples and oranges to compare 1,500 killed with over 3,000 casualty. -- GreenC 03:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• This source doesn't rule out that the 1,500 figure is wrong. The 6000 Pakistani casualty figure and 3000 indian casualty figure still turns out to be an indian claim. The 1,500 comes out to be a seperate estimate of casualties, not related with }}. No official pakistani casualty figures were released and thus the source cannot be ruled out. Your source only suggests thats the indian killed figure be changed to 1,500-3000 and Pakistani be kept at 1,500-6000. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The question that is being discussed is whether it is reliable for the purpose. I gave evidence that proves that it is not. The best you can do is to quote it verbatim in the body. It is nor reasonable to split it up into pieces and format it in whatever way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• For the sake of including a neutral perspective I agree with using it. Currently, the article cites Indian figures. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with including it, as a range. The source is widely cited by other reliable sources as noted by Truthwins018. Furthermore reliable sources are not required to cite their sources to be reliable. A research division within the Library of Congress is not faultless, I doubt any numbers are definitive, but it would require more than Wiki editors disagreeing with the numbers to exclude it from the article, particularly when given as a range. -- GreenC 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• Unreliable for the purpose. The source which is India: A Country Study is clearly not widely cited. The assertion that it is, is based on a different website called globalsecurity.org quoting it. The website globalsecurity.org which looks like a group blog, is the one being used as a source for an opinion in one NYT article and produces 25k+ results on google scholar (every result after the 8th is from the website itself). This is very marginal use in RS, not to mention its use is irrelevant to the actual query here. Searching for India: A Country Study itself produces similarly barebone results. The subject of the source is an overall profile of India and is not specific to the military history of the Kashmir Conflict. The topic area needs specialist academic sources, especially for things like casualty estimates. On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wide citation of global security.org has already been mentioned by SpicyBiryani on the talk page of 1947-1948 indo-pak war.The founder of the website is John Pike. John Pike is one of the worlds leading expert on defence in the world and more can be read about him in the sources cited.Global security also has a reputed range of staff with wide experience in the field of defence.Global security has been cited in Reuters by an article worked upon by Reuters Staff. It has been cited in CNN . It has been cited in Washington Post here, here ,here. It has been cited by NYT [1], [2]. Some of the book citations are:

  • Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.
  • Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.
  • Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf

All the book citations may be viewed here. It has been cited in numerous books on National Security. [3]

As for the subject issue, The book does concentrate on one of the participants of the war. The killed figures are given in a seperate National Security section. We till date are not equipped with accurate figures of the casualties from the war. An indian version of figures are available. A neutral version is established from this source. It is only wise to continue with an estimated range of casualty figures which gives all the figures Truthwins018 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see merit in the arguments of those who esteem the source unreliable for the purpose for which it is being used on the main page. There is hardly any correlation between the reliability of a source and the magnitude of hits it gets on a search engine. The tangible criteria are enumerated and enunciated at WP:RS and there is no indication that this source, which uses a broad-brush to coalesce the two countries' casualties under a single sentence with unwarranted brevity, measures up when the yardstick of WP:RSCONTEXT is applied. Kerberous (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

• It definetely fulfils on the criteria of WP:RS. Your opinion WP:OR is irrelevant in the present criteria. The source directly cites the material and its under a seperate section of Natural security. Vaious citations of globalsecurity.org does increase its reliability especially by already considered reliable sources and none of the discussion was aimed at " magnitude of hits"Truthwins018 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had come here to seek opinion that was hopefully independent of the topic. By and large, this has not been the case so it is substantially just a rehash of the opinions being offered at the original discussion. Perhaps though, the most telling comment is that of Tayi Arajakate: On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. It would strongly suggest that the solution is: "remove one, remove all". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that would be one way to go about it. Although a better solution would be to find independent specialist scholarly sources and replace these sources with them. To give an overview of the sources, I can see 3 books published by Lancer Publishers which is the in-house publisher of the Indian armed forces, a Pakistani newspaper article, one book authored by Ved Prakash Malik, one commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and an article from an Indian military think tank. This reminds me of a previous discussion arising from a similar dispute, and the article in question appears to have more or less analogous issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CR request made. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this purpose. Similarly I don't see how globalsecurity.org make the estimate more credible. It is not reliable as well. The number of hits on google does not correspond with reliability, as pointed out by others already. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does this need a closure? Has anyone said it is reliable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2022 (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.

As a curious passer-by who looked at this after User:Levivich closed the above, how did nobody find the 174 Google Scholar citations to this source? See: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. It was unnecessary to look at "globalsecurity.org" when there are so many better books and papers that cite India: A Country Study. So much wasted time! MGetudiant (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, I see that there is a review in Pacific Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 117 - 18 (Spring 1998), which stated that "this useful series now appeals to a broader audience and the volume on India will serve as a helpful reference work to all with an interest in that country. I myself used it for many years as a text for an introductory course on India. . . . The current contributors continue the tradition of providing clear expositions of their topics, and though their treatment is necessarily quite general they all succeed in providing basic information for those who want an introduction to the subject and a grounding for further study." While I don't have a view on the use of this source to support the specific edit, it seems clear to me that it is, in general, a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the review. Seems like I made a mistake and didn't look up the source properly. Wish this had been brought up before, I wouldn't have framed the comment the way I did above. I'd still encourage using scholarly sources about the war over one that provides a generalised overview of the country, but it does appears to be a decent tertiary source and more reliable than any of the other sources cited for the casualties in the article to begin with. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International

There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:

2019 - Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?

2021 - Amnesty

• Option 1: Generally reliable for facts
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for facts
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Amnesty International)

• Comment I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the Israel article, it has twice been referred to as questionable. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --Jayron32 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a fact, furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  see here. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I refer you to my reply below.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, with an asterisk. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover should be understood to may reflect a left-wing bias; in particular, they should be considered partisan in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 with an asterisk. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. Pious Brother (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. I'm not sure if the use of AI has been credibly challenged; but they have a long history as a highly respected human rights organization. Yes, they're an advocacy organization, meaning their opinions should be attributed, but factual information does not need to be, and I see no evidence that they're in any way unreliable for factual information. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree with Vanamonde, the very definition of a respected, widely cited, and professional organization. When they make an accusation of such and such being a human right violation it should of course be attributed, and since their views are routinely cited in reliable sources it should not be difficult for a secondary source for their views. But when they report facts, like in the last 20 years there have been X refugees fleeing Y country, an absolutely solid source. "According to Amnesty International" can be found 600+ time on nytimes.com, 469 times on BBC, 352 times on The Guardian, some 5000 results on google scholar, nearly 700 times on JSTOR. A solid source on all counts. nableezy - 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not for nothing, but According to Xinhua appears "according+to+xinhua"+site%3A"nytimes.com over 700 times on the NYT, around 275 times on the BBC, about 280 times in The Guardian, about 580 times by WSJ and over 2000 times in the South China Morning Post. Amnesty International certainly has more integrity than Xinhua, but it's important to note that the way in which RS use Amnesty international matters more than merely the times that somebody says something according to them. Are these uses mostly uses as a source for facts, or because the NGO carries weight even if it is seen to fudge numbers at times? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course and that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. nableezy - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact and there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see scholarly sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label, they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the Pegasus Project (investigation), it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's Citizen Lab [10], which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Pilaz (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribution required for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the bias is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see Amnesty_International#Country_focus). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis_¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis_¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. - Who said that? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No one. It's a rhetorical question which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. Alaexis_¿question? 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:GREL and WP:BIASED, so attribute the source. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or that Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define WP:RS for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Wikipedia's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to WP:NPOV. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy through its own particular lens. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the legalization of prostitution, opposition to capital punishment, and resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, WP:BIASED keenly notes that sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for certain sorts of information and that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. WP:BIASED also indicates that a strong bias on a topic may make in-text attribution appropriate. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be WP:GREL where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its detailed reports exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are stating their stances on issues, such as Is abortion a violation of the right to life? No. This sort of stuff is key to WP:NPOV—just as attribution to the ADL that Amnesty’s report on Israel creates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what WP:NPOV calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,' The Forward 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 and dubious discussion start. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of Israel where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted Gunnar Myrdal’s groundbreaking American Dilemma (1944) when its detailed analyses, anti litteram of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation? Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully UNDUE . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Wikipedia, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Wikipedia policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.Tritomex (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As an example, take Forward's coverage where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 Can be used with attribution. As an advocacy organisation, it tends to be less nuanced and more forceful in its descriptions than standard RSs such as when it equated Guantanamo Bay with a Soviet gulag. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Wikipedia article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. Tritomex (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel

14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report

I have sources to support my view, do you? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Option 3 Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts Deborah Lipstadt call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. [11]We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism [12]--Shrike (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [13] Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The crime of apartheid was criminalized by the Rome Statute, and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg here) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? nableezy - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the prisoner of conscience title. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Stellar source. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. OtterAM (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What relevance do political declarations by countries have in assessing a scholarly report concerning another country? None.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

• Option 1, as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be attributed in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Of course, attribution for its interpretation of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the torture article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " (Conrad, Courtenay R.; Hill, Daniel W.; Moore, Will H. (2018). "Torture and the limits of democratic institutions". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0022343317711240.) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, et al. seems to be a good summary. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 -- reliable for facts, attribute for opinions; good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Assessments and opinions are best attributed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a WP:BIASED source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information?

In terms of the apartheid analogy, the crime of apartheid has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate, pure fantasy. AI is discussing the crime of apartheid and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is intended to incite or not technically accurate. nableezy - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 with a caveat. Compassionate727 nailed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. Alaexis_¿question? 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, Triangle and Negev regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS. nableezy - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Source saying it is false please.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. [14]. So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Wikipedia (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Spatial Segregation in Israel says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so-

called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021

Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Since all sources have a bias, what does an asterisk mean? If one wants to insist on attribution, one has merely to select Option 2 and say so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sceptre, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

previous close
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's clear after just a week that there won't be a consensus to take Amnesty International, as a whole, below "generally reliable (with an asterisk)". However, several editors have noticed that because AI are necessarily partisan on certain issues, it's a good idea – but not necessarily mandatory – that anything cited to Amnesty should be attributed to them (i.e. "According to AI, country X executed N prisoners in 2021") just to cover our bases. If certain publications by AI are questionable (e.g. their Israel report), then those should form another part of the discussion, but GREL does allow for the quality for some of its work to be below the usual standards as long as it isn't habitual (at which point, of course, they'd be susceptible to being knocked down to MREL). Sceptre (talk)

• Seeing as the OP also wants it reopened, I've reopened it. FWIW, I was working on the assumption that AI already occupies GREL, and I don't think there's a likely prospect it'll go to MREL (like I said, the "asterisk" option is the absolute limit downwards in this discussion). I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. (Also, I make no opinion on the Israel report myself; I'm just saying that if it's questionable, then it can be discussed without affecting GREL). Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Considering the head of Amnesty has a problem with the report should tell you that at the very least we should not be using the report as a RS, but as an opinion. Amnesty’s Israel chief criticizes group’s report accusing Israel of apartheid Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  The head of Amnesty International Israel not the head of Amnesty. Same sort of situation as Amnesty in Germany.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. nableezy - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Baidu Tieba

We have consensus to deprecate Baidu Baike, but as of now we really don't have any consensus for another Baidu product, the Baidu Tieba. Two months ago @大猩猩城: modified Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) with frivolous mentions of Line 8 stations, and when I asked for sources supporting them to modify so, they pointed [15] to me, claimed that their members asked NDRC and provided reasons for saying Line 6 instead of Line 8.

My suggestion is to also deprecate Baidu Tieba, or even we should add it to spam blacklist due to mass user-generated contents, mass copy-paste of copyvio contents and mass release of republic of fake news.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_174#Can_we_use_blogs_to_show_that_a_subject_is_discussed_in_cyberspace?. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Baidu Tieba is an Internet forum with user-generated content, which is self-published. Tieba is one of the most widely used communication platforms in China. We don't usually blacklist or deprecate popular forums or social networks in their entirety because they are platforms instead of publishers, and because article subjects occasionally use these platforms to publish uncontroversial self-descriptions that can be cited in Wikipedia articles in limited cases. We do typically add these platforms to User:XLinkBot/RevertList, which instructs XLinkBot to automatically revert link additions from new users when the link is not in a citation; this is usually done to address problems with spam or promotion. Tieba is similar to Reddit (RSP entry), Facebook (RSP entry), and Twitter (RSP entry).
  https://tieba.baidu.com/p/7636663652 is not a reliable source for the Line 6 (Tianjin Metro) article, since it does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per Newslinger. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable also per Newslinger, it's a Chinese social media platform, the usual policies (WP:UGC, WP:SPS) are sufficient for handling Tieba. Jumpytoo Talk 23:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: ANNA News

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for option 4, deprecation. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Which of these best describes the reliability of ANNA News? RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Survey (ANNA News)

• 2 At first thought this was too soon with only 35 citations on wikipedia, but given their about us statement at bottom of page- https://anna-news.info/about/ they are clearly writing with a biased agenda. Whether its enough to deem them unreliable? Not sure, as didn't see any misuse of the source on wiki or evidence of obvious fake news, though only checked 5 or so uses.Slywriter (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• 4 – I came across this source being used at Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020), while preparing to contribute to the relevant deletion discussion there. It is obvious that this is a propaganda outlet of the worst kind, which is in no way fit to be cited in Wikipedia articles. Our own article on the outlet itself provides RS-based documentation of numerous examples of fabricated information disseminated by ANNA. Please deprecate this source. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. Propaganda website (questionable source) that repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, as cited in the article on ANNA News. See the discussion section for one of the many examples. ANNA News has a very strong pro-Kremlin bias and any uses (which should be extremely rare per WP:ABOUTSELF, if there are any at all) would require in-text attribution explicitly noting this bias. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 08:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  After reviewing Szmenderowiecki's link to the Russian Wikipedia discussion (below), which concluded that all citations of ANNA News should be removed from Russian Wikipedia, I am going to go further and state that there is no valid use for ANNA News on Wikipedia outside of the article on ANNA News, and that blacklisting the domain is a justifiable option. ANNA News is a jingoistic tabloid that regularly uses phrases (in its own voice) such as "damned America", "terrorists and bandits from the so-called Free Syrian Army", and "frogs" [лягушатниками] (an ethnic slur for French people, see ru:wikt:лягушатник#лягушатник II) to describe anything that can be construed as an opponent to Russia. I don't see how it would ever be appropriate to cite this source anywhere on Wikipedia, aside from the article on ANNA News itself (per WP:ABOUTSELF), since on top of the site's propensity to publish disinformation, it would be unencyclopedic to incorporate the site's crude language into our articles in Wikipedia's voice. — Newslinger talk 15:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, instead of the word invasion like any reliable source, ANNA News likes to use the word "denazification" [денацификация] to refer to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in its own voice (not attributed to any other entity). Examples: [16] [17]. I think this speaks for itself. — Newslinger talk 16:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 as ANNA News is well-established as an outright disinformation site. - Amigao (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3-4 Either is fine. For writing about self, or for citing the propaganda as propaganda (using as an example), would be fine, but should never be used as a credible source for anything else. --Jayron32 14:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Obviously it's heavily biased, most of the time should not be used on Wikipedia. In rare cases when it's warranted it should be attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 the ANNA News article gives almost everything you need to know about the outlet. Also: who gives them money to pay war correspondents and to maintain a website in 5 languages? I still do not know that. And to use it in rare cases, we do not need to keep it as WP:GUNREL, because a deprecated source can be used if there is a specific consensus to do so. So it is better to keep it as WP:DEPREC to warn inexperienced editors and help in detecting abuse of this source. --Renat 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 as per Newslinger. It is more than just generally unreliable; it has actively promoted classic fake news pieces. My immediate thought was that there's no reason to discuss it here or deprecate as it's so marginal, but if it's cropping up as a citation in the current Ukr/Ru conflict then would be good to deprecate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Newslinger. The Russian Wikipedians don't seem to be enthusiastic about the resource, either, see: [18], (mostly about OR but also touching on reliability). There are certainly better sources than that, including from the pro-Kremlin perspective - use them instead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate This appears to be a site with very limited uses in Wikipedia. It can be handled on a case by case basis and it would be far better to discuss rather than go right into trying to rate the source. Absolutely should not be deprecated because it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Do not rate Inappropriate use should be handled on article talk pages, and specific cases (rather than bans of all use) can be brought here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• 4 - Per cogent arguments by Newslinger. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per Newslinger's argument and is described as a propaganda outlet by multiple sources provided by the WP article. The source is devoid of editorial standards, and despite it not being used widely on WP it should likely be deprecated IMO. VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (ANNA News)

• I found this peer-reviewed academic publication that covers ANNA News, formerly known as the Abkhazian Network News Agency (emphasis added):

Because these semi-state Russian groups are shadowy and protean, it can be challenging to find reliable information about their activities. They are surrounded by rumors, and some of the prominent individuals involved with them have been caught in direct lies.

[...]

The existence of at least one Russian PMC [private military company] seems to have been completely fabricated, for unknown reasons. Ruslan Leviev of the Conflict Intelligence Team (a group that describes itself as conducting open-source, devil’s advocate, big-data intelligence on Russia’s wars in Ukraine and Syria), demonstrated through comparative photographic evidence that the group, “Turan,” a supposed Muslim Russian PMC in Syria, was fake. A different “journalist,” Oleg Blokhin of two pro-Russian-state news organizations (the Abkhazian Network News Agency, http://anna-news.info/about/, and Russian Spring, http://rusvesna.su/about), who “broke” the news about Turan, actually created an elaborate photo-shopped hoax, starring himself and a colleague in combat fatigues.

Marten, Kimberly (4 May 2019). "Russia's use of semi-state security forces: the case of the Wagner Group". Post-Soviet Affairs. Routledge. 35 (3): 181–204. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2019.1591142 – via Taylor & Francis.

I now see that it's already cited in the ANNA News article, which has more examples of ANNA News's publication of false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 08:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Please see these discussions: Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021)#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020). In both cases, editors assert a right to use ANNA News, and ANNA content continues to be inserted into these timeline articles, as you can see by glancing through them. Hence, I opened this discussion. However marginal this source may seem from the outside, it must be properly considered here to prevent further distortions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Please look at the discussions linked above. Attempts to deal with this source on obscure article talk pages have repeatedly resulted in certain editors continuing to place this source into articles. In fact, one editor even claimed that precisely because RSN has not yet deprecated it, it should be considered a 'partisan source, reliable in certain contexts', despite the fact that this source is well-documented in scholarly works as participating in fabrication. Therefore, as I said above, it is absolutely necessary that something be done about this source here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan saw this discussion before "voting" here. See diff. Renat 16:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I posted that because I believe it can be appropriate to notify talk page participants when a thread's subject has been brought to a different forum. I also believe it might be appropriate to ping the "certain editors continuing to place this source into articles" whom RGloucester refers to, but RGloucester hasn't identified them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The goal of opening this RfC was to attract uninvolved participants, not rehash arguments among involved parties (and please note, that discussion is a year old, and I didn't participate in it). I haven't pinged or canvassed anyone to this discussion, no matter their opinion. Your suggestion of impropriety is no less than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Take your accusation to WP:ANI where you'd have to show evidence, I won't engage further with you here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2022 (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.

Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source Arbcom has proposed the following finding of fact (FoF):

"Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability. By contrast the most recent [RSNB] discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics."

Does the above accurately reflect the consensus at RSNB concerning this source?

Arbcom appears to be especially interested in use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs. Our Thomas John (medium) BLP and the use of Operation Pizza Roll – Thomas John from Skeptical Enquirer as a source in that BLP would be an example of this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That FoF is about the "historic" case and I think it's correct. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't come up much and when it has it's received support from experienced editors. The recent GSoW dramafest has caused renewed attention but this is mostly centred on what seem to me to be fruitless considerations of it as a "COI source" in respect of certain targeted editors. In my experience there's not often cause to use this source other than for very niche fringe topics (e.g. Thought Field Therapy) and then it may be useful for WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tyler Henry is another example, as csicop.org. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The conduct related to me and other editors has made it difficult for the community to arrive at consensus on this matter, so I would suggest putting a hold on this until the Arbcom case is closed. I will note that a concern that wasn't properly resolved in the past discussion here on SI was that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of facts they published. Me and others agreed that while not an SPS, this does make them a questionable source due to their lack of editorial oversight, although this perspective did not gain consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"they take no responsibility" ← this is not accurate. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. There are esteemed scientific journals (e.g. PLOS One) which make no attempt to verify the accuracy of the research they publish, merely verifying that it's conducted correctly on the surface. Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it (and of course this has become a huge problem). Attacking SI because it does similar seems like yet another example of the special new harsh regime for "skepticism" that some editors seem very attached to lately. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective is a quote from their submission guidelines. Please do not make vague accusations about other editors, Alexbrn, as that will be disruptive towards reaching a consensus on SI. I'll leave the discussion until Arbcom case is closed. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not make "vague accusation", I specifically said a claim you made was inaccurate. So it was, as you showed when you quoted SI's actual position. I suggest what might actually impede consensus is making such inaccurate statements and then kicking sand up about "vague accusations" when those statements are specifically addressed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, what I meant by vague accusation was your last sentence. Describing criticisms as "attacks", describing behaviour or attitudes by editors as a "special new harsh regime for 'skepticism'" and the phrase "some editors seem very attached to lately" reads to me as a vague accusation, Alexbrn. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

SI is not a scientific journal, though. They are a general interest magazine with no fact-checking process. Because SI does not require authors to be academics (unlike The Conversation, which does), there is simply no way of knowing if something published on SI is a reliable source unless it is written by a scientist in their field. How could anything outside that narrow definition be reliable by our standards? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest that it useful for WP:PARITY purposes when there is an existing, unrebutted fringe claim in an article. Apart from that, it shouldn't be used. BilledMammal (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an established generalist journal, and well-reputed: that reputation counts. "Scientific" journals are not automatically trustworthy - huge numbers of them are trash. For a few very niche topics, like Roswell, SI has some seminal content, like this[19] from K Korff, who is an authority on UFO stuff. For pseudoscience, quack medicine, UFOs, etc WP:PARITY often comes into play and in that context SI is a cut above even "alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia" such a blogs. I don't think anybody is proposing to use SI for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, or as WP:MEDRS or anything. It's only use is for providing sanity in niche WP:FRINGE topics, and as such its use should be limited and rare. You know: time cube, bigfoot, alien autopsies, morphic resonance. All that kind of stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, but the majority of its uses are outside of WP:FRINGE topics, and within fringe topics it is usually used to both introduce and rebut the fringe claim, when it would be better to not mention the fringe claim at all. BilledMammal (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn explained the context of the The authors, however, are responsible quote, for example with Hardly any scientific journal inspects the underlying data for research, trusting that the authors have been diligent in generating it. Those journals could write exactly that same sentence, and it would be true for them too. You people's reasoning that the sentence shows that the journal is not reliable is just your personal, rather colorful and one-sided interpretation of that sentence, carefully circumnavigating and ignoring a better explanation of its meaning that had already been given. I don't think you can actually point out a subject SI got wrong and doubled down on, as unreliable publications would. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like SI, Nature, Science, and I suspect most if not all other scientific journals have no fact-checking process or, at best, their checks of "facts" presented in submitted manuscripts range from limited (e.g., software to detect plagiarism) to non-existent. Also like SI, those journals do not require authors to be academics. So I am uncertain, Pyrrho the Skipper, about your criteria/standards for assigning unreliability to SI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nature publishes scientific research from academics which is reviewed by exclusively PhD-level editors and only a small minority is selected. That's vastly different from SI which has no requirement that an author is doing actual research, original or otherwise, or is an academic. But please correct me if I'm wrong. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting that Nature does not require authors be academics? Nowhere in the author guidelines for Nature (or Science) will you find a requirement that authors be academics. You can confirm that yourself at the journals' websites. FWIW, I will also add that not all of their reviewers are exclusively PhD-level, although by nature of the business that is the common outcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

They only accept "scientific research" as submissions. That statement is false, as evidenced here and here. Your use of the phrase actual scientists is also incorrect, as any number of non-scientists (e.g., journalists, politicians, and even the general public) regularly have material published in those journals. At the risk of repeating myself, having no requirement (your term) that authors be academics/scientists is a feature common to SI, Nature, Science, and an uncountable number of other science journals. Because this is becoming tangential to the main thread, I suggest we move any further discussion to one of our Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I think we can agree that means that authors must be actual scientists, right?", Not even close. Amateur scientists have made many important scientific discoveries that have been published in scientific journals. Forrest Mims is an amateur scientist who's work has has been published in Nature.[20] Guy Stewart Callendar developed the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rising global temperature and created the first climate change model. He was a steam engineer. Though he had almost no formal training in mathematics, Srinivasa Ramanujan made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. It was a Jesuit priest who discovered that Quinine is an effective treatment for malaria. It was a retired carpenter who discovered two species of wildflowers growing previously unnoticed just across the bay from San Francisco and published his results in a botanical journal. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but SI isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's the journal of a non profit. The farmer's co-op I belong to publishes a quarterly journal written by subject matter experts. I wouldn't compare it to an actual peer reviewed journal though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. The reasoning was, a bit shortened, "SI has no fact-checking process" - "Neither has Nature". The point is that a lack of fact-checking process is not a reason to call it unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would say the problem is that the way WP:RS is written, lack of fact-checking would, in fact, be pretty fatal to reliable status. That said, I also agree that those who say the submission guidelines language indicates no fact-checking at all are overreading that bit, especially when taken in context. Still damned murky to me, but hopefully wiser heads see things more clearly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess I shortened it too much. Your response does not fit the longer version because "SI has no fact-checking process" is not in the source, it is a Wikipedia editor's interpretation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to do this it should be a widely advertised, actual RFC. We don't need the same group of people having the same discussion again. I think it would also be a good idea to have it broken down into use cases, i.e. for WP:PARITY, in a WP:BLP, making contentious claims about a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like an RFC is needed, but my snap take is that they do not have editorial oversight. Certainly useable for the authors opinion but it would need to be attributed to them and then take appropriate weight concerns. I would be hesitant to use them to make claims about BLPs. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, Skeptical Inquirer now being targeted. There was a similar attack on Quackwatch [21], [22] in 2019. Science-Based Medicine will probably be next. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Its a good thing when less reliable sources are removed or clarified. Why would you be against that? PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am against quackery and pseudoscience. These websites are very reliable at debunking nonsense and have many academics and scholars writing for them. IMO there is no valid reason to remove them from Wikipedia. They have been on Wikipedia for decades and improve many articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above the issue is their lack of editorial oversight. While I will take your word for it that whatever they publish is right, that falls short of the bar set by Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be this persistent misconception that just because a source debunks nonsense/unreliable sources that it is itself a reliable source... Skeptics aren't inherently any more reliable than any other loose grouping of people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said that the reliability is "inherent". --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion that Skeptical Enquirer has a reputation for accuracy and for printing retractions when they get it wrong. They also clearly label opinion pieces.

As for editorial oversight, see [ https://skepticalinquirer.org/article-submission-guidelines/ ]:

"The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective. The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. Our Editorial Board, CSI Fellows, and Scientific Consultants lists also include many experts who may be able to preview your manuscript. Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal, although a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer."

IMO Skeptical Enquirer is generally reliable for factual claims, and that some (but not all) of their authors are recognized subject matter experts.

I would also caution some of the participants in this discussion to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING. If your new comment basically repeats something you said already, you may wish to skip it. Everyone here is capable of reading the entire thread and we all heard you the first time. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised in previous discussions, so my apologies that I'm probably repeating some things. But in regard to SI:

• I have noticed significant problems with some claims in articles in the past. I think is generally reliable, but as a highly partisan source it should be used cautiously, especially in regard to contentious or serious claims.
• Their editorial process is selective at best. It doesn't give me a lot of faith, but as the authors tend to be experts, I'm happy enough sticking with the generally reliable for factual claims bit.
• The columnists are a different matter, especially as regards living people. Without a clear editorial process evaluating claims about living people, I think columns should be regarded as equivalents to SPS. Viable under WP:Parity in regard to their expertise, but not to be used in BLPs.

There aren't any glaring red flags, but I look at it as a source that requires caution, if only due to being highly partisan, and probably a bit too risky in regards to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point about columns and BLPs.

Let's look at a particular column (I chose the first column in the current issue to avoid cherry picking):

• The Philosopher’s Corner: Science Denialism Is a Form of Pseudoscience

The author, Massimo Pigliucci, is clearly a subject-matter expert in the areas of evolutionary biology, philosophy of science, and pseudoscience. Let's look at a claim in this column that might be used as a source in a BLP:

"My colleague Sven Ove Hansson of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has written an insightful paper about this... Hansson begins by distinguishing two kinds of bad epistemic practices that fall under the broader umbrella of pseudoscience: science denialism and pseudotheory promotion."

I see no problem with using this as a source in the Sven Ove Hansson BLP describing (with attribution) Hansson's paper. To my mind a blanket prohibition of SI columns in BLPs would be too broad. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is "I found a random statement in one column and it is good - therefore it is all good?" Surely you can see the problem with that. - Bilby (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as a mischaracterization, given the last sentence of Guy Macon's comments above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The prohibition on using self published sources in BLPs is not based on whether or not they occasionally make accurate statements we could potentially use. It is based on the idea that without adequate independent fact checking, we need to assume that they are unreliable. The occasional accurate statement in an SPS does not mean that we can use them. That said, we have been able to use them as statements about the opinion of the author - so if Guy's claim was "we could write according to X ..." I'd be much more open to the argument. - Bilby (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So would you say a blanket prohibition would be too broad, and certain statements could be used with attribution? Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, just that is how we would use an SPS without violating BLPSPS. What I'd like to know if there is evidence that columnists are put through a proper editorial process before publication. What they say is that authors are responsible for the accuracy of their own content, and that "technical or controversial matters" may be sent to reviewers. But does that extend to statements about living people made by columnists? In a lot of these publications, online columns are treated effectively as blogs, so I'd like to know if they are treated differently here. - Bilby (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide evidence supporting your claim that SI columns are self-published sources ("online columns are treated effectively as blogs"). WP:SPS says this:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

That is quite different from a column by a subject matter expert that goes through the usual editorial review that pretty much every printed periodical goes through before being sent to the printing press. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Many of these are online-only columns, so what happens with a printed periodical may not apply and there is nothing to suggest that they are reviewed. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support the characterization of Skeptical Enquirer as generally reliable for factual claims. Evidence for SI being de facto unreliable is lacking and, as evinced immediately above by Guy, a broad-stroke prohibition on using SI for BLPs would be harmful to the encyclopedia. That said, the use of SI for any content within BLPs, whether "positive," "negative," or "neutral" in nature, should always be done with care (as a matter of course) and explicit attribution. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Skeptical Inquirer as a source for facts?

1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact;
2. Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply;
3. Generally unreliable for supporting statements of fact; or
4. Should be deprecated.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Skeptical Inquirer

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to pseudoscientific claims, fake products, and fringe theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• 2: Other considerations apply - Articles in the source can be suitable for WP:PARITY statements, but due to their strong POV, and lack of editorial control (The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective - from SI's Submission Guidelines), editors should be cautious of their use outside of those areas, particularly regarding BLP's.

The columns should generally be avoided, with the only exception being when the author is a subject-matter expert and the article is not a BLP, given the lack of evidence of any editorial control, and the fact that some columns have been written with the intent of them being used as sources for Wikipedia BLP's.

I would note that while the articles are suitable for parity statements, editors should be cautious when using the source to both introduce and rebut fringe claims; in such circumstances, mentioning the fringe claim is likely to be WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and blacklist via the WP:Spam blacklist. The fact that it specifically makes no claim to fact-checking or accuracy makes it useless as a source, even for WP:PARITY purposes - anyone trying to cite parity to argue for this source needs to actually read what parity says; it is obviously inapplicable. Parity allows us to use non-academic / non-peer-reviewed sources and sources of somewhat lower quality in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source, but it doesn't allow us to totally ignore WP:RS, which would be necessary to use this source at all in any context; since Skeptical Inquirer performs no fact-checking, it is comparable to eg. Forbes contributors and provides no reliability beyond a WP:SPS. On its own that would just get a red / generally unreliable rating, but it has also been systematically spammed, and there's no reason to think that that is going to stop. The spamming of an unreliable source means this is a case for the spam blacklist, which exists precisely to prevent that sort of behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion could you kindy expand a bit more on how SI has been systematically spammed? Cedar777 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in another editor's mouth, but I believe he is referring to how some Wikipedia editors have (allegedly) written articles critical of particular individuals in Skeptical Inquirer with the intention that other editors they know would use those articles as sources on Wikipedia; this was one of the central issues in a recent ArbCom case. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI's article submission guidelines don't say that they don't fact-check anything. The full quote is The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. The Editor checks it, and if they need help they'll get another reviewer. The author is responsible for not wasting the editor's time with poorly researched junk. That's how more or less every non-peer reviewed publication works. If we were to disqualify SI on this basis I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It states "will often"; we can't determine from that when the editor decides to send it off to reviewers, or how often they decide to do that - all we know is that they place all responsibility for accuracy of fact and perspective on the author. BilledMammal (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is one of several comments that led me to add a comment to the discussion saying that I think we need a resource educating Wikipedians about the realities of how oversight at publishers work. You are generally a well-informed editor, but I find this comment naive: publishing venues with any substantial momentum are regularly going to put their editors in difficult situations. We should not bring a narrow box-ticking mentality to assessing publishing venues but decide what level of trust we should put in the venue based on its fruits. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we'll end up disqualifying a lot of other publications we currently consider to be reliable as well. Any examples? Honest question. JBchrch talk 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a peer reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. Their manuscript guidelines include: Authors are responsible for accuracy of their manuscripts, so ask colleagues to help review your draft before submitting it. National Defense Magazine is currently cited hundreds of times on Wikipedia. Their contribute an article page includes the text Authors are responsible for accuracy of all material reported. As User:Alexbrn notes in the discussion section, much is being made of a boilerplate phrase that can be found in the policies of many publications. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, and SI isn't. If National Defense Magazine publishes unreviewed texts by non-subject matter experts, then they should be booted off Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 22:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is a non-sequitur. Are we going to discount the New York Times because its editorial processes rarely involve peer review? — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. See my support comment in the previous section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• 3: Treat as self-published. Per their Article Submission Guidelines, which indicate that they publish articles from outside authors with no review or fact-checking in many cases as a matter of principle (see "Categories, Topics, and General Information") correction JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC). As a result, it's essentially equivalent to a group blog or, rather, one of those "academic blogs", which feature shorter works by subject matter experts—but, crucially, not only subject matter experts. Examples in my field of interest include the Columbia Blue Sky Blog or the Oxford Business Law Blog. In all of these cases, many works published on these websites are citable because they are written by authors who fit the WP:SPS criteria. But that determination has to be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who the author is, whether they are a subject-matter expert, and with respect to what field they are a subject-matter expert. JBchrch talk 04:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked the link and looks like what you say ("no review or fact-checking as a matter of principle") is simply untrue: in particular, "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers". Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Read the sentence you're quoting: The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. So, in principle, no review. Maybe "as a matter of principle" was not the correct language, but this sentence says all we need to know: most of this stuff has not been reviewed. JBchrch talk 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Alexbrn Since you have accused me of saying "wrong things" below, I've made the correction that you pointed out. JBchrch talk 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. I generally concur with MrOllie here. The idea that it has no editorial control whatsoever is not borne out by their statements, and I've yet to see a pattern established of them being, well, factually wrong. Nor does a source having been used inappropriately on Wikipedia translate to unreliability. XOR'easter (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There were a few examples in the previous discussion, but this article demonstrates the lack of editorial control. The underlying premise and conclusion is fine, but the issue is the method used - the author decided to invent a new field called "forensic caricaturing", which involves proving that two images are of different people by caricaturizing the photos, allowing differences to be more readily perceived. The issues with modifying evidence through subjective methods to prove a point are obvious, but were not identified by the editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The real procedure here was to look at the photograph and the sketch produced by the psychic and observe that they don't look much alike (anyone can replicate this part). The 'method' you are concerned about was just a means to make a graphic to go with the article: I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. I finally decided to create a new field, “forensic caricaturing. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The method was the means the author proved it, and that is the issue. The fact that they could have proven it through dozens of ways that don't involve modifying evidence through subjective methods is not relevant. Moved from here to try and make the conversations possible to understand. MrOllie, please move back if you believe that location is more appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It is not "clearly wrong", and you did not "explain it above". Dorothy Allison is not a psychic, and the two pictures do not depict the same person. Nickell just used a way of emphasizing differences to make them clearer. As he wrote, I considered whether to point them out in text or to compare them in a diagram. He could have done that, and the result would have been the same. SI is not "wrong", let alone "clearly wrong", it just used a didactic tool you did not like. You are grasping at straws, just as you are grasping at straws with your "imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Let me just point out that the author of the article being criticized is Joe Nickell, a formidable investigator and forensic expert. And this is not an example of lack of editorial control, or of a bad method. As a forensic expert myself, I have to say that his use of caricatures is just a clever, as well as amusing, tool to make the differences between the two faces more easibly distinguishable. There is nothing wrong here. The comparison with "using dowsing rods to figure out the shape of the Earth" is completely bogus.VdSV9•♫ 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Modifying evidence through subjective methods is wrong. It might be entertaining, but publications that seek to be entertaining rather than correct typically have reliability issues - see the opinion content of Fox News, which has the same intent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

              Have you ever read the data-driven reporting from The Economist [23] [24] [25], FiveThirtyEight [26] [27], The Atlantic [28] [29] [30], etc. etc. Such pieces often "modify evidence through subjective methods". One must choose the reporting bounds, the resolution, even the color scheme.

              Data categorization, visualization, and interpretation are inherently subjective endeavors. Journalism is an inherently subjective endeavor [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] that strives to be as factual and objective as possible, but acknowledges its failure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

              SI changed the data to make their point, while the examples you provided did not. If 538 had changed the educational rate of voters in counties to better indicate the trend, then it would be equivalent - but they didn't, and if they had we would be questioning their reliability. Alternatively, if SI had cut out parts of the images - such as only showing the jaw lines, to emphasise the differences between the two - then it would also have been equivalent, and we would not be discussing this example as there would not be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Additional considerations apply. I don't feel we can give this publication a blanket pass. It does seem to mix opinion and fact and lack a clear cut editorial policy. However, it does not appear to publish false information any more frequently than, say, The Times. Individual articles should be judged on their merits, which can be discussed at the relevant talk page. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ok for some facts per WP:PARITY, although better sources are preferable. Not ok for BLPs. Fundamentally, this is a highly partisan site aimed at beliefs, actions and individuals they disagree with. As such, I do not believe that it is reliable when it comes to living people, much as is the case with other highly partisan sites. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

2: Other considerations apply (I figured I would make this a bit clearer). Under WP:PARITY there are times when this publication is useful, but only under parity: where parity doesn't apply (specifically statements that are not directly related to fringe topics), other sources should be used. For statements about BLPs it should be regarded as self-published. As an example of the former, it was raised elsewhere that this was used for a reference about "bomb dowsers" used in Iraq. Under parity, it is an acceptable source for "bomb dowsers do not work" as that is fringe; it is not a good source for "bomb dowsers are used in Iraq". In regard to the latter, I remain concerned about the editorial policy when it comes to BLPs, the lack of clarity about the editorial policy regarding living people; errors that I have found when checking articles from the publication; and the use of the publication to run campaigns targeting living people. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• 1: Generally reliable for statements of fact. Too much emphasis is being placed on peer review. Here are over 20 peer reviewed journals on homeopathy Here is a peer reviewed journal on cryptozoology. Here is a peer reviewed journal of 911 Studies. The question is does SI publish recognized experts saying true things? Yes, yes they do. Have they published misinformation, or lies? I haven't seen any compelling evidence. Is their track record as good as other reliable sources? Geogene complains above that SI is used when other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  other RS could be used for the same information. In other words, SI is as good as those other sources on matters of fact This is not how sourcing policy works. Citing a random personal blog for "the sky is blue" in Rayleigh scattering is worse than not sourcing the statement at all. There is no reason to use low quality sources when better sources are available, see for example WP:BESTSOURCES. Problematically, SI often strays into high profile areas, into geopolitics, where better sourcing is available. Havana syndrome is another example of this. What if, hypothetically, one of SI's dubious experts decides tomorrow that Novichok isn't a real chemical weapon and the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was a mass hysteria? Recent experience has shown that editors will go to that page to try to use it as a source, to "counterbalance" mainstream sources. Geogene (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Any source may hypothetically publish something daft. I'm interested in actual examples. Again, what is this "review of a cancer researcher's book" in SI you mentioned above? Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  What are you saying here, Alexbrn? That since any source can publish nonsense, they're all of equal quality? Surely not. Geogene (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, but a source isn't unreliable because of what it might do in your imagination. Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others. Again, what is this cancer review you invoked above as an example of SI problems? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Similarly, because a source isn't reliable in one field doesn't invalidate it for others I agree with this point, but SI's contributors' field(s) of expertise needs to be defined. I view it as a usually reliable, but low prominence Parity source. Geogene (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Which is why your cancer example is of interest. Link please! Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  (...Sound Of Crickets...) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know how I missed this before, but it is baffling how Geogene refers to "SI's dubious experts", while referring to Robert Bartholomew an expert and authority on psychogenic illnesses, who wrote a book on the Havana Syndrome alongside Robert W. Baloh, a neurologist who wrote a textbook on the vestibular system[36] and remains unconvinced of the evidence presented. All while defending the outlier conclusions presented on a paper with poor methodology from an advisory panel led by microbiologist and immunologist David Relman, with no background in either neurology, the auditory system, microwave or sound weapons, or psychology. And they do this even after a lot of the mainstream position on HS has shifted away from attacks and more evidence has been shown confirming what the "dubious experts" have been claiming all along. A lot of examples given here by others for the claimed lack of reliability of SI are of similar quality. VdSV9•♫ 19:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @VdSV9: What was his day job again? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Whose? VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Bartholomew's, of course. While you're at, could you clarify what the word "Honorary" means, in the title, "Honorary Senior Lecturer"? Geogene (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the relevant policy, Geogene.[37] Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link. It says, Honorary appointees are not remunerated, other than reimbursement of expenses. So if VdSV9 calls this person an expert, what is his day job again? It's obvious this Bartholomew wouldn't pass WP:NPROF on this. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, the policy also says that to be an honorary appointee, a person must have a national and international standing outside the University in their area of expertise. Now, it's certainly not binding on Wikipedia, but it does let me know that the University of Auckland considers him notable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  But not enough standing to justify paying him a salary? I suspect that University of Auckland considers all of their people notable in some way, and I also suspect they pay most of them. Few of them are notable enough to receive any coverage at all in an encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. A google news search suggests to me that he is likely notable, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what his day job is, don't care, and am not willing to go along with your red herrings. His specialization is in medical sociology, and there are plenty reliable sources to support the claim that he is an expert in MPI (mass hysteria), having written or co-written books and articles on notable publications about it. Do you want more information on Robert Baloh, with whom he co-wrote the HS book? VdSV9•♫ 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  You SHOULD care what he does for a living, because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate he's a world class expert. If a university WERE paying him for his expertise, that would be independent, objective evidence in favor of that expertise. That it doesn't is a red flag that you don't seem to be able to recover from. Geogene (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This focus on drawing a paycheck strikes me as odd. Notability, expertise, and the like, should be, to my mind, a holistic inquiry. While you're free to take employment into account, it is not for me a sine qua non for expertise, source usage, or anything else. If consensus is against me on this count, I will find a way to survive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, I fail to see what the relevance of this whole Bartholomew expertise discussion to the wider SI debate. We're kind of just walking in circles here. I will say though, that for all intents and purposes Bartholomew is an expert in some areas of medicine, being published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, and Dumuzid's description of honorary positions is in line with my (brief) professional experience in the field. But again, this has no effect on the editorial practices, biases, and ethics of SI nor its use within Wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable wrt to facts. Opinion pieces still need to be cited as opinions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact As others have been saying above, their main articles are fine to use as is, but any opinion pieces need to be attributed to the authors. The good thing, also as many have noted, is that their opinion pieces are almost always done by a notable expert who also often already has a Wikipedia article anyways. Honestly, a lot of the opposition to SI that I've been seeing taking advantage of the source's admission of negatively covering pseudoscience are those who would want said pseudoscience to be positively covered and are using this as an opportunity to try and remove one of the primary sources of debunking WP:FRINGE topics out there. Silverseren^C 16:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren, LuckyLouie, and Shibbolethink: I believe most editors who question its reliability support its use for WP:PARITY statements, but have concerns about its use beyond debunking fringe topics. As your response appears focused on its use in fringe areas, is this a position you could agree with; can be used for parity, but should generally be avoided outside of fringe areas. Pinging LuckyLouie and Shibbolethink as well, as their comments were similar. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. SI actually describes itself as focused on "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" — which is the bulk of its content. And most Wikipedians agree (me included) that opinion pieces should be attributed ("According to John Smith..."). Here's the latest issue [38], can you indicate which content is unreliable, should be avoided, etc.? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It is what it is primarily focused on, but use of the source often goes beyond that, and given the issues with the source it seems likely that this shouldn't be happening. In response to your question, I would recommend avoiding content that is not being used to rebut fringe statements. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Their "critical scientific evaluations of paranormal and fringe-science claims" sync with mainstream scientific thought. Obvious caveats are that unambiguous SI opinion pieces should be attributed, especially in the context of BLPs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. As with many GREL publications, there are also opinion pieces published here, and those require additional considerations such as attribution, closer scrutiny for evaluating DUE, etc. As others here have said, the reporting standards of SI are not very different from most other publications in this area, or in popular journalism in general. It checks facts which are contentious with external review, it has standards for who it allows to publish, and it has an editorial process. I want to emphasize, the factual reporting of SI makes it an essential source for matters which have serious parity issues, such as pseudoscience, charlatans, the paranormal, hoaxes, and the occult. Many wiki articles about these subjects are overly laudatory, and lack a skeptical perspective to achieve NPOV balance in due proportion to reliable sources. They are overly reliant on in-universe content, because of a very common problem: The more FRINGE a topic, the more polarized the sources, and the more interested editors may be biased in favor of the subject. This is similar to Brandolini's law, or its sub-corollary that proponents of a fringe topic will almost always know more about it, and in more detail, in-universe, than critics of that fringe topic will know negative content. In order to maintain DUE and BALANCE, we need more reliable independent sources like SI to counter that common bias. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. All the reasoning above about no fact-checking is crap, and it has already been refuted in the section above the survey. To repeat: Even scientific journals do not check all facts. Peer-review, for example, does not mean that the peers go to the lab of the authors and check all the records. So, there are unchecked facts in scientific journals! Deprecate them all! There has not even been one single example given about anything SI ever got wrong. I am not saying there isn't - there must be, it is unavoidable that it will happen at some time in 40 years, even if you extremely careful. But the fact that not one of SI's detractors has named such a blooper tells you that its supposed unreliability is just hypothetical, not real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • First, you could have referred to this better, for example, by saying "08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)". (I guess that is whyt you meant.) Then I could have searched the page for that instead of for your name or XOR'easter's. Thank you for unnecessarily wasting my time.
    • Second, you found an example of something you disagreed with, not an example of something where SI clearly got it wrong. If someone wanted to quote that one in an article, they would fail because it would be WP:UNDUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except it is clearly wrong, as I explained above - I would even go so far as to call the chosen method pseudoscience. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        BilledMammal, I would implore you to re-read the article you link again. The 'forensic caricature' which gives you so much pause (and understandably so) seems obviously to me to be (1) tongue-in-cheek; and (2) a description of the method for illustrating differences--not in fact a heuristic for coming to the conclusion. You can certainly take issue with the conclusion or actual method by which it was reached (which seems to have been "I see differences"), but I think your description here is a bit off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

        • I am responding to this above, where the same discussion is duplicated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I haven't seen anything published in SI that has been so egregiously incorrect as to call into question its reliability. Of course, such honorifics can be taken to extremes. I've seen people argue that obvious typos need to be accepted at face value because a reliable source printed it. The word generally is the key term here. jps (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Generally reliable and worth noting that scepticism (sometimes spelled skepticism) is merely a public reflection of mainstream science, something ARBCOM would do well to acknowledge. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Of course it's generally reliable for supporting statements of fact within its topic—the authors and the publication are generally good and suitably credentialed. Is there evidence of any substantive and incorrect information in Skeptical Inquirer? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I gave an example to XOR'easter earlier in the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to Shame on Shamus Sham? That mentions The Mystery Chronicles: More Real-Life X-Files,^details with publisher: "The University Press of Kentucky (UPK) is the scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth of Kentucky". You might argue that someone with no qualifications in examination of faces is not a reliable source to point out that two faces have marked differences and are obviously not the same person. But to claim that conclusion is incorrect would be absurd—have a look at the photos. The question of whether SI is reliable of course depends on what fact it is being used to verify but if WP:PARITY were being used to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer, the source would be perfect. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The conclusion is correct, but that isn't enough for a source to be usable; the method the conclusion is arrived at also needs to be correct. An equivalent example would be someone proving the earth is round using dowsing rods; even though the conclusion is correct, the method means that we cannot use the source. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you did not read my question which asked for an example of incorrect information. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Can you explain what the difference is? It doesn't matter why the source is unusable - incorrect method or incorrect conclusion - just that it is unusable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
            • A lot of time has been wasted (see Arbcom proposed remedies) mainly because participants have been unable to respond in a logical fashion. I asked if there is an example of SI publishing incorrect information. Your response implied that such an example can be found above. I hunted for it and found the article to be 100% correct. Now you are shifting the goalposts to say that this example is correct but is unusable as a source. Did you see where I pointed out that the article would be reliable to counter a claim that a psychic's imagination from eight years ago gave a correct match for an alleged murderer? Whether or not that's true, the fact remains that the article is correct. In the future, if you're going to respond, please make it logical. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
              • Sorry, it appears I was not clear. The example provided is an example of SI publishing incorrect information, as the method the conclusion is arrived at is not correct. This means we cannot use the article, even as a parity source - just as we could not use an article proving the earth is round using dowsing, even as a parity source, as it would be incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                • Regarding simple logic, are you aware that "the method the conclusion is arrived at" is totally irrelevant for whether this is "an example of SI publishing incorrect information"? I might conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow by consulting a psychic. My method is bogus but the conclusion is correct. After all these replies you still have not identified any substantive and incorrect information published in SI. And you fail to respond to the point that the SI source would be suitable to counter a claim from a psychic. Please either answer my question with an example of incorrect information, or agree that no such example is known. After that, we can debate how SI authors arrive at their conclusions and whether a particular article would be suitable as a reference for a particular assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
                  • Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall - would you really consider an article claiming that the sun would rise tomorrow because a psychic told the author to not be incorrect? And I have responded to that point; per my !vote above, SI would generally be suitable as a WP:PARITY source. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Your conclusions is correct, but because your method is bogus you are incorrect overall This is your opinion of how "correctness" should be determined. It is not wikipedia's. See, for example: WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    This definition of correctness is widely held; for example: do you consider a person proving the sun will rise tomorrow with the help of a psychic to be correct? I also don't believe WP:NOTTRUTH is relevant to a discussion about whether a source is reliably "correct". BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    I think you have completely misapprehended Joe Nickell here. The claim he is debunking is no more solid than the method he is using, and that's rather his point. He is meeting the argument on its own terms and thereby argues that the entire premise is quite ridiculous. This is rather like when cynical commentators use the methods of creationists to "prove" evolution. The point of such exercises is not to say that such methods are the way things should be done. The point is to show that they don't even do what they claim to do. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

                    Which is the issue. Neither the claim, nor the rebuttal, are reliable, and publishing either raises questions about the publisher, and suggests that at best they seek to entertain, rather than inform. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable due to it being a self-admitted biased publication that has a problem with issuing corrections. I don't have the entire collection of SI handy to provide issue dates, so I am relying on my memory, but there was an Editor's note some recent years ago where the magazine proudly proclaimed its content was non-neutral. It also once falsely claimed as a puzzle answer that the source of the quotation "Everyone who believes in telekinesis raise my hand" was writer Kurt Vonnegut (It's a one-liner by comedian Emo Philips). They never published a correction, so it makes me wonder how many other errors they wouldn't correct over its publishing history. I also note famous skeptical writers Robert Shaeffer, Gary Poser, and much earlier Marcello Truzzi quit their association with its publisher for similar reasons over bias. Its use as a source should be considered on a case by case basis. 5Q5|^✉ 13:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • They admit to bias, and so do we. What is the issue here? Why admiting to one's own biases would not be a good thing? I thought we were discussing reliability. Do you have any evidence to the claim that they have a problem with issuing corrections? I have yet to see a publication that never makes a mistake, and I don't expect them to catch and publish corrections to all of them. The one you caught may have slipped by, I have seen other mistakes they've made, but that's a long shot for claiming a publication has such a bad record as to be "marginally reliable". VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "They admit to bias, and so do we...": Who exactly is we? WP:GOODBIAS links to a user page. GretLomborg (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Just us, the reasonable people that try not to have our heads in the clouds. The only bias they have is a pro-science and pro-reality one. Everyone has biases, as does every publication, and admiting to one's own biases is not a bad thing and doesn't make it unreliable. VdSV9•♫ 00:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Anchoring (cognitive_bias)#Overconfidence is a useful read in this instance. Y'all are so perfectly biased, in your eyes, and so is one of the sources you most favor that there is a very high chance if it publishes wrong information or is contradictory to more reliable sources that rather than editing Wikipedia to reflect reliable sources' views on the issue, you will stick by whatever SI says. This is the main concern for those of us that do not trust SI's editorial policy to err on the side of caution when publishing potentially damaging BLP information or even when its contributors write pieces outside their area of expertise. This is why I highlight below in my vote some of the comments cited to regular SI contributors, even outside of SI context, such as Benjamin Radford (written over 100 articles for SI on all matter of subjects) being cited for the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation. The actual context is much more nuanced, with caveats such as most developing countries having incomplete or nonexistent reporting of suicides, and other causes (such as ingestion of pesticides to induce self-poisoning) being significantly more common. I would be very surprised if Radford was enough of an expert to be cited for that in an unverifiable way, as only 4% of all suicides in Pakistan are from self-immolation. Those that agree with me in this discussion are concerned about SI not fact-checking these types of numbers, and there is no public criteria for when they would (if a publication is explicitly biased, their judgement of what is "controversial" may not and probably does not fit wider journalism standards for controversy). In fact, it is in my opinion SI's reporting standards violate the US journalistic ethics code by not taking responsibility for the accuracy of their work as editors. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation. There are indeed distortions here, but it is not done by SI.

1. the source given is not the SI, it is Vice. So, the whole example is irrelevant here.
2. The source says, In developing countries, Radford says, self-immolation can account for up to 40 percent of all suicide. That means that there is at least one developing country where it is 40%.
3. Our article says, Radford claims in developing countries the figure can be as high as 40%
4. User:A._C._Santacruz says, the completely wild statement that 40% of deaths by suicide in developing countries are by self-immolation.

So, our article says exactly what the source says, attributing it to Radford with the words "Radford claims".

But what ACS claims is something completely different. She claims that Radford claims the overall rate for all developing countries is 40%.

ACS, would you please strike your false statements and your irrelevant statements using <strike> and </strike>? We don't want the people who decide this to accidentally take them into account. See also User:Hob Gadling/Admit mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the way this RfC has been going, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction. (Yes, A. C. Santacruz really did just use a citation to Vice as an example of Skeptical Enquirer being unreliable!) The good news is that I have asked for an experienced closer at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer and an experienced closer will know what claims to ignore. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling: I clarified above that the citation was not necessary to be from SI for my argument (even outside of SI context). Radford is a very frequent contributor to SI (251 articles up until now). He is not qualified enough nor expert enough in mental illness in the developing world for us to use him in Wiki in these contexts, especially for an unverifiable claim, through attribution. In this discussion some editors, including myself, have raised the issue that attribution should be used for subject-matter expert content published by SI. However, if editors that add citations to SI and their frequent contributors are unable to identify when the writers of articles they read are actually experts (which is important in a popular science publication like SI) that present issues in the implementation of such a community expectation of the source as "Marginal reliability - use with attribution". The Radford full quote is "In developing countries, Radford says, self-immolation can account for up to 40 percent of all suicide.'This woman was an immigrant from another country, and elsewhere in the world, such as India and Africa, self immolation, suicide by fire is far more common than in America or Western Europe. It's actually a fairly likely explanation.'". When combined with statements like "elsewhere in the world suicide by fire is far more common than in America or Western Europe" (emphasis my own), it is pretty clear to me Radford wasn't meaning an outlier case when mentioning the 40% — he was giving the reader a strong, general impression about a topic he has no expertise on.

On a separate point, Hob, please stop linking me to that essay. This RfC is a very nuanced discussion on journalistic practices, verifiability, sourcing policies on Wikipedia, and popular science source use within articles. Reasonable minds may differ, and calling my points as false and irrelevant is neither constructive nor civil. I particularly take offense at you raising the concern that closers might accidentally take my arguments into account. I'm discussing here in good faith, being diligent in my analysis of how skeptics are cited on Wikipedia, and presenting rationales for my opinion. Dismissing them wholeheartedly and in such a disrespectful manner is obviously hurtful, and I ask you to at least remove that sentence. There's no reason why this discussion ever had to veer into such personal territory and I'm stunned that even after your AE warning you're still testing where the limit of civility lies.

Guy Macon Alternate Account, making passive-aggressive remarks about me (Yes, A. C. Santacruz really did just use a citation to Vice as an example of Skeptical Enquirer being unreliable!) is not constructive to the discussion and borderline uncivil, please stop. Also, I would recommend you place the closure request notice in the Discussion section rather than the Survey due to visibility purposes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Radford's quote is mathematically very clear, and your misquotation of it is also mathematically very clear. Both statements are clearly different. Your interpretations of other stuff beside the quote itself do not matter to this fact. Your statement was false and stays false; it is not a matter of opinion. It would have been very easy for you to amend your false statement to make it true, and it would not have hurt your argument (unless your argument is based on that very falsehood and crumbles if the falsehood is removed). Still, I did not expect you to correct it, and neither did Guy, based on past experience. Our expectation was correct. I have nothing more to say about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You know we can just like, disagree, right? It is perfectly normal and common in discussions about reliability or other nuanced guidelines for reasonable editors to disagree, even strongly. There is no absolute truth, just consensus. Not every discussion is an absolute right or wrong side against another, and it would greatly benefit the quality of the discussion if you stopped acting like this is a black-or-white question we're trying to answer, Hob Gadling. In any case, Radford is "mathematically" not an expert on developed world suicide method prevalence, and his being cited through attribution for statistics regarding that field leads me to believe those that are members of the American skepticism movement are too anchored to see why its wrong to cite him in such contexts and thus would not be able to understand (and therefore respect) the standards for attribution of subject-matter experts as option 2 would recommend. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - It seems strange to again have a thread about this source. It's often useful for WP:PARITY. If the recent ARBCOM case was an excuse to repost this, it doesn't have to do with if this source is reliable or not... —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - No meaningful evidence has been presented by the other side. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• 1 - Gen. Reliable - Surprised this is even up for discussion, SI is an absolutely irreplaceable tool in the coverage of fringe. Obviously, it has to be used with a certain amount of care, because they're advocates not journalists, but absolutely meets RS. Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Marginally reliable—on top of the issues discussed above, the biggest queries I often have is—can this be replaced with a better source? And if it can't, is the topic actually something we should be covering? Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia with topics that should be receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. We're not Quackwatch or a place to relentlessly catalog frauds and hucksters and pseudoscience just because it's pseudoscience. It's a different remit. If you can't find good coverage of a topic besides SI, I'd question whether the topic is actually notable in the first place. And if SI is the only place "rebutting" another POV, that implies fringe POVs. It should be used sparingly, and generally treated as a SPS and looking to the author given its lack of editorial controls.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Shibbolethink's point about the importance of this publication for maintaining DUE and BALANCE is well made. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 1/2: - Reliable but considerations apply for opinion pieces. I also don't think we should lean on skepticism magazines for statements of fact in scientific subjects. We have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for that. CutePeach (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how to count a "1/2" !vote. Some considerations apply for all opinion pieces, even those that we determine are generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. And nothing in WP:SCHOLARSHIP in any way implies that other sources (WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED) are unreliable or marginally reliable -- just that we should "try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent". Could you please make your !vote clear so we can get a clean count that nobody can dispute? Suggestions:

• "1 with the usual cautions about opinion pieces and bias",
• "2 [list of considerations as to why certain claims in this source aren't to be trusted in specific situations]",
• "1 second choice 2",
• "2 second choice 1".

Any of those or something similar will be easy to count and hard to dispute --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I wanted to position myself between 1 and 2, but reading some of the !votes below, I now lean more towards 2. There is a real WP:ADVOCACY concern with the skeptic cabal on Wikipedia. I don't think they're a net negative, but they need to be kept in check to assure WP:BALANCE is maintained, and SI looks like it can disrupt that. It's not clear how SI's editorial team reviews submissions and distinguishes between fact and opinion, and I can see that as giving rise to sourcing disputes. CutePeach (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact - I have spent a long time thinking about this and looking for secondary sources and other mentions, but there's a funny issue insofar as it seems the magazine occupies a very specific niche. It is largely hegemonic in the kookier pseudoscientific field--you don't get scholarly journals which spend time debunking interdimensional bigfoot, to put it crudely. That largely means its existence is sort of unexamined; when it comes up in major news sources, it tends to be noted and quickly ignored (from what I can tell). That said, I would obviously be open if anyone has found better sources than I have (which is certainly possible). Still, I think there is a general reputation for accuracy, without implying perfection, and to me, the fact-checking concerns are overwrought (though it would be nice to know more). So, this is where I stand, though I reserve the right to change my mind as new information is adduced. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 It looks like they have sufficient editorial controls; while they take submitted articles they do send them for review and generally have a policy against publishing obvious falsehoods. The boilerplate "authors are responsible for their own content" is not particularly problematic for me. --Jayron32 16:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of factOption 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply, with the usual opinion caveat. With that said, I have two specific concerns about it's use. First is it's use in BLPs, as it is clearly biased, and columns written with the aim to get negative information added to Wikipedia and search results is a real concern for me. Generally, I would treat any stings and the like as primary sources, and would not include them unless they are covered by additional secondary sources. Second is to make sure information sourced to SI is WP:DUE. If there are no other secondary sources covering something, especially in a BLP, it likely should not be in the article at all. If the only reliable source that says Subject A believes interdimensional Bigfoot faked the moon landed is also the source debunking dimension shifting yetis pulling hoaxes, it's probably not due for inclusion. While I'm less bothered than some others by its use when better sources exist, it should generally not be used far outside the topic of skepticism, i.e. in Anorexia nervosa. Also, I believe Dumuzid puts it best, Reasonable minds may differ, of course. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've been giving this a fair amount of additional thought, and have decided to adjust my !vote. Firstly, there are many comparing SI to a journal. If this is true, it does not have a peer review process, and per WP:RS, Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. All mentions of using journals as sources hinges on them being peer reviewed or a well regarded academic press, which SI is not. WP:RS also says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. SI is not "high-quality" when compared to other high-quality non-scholarly sources. They do not have a strong, established editorial policy, or a team of fact checkers reading and vetting articles. High-quality non-scholarly sources, like the New York Times, have teams of fact checkers that verify facts in articles. They have strong editorial processes, and a published standard of ethical journalism.[39] They have a reputation for fact checking and correcting errors.
    There's also the bias and advocacy issues. Again, using the New York Times as a benchmark, review the tone of [40] and [41], While consultations can feel very therapeutic, he said, these online marketplaces are full of fraudsters, looking to trick vulnerable clients out of their money... This exchange is a gift to critics looking for examples of how Gwyneth Paltrow’s wellness media empire peddles expensive quackery in the name of self-care. They clearly state the issues with psychics and quackery, and call such things out, but they don't refer to people as grief vampires, or write in an overly sensationaist tone, Maybe I missed the press release and the Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded to Henry for breaking the natural laws of the known universe. Possibly the smoke from the burning of all the textbooks that now need to be rewritten has polluted the atmosphere to the point that I forgot when this discovery was announced. That kind of writing is fine and good, but it's not a high quality source for an encyclopedia. This Guardian article on the ethics of stings in journalism puts a large emphasis on editorial oversight, and again, that's not something we see with this source.
    WP:PARITY usage is fine, but usage in BLPs and making contentious statements should be limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply: it's a self-declared and heavily WP:PARTISAN source that covers scientific topics from a non-academic, popular journalism perspective. Just on this score it would be easily recognized by everyone as generally unreliable, if not for two facts: (1) for some aspects of some fringe topics, there is no other and better source, which makes it usable under WP:PARITY, and (2) there are quite a few editors who are specifically here on WP to fight fringe, and they have no qualms with applying different standards to sources which they regard as useful in 'fighting the good fight'. In particular, the !votes for "option 1. generally reliable" that cite WP:PARITY as a rationale should be discounted because, apart from the fact that WP:PARITY does not automagically render a source generally reliable, a source that is truly generally reliable in and of itself would never need WP:PARITY in the first place. Instead, the fact that WP:PARITY applies shows that additional considerations apply which in some cases may legitimize the use of an otherwise marginally reliable source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality, and that we ought to find sources that are neutral and balanced in the debate between Swiss watchmakers and time cube proponents. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And we've had some discussions before about "we can never know anything" philosophical statements (that may well belong in a philosophy article but that is by no means appropriate in practice for Wikipedia)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Indeed, if "Universal Skeptic Inquirer" exists, I am sure it is NOT reliable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks for illustrating my point, y'all? Anyway, as you know, I take the view that we're WP:NOTBIASED, and that as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to always look for the best sources. This of course doesn't mean something 'between' an anti-fringe magazine and fringe magazines, but academic, peer-reviewed sources. The magazine can be cited when nothing better is available. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Headbomb that is a false equivalence, and a particularly hyperbolic one at that. SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact. It is not unreasonable for atheist, skeptical, or "free thinker" publications to be criticized as biased (similar to the way new atheists have been criticized as evangelical and militant). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing needless, combative squabbling over what constitutes a fallacy and the protocols for collapsing comments. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As usual, in order to claim someone else has commited a fallacy, ACS has to create a strawman of what they said. And then follow it up with a non-sequitur. Just tiresome. VdSV9•♫ 00:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC) What strawman? SI is not the utmost representative of reality and fact is a direct response to Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality. Additionally, I still believe that new atheists provide a very useful comparison to modern American-style skeptics in both how they organize and operate since to me they seem like two movements with significant overlap. It's not as much of a reach as you'd think when the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (a New Atheism-styled foundation) is a division of the Center for Inquiry, the parent company of SI. I'd appreciate some explanation on why that is a non-sequitur, VdSV9. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC) At this point I advise not responding to A. C. Santacruz. There is no point in debating someone who reads the words "Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality" and somehow transmogrifying that argument into a strawman claim that SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact. Yes, it is a classic Straw man but nothing anyone writes will result in A. C. Santacruz seeing that. They will, no doubt, respond at length to this comment, but IMO we should all at that point stop beating a dead horse and let them have the last word, for the simple reason that we have a consensus and nobody involved is going to change their position. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Replying only to 'advise not to reply' and to take another ad hominem stab? Please do better. I'm collapsing this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Note: Uncollapsed by ‎Guy Macon Alternate Account with the summary Either collapse the discussion or you can add a "last word" comment with your opinion. Please don't do both. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted. As I said, collapsing a section is (usually) OK -- but in general should be done by someone uninvolved, not someone who has taken a position in the discussion -- and adding another comment that accuses an editor of engaging in the ad hominem fallacy is also (usually) OK, but doing both in the same edit has the effect of unfairly giving the editor who made the ad hominem accusation an unanswerable last word. Furthermore, BilledMammal's the collapse is a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline: "Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors" Do it again and we will end up discussing the talk page guidelines at WP:ANI. (Any uninvolved editor should feel free to collapse the discussion without tacking on a last word accusing one participant in the discussion.) In such cases, reverting just the improper collapse while leaving in the added comment is controversial. If you just remove the collapse you may be accused of reverting part of an edit, which is to be avoided. If you revert the entire edit you may be accused of deleting other editors comments. even though reverting a a clear violation of our WP:COLLAPSENO behavioral guideline is allowed -- see WP:TPOC. I also note the irony in collapsing a correct accusation of engaging in the Strawman fallacy with an incorrect accusation of engaging in the Ad hominem fallacy. In the discussion above, the real subject of the argument ("Saying that SI is WP:PARTISAN is like accusing someone of being biased towards reality") was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one ("SI is the utmost representative of reality and fact") followed by "refuting" the false claim that the opponent never made. That is a clear example of the Strawman fallacy. On the other hand, the definition of Ad hominem is "a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". I clearly attacked the fact that a strawman argument was being made and not any other attribute of the person making the argument. I strongly advise everyone involved to carefully read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines paying careful attention to what someone involved in a discussion is and is not allowed to do. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I also note the irony in uncollapsing a portion of a thread that had no active discussion and where you told people not to respond to an editor, then baited that editor because Involved parties should not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. This is certainly the best way to reduce drama and have a nice civil conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Recollapse by BilledMammal reverted - what recollapse? I restored the comment you deleted, not the collapse. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC) @Guy Macon Alternate Account: The diff for the edit I made is this. As you can see, I did not recollapse the discussion - please strike your incorrect accusations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2:Marginally reliable,See below - Apaugasma put it best. Parity doesn't grant a source reliability, nor should we take a popular science magazine as equal to journalism with a proven track record or peer reviewed academic journals. It would be mind-boggling to me for the community to accept History (American TV network)'s magazine as reliable for statements of fact. Additionally, their strong partisan point of view in their coverage of living people as well as their publishing of opinions by non-medical professionals in medical topics is highly problematic when using it on Wikipedia. I have little confidence in their editorial oversight. That's not to say their contributors aren't usually experts, but I think that's better covered by attribution than trusting a marginally reliable source. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You want to deny them equality with journalism, but their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism". If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. VdSV9•♫ 01:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    • their track record, on the subjects they cover, show they are actually more reliable than regular mainstream media "journalism" according to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim.
    • If we use regular newspapers' and magazines' coverage of, i.e., alternative medicine, UFOs and mediums, over SI, we would be doing a disservice to our readers and likely promoting FRINGE theories. are you implying sources like NYT or (the alternative you failed to comment on) peer reviewed medical journals are promoting fringe theories? Wouldn't this make them unreliable?
    • In the case of UFOs and mediums in particular, there isn't as much actual science being done, so sources such as these are a necessity. This is a case of PARITY use that would be entirely covered my "marginal reliability".
    • The rules regarding BLP already cover your concerns about that matter and, if applied as a principle, would make every single source "marginally reliable", since there are instances of other reliable sources covering living people in ways that should not be used in WP BLPs. According to what evidence? You have provided nothing to support this claim.
      VdSV9 I'd appreciate some clarification on the evidence (not opinions) that back your claims, especially since you seem to disagree option 2 would cover both parity and attribution uses. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  One of the issues is how widely the source (or parent company) is being used for areas where the contributors don't have any experience. For example, Benjamin Radford (an educational psychologist by training and an urban legend/fringe popular-writer by trade) is cited for his experience in avalanches, suicide-by-self-immolation rates in the developing world (40%!), antisemitism by the Nation of Islam, short-term memory, and organ transplantation procedures. Massimo Polidoro is cited on Roman persecution of Christians and medical side-effects of chastity belts. They are frequently cited in areas that demand tertiary sources or as gratuitous fancruft, such as in articles about law, the immune system, and opioid addiction treatment. These uses are opposed to the type of expertise attribution is meant to respect. I haven't even looked at the claims they make in BLPs, but the issues I show above are already enough for me to not support the source as generally reliable (especially the MEDRS violations). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What a phenomemal misrepresentation of Radford. Radford isn't a "an urban legend/fringe popular-writer by trade", he is an urban legend/fringe debunker by trade. His background in psychology makes him particularly qualified as to the reasons why people belief in this sort of nonsense, and his work for Snopes speaks for itself. Likewise for Polidoro et al. They all specialize in debunking the utterly nonsensical claims of pseudoscience proponents. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think in light of the comments others have raised elsewhere in the discussion, I support Option 3, with option 2 as a second preference. It is clear to me that those most likely to add the source will fail to understand the important caveats and considerations "marginal reliability" would imply, such as the actual meaning of WP:PARITY use and the relation of SI to sources considered to be more reliable (such as reputable newspapers and peer reviewed academic journals). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. SI is high-quality popular press and particularly useful in its niche: coverage of WP:FRINGE topics. Not WP:MEDRS, and any use for biographical content should be cautious. Alexbrn (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact is i think inline with most of WP:RSNP, tho also think that the green color and "generally reliable" gives too much license and editors should be more critical of sources across the board. Problematic usage of the source:

• Does not meet the WP:BLP requirement to adhere strictly to WP:V's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. There are most likely very reasonable usages of the source within a BLP context, but it's hard to look at for example: ...applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia and find good guidance for that. I think if a source is reasonable in criticizing a persons ideas rather than attacking the character of that person, and has some reputation as a publisher we can rely on, then that should meet the BLP burden. But there is no support for that view in the policies and guidelines.
• "America's Longest and Costliest Criminal Trial" an expert author and used for non-controversial statements in McMartin preschool trial and Paul and Shirley Eberle, but the content of the article at SI is beyond the competence of the publisher. Even though it is just a book review, this source should be used nowhere near this topic.
• Elizabeth Loftus and Taus v. Loftus, another instance of SI going beyond its competence and here the publisher is not an independent source.
• Stephen Novella's "It’s Time for Science-Based Medicine" in Science-Based Medicine, marginally promotional YMMV.
• Strategic lawsuit against public participation#Germany WP:UNDUE and promotional
• CVS_Pharmacy#Sale of homeopathic remedies publisher not independent for topic
• Criticism of Walmart publisher not independent for topic

Count my vote as Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply if the limited fact-checking, BLP concerns, and restriction to areas of competence for the publisher aren't strongly reflected in the closing summary. fiveby(zero) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the history of the articles where CSI is involved in lawsuits and the editors making those changes there is evidence of blatant misuse of the source. Combined with the inability of some taking part in the discussion below to take on board criticism and acknowledge the limitations of the source i think a much stronger warning and much higher burden for usage is appropriate. I realize this is an editor problem and not a real problem with a source, but if WP can't count on good judgment from those wishing to use articles from this publisher then more forceful warning in the RSPN entry is probably appropriate. At least Option 2. Marginally reliable / additional considerations apply. fiveby(zero) 17:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - leaning option 3, They admit to not having editorial oversight of the articles they publish. Full stop! Maybe they check some, who knows which those are? What we do know is they specifically say they do not on all their articles. That said, if it is by an expert in a field then considerations apply there. I would not use them for BLP information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. My view of the magazine matches Guy Macon. SI has a good reputation and reports on topics that are important to Wikipedia. I haven't seen anyone offer strong evidence that they routinely publish inaccurate information.Talrolande (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. Of course, being generally reliable for supporting statements of fact does not mean that SI is always the best source to use. Conversely, not always being the best source to use does not mean that SI is not generally reliable for supporting statement of fact. Cardamon (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: It does not exactly inspire confidence when they inform: The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. They claim to sometimes have manuscripts reviewed when their claims are completely novel or especially controversial, but the overall impression I am getting is that the Editorial Board has little confidence in its peer-riview process. I think the primary thing distinguishing them from other sources we have denounced as having "meaningless" peer-review processes is the fact that they are somewhat up-front about it. I would say they should be treated as a self-published source, or maybe marginally better, but no more. I also firmly believe that without editorial review of every article, Skeptical Inquirer is not an acceptable source for claims about living persons, ever. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, the more I think about it, the more firmly I am convinced that because we cannot be certain which articles have been reviewed, they should all be treated as self-published. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Skeptical Inquirer is reliable. It is has solid editorial oversight and is generally regarded as an authority in its area of expertise (broadly speaking, the rebuttal of bullshit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is has solid editorial oversight... But they don't, they even say that they don't. Its not even a question. PackMecEng (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. ScottishFinnishRadish lays it out pretty well. 'Considerations apply' just isnt a high bar to get over when it matters. If you cant, then there is a different issue than how reliable this one source is. Bonewah (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, marginally reliable yes I think there are ways to use this source but they need to be worked out on a case by case. What we need in terms of editorial standards and reputation just aren't met here. I understand the knee jerk reaction that anything from a skeptical perspective must be reliable, but that has no basis or reflection in policy/guideline. A questionably reliable source does not become reliable because of its specific POV no matter how sympathetic we as editors may be to that POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, marginally reliable, considerations apply. SI is often used on medical topics to justify definitive statements in the lead written in editorial tone in SI, and then pasted into Wikipedia as if its encyclopedic tone. This would clearly not be allowed elsewhere, so these standards should apply. There is no Wiki policy or guidelines that allows us to change our tone to editorial tone simply because it's psuedoscience. If we refrain from this type of editorialized source, we will have more encyclopdic tones in articles and less rhetoric. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - If SI places responsibility on the authors for accuracy, that's not fact-checking and is as reliable as the author themselves as primary. That's a no-no for BLPs but may be acceptable about non-BLP matters if written by an established expert in the field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. I don't have much to add to the discussion above except stating that reading it makes it very clear which users rely in erroneous information, misinterpretation of facts or statements, or fabulist fear-mongering statements about "what could happen if there was a publication which..." without actually providing concrete examples for their arguments and which users counter such arguments and state verifiable facts. Which is quite interesting in a discussion regarding reliability of a source like this.--Ebergerz (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ebergerz (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 18 mar 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ebergerz: I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Wikipedia (most are on the Spanish Wikipedia) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Wikipedia-space here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    It was not hard to find out who this most likely is (a GSoW person) but I want to avoid outing. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BilledMammalI feel disinclined to answer to you as your question is irrelevant to the RFC and I don't like the implications of your attitude (that somehow it is incorrect for me to vote here and that you are somehow entitled to be a gatekeeper). Ebergerz (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Ebergerz: My concern is that you were Stealth canvassed to this discussion by GSoW, as I cannot see another plausible explanation for how you discovered this discussion, and you have not provided one - and if you were canvassed to this discussion, then it is incorrect for you to !vote here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    My concern is that you are assuming [A] that you know who is and who isn't a GSoW member just because they found an RfC that (like all RfCs) has been widely publicised, and [B] that you are implying that GSoW members are not allowed to comment on things like this RfC despite a recent Arbcom decision that chose not to impose any such resriction. More time making your arguments and less time trying to suppress the arguments others make, please. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BilledMammalThat is exactly what your previous post implied. And not only is it wrong, it is pathetically ridiculous. Again, I don't have to provide an explanation to you, and your lack of imagination is not my, or anyone else's, concern. The fact that I followed the ArbCom case and that I've used SI as a source dozens of times and I keep an eye on this discussions because SP WP does not have a list of reliable sources as such, so we use the english one, and decided to finally put in my two cents never crossed your mind. So please make a formal report for canvassing or strike your previous comment. Your gatekeeping is out of place, and is simply an attempt at bullying people with opinions that differ from yours. You should start answering the arguments instead of trying to discredit the people making them. as Guy just adviced you. Ebergerz (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BilledMammalI had not noticed that you had considered appropriate to add a note to my vote, without signing it and using something similar to the royal 3rd person it seems, calling yourself "An editor". I fixed it for you so it is correctly attributed now and avoids giving the impression of it being added by someone else. I will repeat what I said before: Retract your accusation, strike your comment (and delete that note), or make a formal report. There is not really a middle ground when making serious accusations like this. Not as long as you adhere to a minimal ethical standard, of course. ¿Do you? Ebergerz (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Given your lack of previous participation at RSN, your explanation does not adequately address my concerns, and I will not strike them; I will leave them for the closer to consider - I note this is the correct place to discuss concerns an editor may have been canvassed. I have also removed your edit to the note on your post, as the previous form was from a standard template.

    Guy Macon, you misrepresent my comment. My assessment of Ebergerz as a member of GSoW is based on general behaviour evidence, and my concern with their contribution is based on the concern, caused by their lack of participation at RSN, in RFC's, or in WP-space, that they were canvassed by members of the organization, and not on their membership of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    As stated before, "your" concerns are mostly irrelevant, you are not the master gatekeeper here, and I doubt any evidence or response would be enough to convince you of anything you don't like, which is why I was disinclined to answer to you in the first place. By your logic any editor that opines for the first time here (specially if they disagree with you) would be suspicious of being canvassed. Truly you show an amazing lack of self awareness. You seem to have misunderstood my answer as an attempt to satisfy your demands. It was not, I was just exposing the lack of consistency in your argument of being unable to see "another plausible explanation". Regarding the template for the note, it is fairly obvious that if you are going to use it to note a concern that you yourself have expressed (and not someone else), you should at least sign after it, but there, I've fixed it for you in the standard way: the unsigned template. Ebergerz (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    By your logic any editor that opines for the first time here would be suspicious of being canvassed. Not any editor who contributes to RSN and formal discussions for the first time. Only editors that do so and are part of a group that lacks transparency, usually communicates off-wiki, and has an interest in the outcome of the discussion. But if you do have a response or evidence, I would suggest you provide it - for the benefit of the closer, who needs to decide how to weight your !vote, and not for my benefit. BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Take them to WP:ANI or WP:COIN with evidence, or leave them alone. If you don't stop badgering them and casting WP:ASPERSIONS I will report your behavior to ANI myself. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    It is not harassment to raise concerns about possible canvassing in a discussion; indeed, it is required to discuss it here, as it is important information for the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BilledMammal For the 3rd time: Make your complain formal and present your evidence there (your were just pointed where to do it), or strike your accusation and delete the note. It is you making the claim, it is your responsibility to present evidence to back it up, It is not my task to present evidence of a negative and I have already clearly stated my position. You not presenting the case formally and with evidence to back it up, after being asked several times to do so, transparently shows how baseless your accusation is and that your intention is simply to intimidate whoever you think you can, who has a difference of opinion with you. So: harassment indeed. Ebergerz (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    I've presented my concern, and my reasoning for it. I'm not going to discuss this further, here or elsewhere - it's presented for the closer to consider, and that is as far as it needs to be taken at this time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

    @BilledMammal Well, isn't that nice for you? But that is not how it works. You can't go around making accusations willy nilli and not back them up. If your claim had not been contested, maybe leaving it at that would be ok. But this is not the case. So, go all the way, take responsibility, present a case and evidence or retract yourself. Ebergerz (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement anywhere that BilledMammal "prove" that stealth canvassing has taken place, and nobody is going to try to. This is not solely because doing so is inherently extremely difficult (perhaps impossible, depending on the burden of proof you wish to use); it is also out of respect for your privacy, because any attempt to prove that you have been stealth canvassed would inevitably involve outing you, and nobody wants that. Consequently, the standard response to suspected canvassed votes is merely to flag the vote in question and leave the closer to weigh it as they deem appropriate, which has already been done. I know it feels like you have been personally attacked and are not being given a reasonable chance to defend yourself, which sucks, but it's one of the inherent downsides of this awkward compromise editors have reached between individual privacy and the project's integrity. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Guy Macon Alternate Account I think this template is meant to be placed on editors' talk pages. I would in fact encourage you to discuss this issue at BilledMammal's talk page rather than here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• • @BilledMammal My assessment of Ebergerz as a member of GSoW is based on general behaviour evidence Would you be so kind as to share what evidence you are using for this accusation? I would be very careful to avoid witch hunt territory, and to be above board as you are requesting others to be above board. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It would also be useful for the accuser to provide even a shred of evidence that being a a member of GSoW equals being canvassed. All of the evidence in the recent Arbcom case points to GSoW carefully avoiding such behavior, and Arbcom declined putting any special restrictions on GSoW members. It is likely that GSoW members are also interested in Wikipedia pages related to skepticism and would watch such pages. Skeptical Inquirer is listed in the following templates:

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• SI is niche but it's generally reliable and as a niche source, covers a range of topics not otherwise treated in depth. GMG^talk 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact. From a perusual of both the site and the contributors and the overal comments SI seems to have all the necesary trappings of a site reliable for statment of fact, which to be clear doesn't make it a paper of record just reliable under wiki terms. The opposes seem to follow three paths, one misplaced, one that reads to much into a discalimer, and one that is just seems patently false. The first oppose path seems to be that certain users are over using the source due to various off site connections or beliefs. In all honesty, there is some evidence this is true, but this would be a matter for user intervention and does not speak in anyway to the reliability of the source. The second path is a concern about the disclaimer that authors are responsible for the facts in the articles that they submit. While not all papers may publish this disclaimer, this is absolutely true for any contract worker who publishes on any site. Any lawsuits or reputation damage will absolutely be shared by both the publisher and the contract writer. Users have read into this disclaimer that therefore SI does not take responsibility for facts, which seems to be an invention and not based in any wording on the site. The default in America is that publishers are just as responsible, if not more so, for any currated content. The last path is that SI is a partisan source, which just seems completely false and not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. SI seems perfectly happy to explain how silly pseusdoscience is no matter what political persuasian the paractionser is, so without evidence that argument should probably be discounted.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Although "partisan" is often used in reference to a focus on a political party, it can also be used in relation to a cause. It is being used here in the sense of a fervent supporter of a particular cause (skepticism). - Bilby (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose that is a slightly less poorly though out argument, though it is still unevidenced so should probably still be ignored. It is also stretching the idea of a "cause" well past where a lot of mainstream newspapers and journals would run afoul unless you think "truth dies in the darkness" is any less value laden. For the avoidence of doubt I don't believe either the promotion of journalism or skepticism are partisan causes.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is just a personal opinion, but I tend to find that publications that are as strongly focused on pushing a particular POV as this one - whether or not I agree with the POV - end up showing a lot of bias and don’t necessarily take the care a more neutral publication would when it comes to fact checking claims that support their POV. That’s been my experience here, but I respect that others might see things differently. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That is likely to be true in the general case, but there are publications that are biased and reliable sources for statements of fact. As WP:BIASED says, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Also note that WP:BIASED is not in the questionable sources section of WP:RS. And of couse in this long discussion nobody has come up with a single example of SI making a factual claim and getting the facts wrong. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not saying you are wrong, because the beauty of opinions is that they don't have to be based on fact or knowledge, but without at least some evidence that your opinions about SI are correct I don't see the value that they bring to this discussion. Even two or three examples of where SI's fact checking was lacking would be a lot more convincing that what arguments I have read above. Even better would be examples of mistakes they made where they did not offer a correction AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  to be absolutely honest, every time SI turns up and I put forward examples, the aggression in these debates means that we end up on a long tangent that is ugly and disruptive, so I kind of gave up. But in the cases where I’ve had cause to really sit down and go through and article I’ve tended to find problems - the one which probably caused the most issues revolved around an article on Donald Young, where the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources, creating flow on problems here. It took a lot if work by multiple editors to make our way through them, and we had to turn to the sources used by SI instead of the article. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  The last time we disagreed you opened a laughably poor sock puppet investigation on me, so I am not sure you have a lot of room to fault others for agression and ugly tangents. If you have evidence then show it because vague claims only necessitate others to track down what you think are issues, which is quite disruptive.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I had trouble remembering what you were referring to, but yes, that was three years ago. But this is the sort of tangent I’m referring to, so there’s that. - Bilby (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  So is that a no on showing evidence for your claims? AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I’m try to expand a bit on the example I raised when I get proper internet access. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, you can check the history for yourself and see whether Bilby's claims are accurate.

The article in question is D. Gary Young.

Here is Bilby's most recent edit to the article:[42] Nothing about SI.

Here is the source in question[43] (It was The Spokesman-Review)

Bilby's previous edit to the article was in 2020.[44] Still nothing related to SI.

And that's it. No other edits to the D. Gary Young article by Bilby. I also searched the talk page archives for the article, and found no discussion of SI by Bilby or anyone else -- just a single mention is passing by another editor calling it a reliable source.

Finally, let's look at the only time SI mentioned Young:

D. Gary Young (1949–2018), Diploma Mill Naturopath and Promoter of Essential Oils by none other than William M. London.

See anything in that article that gets the facts wrong?

So my conclusion is that Bilby's claim ("But in the cases where I’ve had cause to really sit down and go through and article I’ve tended to find problems - the one which probably caused the most issues revolved around an article on Donald Young, where the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources, creating flow on problems here. It took a lot if work by multiple editors to make our way through them, and we had to turn to the sources used by SI instead of the article.") appears to be factually incorrect. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You couldn’t even wait until I posted the context and the actual issue before accusing me of lying? Well, at least Thingscare progressing as per normal. Thanks for that. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of lying. I said that your claim appears to be factually incorrect. The most common reason why someone writes something that appears to be factually incorrect is that they misremember what happened years ago, followed by them working from bad information, then by me making a mistake when I looked at the history. Lying is usually pretty far down on the list of probable reasons.

I look forward to your evidence showing that it took a lot if work by multiple editors on the Donald Young article to deal with factual errors in Skeptical Inquirer. I looked and could find no evidence of that, but I would welcome being proven to be wrong and will apologize if the error was mine. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the context also involves Young Living, where you can see there was a lot of interaction and work in the archives c. 2020 to try and fix the article, Guy Macon Alternate Account. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that I raised my concern that every time we try to discuss evidence I get these attacks, and immediately I had you declaring me a liar before I had time to post a single diff, while AlmostFrancis raises an issue from three years ago that has nothing to do with this, I am disappointed by how absolutely accurate I was again. No, I don't think you'll apologise, and I'm way past caring. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You appear to consider politely asking for evidence supporting your claims to be an "attack". Expect to be "attacked" everywhere you go on Wikipedia by a wide variety of editors. Fortunately, A. C. Santacruz (see above) chose to provide the evidence that you refuse to give us. I need to analyse the history of the Young Living page. If I find that Skeptical Enquirer got the facts wrong I will report my results here. More later, and a big thank you to A. C. Santacruz. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a small note that Bilby did not refuse to provide the evidence as far as I can see, they just said today that they don't have the proper internet access to do so. This could very well be the case if they don't have access to a computer where searching archives or (how I found the article) editor interaction analysis tools. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair enough. I have stricken my comment.

I have looked at the Young Living talk page, and the discussion Bilby descibes appears to be here:

Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020#Raindrop Technique

In that thread, Bilby had a legitimate objection. The claim made was

"The company offers the Raindrop Technique, a controversial procedure that involves, among other things, the application of undiluted essential oils to a person's skin in order to cure conditions such as spinal curvature."

This claim is unsupported by the sources cited.

The citation to youngliving.com[45] just talks about spinal massage with essential oils. No mention of curvature or of curing anything. (See WP:ABOUTSELF for reliability of youngliving.com).

The citation to Skeptical Inquirer[46] only noted that the Aromatherapy Registration Council (ARC) and the Alliance of International Aromatherapists (AIA) say that RDT is marketed as cure for curvature of the spine.

None of this in any way demostrates that the sources are unreliable. If I claim that the NYT says unicorns exist with a citation that dosn't support the claim, does that make the NYT unreliable?

So is it true that as Bibly claims "the SI article on several occasions misrepresented their sources"? No. The sources[47][48] say exactly what SI said they said.

Finally, is the claim itself true? I could find no reliable source that contains both "Young Living" and "spinal curvature" but a Google search shows a boatload of unreliable alt-med souces containing the claim. A google search on "Raindrop Technique" "spinal curvature" gave me similar results. So probably accurate, but unsourced and thus cannot be added to Wikipedia. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is why I won't be taking part in this now. There are times where a reasoned discussion is constructive. But there are also times when the people you are trying to have a discussion with have already made up their minds and any attempt to engage just creates far more heat that light. I need to recognise the latter case more often and know when anything I say won't help because it won't be listened too. You immediately made it clear that this is one of those cases. - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the weariness and won't criticize you for not wanting to participate in discussions where you keep getting bludgeoned. But one thing that editors should keep in mind is that in highly participated discussions like this one, persuading your "opponent" isn't always the objective; it's often a performance for the other people who are reading the discussion, particularly the closer. This is especially the case when introducing new evidence like you implied you were intending to; those who already hold an opinion will usually dismiss disagreeing evidence, but it will affect the decisions of others who are still making up their minds. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with you, the problem is that when things get particularly bad whatever valid points you were making get lost in the noise. Then you just end up with an ugly discussion that no-one can parse and that just kills whatever value the thread may have contained. I tend to recognise I'm in one of those after it is over, but I need to get better at recognising them when they start so that I don't help waste everyone's time. - Bilby (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The huge amount of effort you are putting in telling us why you won't provide evidence to back up your claims, combined with the several hours I wasted going through everything you have posted in the last few years and the history of the two articles about Young and finding not a shred of evidence supporting your claims, leads me to the conclusion that you have no evidence. I am not saying you are lying. I think you misremembered what happened and are (as we all tend to be) reluctant to publicly admit to your error. This is the last thing I will say to you on this subject. You can provide the evidence, once again say that you won't provide any evidence, or stay silent. Whichever you choose you may now have the last word. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Checking the notes for D. Gary Young (1949–2018), Diploma Mill Naturopath and Promoter of Essential Oils shows one issue off the bat, it looks like a citation error was copied from a possibly retracted 2003 QuackWatch article. Bill Callahan's “Court Blocks Ads, Sales by Chula Vista Clinic.” ran in San Diego Evening Tribune, not the The San Diego Union[49]. The author did provide a quote from one of the three referenced articles, showing that at least one refernce was checked. Not a huge deal using the earlier article as a basis for research, but i would expect that the citation error would have been caught if the author or anyone at SI actually checked all the references. If indeed references were copied without checking that is pretty sloppy, but that is a guess on my part as to what happened. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Couple of minor issues in the first part of the article, a quote taken from an investigation narrative rather than the final report, "sentenced to" vs. "suspendend sentence". Should probably also question why this in an obituary. Understandable but not confidence inspiring. fiveby(zero) 18:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank for the specifics at least now we are all talking about the same content, and it shows about what I was expecting. Taking a quote from the investigative narrative section of a published incident report isn't an error or even poor reporting. Newspaper run quotse from far less formal reporting mediums such as press conferences, individual interviews, press releases, a puslished OSHA report if anything is on the hight end. A "suspended sentence" is a "sentence" you could argure that suspened should have been kept, but it would only be an error if "jail", "prison" or "home detention" had been added. The San Diego Union and the Evening tribune share a archive since they merged into the Union-Tribune so anyone checking sources would be going to the same place with the same search to check, so while that was an error it is an understandlable one and would not have changed anything in the prose of the text. All newspapers make those kind of errors on a near daily bases, the New York times made a dozen or so on the 17th alone. As far as I can tell there is no claim to this report being an obituary, it is filed under consummer health and explicitly state " a close look at Young’s activities can be illuminating for consumers who might be attracted to charismatic health gurus". AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply. To the extent that the source has a self-reported bias, and has been careless in vetting sources and inferences drawn from sources as long as those sources meet its bias, I see no reason to rely on the source as the sole source for contested issues of fact. If a claim is reported in this source, and not found in any more reliable source, I would question whether that is a claim that needs to appear in a Wikipedia article. If such a claim is reported in a more reliable source, I have no problem using both, so long as the SI article is not merely parroting the other available source. BD2412 T 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  "careless in vetting sources and inferences drawn from sources as long as those sources meet its bias" Now we are getting somewhere, what is the evidence for this claim?AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Skeptical Inquirer

• Are there any actual examples to be considered? Or is this another case of WP:RSP-itis? Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that there's a discussion above on an ArbCom finding of fact, the point of this is to try to more explicit gauge community consensus on the reliability of the publication. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The FoF is just that, and not up for debate. But even arbcom seem to think the idea of a forced RfC for an RfC's sake is daft. What evidence are you bringing to the table here that would give "the community" something to chew on? Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment is it understood here that a GREL consensus means within its area of expertise? SI's area of expertise is in proving that Sasquatch isn't real, and that kind of thing. But I've seen editors try to use it outside that area, including for a review of a cancer researcher's book (no connection to FRINGE) and a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals). Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually fake explosive detectors are in the same realm as proving Sasquatch isn't real in my opinion. Both are based on magical thinking. I assume you are referring to dowsing rods and such similar things. Debunking these has been the venue of SI authors since its inception. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this case, SI was citing ABC News for their info about the dowsing rod devices being fake, so the Wiki article, Explosive detection should have directly used ABC, or any better source than that, and not SI. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Geogene could you gives links for those two specific cases? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My intent in linking WP:GREL is to indicate that, though discussion on its area of expertise might be helpful if you think that there are some areas where it is more reliable and some where it is less. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Above, Geogene mentions SI's coverage of "a kind of fake explosives detector (that should have been sourced to conventional arms control journals)."

This appears to be in reference to The Legacy Of Fake Bomb Detectors In Iraq.

Here is the BBC's coverage of this: The story of the fake bomb detectors

And here is Jame Randi on same: A Direct, Specific, Challenge From James Randi and the JREF

And here is our article: ADE 651

This is exactly the sort of thing SI writes about and is expert in. Skeptical publications regularly cover things like laundry balls, fake bomb detectors, magic cancer pills, etc. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly -- this was well covered by world-class journalists, including the BBC. So was a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters the best possible source for that? Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices? It's weird that SI was the source for that, and not Foreign Affairs [50], The Atlantic [51], or The Guardian [52] or CNN [53]. This was not a WP:Parity situation. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, I get that you don't like SI, but "a magazine that primarily debunks lake monsters"??? Evidence, please. A quick look at https://skepticalinquirer.org/ clearly shows that SI covers a much wider range of issues than you imply.

Re "Is the author an expert on bomb detection devices?", the author is Benjamin Radford, and it doesn't take an expert on bomb detection devices to determine that dowsing rods don't detect explosives. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they are asking why we want to use SI for such an article, given there are many better sources available - more reputable, more neutral, and with stronger editorial controls? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Re, Look, I get that you don't like SI no, I've found that SI has its uses [54]. Radford's BLP you linked to says he's into psychics, ghosts, exorcisms, miracles, Bigfoot, stigmata, lake monsters, UFO sightings, reincarnation, crop circles, and other topics, so I don't think what I said about SI's content is unfair. I agree with your point that it doesn't take an expert to prove that dowsing rods don't detect explosives, but I would take that argument a step further, and say that scientific skeptics are generally not "experts" at much of anything for that reason -- you don't need experts to refute obvious nonsense. Your typical scientific skeptic is just a self-taught hobbyist with a blog/podcast/YouTube channel. And that lack of expertise is why SI shouldn't be used anywhere Parity doesn't apply. Again, I don't have a problem with using it to say that Sasquatch isn't real in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is jumping the gun a little bit. The issues that have been brought up with the source deal with columns by non-experts, saying operations, contentious statements about BLPs, and parity. The discussion should be focused on those, rather than a general RSP style RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying there are additional considerations might well apply to the source regarding BLP? — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  They normally do. A source can be good enough for some statements, but still not meet BLP standards. That's more-or-less the argument regarding WP:PARITY - you can use poorer sources on fringe topics as there aren't always high quality ones, but BLP still applies and takes precedence. - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I pointed this out above, but since it seems to be at the crux of the discussion - WP:PARITY does not generically allow "poorer" sources. The only thing it does is allow us to use non-peer-reviewed (but otherwise WP:RS) sources in contexts where we would normally require a peer-reviewed source. (More specifically, as it explains, it exists to allow non-peer-reviewed RSes to be used to balance out low-quality peer-reviewed sources, which are common in certain fringe areas like creationism and homeopathy. It's not intended to let us cite a complete non-RS.) If a source has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy or exerts no meaningful editorial controls, PARITY does nothing to allow it to be used. The issue with Skeptical Inquirer is not that it lacks peer review, it is that it lacks any sort of fact-checking and accuracy at all, which is way, way beyond anything PARITY can heal. --Aquillion (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Because columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs. Also the tone and writing in many columns and articles shows disdain and outright hostility towards people. We shouldn't be importing that into an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Evidence, please. That's a serious charge, and goes way beyond any evidence presented at Arbcom. Also, it would be very entertaining watching you try to create a policy of rejecting sources because you don't like their tone. You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people who get rich selling ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure.[55] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision#Susan_Gerbic's_writing_for_Skeptical_Inquirer this finding of fact also links to evidence. As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  As for the disdain and outright hostility, I assume we're not citing your publications anywhere? Not helpful, SFR, and possibly an aspersion. I suggest that we all remember the basketball strategy of playing the ball, not the man. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you take a peek at what I was responding to, You might also want to address my own "disdain and outright hostility" towards people... I have that same hostility and disdain as well, but I wouldn't use me as a source when I told a friend of mine from years ago that she wasn't "starspawn" or an "indigo child." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between...

• "Susan Gerbic has written articles in Skeptical Inquirer, and has stated an intent of having those articles be used as sources on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living people. GSoW members have edited BLPs to include negative material sourced to Susan Gerbic's articles. This has created the appearance of collaborative editing to create negative BLPs."

...and...

• "columns have been written in SI for the purpose of adding negative information to BLPs."

The first, which seems accurate to me, implies a COI problem -- the person who wrote the column should not add it to the article, either personally or by proxy. It does not imply that the column was in any way inaccurate or that it should or should not be used as a source (but it has to be used by someone with no COI). The second, which I don't believe happened, implies deliberately creating negative material for the purpose of the negative material ending up in a BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

...and in fact, one of the voting arbs made this specific point (that the source being unreliable isn't the problem but the COI is):

"This isn't a self-published blog, it's (to the best of my knowledge) a reliable source which is clear about which way it leans - indeed, it is something we should be considering as a source when writing an article. However, subverting the content building process by co-ordinated pushing of these sources, especially in a way that can cause real world harm to living individuals, well, a line has been crossed." (emphasis added)

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Watch some of the videos linked to in the evidence. She explicitly says she writes articles so negative information does up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how evidence works. You are the one making the claim. Either post a URL of a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that she writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles, or apologize and retract your claim. I have already identified a case (see above) where your paraphrase completely twisted the meaning of the original statement, so lacking a specific time stamp to a specific video I have to assume that you are doing it again. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the videos is here: 10:36 In effect, a subject was targeted who was largely unknown at the time, with 7+ columns then published in Skeptical Inquirer as part of the campaign. This helped to give the target, Tyler Henry, just enough notability for an article, which was then developed into a hit piece [56] with a heavy reliance on articles produced for the campaign. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not true Bilby - listen to what I said again. Tyler Henry was already notable - he had a TV show that was very popular. The articles written about Henry did not give him "just enough notability" but they did add to the article. I did not tell anyone what to say, I just asked if they would "write about Tyler Henry", if the articles they wrote were critical then that is what they discovered. I was talking about Google Rankings, I very clearly state that in this talk. "Someone" created the Wikipedia article, that was NOT me nor GSoW. This is all moot anyway. ArbCom has made it's decision and we are all starting fresh with a clean slate. GSoW and I have learned our limits and will be moving forward. Drop the stick please and be done with this. Continue bringing this up over and over again is not helping anyone. I hope this is the last time I will have to respond. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather not revisit this, but this is about the reliability of SI, and it wasn't an issue I raised. But no, he wasn't already notable - your specific words in the linked talk were "I have done a lot of writing about Tyler Henry, and I did that because Tyler Henry was brand spanking new - he had no criticism, nothing was known about him". Other than that, sure, you didn't create the article - but it was then taken from 300 words to criticism to over 2000 words of criticism, heavily sourced to you and SI. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This IS about the reliability of SI but somehow Tyler Henry keeps being mentioned. He was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What you quoted I said had nothing to do with Wikipedia but everything to do with Google rankings. I started writing about him after his TV show came out, he was brand new but there was enough coverage in RS to create a Wikipedia article about him. The person who did create the Wikipedia page, started with two articles that were already in the public, my article was third. Of course the Wikipedia page grew from 300 words to over 2000 words, he had a TV show and was brand new, the media was writing about him and it escalated. If the majority of the content of the Wikipedia page was critical of him, then that is what the media and RS wrote. If the RS found when they wrote about him to be genuinely communicating with dead people, then they would have written that, and that praise would be on the Wikipedia page. The content is the content. Along with his rise in fame, was the rise in RS writing about him. I wrote seven articles about Tyler Henry, why would they not be used on a Wikipedia article? If you are challenging my expertise then say so. Look Bilby - I am giving a talk - I am not reading a script written out and fussed over by lawyers I am speaking at a skeptic conference, this is not a talk at a Wiki Conference, I am having to speak in broad terms. I'm not psychic, so I didn't expect that in 2022 I would have someone picking apart every talk I've given, and analyzing every phrase. Don't read more into a talk than is really there. Please drop the stick. Again this is all moot anyway.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link. The problem is that you are playing the wrong issue - I don't really care if you wrote about him before or after the first show. I do care, when evaluating the use of Skeptical Inquirer, whether or not it has been used to run campaigns against individual people, which have then been used as the basis for hit pieces in WP. The answer is yes, on at least one occasion. Which suggests to me that there are problems with the publication. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: "I didn't raise Tyler Henry, I just provided the requested link", yes, you did, fixing the problem that ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond when asked for a link and a timestamp. Good work.

Watching the video, it becomes obvious why ScottishFinnishRadish did not respond. I specifically asked for "a particular video and a time stamp where she explicitly says that Susan Gerbic writes articles so negative information goes up in Google searches and Wikipedia articles"

That's not what the video shows. It shows Susan Gerbic writing an article and hoping that that will rank well on Google -- a perfectly normal and allowable activity -- encouraging other authors to write about the same topic -- another perfectly normal and allowable activity -- and noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based upon what gets written on a subject by various sources. This is bog standard behavior. What author doesn't want to be on the first page of the Google results on a topic? I don't know how many times I have told someone "Write an article about X and get it published. Encourage others to write about X. When there is enough published material, the topic may pass WP:GNG and the article may survive WP:AfD."

What the video does not show is any wrongdoing by Susan Gerbic. None. And even if it did that would be a matter for Arbcom or ANI, not RSNB, and would be totally irrelevant to the question of whether SI is a reliable source. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we watched the same video. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• There's a certain amount of mystification about what the best publishers actually achieve in terms of ensuring publications are accurate that is misleading some participants in this discussion as it has done in the past in other discussions of source reliability. Confidence in the reliability of publishing venues arises from three kinds of second-looks made in publishing: desk decisions made by the editor who has the final say on publication, peer review by experts, and fact-checking done by copy-editors. All of these are scarce, skilled labour and there is a big difference between the ideal and common practice at even the best publishers. I think we could do with some raising of our documentation of what is really going on in the publishing process. I'm concerned that there is a common tendency to think that having "high standards" in what we consider to be reliable sources improves the quality of our sourcing without enough awareness risks coming from narrowing our range of sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is a lot of confidently-stated rubbish about publishing in this thread based on an imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI. It is quite usual for a publisher, be they ever-so-eminent, to say that "responsibility for the factual accuracy of a paper rests entirely with the author".[57] (This doesn't necessarily make it true). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Such disclaimers are typically written by lawyers in an attempt to avoid lawsuits. It's a lot like the "Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental" notice you see on TV show that are obviously ripped from the headlines. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • imaginative over-reading of some boilerplate legalese from SI is exactly what this is. Very well put, and worth repeating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Interesting how all the talk about peer review and editorial standards goes out the window once it's people "my side" who are concerned. We truly live in a postmodern world. Perhaps all these critical theory publications about the concept of reliability [58][59] are not as wrong as I thought. JBchrch talk 22:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is called projection. It's more that you've been caught saying wrong things, and most editors prefer to deal in fact. Alexbrn (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    "Saying wrong things" is a very personal interpretation of our discussion above. JBchrch talk 04:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    When your false statements are refuted by evidence, that's not "very personal interpretation". Again, you are projecting a postmodern take onto the situation. I suggest, if you want to contribute usefully here, it would be better to stick to the matter at hand rather than engaging in pathetic sneers about how it's "funny how" the other "side" supposedly thinks things you imagine they think. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I corrected the wording of my !vote based on your suggestion, nothing more. JBchrch talk 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    That's a start, now if you could accommodate how material that undergoes a third-party editorial and production process isn't "self-published", and correct/delete your !vote accordingly, you would be in danger of stumbling towards the sort of competence which is actually useful at this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    I didn't say it was self-published, I said we should treat it as self-published. JBchrch talk 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, I reject any argument based upon "SI's area of expertise is X" or "There are better sources in area Y" that lack any evidence that the person making the argument is correct about SI's area of expertise or reliability. A claim in SI about, say, fake bomb detectors in Iraq, is as reliable as a similar statement in The New York Times and is a better source than the NYT if said fake bomb detectors turn out to be dowsing rods. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on what they were writing. If all they did was summarise an article from a more established source, then no, they are not adding anything more. If they are commenting on the unlikelihood of dowsing rods actually detecting bombs, then I don't see that you need any expertise to make that claim. If they were making the claim that dowsing rods were being employed by Iraqi military, then certainly no - I'd like a source that has some expertise and journalists on the ground in Iraq that could confirm that this was the case. Perhaps an in-depth discussion of dowsing rod physics? In the article raised previously, all they did was summarise an article from established mainstream media. In such cases, the original source is always preferable than a summary that may or may not be accurate. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to have the expertise of SI article authors judged by Wikipedia editors who think that the mechanism of dowsing rods belongs in the area of physics. The Carpenter effect is psychology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There you go then. I hope they write that article, instead of claiming to be reporting on what is happening in Iraq. I promise to read it should such occur. - Bilby (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? Is this special report or this one by an investigator, host of the podcast The Devil in the Details, and a member of the Church of Satan opinion, factual reporting, or both? How about this one, which states One example demonstrating this point is our scoring for the prediction: “Australian cricket team does very well on tour this year” (Heather Alexander, 2009). We scored that as correct—but clearly there was a 50/50 chance: the team would either do well or they would not. If every prediction was like that, the average for correct psychic predictions would have been 50 percent. The more of those types of predictions that psychics make, the closer to 50 percent correct their average will get. And they make a lot of those. That's an incorrect statement for a number of reasons, a team could do neither well or poorly, some teams are just better or worse than others, and regularly perform well or poorly. Does that make the statement false, or an opinion? Reading further, you can see that the entire true, false or too vague is entirely subjective categorization. Does that make the entire article opinion? Basically, if there is no clear line between fact based reporting and opinion/editorializing, it makes it very difficult to use the source for any statements of fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Another example, used in Bigfoot is this, to support American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot, does not appear to be an article of fact, but rather an opinion supported with arguments. Per the article, I am merely pointing out, what should now be obvious, that many of the best non-hoax encounters can be explained as misperceptions of bears. The statements of fact in the article are all pointing to other sources, that would likely make better sources. It seems if there's support for using the source for statements of fact, we'll probably need consensus on exactly how far that reaches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. And I can just see some zealous (pseudo-)sceptic editor inserting into the WP Bigfoot article, in wikivoice, something like "Most Bigfoot citings are in actuality American black bears" with a citation to that article ("an RS"!) that "verifies" that claim. (Note: my reason for calling those that might engage in that kind of behaviour "pseudosceptics" is for the reason that, anyone that would blindly accept any claim printrd in SI, no matter how shoddy, cannot, by definition, be a true sceptic, unless "sceptic" has a secondary definition as the name of a dogmatic religion in which its adherents unquestioningly accept anything their authorities tell them to. I am aware of the term's unfortunate use by wingnutter climate change denialists etc and categorically state I have no sympathy for nor anything to do with those people.) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

American black bears, the animal most often mistakenly identified as Bigfoot cannot be derived from anything the source. So, Wikipedia editors attributing a statement to a source that does not justify using it is now a reason to call the source unreliable? I just corrected the faked sentence, which any of you two could have done. Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor seems to think I make some improvements. Please try to make fewer personal attacks, and instead address the lack of any clear line between factual reporting and opinion with the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to laugh at asking Hob to do "fewer" rather than no personal attacks. Modicum ad hominem, if you will. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

In what way is it a "personal attack" to note that someone saw an error in an article, did not fix the error, yet still used it to score a point in a RSN debate? In what way is it a a "personal attack" to note that not fixing errors when you run across them calls in to question your commitment to improving the encyclopedia? I am with Hob on this one. If a Wikipedia editors attributes a claim to a source that the source does not support is in no way a reason to call the source unreliable. Not even close. In fact it looks a lot like grasping at straws. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Guy Macon Alternate Account, accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia is a personal attack. Hob has had extensive interactions with SFR before, mostly in the fringe noticeboard iirc, and a cursory look at SFR's contributions shows a strong commitment to the wiki. The fact they failed to correct a mistake on an article when using it as an example in a discussion is impossible for me to see as a valid reason to imply their motivations for editing, as a whole, are not aligned with Wikipedia. It's just petty piss-fighting at that point and more of an indication of the battleground atmosphere in this discussion than an appropriate reflection of an editor's contributions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It was not an accusation, it was a question. Its goal was to give the user a small shove to make them question their current focus and behaviour. Believe it or not, the same people can do right things and wrong things at different times, and telling them what they do wrong is not a personal attack and cannot be invalidated by the same person telling them what they did right in another case. Do I really have to start an RfC asking, "When someone misrepresents a source in an article, what should I do?" with the following options?

1. Correct the article,
2. Use the incidence to try to have source declared ureliable,
3. Start an Arbcom case to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them?

And then another one: "When you made a bad argument, such as using the misrepresentation of a source as an argument about the reliability of the source, and someone calls me on it, what should I do?" with the following options:

1. Admit the mistake,
2. Complain about perceived personal attacks?

Maybe we do need rules against that sort of shit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I didn't say telling someone what they do is wrong is a personal attack. I said that accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, which you did (making it a rhetorical question is not much of a defense in my opinion), is a personal attack. I would appreciate if instead of implying the Arbcom case was started (btw, not by SFR or myself but by GeneralNotability) in order to punish editors and their family/friends, you would try and de-escalate the situation. Our discussion here is doing nothing more than disrupting the actual discussion above on the reliability of SI. I understand if you are infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source, but your incivility is entirely unwarranted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

If you do not want this discussion to go on a tangent, then do not make the tangent longer. If you want to complain, go complain in the right place. I am not infuriated at other editors' perspective on the source but at other editors' behaviour patterns. I just wrote an essay User:Hob Gadling/Admit mistakes about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I lose sight of what is important and make individual decisions that fail to build the encyclopedia. So does Hob. So does A._C._Santacruz. And ScottishFinnishRadish. And Jimbo Wales. The only perfect Wikipedia editor is User:example and I have my doubts about him. In such cases asking "are you here to build the encyclopedia?" should be considered a gentle reminder, not a personal attack. It clearly isn't a claim about someone's entire edit history. If you disagree, go to ANI, report the alleged personal attack, and see what happens. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, @2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A18A:3CD:299A:9B40: you contributed nothing to the discussion except empty polemics, and you are in the wrong place. And words do often not have One True Meaning. Read the top lines of Skepticism: For the philosophical view, see Philosophical skepticism. For denial of uncomfortable truths, see Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable for fact, opinions must be attributed, is there any clear delineation between fact and opinion in this source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. For example, recent article A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation is clearly opinion with phrases such as "In my experience", while recent article The Kremlin and the Kabbalah: Is the Letter ‘Z’ on Russian Tanks a Reference to the Jewish Zohar? is clearly factual, correctly presenting attributed factual claims by Israeli spoon-bender Uri Geller, Air Force Lt. Col. Tyson Wetzel, and former Marine Capt. Rob Lee. It also correctly describes the content of the Zohar (AKA Sefer Ha-Zohar), which Geller references. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So there's no clear delineation, is what you're saying. This feature article is opinion, but this feature article is, ostensibly, factual reporting? This special report is opinion while this special report is factual reporting? Any determination of what is a statement of fact and what is opinion is left up to whoever is reading? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

---

• Request for experienced RfC closer: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical Inquirer --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

---

I am seeing far too much gatekeeping (telling people that they are not allowed to partipate or that they are not allowed to make certain arguments), and most of it from a small number of editors.

If you don't like what someone writes, either respond with a counterargument or just ignore it. Ignoring comments that you don't think should have been posted is usually better than criticizing the person who posted them -- a bad habit which invariably leads to a long back and forth containing many more comments you don't like. It is almost always better to just ignore the comment and move on.

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to respond to or even read comments on Wikipedia talk pages, so if you feel that you are being subjected to something that you find to be unpleasant, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum"

Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge the pages autism and autism spectrum. The following sources were provided in the proposal as evidence that the terms are used synonymously:

List of sources

• The NHS's 'What is autism?' page
• The NAS
• Autism Speaks (sorry)
• Autism Society
• Autism Science Foundation
• Healthline
• WebMD
• NIH
• Autistica
• Psychiatry.org
• Scottish Autism
• Various papers: [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]

There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria. There's also been suggestion that the MEDRS criteria don't apply here because it's a question of common-use names rather than biomedical information. Are (any of) these reliable sources to use for merging autism and autism spectrum? Are MEDRS-approved sources required for this case or are standard reliable sources sufficient?

The full discussion is on the autism spectrum talk page.

Averixus (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Do medical sources use them synonymously? If so then it would better to just use those sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by medical sources? Do the NHS, NIH etc not count as medical? Averixus (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You said There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria.. Are there any sources that people are saying does meet that criteria? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks. The person opposing the use of these sources has said None of the sources you have provided are MEDRS, so they believe none of the sources are suitable. Averixus (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm copying over my reply from that talk page, as it seems relevant to here.

While I don't want to speak on behalf of Wretchskull, I would point out that while the NHS is obviously a medical institution, its website (NHS.uk) is aimed at non-medical members of the public. A more appropriate source for current UK guidance, that is explicitly WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDSCI would be the guidance, standards, and pathways published by NICE. It will take me some time to read through it all in detail, as it has been updated since I last read it (most recent update was circa June 2021), however at first glance the following quotation stands out to me as relevant to this discussion In this guideline 'autism' refers to 'autism spectrum disorders' encompassing autism, Asperger's syndrome and atypical autism (or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that particular quote though is the context. Its specificially talking about 'autism' in general and so needs to explicitly clarify the guide applies to all 'autism spectrum disorders'. That does *not* mean the terms are used synonymously, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a clarification for medical professionals. That said, for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, the terms should be/are currently synonymous. For the purposes of a medical encyclopedia, no. The only real question is where do we sit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, except that the ICD 11 only lists five subtypes (6A02.0-5), with the variations being whether or not the individual also has an intellectual and/or language impairment. There are no other meaningful distinctions. Since the adoption of the ICD 11, within the UK diagnoses of Aspergers, PDD-NOS, or others are not issued. For comparison, the previously used ICD 10 listed Aspergers (F84.5), atypical autism (F84.1), and Kanner/childhood autism (F84.0) as separate disorders under pervasive developmental disorders, alongside other syndromes like Rett syndrome (10:F94.2, 11:LD90.4). While the existing diagnoses will obviously continue to exist for people who were diagnosed prior to the adoption of the ICD 11, both on paper and socially as part of their identity, from a new diagnosis perspective there is only autism spectrum disorder.

As for your question at the end, where do we sit? I'd say somewhere around the general encyclopedia area. While we should continue to have pages on Aspergers, or PDD-NOS, I would suggest that those should be made clear that they are largely historical and not applicable in 2022+. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why this is now an RfC? Is it really necessary to answer this question? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

These questions are the central consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with merging two large articles, and it's so far been difficult to reach consensus because of disagreement about whether or how to apply WP:MEDRS to this specific situation. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an RfC? Averixus (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems premature at best to have an RfC on this, when discussion is still unfolding. The original post here was just over a day ago, and per WP:RFCBEFORE this discussion has not been thoroughly exhausted yet.

I'd also like to quote from the page notice for this noticeboard Before starting an RfC please consider: is your question a one-off, or is it project-wide? Is it about reliability or prominence? A question of the form "is X source reliable for Y content on Z article" should normally be addressed at the article's talk page, but you can post a note here. This seems to be, at least currently, a one off question. It's not about the reliability of these sources in general, but whether or not the set of meets MEDRS criteria in the context of the autism merge discussion. I may be mistaken, but I suspect that even if this needs to be an RfC, that this is the wrong place for this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the question of the reliability of these sources in general is likely to go on being relevant. We have MEDRS stating that good sources include 'guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations'. The original citations included what seem to be NHS guidelines, as well as similar from Healthline, WebMD and NIH. If people are liable to dismiss such things as not meeting MEDRS requirements, I think we'll need a ruling on whether that's appropriate. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

But this is asking about it in the very specific context of a WP:RM discussion. Starting it with that framing means it will be of limited applicability in other contexts. Basically it feels like this RFC is asking us to decide the RM indirectly without actually starting the RM itself - that makes no sense. If there's going to be an RM, that should be held on that page first, with an announcement here if necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but there's been quite a bit of discussion on the relevant page. One (former) participant in that discussion was insisting that none of the citations disproving his point counted, which is why the question came here. By the by, it's a merge request, not a move request.

I still think it would be helpful to have more clarity about the citation requirements for different aspects of something like autism: what are the bounds of what counts as 'biomedical', and is it acceptable to cite something like a public-facing National Health Service page in support of points which may or may not be considered biomedical?

We're talking about autism in particular here, but this kind of question is very relevant to other kinds of neurodivergence, disabilities including deafness, and contested psychiatric categories like gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria and various paraphilias. Oolong (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to leap straight to an RFC here. What outcome, exactly, are you asking for? A page merge ought to be decided by a discussion on that page; leaping straight to an RFC at RSN to decide a specific thing that seems likely to require a RM on that page feels like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Examining the sources that might justify a move is normally part of an RM; a global discussion at RSN usually requires some indication that the problem is more widespread. Basically, why couldn't this question be settled via a normal RM? You can of course link or discuss the RM here if you believe it raises major RS issues, but it strikes me as off to try and preempt what might be a key question for it like this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If there's disagreement as to the reliability of the sources being used to justify a proposed merge, isn't the answer to that relevant? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1449:4A9E:866:5F64 (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: AllSides media bias ratings

Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Survey: Allsides

• Option 2: I believe that broadly categorizing AllSides as either reliable or unreliable would oversimplify it. Their website consists of several different sections with different but related aims; they have drawn by far the most attention from editors for their media bias ratings, which attempt to describe the bias of websites' news reporting on a five-point scale. In making these assessments, they depend on a variety of factors; along with each rating, they include a section explaining how they reached the conclusion they did. Some of their explanations, like those for The New York Times and Fox News, are extremely thorough; others, like those for The Telegraph and The Atlantic, seem to rely heavily on surveys, which is problematic. (AllSides acknowledges this by noting that they have "low confidence" in the latter two ratings.) Their research seems reasonably well-done, they have solid editorial control, and they are frank in acknowledging their limitations. Personally, I think that we should approach AllSides on a case-by-case basis; the more exhaustive the methodology section is, the more likely the rating is to be reliable and constitute due weight. Ratings in which they have "low confidence" should probably never be used, while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include. In some cases, content from the methodology section may be usable even when the bias rating itself is not, although when they are reporting what other sources have said, editors should prefer those sources. There are several other caveats that I believe editors should keep in mind when using AllSides: it does not consider opinion columns nor any television programming, it deliberately chooses not to assess the reliability of sources, and AllSides uses the concepts of left- and right-wing politics in their American sense, which does not apply very well to European politics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. As I note in the discussion below, several media organizations that explicitly cover the source give it high marks for its bias ratings. Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which itself has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The source's methodology is explicitly given, and the explicit statement in the confidence the source has in a particular rating should enable Wikipedia users to avoid using low-confidence ratings—this is a significantly better source than the number of media bias sites that don't state their methodology and/or don't give anything akin to a confidence interval. Overall, this has the reputation a WP:GREL source for labeling media bias; even USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks (1 2). — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Like the rest of the "media bias" aggregators, this site does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There are reliable sources for media bias - published, peer reviewed papers. Further, reviewing the Poynter article, the methodology that AllSides uses to rate is beyond problematic - it's bad. "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools." Just no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, the peer reviewed papers use AllSides as their data source for media bias. To say that there is a great deal of separation between peer-reviewed media bias literature and the AllSides ratings is simply not true. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You can use anything as a data source... This is a bit of a specific point but my dog once published a paper which almost entirely relied on Inspire (magazine) as a data source, that in no way means that the house publication of AQAP is a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • If you don't mind sharing on your dog(?)'s writings, can I ask what the data from Inspire (magazine) was used for in that study? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my reasoning in the discussion section. They're a tool which may be valuable for use outside of wikipedia but as a source its a no-go and we have no use for such tools here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I agree with the assessment of Compassionate272, above. Judge it on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on how confident they are in their own methodology and rating. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Generally unreliable. Placing ideologies on the political spectrum is inherently subjective, i.e., it depends on the position of the person placing them. Allsides groups CNN, The Nation and Jacobin as left-wing. In reality there is a large difference between CNN, which is corporate media supporting liberal capitalism, and Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (It shows a picture of Karl Marx.) The reason anyone would believe these publications occupy the same place in the political spectrum would be if they were conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 I agree with most of the comments raised by Compassionate727, who previously I had a discussion with on the reliability of the source. It is indubitably subjective and should IMO certainly be evaluated case by case basis. The quality of AllSides likewise tremendously depends on its asserted quality, e.g., the high confidence ratings are definitely more reliable, but even though they clearly do not manifest Option 1 as generally reliable. For example, it lists the CSM as centrist with high confidence, vindicating that “As of May 2016, The Christian Science Monitor’s AllSides media bias rating remained the same, despite a small majority of nearly 2,500 community members disagreeing with our Center rating.” Nevertheless, currently most of the community disagrees with the rating, which the site states may lead to a re-evaluation, but this is not the case and the entry has not been updated. Besides, its low confidence entries are poor, including the Daily Telegraph one linking back to Wikipedia as a ref, which seems to be circular source IMO. As per Compassionate 727’s comments, some of its ratings are almost entirely based on Blind Bias Surveys that are attributed from people all over the spectrum with no noted expertise, which might be unreliable. As a result, to me AllSides could at best be used for rudimentary info preferably with attribution, and if other RS cover it they should be preferred over this.

Mhawk10’s comments are also insightful, but I do disagree with some aspects. Common Sense Media, an RS primarily for film and media reviews, give AllSides a favourable rating. This does not seem to make it reliable- it also awarded WP a four star rating, despite it being user-generated. Further, the source does not seem to have a reputation for accuracy, as almost all source can be found in peer-reviewed journals, including MBFC, but this does not likely warrant significant coverage. Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • The star-rating system you're referencing isn't a reliability scale. According to their methodology, Common Sense Media rates media based on both age appropriateness and, for digital media, learning potential. We rely on developmental criteria from some of the nation's leading authorities to determine what content is appropriate for which ages. And research on how kids learn from media and technology informs our learning ratings. Wikipedia is actually quite good for learning about new things—that is the entire purpose of having a free encyclopedia. And, CSM flags Wikipedia as Collaborative reference: Research with caution. If you read the extended description, it says that Kids must be encouraged to think critically about what they read and double check facts and sources if they are using anything for a homework assignment when viewing Wikipedia; it's not saying that WP is actually super reliable for asserting specific facts in a high school-level academic setting (or, presumably, in more serious settings). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I concur with your statements on WP, but you stated that CSM gave high marks, while also suggesting that it only determines learning potential, so how does that make this source reliable? The view expressed for the Poynter article is cherry picked, it states “But use them with caution” and likewise notes the similarities of AllSides and Ad Fontes, the later being generally unreliable. I am also tentative of the quality of the Deseret article, it labels as an opinion piece only and also said that “Meanwhile, the Ad Fonte Media Bias Chart—yet another respected gauge of bias”. Do you consider Ad Fontes also reliable?

Thanks for your helpful ideas and please comment below for any disagreements. Cheers and thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

When I say "high marks", I was not referring to the star-based rating system, but to the quote that immediately followed that statement and to the section of the page titled "Is It Any Good?" more generally. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. The caution Poynter is expressing is to not use bias to determine reliability; we capture this in our guideline WP:BIASED, but that hardly seems like a mark against the bias ratings provided by this source. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful clarification, and apologies for my misunderstanding. However, I would also point out that IMO the CSM's evaluation of 'Is it any good?' on its own is not a sufficient indication of reliability and is skewed towards learning potential. There are dozens of examples, but one of them is that it cites Britannica as the "most trusted resource" and praises it extensively, notwithstanding it being only marginally reliable upon a search on WP: Perennial Sources. In comparison, would you view that source to be as top-notch as CSM suggests? Further, the claim that the experts gave AllSides high marks might be erroneous, as that interviewed expert is Mastrine, who is the owner of the unreliable Ad Fontes and likely does not reflect the general view of professionals in media research (hence her praise is likely biased). The comment of USA Today's use of this source for the fact check is invalid as it also cites MBFC. Would you consider MBFC as well as Ad Fontes (please see my previous argument on your comments made for Deseret News article, which noteworthily is merely an opinion source) reliable? As a result, from my point of view, the statement of "USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks" is cherry-picked as unreliable sources are frequently utilised. It is present in some peer-reviewed journals but is tangentially mentioned (i.e., your discussion noted below, and like already said media bias sites are used for sure occasionally, including MBFC for the Iffy Quotient, but is too restrained for significant use). Nevertheless, AllSides is marginally better than Ad Fontes and MBFC because of its unambiguously stated methodology, still, it lacks IMO the status of a reliable source. Thanks again for your comments and time. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. They are primarily opinion (and are mostly covered as such) but make no particular distinction between fact an option; the poynter coverage of them above specifically does not praise or even evaluate them in its article voice that I can see, and most of the usage or coverage consists of passing mentions; most of what it says is quoted from AllSides. "Raw data" types of websites are generally very hard to use because it's tricky for them to be anything other than primary for their own raw data; but we definitely couldn't use them to support statements in the article voice, and whether to cover things as their opinion is going to come down to due weight - which is often going to be lacking. Additionally, the very nature of AllSides means that their coverage of news sources is going to be indiscriminate, ie. a source having a rating there means little, as opposed to academic papers discussing their bias. There are just much better (and more specific) source available on the political outlook of sources when it is relevant, which AllSides shouldn't be weighted with and therefore isn't generally usable along; and if AllSides is the only source, it's hard to support using it because of its indiscriminate nature and blurring of reporting and opinion. This makes it difficult to see any situation where it would be an RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with Compassionate. This should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Allsides is great, using thorough fact checking methods, while other times it's a bit more of an online survey. For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Compassionate727. LondonIP (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Allsides

• Coverage of Wikipedia aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the links. I'm not sure how much any of them demonstrate the necessary reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm not sure if we should even consider any of them other than the Poynter piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      Well, Global News describes it as a fact-checking website that is recommended by the experts they interviewed. As I note in my !vote in the discussion section above, AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which has a stellar reputation for its reporting. USA Today also uses the website as a source in its own fact checks (1 2) for the explicit purpose of labeling the political lean of media outlets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Common Sense Media a paternalistic content rating agency? I don't think they're a WP:RS. Likewise CSM *used* to have a stellar reputation, they're so-so these days like with Deseret their links to a fringe religious sect have gotten more problematic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Common Sense Media is generally reliable in the area of its reviews for entertainment sources. Its applicability to other areas has not been the subject of significant discussion, but it looks like a situational source. Christian Science Monitor is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news and, as far as I am aware, has not seen its reputation change in recent years. Is there reporting from reliable sources that suggest this? Also, Deseret News is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a review of an entertainment source. Something can be less than stellar and still generally reliable. CSM's commentary has been getting increasingly extreme, for instance these pieces[64][65][66][67]. As Hipal pointed out the only thing we can actually use from what you presented is Poynter and they explicitly endorse All Sides as a *tool* not as a source so that has nothing to do with our discussion here. You also seem to have misstated the consensus on Deseret "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news." not "news" as you said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Poynter, the only caution that they give is not to use the bias charts that they are discussing as a measure of reliability (centrist news sources are not always higher quality), and state that Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases and that such charts offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. I don't really know what to conclude from that except taht they are well-researched and useful when their methodologies are transparent and rigorous; again, that's what a WP:RS is. With respect to Deseret, I don't think that anybody in the previous discussions made a distinction between local news and its news more broadly; it's a regional newspaper that tends to focus on LDS issues and regional topics, but I think that the word "local" in RSP is simply a mis-reading of the three discussions linked that unduly restricts the scope of its reliability. With respect to CS Monitor's opinions being published, I really don't think that we should consider its WP:RSOPINION pieces to be similar to its news coverage. In fact, all of those pieces you've linked are labeled as A Christian Science perspective, which plainly indicates that the perspective pieces are written from the viewpoint of a particular religious affiliation. The use of the source I linked is to establish that AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor the magazine—I think it would be silly to paint it as if the partnership were involved in one particular type of clearly labeled religious opinion column. You've also not addressed the coverage in Global News and the WP:USEBYOTHERS by USA Today's fact-checkers. If USA Today's fact-checkers are using the source in a particular way, is that not evidence of reliability for facts? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When you're at the point down the rabbit hole were you're accusing someone of having made a mistaken RSP entry you should probably take a step back. USEBYOTHERS is not a trump card and alone isn't even enough, its just one piece of the puzzle and most of the pieces seem to be missing here. I would also note that for many sources AllSides separates out opinion and news in their rating, they do not do so for CSM. Also AllSides methodology is *not rigorous* its actually rather shit, if you tried to submit a paper to a polisci or media studies journal using their methodology you would be laughed out of academia. We aren't comparing them to other media bias groups (which are mostly unreliable) we're comparing them to actual reliable sources like journal articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may think this, but a Routledge-published scholarly book notes that Allsides' use of multiple modes of analysis strengthens our overall confidence in their ratings. Hardly seems like this gets you laughed out of academia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that related? They aren't using their methodology and they don't even say its reliable they just say they have some level of confidence in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

They are saying that they have enough confidence that the bias ratings are correct to use it as a variable in their analysis. In other words, they're saying that it's reliable enough for bias ratings that they have confidence using it in their analysis, with the confidence being bolstered by the multi-mode analysis that involves editorial oversight, surveying, etc. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean for us though? We do not do analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You keep claiming that AllSides's methodology is awful, but you have neither explained why in any particular detail nor cited anyone who makes this claim. Do you have anything you can point to in support of your position? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings. AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings." So just to sum up they take bad data, run it through some opaque normalization algorithm, and then might or might not disregard it based on editorial preferences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you consider the data "bad"; it is entirely normal for survey organizers to solicit participants through their own networks of contacts in addition to the standard "other marketing tools"; in general, participants who are solicited through direct contacts are better than ones solicited via random survey distributors because many of those people are professional survey-takers clicking random responses as quickly as possible because they are being awarded per survey. There is no reason to expect AllSides's contacts to be unusually biased; even if there was, they normalize the results so that the personal bias of, e.g., some right-wing nut who thinks that all media that disagrees with him is far-left propaganda because Ben Shapiro says so doesn't skew the results. As for their "editorial reviews," it has already been noted that AllSides considers a number of other factors, including research by scholars and organizations like Pew as well as their own editors impressions of the source after reading its articles (see the Fox News bias rating for an example of this process), which of course will (and should) affect the final rating. On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source." if someone ever makes that argument I'l be sure to let them know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• How would this information be used by Wikipedia? Sources like this I think are useful for RSN discussions but the discussion here suggests we would want to use the ratings of this company in article space. If a RS says "Allsides said X" well fine but if we are editing an article about the WSJ we shouldn't include a sentence like, "Allsides rates the WSJ as X [cite Allsides]". Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the past RSN and other discussions, I added it to my list of problematic references in Dec'19, and started actively been removing them around Sep'20. I've found a lot of discussion, but very little attempted use. Generally better sources have been favored. My impression is that where it has been attempted to be used, it is to counter reputable, historic viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In articles like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Irish Times, Newsmax, Jacobin (magazine), AlterNet, The Grayzone, etc. we already state the political affiliation of the source in the lead or infobox. This would serve as one reliable source among others that could be used in describing the political leans of publications. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides uses an American political spectrum, it would not be possible to use them as a source for the general leaning of outlets in other countries. You will note that for the foreign sources they do rate they only review their US coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10, do you agree that CNN and Jacobin occupy the same position in the political spectrum or that CNN is more left-wing than The Guardian? TFD (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CNN and Jacobin don't occupy the same political ideology; Jacobin is generally to the left of CNN's online news coverage. There is tremendous diversity of thought in the left-wing to far-left; Maoists are not politically the same as Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists are not the same as hardcore left-liberals, and are Stalinists are not the same as La France Insoumise, which are each rather different that Juche practitioners and the anarcho-syndicalists of the Regional Defense Council of Aragon. Generally, however, the left-right framework would put all of those groups on the left, even though they tend to vociferously disagree. CNN's online U.S. political coverage follows a left-liberal line, while Jacobin follows a (democratic) socialist approach. The two are not the same, but in the context of AMPOL they get thrown in on the left side of the political divide. As for the news coverage, I haven't conducted a systemic review of CNN and The Guardian, but my inclination is that the two share a common left-liberal approach in the types of stories they choose to cover; they're both fairly comparable to Vox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I just removed this addition as a new editor's only edit. Is is safe to assume WP:ARBAP2 applies to such edits? --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another one [68], ARBAP2 definitely applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it applies, and I agree that both of those are inappropriate uses of the source. Biases should always be attributed, and there's rarely (dare I say never?) any reason to mention them except in a dedicated context. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Alexa Internet

In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles? -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Internet will be shutting down in May. We have 811 citations. They are used almost exclusively for site rankings (maybe some exceptions?). With Alexa offline the rankings are useless even misleading (maybe some exceptions?). Rather than archiving, the entire citation should be deleted along with the sentence that mentions the ranking.

A previous RfC removed Alexa rankings from infoboxes. Editors expressed concern about the accuracy and viability of site ranking generally, the reliability of Alexa, appropriateness for Wikipedia.

Proposal: Delete all citations and cited facts when related to Alexa site rankings. Use common sense to maintain an Alexa ranking score indefinitely if required by the text. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Wikipedia is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per WP:RFCBEFORE (this seems like the sort of situation where we'd want to have a proper discussion to figure out options.) But honestly I don't think we should have been directly citing Alexa numbers directly in the first place for the reasons mentioned above - they are vague about their methodology and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of the free data they provide. The one value that they (debatably) provided was up-to-date data; now even that will be gone. The only alternative to removing them seems to be using archive links, which I definitely don't think we should do. "This site had an Alexa rating of X in June 2019" seems to me to be using specific data to the point of basically being WP:OR - ie. why that date? As time passes it will come to carry a specific meaning not in the source - though really any Adlexa ratings do, because they're almost always used to imply something about the source that Alexa itself doesn't actually attest to given their vagueness about what those numbers mean. In my experience Alexa was almost always used to make an implicit argument of "this site is popular, and therefore important and noteworthy", which it shouldn't be used for given its limitations and the WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

We did discuss it 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes where there was near-unanimous RfC consensus against these links existing on Wikipedia Infoboxes, but also against the links generally. This RfC is required because the first RfC was limited to infoboxes which is an arbitrary criteria in most cases. -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Thanks for raising this issue. Could you please rephrase the RfC statement as a neutral and brief question per WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course dead links are saved automatically anyway. The question is why are we keeping these links? To know that on June 12, 2010, XYZ.com was ranked #34 by alexa.com and this statistic will never be updated again but frozen forever on Wikipedia? If there was some reason this stat was important, great, but in most cases there is no reason. It's unencyclopedic trivia, arguably inaccurate and unreliable, outdated and outmoded. If someone wants historical Alexa data for a future project, they can get it from the Wayback Machine in more complete form. -- GreenC 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delete it. I was wondering this. Things can get replaced by Netcraft.com website indexing services (from the same era as before Amazon bought Alexa). Most old internet site rankings after a few years may not matter all that much, and Amazon could disable it if they put no-index in the header record as that purges it from Internet Archive. CaribDigita (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Fine to remove them when found, although I wouldn't go out of my way searching them out. I would keep them, however, if they are used to show the ranking at a specific notable time frame, e.g. Website A was had an Alexa rank of Graham's number, but after it's breaking of the story that Cold fusion and the EM Drive both work, it's Alexa rank rose to 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

The Russian news outlet “Interfax” is not rated for reliability on Wikipedia (or WP) and should be. Help needed

Interfax is a widely known news outlet in Russia, yet it is not rated for reliability on WP.

There is also an “Interfax - Ukraine” but I don’t if it is connected to the Russian Interfax or not.

Both should be rated for reliability.

I have NO experience (or time for this). Help from experienced editors is requested.

Thanks in advance.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no pressing need mentioned, and it has not needed a RSP listing as a ‘perennial’ RSN topic, possibly because WP-English favors English-language sources. When I used the search at top of this page, I did get a few hits for it. Saying in part “reliable for reporting facts mainly concerning routine internal politics (Vladimir Putin yesterday appointed Ivan Ivanov a Minister of Truth); not reliable as far as some opinions, mainly concerning foreign policy are present (the US troops attacked freedom fighters in Syria using lethal gas; the Boston professor and world famous analyst John Smith predicted that the US would not survive as a state until 2021)”. Also seemed reputation better than Interfax-Ukraine. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Like ANNA News and Ruptly, Interfax is a Russian news agency (or a Newswire), similar to the Associated Press and Reuters, providing news collection as a commercial service to news organisations. As a recent example, Interfax broadcast confessions of Russian Lieutenant Colonel Krishtop Maxim Sergeevich [69], which was rebroadcasted by news organisations [70] [71]. The Russian censor office can't really restrict the work of news agencies, as their news organisation clients are liable for misinformation they rebroadcast. Newswires are typically on the "front line" of news media, and since there is no WP:NORUSH on Wikipedia, we should wait for more trusted new organisations to cover stories on Wikipedia. LondonIP (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Russian censor office can't really restrict the work of news agencies, as their news organisation clients are liable for misinformation they rebroadcast This massively misrepresents the nature of censorship in Russia. Most censorship is self-imposed, as agencies avoid broadcasting content which is politically unpallatable. [72] [73] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree about the self-censorship, but newswires are generally not as restricted as news organisations, as they usually provide just the raw footage and reports. LondonIP (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• COMMENT - I do not know enough about Interfax to give an opinion as to whether it is reliable or not… however, I do not think it should be placed on the RSP list.

That list is for sources that have repeatedly been discussed here at RSN (this is why it is called “Perennial”) - and Interfax has not been repeatedly discussed. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thomas B. Costain

A cursory search of the archives brought back nothing. This particular book is used in Eleanor of Provence. Any thoughts?

• Costain, Thomas B. (1959). The Magnificent Century. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

60+ year old popular history by a non-historian. Not utterly inaccurate, but way out of date and not academic. We don't have to only use academic sources, but when the non-academic sources are this old, we shouldn't. We can have much better sources and should use those. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Margaret Howell's Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth Century England is cited in the article and is both forty years more recent than Costain and academic. In the world of popular history, Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone is from this millenium and at least is by someone with undergraduate-level history training; The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort by Darren Baker is from 2019. I'm not a medievalist, so I defer to Ealdgyth's expertise on the specifics, but I would imagine either of those would at least be more up-to-date than Costain. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks to both of you for this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And I said the above even though Costain was one of the influences on me in getting interested in history - my parents had copies of his paperbacks and I read them while still in grade school and loved his style and engaging way of making history interesting. They are probably still good reads even now, but they aren't going to be as good for our purposes as Goldstone or Baker's works. (Eleanor of Provence is a bit later interest than I normally edit here, but I've read some of Goldstone's book and it's at least aligning with what I've read of the academic sources for the period. Haven't run across Baker's book yet.) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Global Firepower Index

I think this is unreliable because

1) A one dimensional index is not sufficient to measure firepower. For example the military are generally far more powerful when defending their own country.

2) User:Femkemilene/crime against significant digits - for example 0.1382 for UK is different from 0.138 or 0.14?

3) January 2022 is out of date in showing Russia second most powerful as they have lost significant power since then.

Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Wikipedia). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Houseofnames.com

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#RS hasn't had much success, so it's time to have a discussion about a few sources which are used regularly in "name" articles, but which I believe are not reliable. I'll start with one specific example:

Houseofnames.com is used in some 500 pages[74]. The site is a completely unreliable vehicle to sell stuff by giving people the false impression that they descend from a major family, no matter what their name is. Compare e.g. this to this and this. An attempt to get rid of some instances was reverted[75], so I'll let other editors decide if the source is acceptable or not. Fram (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable book sources on this topic such as The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland, but WP:SOURCEACCESS means there is some work required to get hold of them. I had a look at houseofnames.com and it seems very obvious its primary purpose is to sell merchandise, not to be a trustworthy repository of knowledge. They do cite some sources occasionally, such as the entry for Schiltz, which cites Passenger and immigration lists index : a guide to published arrival records of about 500,000 passengers who came to the United States and Canada in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. 1982-1985 Cumulated Supplements in Four Volumes, but that only cites that a person with that name emigrated to the US, nothing more. So, as a general rule of thumb I would say it is unreliable because there's no possible way of knowing where the information came from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, houseofnames.com is utter garbage, I suspect the content is generated by AI. At least, I can't think of a better explanation for this page. [76] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh my... I thought it was bad enough with Flemish names, but indeed, such ones are even worse. Similar examples are e.g. Shankar or Tolkien which turns out not to be German/Prussian as always thought, but from Normandy... Fram (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See also 'Smurf'. [77] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that made me smile :-) Fram (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else, unreliable on it's face. A great place, however, to get a coffee mug with a made-up family crest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's weird, I remember these types of sites in like 2005? They still have the same design team for their products (with the whole parchment aesthetic) but their web design is seriously good. Anyways, I agree with above the source does not seem reliable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Originally, the Spanish people were known only by a single name. The process by which hereditary surnames were adopted in Spain is extremely interesting. Surnames evolved during the Middle Ages when people began to assume an extra name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Very interesting, indeed. People used a second name to avoid confusion and to further identify themselves. Also, Santacruz Settlers in United States in the 19th Century Francisco Santacruz, who landed in Peru in 1853. Peru, the secret United State. Although it's nice to see that Jon Radish made it to Virginia in 1633. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was briefly mentioned here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Family_website_and_geneology_sites and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Miscellaneous_name_sites_as_sources. Doesn't appear reliable. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can someone tell me what the policy is to creating namelists. I have been working on {{Anthony}}, {{Charles}}, {{Nicholas}}, {{Anastasia (name)}}. Most name list do not have WP:RS to support WP:V. Is it better to create such list articles with no sources, create these articles with weak sources, or not create the articles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Best not to create the articles. WP:V is policy, and if there are no reliable sources to be found for something it shouldn't be included. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL (which I'd imagine the name articles qualify as) says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." That kind of implies multiple reliable sources to start with. And as User:Uncle G/On notability put it, if you didn't do this, you would end up with an article of every last name in the world, which would result in a directory instead of an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Most name "articles" don't provide encyclopedic content, but merely serve a navigational purpose: WP:NAMELIST. You don't need sources or notability for those any more than you need sources and notability for disambiguation pages. – Uanfala (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are several other sources that I was relying on. Are nay of them acceptable as WP:RS for WP:IC?

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/about

https://www.surnamedb.com/Home/about

https://www.ancestry.com/

https://www.name-doctor.com/about-us.html -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is discussed on the list of perennial sources, which says "Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable." Another way of putting this would be that Ancestry.com does host many citable primary source documents (as well as newspapers, which are usually secondary sources), but its user-generated content (which I imagine is what you would be looking at, for this purpose) is not RS. Preliminarily, the other sources do not appear to be RS, since they look more like hobby or business sites without a clear fact-checking process. John M Baker (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• As User:Uanfala stated above WP:NAMELIST are for navigational purposes. For me {{Anthony}} {{Charles}} are fun endeavors. I thought they would be a lot less fun without sourced facts, but I just use the challenged sources to determine what pages are relevant. NAMELISTs with unsourced facts seems to be common. For those of you who aren't aware, {{Anthony}} is fun for me because of my name Antonio (and Username). my first edit explains why {{Charles}} is just as fun for me. Charles was originally suppose to be worked on from 10/25/19 to 10/25/20, but COVID interfered with my editing patterns. I finally have time to get after it. sourced or unsourced, it is still fun.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech Xplore and Self-Published College report reliability?

Two related questions for comment:

• Is Tech Xplore a reliable source, or a non-reliable "news aggregator" that re-publishes press releases or similar, as suggested in a comment here[78]?

Where wiki-used several times: [79]

• Is a study report (self-) published on a professor's web page at Trinity College Dublin a reliable source, or a non-reliable self-published source?

Where wiki-used several times: [80]

More context:

They are being used to support statements such as "Analysis of data traffic by popular smartphones running variants of Android found substantial by-default data collection and sharing with no opt-out by this pre-installed software.[253][254] Both of these issues are not addressed or cannot be addressed by security patches." at Android_(operating_system)

As explained in a talk page here[81], IMO the self-published report is unreliable; this is partly based on the fact The Register published a correction[82], and partly on additional information which is probably "original research" by wiki-standards. Therefore, IMO, Tech Xplore demonstrates itself to also be unreliable by uncritically re-publishing excerpts or press releases from a university that published a flawed report. As there were no responses at that talk page, and the report results have been added (uncritically) to several articles (above insource search links), comments or consensus on these questions would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy for self published sources is WP:SPS. Such sources are reliable dependent on the acknowledged expertise of whoever has written it, but they are not unconditionally unreliable. It would depend on who "Nervuri" is.
As to making corrections that is the mark of a reliable source. Being perfectly correct everytime is an unreasonable high bar. However in regard to The Register I would regard it as not unreliable, but not the greatest source. It was formed as a red-top for tech news.
The about us page of Tech Xplore directs towards this page, which goes into detail about their editorial process. It certainly looks reliable, although if the article is aggregated I would reference to the original source. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 23:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Re: "acknowledged expertise" and "It would depend on who "Nervuri" is." I agree and go farther: Nervuri demonstrated expertise by bringing attention to issues that were ignored or overlooked by the report by Professor Leith, causing gitlab issues to be filed, and status updates to report (lack of) progress on fixing the issues; however, it is doubtful many wiki-editors would acknowledge this expertise, and while factual, the forum and gitlab sources supporting the preceding statement would be WP:OR and not considered wiki-reliable.

Do you agree it also depends on who "Professor Leith" is, how they chose to publish the particular report, how it was publicized, and how The Register published a correction questioning a report methodology and conclusion?

I agree the correction by The Register increases their reliability in comparison to others; my point was that particular correction detracts from the reliability of Prof. Leith's (self published) study report. Yes, nothing is perfect.

Thanks for looking at Tech Xplore About! There *is* a subtle difference in how they publish or re-publish articles, based on whether they state copyright. For this article they say "Provided by Trinity College Dublin" and link to a "partners" page.[83] Search digging finds the original Trinity College Dublin "Media Relations" article that was re-published by Tech Xplore verbatim with format changes.[84]

It appears there is really only one source in this instance - the study report and what the authors said or wrote to their "media relations" person. After that, Except The Register, this is an example of wiki junk sourcing, as the media relations article was uncritically propagated to "news" sources, which are then considered "reliable" by some editors at wikipedia.

So what is the proper wiki-course? Reference The Register article and the Media Relations article, and note the conclusions are called into question? Or conclude the report results are questionable and consider the whole thing unreliable, or just another example of controversy? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

About Fandom wikis

After all this controversy, should we add Fandom wikis like amazing-everything.fandom.com, gerontology.fandom.com and archicentenarians.fandom.com to spam blacklist?SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPEEDYBEAVER: I see no reason why Fandom wikis should be added to the blacklist. They haven't been used for spam or promotional purposes (and if they have I haven't seen it) which is the reason the spam blacklist exists. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@SPEEDYBEAVER: I concur with Blaze wolf. Please read the relevant guideline for blacklisting sources. Do you have a valid rationale for adding Fandom to the blacklist with compelling evidence that their wikis are being abused in such a manner on Wikipedia and that no other action is sufficient? Keep in mind, The Daily Mail and National Enquirer are both controversial, but that doesn't mean we have to blacklist them. Deprecation has proven to be sufficient. Even then, this should not apply to Fandom wikis. The policy for external links allows wikis if they are stable and have a significant number of editors (e.g. Minecraft Wiki), making either blacklisting or deprecating Fandom problematic. Marking it as unreliable, which we already have done, should be enough. Lazman321 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I would say that the Minecraft Wiki is sort of an outlier since it used to be the official Minecraft Wiki so of course it would have fairly high standards. I don't know of any other Wiki that wasn't considered an "official" Wiki that is still stable and has a significant number of editors, but the same principle still applies. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Memory Alpha perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And Wookieepedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Plenty of fan-wikis are reliable (in the small r sense) because they have a community dedicated to keeping the information up-to-date. The issue is that all of their information is from the primary source itself. The good fan-wikis note where this is information is from (referenced) the bad ones dont. Ultimately there should never be any need to reference a fan wiki because if we wanted to use information contained on one in an article here, we would use the primary source as we use primary sources generally for creative works. However plenty of the good wikis (MA, Bulbapedia etc) are absolutely useful external links as they contain far more detailed and correct information than we would ever include in an article here, so blacklisting would be inappropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Should we blacklist them? If it any of them gets spammed then that can be considered but otherwise it isn't necessary. That said, let's get this clear that fandom sites are open wikis, i.e they are user-generated sources and generally unreliable. Even if one believes a particular piece of information to be correct, it can't be used because they fail to meet the standards of WP:V. At best, things like about pages can be used a primary source for information on themselves. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected Webhost-based "Gerontology" sites

I discovered some gerontology-related sites on the internet that are suspected of being webhost-based.

• Supercentenari d’Italia: https://www.supercentenariditalia.it/
• Oldest of Ireland : https://finbarrconnolly.com/chronicle/
• Najstarsi Polacy: http://www.najstarsipolacy.pl/
• Oldest people in Britain: http://oldestinbritain.nfshost.com/chronology.php

If any of these websites use webhost, please tell me down in the comments and tell which one (s) is/are it/them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPEEDYBEAVER (talk • contribs)

Well, for an easy no-brainer, that last one is at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a seller of webhosting services. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is this an issue for this noticeboard? None of the websites listed are cited on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't clutter the noticeboard with hypothetical questions. That isn't its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Time to revisit Forbes.com?

WP:FORBES says "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable."

I am thinking that we may want to rethink the above and list all of forbes.com as generally unreliable. Not sure about Forbes the printed magazine. See:

• "Forbes became a hub of pay-to-play journalism. Sometimes it’s the contributors being paid by marketers; sometimes it’s the contributors being marketers... It would be one thing if this was the first time something like this happened at Forbes -- for it to have matched author to subject so poorly as to have cybercrime-prevention advice coming from someone now under indictment for cybercrime. (It’s like finding out Smokey the Bear’s behind all the wildfires in California.)... But this is only the latest in a series of bonkers abuses of its 'contributor' system."

-An incomplete history of Forbes.com as a platform for scams, grift, and bad journalism

One would think that after publishing [85] and [86] Forbes would take down [87], or at the very least add a footnote to the glowing bio at the bottom.

• "When a Chinese company buys a major American magazine, does the publication censor its coverage of China? There is only one example so far, and the results are discouraging. In 2014, a Hong Kong-based investment group called Integrated Whale Media purchased a majority stake in Forbes Media, one of the United States' best-known media companies. It's hard to demonstrate causality in such cases. But since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine’s commitment to editorial independence."

-Chinese ownership is raising questions about the editorial independence of a major U.S. magazine

...and yet, unlike Heather R. Morgan, Forbes did manage to take down everything written by opinion editor and Communist Party critic Gordon Chang after they were bought out by a Chinese company.

• "Binance, the cryptocurrency exchange, is making a $200m (£147m) investment in Forbes less than two years after it sued the business publisher for defamation... Binance sued Forbes and two of its writers in November 2020 after the publication of a story that claimed Binance 'conceived of an elaborate corporate structure designed to intentionally deceive regulators'... Two senior Binance executives – the chief communications officer, Patrick Hillmann, and Bill Chin, the head of its venture capital arm – will join the Forbes board of directors on the closing of the deal."

-Crypto exchange Binance makes $200m investment in Forbes: Deal comes less than two years after Binance sued business publisher for defamation

Forbes on Binance, pre investment: [88]

Forbes on Binance, post investment: [89]

Disclosure of Forbes COI in the above " we chose Binance.US as the Best Overall Crypto Exchange and Best Crypto Exchange for Crypto Enthusiasts" review:: File not found. [A]bort, [R]retry, [F]ail?

• "The positive online notices appeared to have been paid for by Mr. Epstein: A writer employed by his foundation churned out the news releases, and Drew Hendricks, the supposed author of a Forbes story calling Mr. Epstein 'one of the largest backers of cutting edge science,' conceded in an interview that he was given $600 to post the pre-written article under his own name. (Forbes removed the piece after The New York Times published its article.)"

-Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway.

• "Fans of the Forbes magazine may not realize that Forbes.com has very little to do with the official publication. The articles on Forbes.com are not written or even edited by the writers of the magazine. Instead, they are contributed by writers from around the world. Contributors to the website write their own articles and submit them in exchange for royalty payments. None of the facts within the articles are checked and editors do not modify the contributions in any way. Incredibly, Forbes remains one of the most popular business news websites despite this lack of overall quality control."

-3 Deceptively Reputable Sources That Aren’t What They Seem to Be

• "Like a growing number of websites, Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers in order to view the article. After doing so, visitors were immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and banking information. Or, as is popular worldwide with these malware 'exploit kits,' lock up their hard drives in exchange for Bitcoin ransom."

-You say advertising, I say block that malware

When a publication's owners and management are shown to be corrupt and willing to publish anything (including malware!) they are paid to publish, the burden of proof is on that publisher to prove that a certain class of writers are independent and immune from interference from above.

--2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:1CD5:CC80:9F23:C487 (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think most of these references match our current consensus on Forbes. Not sure about the adblocker stuff, though, but I don't expect that to affect reliability. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

See: WP:FORBESCON. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

First, since they are two separate listings with notably different ratings, I think we should alter prior decisions and should remove WP:FORBESCON comments about forbes.com from WP:FORBES. Suggest just removing "Forbes and Forbes.cominclude articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable... Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." Second, the OP raises the RS point of Forbes editorial oversight has been noted as affected by owners so for China and cryptocurrency so there is external doubt. See also claims of firing transparency advocate Adam Andrzejewski here. For that, I do not see much about it in RSN archives, so would not change the RSP rating in the interests of RSP being a summary of RSN. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Markbassett's suggested change to remove mention of forbes.com WP:FORBES. Just make them two separate entries with "see also" links going both ways.

Would this discussion (assuming multiple people weigh in) be enough of a RSN discussion to justify changing RSP? Or would an RfC be needed?

I seem to remember a prior decision to ban a source because it tried to infect the user's computer with malware, but I don't remember whether that decision was here or some other page. Is there a better place to discuss malware on a webpage we use as a source? --2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:80DE:3DD8:85D1:2332 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Most of these sources (especially the non-opinion ones and the more specific ones) are about the contributor system, which is already flagged as unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. I'm not convinced there's enough here that isn't about the Forbes contributor system to consider Forbes.com as a whole unreliable. WriterAccess (which looks like just a random blog itself to me) seems to be implying that Forbes.com consists only of its contributor system, but I don't think that's the case? Although looking, it seems like we are citing the contributor system roughly 20,000 times (not everything in /sites/ is a contributor, but most of them are.) What we might consider doing is deprecate Forbes contributors rather than merely marking them as unreliable - the problem is that they appear reliable (and in fact in a quick search many of them are being cited with an inline attribution of "Forbes said X", which is incorrect). They have the classic problem of "flatly unreliable source that people are going to keep using regardless" that often requires deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Capital FM, Interrobang, The Music Man, seeitlive: Reliable Sources?

Hi,

A bit of context, about a week ago, I created an article (for the song and dance craze Coincidance), which was proposed for deletion. To summarise the discussion so far, essentially, the arguments hinge on whether or not the sources used in the article are reliable. While I believe one of the sources was established to be reliable (Cartoon Brew) during a previous discussion on this noticeboard, the others, namely Capital FM Network, Interrobang, The Music Man and seeitlive, I don’t believe have been discussed previously. The actual citations used in the article are:

https://www.capitalfm.com/features/most-popular-tiktok-songs-playlist-2020/

https://www.themusicman.uk/handsome-dancer/

https://theinterrobang.com/the-hot-new-summer-dance-craze-is-the-coincidance/

https://seeitlive.co/two-dancers-coincidance-video/

If these sources are or are not reliable, please do let me know why. Thankyou!

HenryTemplo (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that CapitalFM, the website for a chain of radio stations in the United Kingdom and run by a leading media and entertainment company, should be reliable for noncontroversial edits. However, the reference to the song in that link is too trivial to support notability. Ditto for the Cartoon Brew link. The Interrobang is a comedy news and discussion website. It's hard for me to tell whether it has a proper fact-checking process or not, and I would be interested in others' thoughts on this. The Music Man and See It Live do not appear to have appropriate fact-checking and editorial processes. In any case, since you have at most one nontrivial article (on Interrobang) from a reliable source, that would not appear to support notability. John M Baker (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. I would dispute the triviality of the mention in the Capital FM article and Cartoon Brew article, quoting the GNG: “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”. Both of the articles discussion on the subject is more than a trivial mention, even if it’s not necessarily the main topic (at least I think so, you may disagree, it is sort of subjective). HenryTemplo (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if there is any further, positive input on Interrobang, you can take that back to the AFD discussion and see if they think that you have enough. Without getting into a substantive discussion on notability here, it seems obvious that the brief amounts of coverage in the Cartoon Brew and CapitalFM articles are insufficient to show notability. John M Baker (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

www.kreiszeitung.de

Is https://www.kreiszeitung.de a WP reliable source?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: - see WP:ANI#Gutting of articles at AfD for background info. It would appear to be a German regional news site. On the face of it, it appears to meet RS. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the “Right Web” or the “Militarist Monitor” an RS for Nina Rosenwald

See the changes here. I’m also a bit confused as it seems the Militarist Monitor replaced the Right Web. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• According to Media Bias / Fact Check MM is a left leaning advocacy site that opposes what it believes to be interventionist / militaristic policies, especially on the part of the US Government. That said, they give it a high rating for factual accuracy. To me, this suggests that what it is reporting, is probably factually accurate, as far as it goes. But I would not look to this site for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They have an ideological axe that they are grinding and may not present facts or opinions inconsistent with the view they are pushing. In summary I would accept them as RS for noncontroversial claims of fact, i.e. a date of birth or that Congressman Smith is a Republican from Iowa. But I would be very reluctant to accept any claims or characterizations that might be controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  MM isn’t a reliable source itself I believe. But it appears that the original source was Right Web, wasn’t it? Doug Weller talk 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oops, I meant I didn’t think Media Bias/Fact Chrck was a reliable source, particularly for a site’s politics. Doug Weller talk 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's BLP so we should be careful I have take a look at the site it seems it doesn't have editorial board its not clear who writes the articles and so on. I would avoid Shrike (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I am getting shouted down while trying to verify the references in this article. There’s a pretty definite refusal to discuss, let’s just say, and so far I’ve been called specious and unworthy of a reply. I was also referred to a previous RFC, which I admit I haven’t examined inch by inch, but I took a pretty good look and what I see is a lot of other editors getting told that the references are “fine”. Given all the emotion over there I would like to specify that I am asking a very narrow question here. In the context of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS does this citation

Upchurch, H. E. (22 December 2021). Cruickshank, Paul; Hummel, Kristina (eds.). "The Iron March Forum and the Evolution of the 'Skull Mask' Neo-Fascist Network" (PDF). CTC Sentinel. West Point, New York: Combating Terrorism Center. 14 (10): 27–37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 December 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2022. Smith also had ties to the Azov Battalion, a neo-fascist Ukrainian paramilitary group.

support a characterization of “right-wing extremist” I am asking about this one because it is the first reference. I may have more similar questions later.

As best I can tell, editors believe that it is RS because of its publisher, but its entire discussion of Azov is in passing on page 37. This mention does use the descriptor “neo-fascist” (which I accept as close enough to “right-wing extremist”) but its point, as demonstrated by the topic of its citation to NPR, is that a given American soldier had unspecified “ties” to Azov. According to the the prosecution case against the soldier, which was according to the FBI, which is explicitly restricted from jurisdiction outside the United States. And has sent people to Guantanamo for “ties” to 9-11 which amounted to waiting on one of the terrorists at a restaurant where the detainee had worked. True story. Bottom line I would like to hear more about these ties, if the soldier were the point, but he’s not.

Again, I think it is likely that one or another past or present incarnation or another of this group could be described as “right-wing extremist”, but I don’t think this sort of fourth-hand in passim reference proves that. Suggestions as to substantive discussions of the group that could be used instead would for my part be welcome.

What are not welcome are appeals to Google search results, cries of “everyone knows”, or declarations that lots of reliable sources exist. If they do, I think we should use them. Thank you for your attention. Oh and before somebody asks, yes I have tried to discuss {See above) and no I have not yet notified any other editors, but will start on this as soon as I hit publish. This will take a little time, as I am going to include participants in the prior RFC I keep getting referred to Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job only providing one of the two cites for the "far-right extremist" designation. The other is this, which is more than enough on it's own to substantiate the wikivoice designation in the lead when taken in conjunction with the source you brought up above and coverage in the article. technically the lead doesn't need any cites, owing to it's nature as a summary of the article. The cites mostly serve to assuage people who insist Azov is not inf fact a neo-Nazi organization and to prove that the designations are used by RS and are not just an invention of Wikipedia. They don't need to be in-depth cites on the nature of Azov, that's what the body is for. All they need to do is establish that Azov is called a far-right extremist neo-Nazi organization by reliable sources, which they do more than adequately. You repeatedly insist sources don't exist, and the cry how the sources are bad or wrong with your bizarre readings of them and unrelated tangents when they are provided, and now seem to be forum shopping when you didn't like the response you got at the Azov talk page. The sources exist and have been discussed before. That you aren't willing to look at them or accept them is not Wikipedia's problem.BSMRD (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Do you have an issue with neo-nazi Azov battalion being called neo- nazi or is your issue just CTC Sentinel source. If the former, RSN is not the place to start a discussion. Anyways, quoting from The Hill Azov’s neo-Nazi character has been covered by the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph and Reuters, among others. On-the-ground journalists from established Western media outlets have written of witnessing SS runes, swastikas, torchlight marches, and Nazi salutes. They interviewed Azov soldiers who readily acknowledged being neo-Nazis. They filed these reports under unambiguous headlines such as “How many neo-Nazis is the U.S. backing in Ukraine?” and “Volunteer Ukrainian unit includes Nazis.”. Please read the links posted in the article fully and also their human rights abuse. Apart from your textwall bombardments and incoherent ramblings on the talk page of the article, this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOP. By your own admission you've stated I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group on the talk page. You have evidently not gone through any other sources already present in the article, but you want to overturn a very long and arduous previous RFC . If you aren't convinced about the nature of this group you can start a blog. I am sure it will receive the credit it deserves. - hako9 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Neo-fascism is a far-right ideology, so I'm not sure what is not clear. Yes, the first cite makes a passing mention, but it is used because (1) it specifically identifies the group as ideological, and (2) is supporting a designation that some people want to white-wash. Under normal circumstances, a single cite (such as the source BSMRD mentioned) would be adequate (or even no cite in the lead, since it should be covered and expanded later), but this is a case where that simply is not possible. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read the post you are commenting on, reconsider the personal attacks, and look up “known unknowns”. As opposed to “unknown unknowns”Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Very profound. - hako9 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why exactly was I called in here, other than having participated in an RfC many months ago? The sources were discussed at length, the designation was discussed at length, the differences (or lack thereof) and distinctions (or lack thereof) between "right wing extremist", "neo-fascist", "neo-Nazi", "ultranationalist" et al. were also discussed at length, seeing as they were the main subject of the debacle in the first place. Is the ongoing (literal) war resulting in some effort to retread what at this point is very, very old ground? As for the source in question I fail to see what exactly the issue is. Are you implying that "Neo-fascism" is not "right-wing extremism"? Personally I would scrap it up to neo-Nazi but I'm certain many would oppose that idea and I've no problem with settling on "right-wing extremist" as a middle ground. Why is this noticeboard being used? You are not inquiring about the nature of the source, from the looks of it, but about the contents of the source (which is a question of interpreting sources, not verifying them). The theatrical "I may have more similar questions later" doesn't exactly help your case. If you want to ask questions, ask all of them, don't lead editors on. And unless this is in some roundabout way about verifiability I would recommend moving this back to the talk page of the article since this doesn't actually seem to be on topic for the NB. EuanHolewicz432 (talk)

EuanHolewicz432 As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants). As for... why, exactly, this was done, I can't particularly say. BSMRD (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. If you are "getting shouted down" then it may simply be that the consensus of interested editors is against you. Unless there is some cognizable evidence of canvassing or unallowable sockpuppeting or co-ordination, then simply being in the minority position is not grounds for intervention. No matter how sure your minority position is correct. Consensus is the fundamental model of content decision here and everyone winds up on the down side occasionally. Actually, if there is a WP:CANVASS violation here, it seems probable that it is by the OP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Note: I'm not very familiar with this topic, but made a related post a while back, so was invited here by Elinruby.) Per Elinruby, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to editorialize about the Azov Battalion (AB)'s current status based on a passing mention in something that might be otherwise generally an RS, especially if no timeframes are mentioned (I didn't check on this). I'd want something that goes into more depth, and that is clearly focused on the present. I think it was uncontroversial that the AB was once a Banderite faction (i.e. extremist), but there is at least some pretense that since being absorbed into the Ukraine national guard, it has reformed its ways, has diversity and inclusion training (just kidding) for all its members, etc. I also am perplexed why Ihor Kolomoyskyi is supposedly now funding it since he is part of an ethnic group (he is Jewish) historically disfavored by the AB.

  Generally I would rather that Wikipedia avoid editorialization unless something is almost totally uncontroversial. Seeing disputed characterizations in the wikivoice just tells me I'm reading a non-neutral article. I don't like Wikipedia's "RS police" either, and would rather that we use (though not endorse) a wider range of sources, with appropriate skepticism, as I believe our NPOV philosophy intended (i.e. it is now being gamed by people using RS disputes to get rid of info and viewpoints that they want our readers not to see). Here is another thing like that, which I found interesting, from a source that has been deprecated on Wikipedia. Do I believe its thesis? Not really. Do I feel better informed anyway? Yes. Do I want the US arming this group with Stingers like it did the Taliban in the 1980s? Hell no. The article also cites some reports from 2018 calling the AB extremist. Maybe some of those are usable as evidence of the AB's status, as its incorporation into the Ukraine NG was apparently in 2014, so 2018 is relevant. Something more recent would still be better though.

  Anyway, yes, I'd ditch the wikivoice editorialization unless there is better current sourcing. I do have the impression that the editorialization is likely basically right, but I'd rather conclude that for myself than have it dished out to me, unless it is nailed down better than I've currently seen. And in fact I thought the viewpoint was understated in the article when I last read it a few days ago, to the point where I felt that the article seemed useless. (Added post-EC: I haven't looked at the RFC someone mentioned and wasn't aware of it. My first exposure to this topic was about a week ago, post-invasion.) 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Added: Here is a Deutsche Welle article going into some depth in calling the AZ extremist, and from just a week ago. I guess it qualifies as RS. I came across it, posted it on the AB article talk page, and forgot about it, but just found it there again. Whether that is enough to tip the wikivoice call, I don't know. It weighs in favor, but as mentioned I prefer to be quite conservative about doing that. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. It was an excellent suggestion that was completely ignored. It is also very instructive to run the Ukrainian version of the page through google translate. Including the talk page, lol Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mumbai Theatre Guide

Is it reliable? 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's always best to identify an article and specific content per the instructions for this noticeboard, but given [90], [91], and [92], I'd say be very careful in considering it for anything at all. --Hipal (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sant bhindra wala was not a terrorist.

Hi Team,

Just want to make sure that i am not on any side but want to request morefacts to a page on the name of sant Bindrawala on Wikipedia. It claims that sant bhindrawala was having parellel govt. and he was establishing his terrorist group in golden temple and it leads that he was a terrorist. i don't think ever any govt of india or any other contry has any declaration of that. I have one old article of real insident and on the bassis of this and the fact that what ever people keeps on saying is not true but fact matters i request you to checkh review and edit this kind of statement. for reffrence: please check the only one article there is no govt or court or police orders that he was a Terrorist. So i request you to remove that. Thank you. the wikipedia link of page:

Gurdeep84 (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)