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, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378

RfC on TASS

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.

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 This report[1] is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time.[2][3][4] I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis_¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  For example, see [5]

  Russian-backed separatists have stepped up their shelling of Ukrainian forces, but Kyiv has told its troops not to return fire to avoid giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse to launch an invasion.

  Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis_¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [6] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?

  Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  "According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• 3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis_¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. starship.paint (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
  • NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”

  1. NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated

  Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 Both Reuters [7] and Getty Images [8] have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis_¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where the reliability of Tass varies based on the content. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can Adoring nanny explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't name the article. If you want to re-name it, you need to go to the discussion on its talk page. Whether or not these defacto republics are legitimate is irrelevant to whether or not they asked Russia to invade. TFD (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor: Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government. We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  @SamuelRiv: it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war. And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 Generally unreliable, reliable for statements of the Russian state and pro-government politicians (and perhaps for uncontroversial minor facts), very unreliable for controversial facts on topics where the Russian state has an interest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Generally unreliable, but reliable for official statements of the Russian government officials and state decrees. Grandmaster 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Comment. TASS is the official state news agency of Russia. I don't think TASS has any reason to distort statements of say president Putin or laws passed by the Russian parliament. Quite the contrary, this is where the official information is published, therefore TASS should be considered a reliable source to reflect the official position of Russia, with proper attribution. However, when it comes to general reporting, TASS is a propaganda outlet, and cannot be used for statements of fact. For reliable news coverage better use third party sources with a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. Of course they also publish many outright fabrications (which would be option "4"), but I am against depreciating anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. As others have stated, Reuters and Getty Images have cut ties with them. MBFC has them listed as mixed on facts, biased on politics, and limited press freedom. It has suggested they promote conspiracy theories and it also describes them as "100% Russian propaganda all the time."[9]Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4, roughly half a century too late. TASS is a propaganda operation. We can discuss what it says, as described in reliable independent sources, but not cite it as an authority. I learned this at school. I left school in 1987. Why are we still discussing this? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: The one good argument I've seen against it is that it does sometimes provide quotes from Russian government officials. I could see an exception in this case but to be honest I'm a little worried that a source that fabricates information as blatantly as TASS does might also not be reliable for the things we think they might be reliable for. Other than that, blatantly fabricating information is an instant deprecate vote from me. Loki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Could the editors who voted Option 3 or 4 provide a few references to blatantly false information published by TASS? I guess those who voted Option 2 might be willing to change their vote if they were provided with some examples of fake news. So far I've seen opinions but no evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [10] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g. For example, a July 2021 article titled, “OPCW report proves Germany’s link to provocation with Navalny — lower house’s commission,” claimed that the poisoning of Navalny was “anti-Russian provocation” linked to Germany. As one can read in that article, the claim that the Navalny affaire was an anti-Russian provocation was not made by TASS but by Vasily Piskarev, chairman of a Duma commission. TASS is reporting (with attribution) Piskarev's statement. So News Guard is making a blatant mistake that no experienced editor of Wikipedia would ever make. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're misunderstanding the point that News Guard is trying to make. They are illustrating that TASS often uncritically repeats statements by the Russian government, even when they have been shown to be false elsewhere. It says this several times in the report, including on the title page: "The site uncritically promotes the false claims of the Russian government." The quote you provided came after the sentence "TASS also has advanced false claims about the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny." [emphasis added] Journalism is intended to be held to a higher standard than Wikipedia articles.

  I would add to their analysis that TASS attributes ridiculous claims to unnamed sources in the government. For particularly ridiculous claims they insulate themselves further by nesting attributions like "'According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,' the source said."[11] This tactic has been in play since the 80s when TASS reported that Peter Nikolayev reported that according to "British and East German scientists" AIDS was man-made, had been tested on humans at Fort Detrick, and had leaked from the lab there accidentally.[12]

  If you look at my vote, you will note that I quoted MBFC as saying that TASS "promotes conspiracy theories" and is "100% Russian propaganda," not that they misreported that propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I attributed those statements to them, so my reporting of the unreliable source stands, according to the logic being used to justify the continuation of considering TASS reliable. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would have maintained it at 2 instead of dropping to 3 but for the current situation viz a viz the West which will likely result in some deterioration but I should add that I don't really have any evidence of that and News Guard is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  That is the current WP consensus, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Gitz6666, please actually read the discussion. The very first comment here provides exactly the kind of reference you're asking for. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Actually it doesn't, and I myself have commented (at 21:05, 18 May 2022) on Adoring Nanny's test case aimed at showing that TASS is unreliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

But here is more: [13], [14], [15] [16]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Adoring nanny's, MrOllie's Disconnected Phrases' and Space4Time3Continuum2x's analyses, which show that TASS has published false and fabricated information and should be deprecated as such. TASS' reliability has worsened and needs to be reevaluated since its last discussion in 2019, which is particularly important given the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DEPS also establishes that in this scenario it can still be used as a source for the position of the Russian government, but at any rate said position would already be covered by more reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Adoring nanny, TASS clearly publishes blatant fabrications—blindlynx 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Adoring nanny and Space4Time3Continuum2x. TASS used to have a veneer of reliability in the past due to some of its editorial practices, but it seems like this has changed, due to the needs of the state in an environment where other outlets to engage in information warfare have been reduced in impact in outside countries after feb2022. it's why reuters and getty dropped them as partners. info from tass is sometimes useful, but when it's useful, it should show up in reliable secondary sources. Cononsense (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 the majority of examples of false information allegedly published by TASS are in fact faithful relaying by TASS of possibly false claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, which is not the same thing as directly reporting claims that are known to be false. By that standard all news outlets would have to be deprecated simply for quoting people in disputed situations. The closer should not merely count the number of arguments or votes but take into consideration the weakness of the arguments for option 4. Remember that WP:BIASEDSOURCE explicitly states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and the faithful quoting of unreliable statements is a form of bias, not a form of fabrication. Since the source accurately relays claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, but those claims are themselves suspect, due weight considerations apply. TASS should only be used to give further detail on claims that other sources agree are notable. TASS is likely to be reliable for reporting unrelated to geopolitics relating to Russia, given the fact that they had partnerships with other RS until Russia invaded Ukraine. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: additional considerations apply, as usual with many state media agencies. On a case-by-case basis, it may require in-text attribution. And, of course, oppose this trend of attempting to outright deprecate full media outlets based on some anecdotal report on some controversial topic. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: This entire nomination by Adoring nanny bases itself on Western media POV, what the western media wants to say about eastern media. To understand: This wiki's language is English, and its primary readers / authors are English speaking persons (which inherently exposes their ideology more towards western views and reporting – particularly, promotes the United States' geopolitical interests and goals). i.e. enwiki has "Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory" (0 TASS references), while ruwiki has Обвинения в создании Украиной биологического оружия ("Allegations of Ukraine's development of biological weapons", 2 TASS references). The coverage of political events on enwiki has also been diluted to mainly or only western reported sources and views of events. It appears Adoring nanny even attempts – in this very RFN thread – to cancel the existence of Russo-Ukrainian War which started in 2014 by denying its "escalation", whatever that may be in this context. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per Ipnsaepl28 and WP:BIASEDSOURCE. In the past, TASS has been inclined to systemic bias due to its Russian sources, but has been generally useful. When you move from country to country, systemic bias becomes more obvious. While Cononsense is quite correct about secondary sources, our reportage of curent events has not been based on secondary sources, but on news sources, which must be treated with a high degree of caution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Probably Option 2 or possibly Option 3. Don't have a strong opinion. There may be some cases where TASS is useful for news relating to Russia that is not controversial or suspicious. I can see where if it is not deprecated there may be problems with editors inserting TASS references that are extremely questionable but I think 2 or 3 cover this. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be relevant to the discussion that our perennial sources do occasionally report information disclosed by TASS. The use they make of this information is no different from what should be allowed to Wikipedia editors. A few examples include ABC News [17] [18], Guardian [19] [20] [21], New York Times [22], BBC [23] [24], Washington Post [25], CNN [26] [27], Le Monde [28] [29]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 27 June 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.

www.human.gov.az

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: Could not find previous discussions on that source.
• Source: [30].
• Article: Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh.

• Content:

  According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village. Diff

  .
• Comment: This source is not generally viewed as reliable because it is not a third party and represents one of the conflicting parties. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that an official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Do we have any examples of official government websites not being regarded as reliable for the attributed position of that government agency? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. First of all thanks for spending your time on this case. I am not sure if there is any case like that, but I came here because my edit was reverted by one of the editors[31] with following comments: not a neutral reliable source Abrvagl (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly fine for the governments position for the edit in question. We're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice or claiming that the entire world believes this, but we clearly state it's according to the government. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable, needs to be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for reply. Do you think above provided statement(content) is correctly attributed or you think that it should be reworded? Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Very biased. For example, it calls almost all Armenian forces terrorists. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fist of all, nowhere in the article all Armenian forces called as terrorists. Article says that ASALA is a terrorist organisation, and ASALA is indeed an international terrorist organization[32]. Calling things by their names does not mean being biased. Second, the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons, and actually the only source which can reflect that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  We're not accepting, or portraying, it as truth, we're accepting and portraying it as their position. This is the only reliable way to do so and as a result primary sources are aceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Canterbury Tail Still I wonder if any kind of source can be used as long as we say it's attributed, even if gov position? The source accuses Republic of Armenia having "terrorists units" and "terror activities", it's definitely not just ASALA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, just not usable on its own... If we're being honest its ahistorical nationalist nonsense which is of no use in building an encyclopedia. WP:RS are more than sufficient for providing the view of the AZ government, there is no need to stoop to this level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here: According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village.. Abrvagl (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  If they're the only source then WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies even if they're reliable. That means that if what you just said is true even if this discussion is closed as reliable you're not going to be able to use it where you want to use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood me. What I said it that only governmental body can give governmental statistics on the missing persons. It does not fall under EXTRAORDINARY category, nowhere close to that. We're not expressing it in Wikipedia's voice, nor are we suggesting that everyone should believe it, but we clearly attribute it to the governmental body. That is how encyclopedia works. Abrvagl (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reliable, Voting as the creator of the RSN. The governmental body of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is reliable to reflect governmental position about the missing persons if reflected with proper attribution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs)
• Unreliable I agree with Horse Eye's Back, this source shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia even with attribution. It's just a piece of hot garbanzo, simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I reviewed the sources in this article. Nobody cares, nobody on the outside's monitoring the situation. You will have the bulk of your sources be either Armenian or Azerbaijani, and both will be biased on a scale from somewhat-very to extremely-very. Make the best of what you got: attribute in-line, balance, and use with caution. And in the end even the most nationalist governments do have to have some level of accountability to the global community and to a baseline awareness of their people. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the website Culture Trip a reliable source of information?

I am beginning to write an article on the Des Peres Pickle Jar. I found Culture Trip while searching for good sources of info and it has some very good information on the subject. Does anyone know if this website is a reliable source of information?

TheFeldman (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheFeldman, welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming you mean [33], then no. "Webshops" almost never are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Des_Peres,_Missouri#Jar_Of_Pickles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As a advertising webshop, IMO this is unreliable. Would probably be lower in quality to other travel agencies (e.g., The Points Guy). The only all right source I can find for your subject matter is this, which is marginally reliable. But thanks for your contributions, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence

There are ongoing discussions on the talk pages of Paul Mason and The Grayzone about whether to mention a recent leak of documents. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit at the UK Foreign Office discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone. There has been some reluctance to include this on both pages based on the sources being put forward. The sources are as follows:

- The Hill's Rising discussed the leaks in an 11 minute segment. The discussion is hosted by Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave. Their guest is Katie Halper.

- Private Eye magazine published a non-satirical article on the leak in Issue 1575, 17 - 30 June 2022 under the title "Grayzone Layer".

- The WSWS covered the story.

- In Defence of Marxism also covered the story.

Regarding these sources, The Hill is a green tick source and the three participants in the discussion are well-known journalists and/or commentators. Wikipedia contains over 300 references to articles on the website In Defence of Marxism, although there appears to have been no prior discussion about its reliability. Wikipedia contains 140 links to articles in Private Eye but the only discussion about reliability was in 2011. The Private Eye piece seems to be from the print edition. The World Socialist Web Site is listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard.

What do editors think about the strength of these sources in regards to mentioning the leak at Paul Mason and Grayzone? Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Private Eye might be ok, but the other 3 are definitely not reliable. The Rising segment is covered under WP:RSOPINION as an opinion piece (how other cable talk shows are handled); the WSWS and IDOM sources are obviously unreliable as they clearly take a side and thus must be treated as opinion pieces, and that is not even taking into consideration whether or not the outlets are reliable or not (which they aren't). Curbon7 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are quite a few journalists beyond these who have talked about the leak in informal contexts, but it looks like most respectable media doesn't want to give "newspaper of record" treatment to a story that only exists because of hacking that may have the backing of the Russian state. It is not true that we can't use a source that takes sides: generally we recognise a class of sources that are partisan but are conscientious in getting their facts right. I'd put Declassified UK in this camp, who were mentioned in the leak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Belated postscript - I had meant to conclude the above by saying I don't think we currently have the sourcing to treat this story, but my feeling is that in time we will see sufficient coverage in RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll basically repeat what I said at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. These aren't reliable sources for facts. As Curbon7 alluded to, Rising is an opinion talk show and doesn't have the same level of factual reliability as The Hill. @Mhawk10 was kind enough to send me a copy of the Private Eye article and...I'm not exactly sure how it gives credibility to the story. Most of article is criticizing Blumenthal and Kit Klarenberg. Since we're allegedly dealing with leaked documents from a living person, we would need some extremely high-quality sources confirming the authenticity of the leaks. WP:BLPGOSSIP comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Rising 's Wiki page describes it as "an American daily news and opinion web series". It describes itself as "the premier source for policy and political news " and a "daily news show ". The format is similar to that of Democracy Now!. In the linked episode, the hosts Briahna Joy Gray and Robby Soave spend the first 1.5 minutes detailing the content of the Grayzone story including:

- that Mason created a "Putin-influence map", and "tried to get the Grayzone deplatformed"

- "The emails show [Mason] allegedly plotting with Andy Pryce of the UK Foreign Office Counter-disinformation and Media Unit”.

- "Mason also called for suspending UK libel law to smear targets".

- Soave mentions the removal by YouTube of a video posted by Blumenthal in which he and Aaron Mate discussed the leaked emails.

This part of the show is a factual recounting of the content of the Grayzone ’s story. The hosts then call in Katie Halper to discuss the revelations in more detail. This part of the show does contain some factual content such as Halper’s description of Amil Khan as "the founder of Valent Projects which is funded by USAID and its goal is to investigate disinformation". It also contains some opinion such as Halper’s statement that Khan and Mason decided to avoid confronting Grayzone on substance and instead "resort to these smear tactics".

The article in Private Eye does provided sufficient coverage of the leaked documents. For example it states:

- Last week Paul Mason announced that someone had tried to hack his encrypted email account. ... [O]n 8 June the spoils of the hack surfaced on The Grayzone.

- From "anonymously leaked emails and documents" [The Grayzone] learned that Mason wanted a "relentless deplatforming" of the Grayzone and "a kind of permanent rebuttal operation" to discredit it.

As mentioned by Charles, biased sources are still usable and there are many listed at the Perennial Sources noticeboard. Some examples are The Daily Beast (which is used six times in The Grayzone ’s Wikipage) and green tick sources such as The Intercept, Jacobin, Mother Jones, The New Republic, Reason and SPLC.

The point about Declasiffied UK is a good one. Its investigations are detailed and meticulous so it may take longer for it to publish.

My intention is to use the sources for a basic and brief statement of facts, not opinion. An example of the intended text is:

The Grayzone was given access to documents and emails hacked from Paul Mason. The leaked documents involve Mason, Amil Khan from the intelligence group Valent Projects and Andy Pryce from the UK Foreign Office's Counter Disinformation and Media Development Unit allegedly discussing ways to deplatform Grayzone.

Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't basic facts. Too many BLP issues and we should not be saying this in WP:WIKIVOICE to begin with. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably not a discussion for this page. The exact wording can be discussed on Paul Mason and Grayzone 's talk page. All four sources state that Grayzone had access to documents and emails leaked from Paul Mason. All four sources state that the discussion between Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce was about deplatforming Grayzone (among other things). The word allegedly has been used in the suggested text but this could be changed to "according to ... " if editors prefer. However, best to transfer that part of the discussion to the talk pages of the two articles. Concerns about BLP issues can be discussed at the BLP noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• The article in Grayzone has been reprinted in the Monthly Review, which is definitely RS . I would say there is no BLP problem whatsoever reporting the story in the article, though not in wikivoice, especially as Mason does not deny it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The Monthly Review reprinting the Grayzone, which is a deprecated source, does not make it "RS." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow the logic of that statement. Are you saying that the Monthly Review isn't a reliable source? Or that anything that has been published in a deprecated source can never become reliable, even if reprinted by a reliable source?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The latter (although I am not totally sure of the general reliability of Monthly Review for factual claims). How does reprinting a deprecated source suddenly make that source reliable? Did the other source, in this case Monthly Review, fact-check the claims made in the deprecated source? Obviously not. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The monthly review has been discussed here before and the consensus was that it was reliable. If a reliable publication reprints something from a non-reliable publication, then they are putting it through their own editorial processes which we deem to be acceptable. There is no basis in our processes for saying that everything published in a deprecated publication must be untrue. Once it is taken up by a trusted source, we can use it. Of course, there are the same considerations we use for every other article, in this case it is solved by attribution. The factual basis of this story is not disputed by anyone, not even Mason. It is just a question of WP:DUE at this point. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to a recent discussion finding MR reliable? I can only see a very old discussion of the journal, not a discussion of the website which very different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a reliable source analyzing and examining an article found in another source and a source simply hosting another source's article. In this case, Monthly Review is simply republishing/hosting an article straight from the Grayzone. They are not endorsing the reliability of the article. There is even a disclaimer at the bottom stating: Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If a reliable source publishes views, it confers those views with notability. By republishing the article, they take equal legal responsibility for any factual inaccuracy, and that disclaimer does not disavow responsibility for factual inaccuracy. Now, nobody is arguing for language stating that Mason did the things he is accused of, though there is near unanimity that he did, and he doesn't even deny it himself, but an attributed statement detailing his activities is warranted. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Such a website would most likely be protected by Section 230. Per Bollinger et. al.,: Section 230(c)(1) is a barrier to liability for hosting, republishing, and disseminating content furnished by third parties. Specifically, it provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."[34]. Please also read WP:SYNDICATED: A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats...Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source. All claims of reliability and due weight, in this case, rests with The Grayzone--not Monthly Review. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps they don't have legal liability under US law. However, they have chosen to repeat it, without any disclaimer regarding facts, which means they lend it their own credibility. WP:SYNDICATED is not relevant here, I am not claiming that two sources exist. It is one source, but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review, I do not think there are two sources, one reliable and one not.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

...but its credibility is higher because it has been reprinted by a better publication. I consider the Grayzone article to be reliable due to its publication in Monthly Review. Sorry, this opinion is not backed up by any known policy or guideline. The WP:GRAYZONE consensus still applies which found that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't see your view that once something has been published in a non-reliable source, it can never become reliable as being valid or in any way logical. You are arguing that the first place something is published defines its status forever, and that is plainly not correct.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So if InfoWars decided to pay CNN to republish one of its articles in full, does that make the InfoWars article a reliable source now? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If a news source accepts paid content without distinguishing it from its own content it is not reliable, so no. However, if CNN looked at an infowars article and decided it was worthy of publishing due to its value and importance as a piece of news, then, theoretically, yes. Your argument would state that if a blog piece was picked up by the New York Times and put on its front page, then it would not be a reliable source or notable. That is not the way it works here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion here. If, say, a New York Times journalist wrote an original story saying: "Grayzone reported X about Paul Mason. We, at the New York Times, are able to confirm the accuracy of that account," then Grayzone's story would be verified and we are able to include it in WP, citing the New York Times. But if for some reason the New York Times simply decided to republish the Grayzone article with a disclaimer "The New York Times does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at NYTIMES.com" then the reliability rests with the original publisher. This is fairly routine. Just check some entries on WP:RSP, e.g., WP:WND: WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. Also see: Web syndication. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What you write here is a little straw-clutchy. Nothing on WP:RSP or WP:WND seems applicable to this case, and the specific case of WorldNetDaily is not applicable beyond that individual publication. It is the opposite of the situation we are discussing, where a the reprinter is MORE reliable than the initial publisher. I don't think there is much to be said here, I think republishing by a better source can render a source reliable, you don't.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Where was there a consensus attained that Monthly Review is WP:GREL? I've looked through the archives and I can't find a discussion that clearly agrees with that. Meanwhile there are multiple WP:GREL sources that have pointed out its promotion of Xinjiang denialism through the republication of Qiao Collective trash. Why would we trust that stories republished by them are reliable? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is a consensus in this discussion, the OP initially double its reliability, many voices state it is reliable, the OP then changes their mind.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That thread is from 14 years ago and I don't think the participants reached a clear consensus about the reliability of Monthly Review. They were mostly arguing if "extremist" sources are permissible or not. Also, about half of those participants are indefed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To echo Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, an informal noticeboard discussion that took place over fourteen years ago on the publication's reliability does not constitute present consensus. The WP:RS guideline has changed a bit during that time and a source's reliability for facts can be different now than it was a decade ago (see WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Especially since Monthly Review has had substantial and more recent problems with its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in media it republishes, the 2008 discussion does not establish current consensus that the publication is WP:GREL. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This has been previously discussed at Talk:The Grayzone#Masongate: the leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Also that discussion (and presumably all references to this thread about reliability) refer to the monthly publication (hence the name), while the particular article in question is from MROnline (About MR), which has open submissions and unknown review standards (Do they fact-check? They simply say "Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful."). The one thing that's for certain is that Blumenthal himself submitted/adapted the Grayzone article for MROnline.

And the notion that the green check mark suddenly grants an aura of quality to all the crap that a publication associates with is nonsense, notably if they do not make their editorial practices known. Standards vary, as does scrutiny – there is some gray area in say NYT commentary/guest submissions where they have been known to fail to fact-check despite claiming they do – which is why at minimum in-line attribution is necessary, to the original source. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest MR provides notability for attributing a view, I don't see any evidence of unreliability, except that it published one opinion article that specialists in a field strongly disagreed with. I personally consider it reliable, and so did the users the last time it was discussed. One contested article is not enough to render a source unreliable. The Times is considered reliable despite regularly being castigated by regulators for publishing false information. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of this pertains to WP:N. If you're saying that their online blog is reliable, even though it more or less provides the same disclaimer that an op-ed section would have, I don't really know what say except that op-eds and guest blog posts are rarely reliable for statements of fact owing to a lack of fact-checking in that area. That MRO published it as a guest blog post doesn't allow us to do anything except to make our weighting decision based on the reliability of The Grayzone itself, which is truly subpar. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable for BLP information and absolutely not in Wikivoice None of the sources given seem to be what would be considered reliable sources for inclusion of details in Wikivoice. If due weight considerations and discussions determine that the sources are important enough to include, then they should be included with attribution due to them being opinion pieces. But I would find due weight hard to support in this regard without higher quality sources covering the subject, particularly for the BLP article. Silverseren^C 06:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for participating. I'll summarise the discussion by saying that the sources mentioned are strong enough to support mentioning the leaked emails and the Grayzone 's view on their significance. Most editors agree that Wikivoice should not be used based on these sources, so any opinions should be attributed appropriately. In a few days I'll start RfC's on the pages for Paul Mason and the Grayzone. Burrobert (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that summary. The consensus is clear that these are very weak sources at best and certainly to weak for contentious BLP material. My own view is that the Rising talk show cannot be used as a source for facts or in determining due weight for opinion; an MRonline report of a piece in a deprecated blog is straightforwardly unreliable; that WSWS is not reliable and certainly not for this sort of content; and that In Defence of Marxism might be reliable for facts to do with Trotskyist sectarians or Leninist theory but not for content relating to the topics involved here. Therefore Private Eye is the only potentially usable source, which doesn’t leave much to say, particularly about Mason. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to the participants in the RfC's then. They can make up their own minds about this discussion. The reliability will of course depend on the nature of the proposed text. All sources support including the uncontroversial points that

- Mason's email account was hacked.

- the contents surfaced on the Grayzone

- the contents included a discussion about deplatforming the Grayzone which involved Mason, Amil Khan and Andy Pryce (we could discuss whether this point should be attributed to the Grayzone).

Some points from the Grayzone articles have not yet been well covered by other sources. Some of this is probably due to the threat of legal action. For example Emma Briant's role in the discussion has not been well covered so it would be best not to mention her in any proposed text. Mason's idea of astroturfing black and Asian voices to push back on black and brown critics of the Ukraine proxy war may have been mentioned in Rising but probably should also be left out. I can't find a link to the BBC's assault on Stop The War Coalition in which Mason apparently appears. We may be able to include that item once the programme is published and generates coverage. In short, any proposal should be limited to the three uncontroversial items above. Burrobert (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Trans Safety Network

Source: [35]

Articles: Stella O'Malley and Genspect

Content: Trans Safety Network described SEGM as "an anti-trans psychiatric and sociological think tank" and fringe group. They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. In addition, they reported that seven of SEGM's eleven clinical advisors are also members of the Genspect team. Namely, O'Malley, Julia Mason, Avi Ring, Sasha Ayad, Roberto D'Angelo, Marcus Evans and Lisa Marchiano.

For context, Trans Safety Network is a registered non-profit Community Interest Company which reports on anti-trans groups. They are often quoted and referred to in accepted sources as an expert source, and we cite them in other locations on Wikipedia. Does this count as a reliable source/acceptable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The website itself appears to entirely contain self-published blogposts, so citing the website for facts about living people seems like a bad idea policy-wise. I'm not particularly familiar with whether Mallory Moore is a WP:SMESME for this sort of stuff; the extent to which the source is reliable for facts (that are not about living people) hinges on that. That being said, if the only basis for claiming that the individual is an SME is that they once wrote for TruthOut, I'm skeptical given that the website has been OK with and doubled down on per se libelous complete fabrications in the past even after being proven wrong. What's your rationale for considering Moore an SME? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

They are notable enough to be treated by other reliable sources as worthy of comment, and are a registered non-profit devoted to this issue. Mallory has been cited for her statements as a researcher by various other reputable news orgs. The claims present are all backed with sources in the article and easily verifiable. Namely, that is how TSN described SEGM, most of the donations are > $10,000, and those members are on the board of both teams. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Source X is always reliable for the claim "Source X says Y", where Y is a direct quote. But WP:SPS says to Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. The group does not appear to be a well-established news outlet nor does the report appear to be WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If I were to make an investigative report on a subject about which I am an expert and post it on my own blog, I don't think anybody would reasonably be able to cite it on Wikipedia for contentious facts about living people even if my analysis is wholly correct. And, that a source is a "registered non-profit" that news organizations find worthy of comment does not make their website reliable within its area of focus; by that logic, the website of Moms for Liberty would satisfy the qualifications to be a reliable source for public education in the United States. While there are some nonprofits that are WP:GREL, this doesn't exactly have the longstanding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy coupled with strong editorial review processes that something like Amnesty International or Pew Research Center does.

On top of that, the text of the report doesn't quite support the sentence as-written; the only way to conclude that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars would be to conclude that the GoFundMe accounted for over two-thirds of the group's funding at the time the report was written. The report itself doesn't allege this, but instead says that they can't find tax return data on the group despite efforts to search online. So, in that sense, no the source is not reliable for the claim that They reported that most of SEGM's funding came in donations greater than 10,000 dollars. The bigger question is whether or not the source is WP:DUE for the remainder of the content. If there aren't any established NEWSORGs or scholarly works that have provided weight to the particular parts of this report, then the answer is that it's almost certainly WP:UNDUE. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean Subject-matter expert when you linked to WP:SME?? SVTCobra 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did; thank you for pointing this out. I've struck the erroneous link and inserted one to the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say that Trans Safety Network are reliable. Articles published by TSN have been cited in scholarly research as authoritative; [36], [37], [38], as well as in reliable media; [39], [40], [41].

Mallory herself has been quoted in media sources as a researcher; [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] as well as in scholarly research; [47], [48], and by at least one legal scholar [49]. As such I believe she qualifies as a subject matter expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe related Draft:Trans Safety Network (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Trans Safety Network|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --SVTCobra 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mhawk10. WP:BLPSPS is very clear and we have to be cautious with BLPs. Sometimes well-known blogs and other SPSes are cited in the occasional academic paper, and lots of blogs and tweets get linked in media sources - especially ones with a clear political POV on a matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Mallory counts as a subject-matter expert per what Sideswipe9th said, and Trans Safety Network has at least some use by others; they're reasonably citable with attribution for the opinions in the first part of the paragraph. But we cannot cite a SME directly for WP:BLP-sensitive stuff, and should generally use the highest-quality sources for that regardless. Based on that, is fine for the first three sentences (which do not name any individuals) but I'd skip the final sentence with the names, which isn't really necessary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say that anyone commenting on politically sensitive trans issues should be attributed in-line, expert or not. It's still an extremely young movement with a pretty vigorous and sometimes messy debate even in academia. Now what's known specifically about Moore that would make her articles an RS? She's a relatively local journalist, so she knows the editorial process, but that says nothing of whether the blog in question has any such process or standard. She's also not an academic, and most of the reason academics can be considered reasonably reliable as self-published sources is that they face significant consequences if they are academically deceptive or negligent even in something like a personal blog. Of course the other test is if the work itself is verifiable -- if all sources are meticulously cited -- and she does a pretty decent job of that in her SEGM article. The warnings above about BLP are correct, but this seems like a reasonable article to use when discussing an organization, with attribution. And use common sense with hot issues to avoid nonsense: if you use it for a fact, double-check their source link for the fact, and remember to cite "source, as quoted by blog." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

drugs.com for MEDRS

Source: www.drugs.com

It has recently come to my attention during a discussion that "drugs.com" is possibly widely used as a MEDRS-quality source for backing up medical claims on Wikipedia articles. For example, the Wikipedia article in question made claims based on the "Clinical Overview" section of the drugs.com lavender page, a conclusion reached by the anonymous author of the page. This is worrying because according to https://www.drugs.com/support/about.html

1. This is not a peer reviewed journal. It is a private company's database "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers".

2. "The Drugs.com website is owned and operated by Drugsite Limited, as trustee of the Drugsite Trust. Drugsite Limited is a privately owned company administered by two New Zealand Pharmacists."

3. "The only funding we receive from pharmaceutical companies is by way of advertisements that appear on the Drugs.com website"

4. In this particular case, almost every paper listed on the page as a "source" was more than 5 years out of date.

The Wikipedia editor that was defending drugs.com as a source also didn't seem to be aware of the above information, as he was also insisting that drugs.com was a superior source to a recent meta-analysis that I found in a peer-reviewed journal. So I'm curious if other editors are aware of this, if they use it for citations that should meet MEDRS standards, and if Wikipedia as a whole should continue using it in that way. It seems to fly in the face of nearly every recommendation on the MEDRS page 50.45.170.185 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I use drugs.com for work; it's generally reliable as it's run by pharmacists, but it's mostly unsourced/commercial info, I prefer to use better sites like the FDA, CDC or Health Canada for drug info. They don't present incorrect info on drugs.com, it's more of a commercial site, used for the average Joe to look stuff up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how this would fit into the WP:MEDRS criteria as they stand. This doesn't mean the information is necessarily unreliable, but like a lot of other cases we should be citing the peer reviewed secondary studies or medical body recommendations instead of a third party aggregator of that information. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For the IP: The top of this page says to please include:

• 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".

It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia. Sometimes it's okay; sometimes it's not. Drugs.com is more likely to be useful for statements like "the active ingredient is ____", taken from their copy of a Medication package insert. It is (much) less likely to be useful for statements like "This proves that alt med works". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that it is "powered by several independent leading medical-information suppliers, including; American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Cerner Multum and IBM Watson Micromedex", wouldn't those "information suppliers" be a better source for such information rather than the aggregator itself? Citing it feels like citing Wikipedia (no offense). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not really possible to make a one-size-fits-all determination about whether absolutely everything in that website is usable/unusable for any and all purposes on Wikipedia. The question wasn't about all purposes, just whether it meets WP:MEDRS guidelines for WP:BMI. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It violates MEDRS, which says, "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources." This is clearly a tertiary source. Otherwise it would meet rs for information that fell outside MEDRS. Personally, I never use tertiary sources for any articles, but there is rule against doing so. TFD (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Also I just noticed that many, many pages for various drugs have a direct link to www.drugs.com at the top of the page. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secobarbital 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does allow tertiary sources - it recommends textbooks and suggests that biomedical encyclopaedias by certain publishers can be good quality, for instance (both of which are tertiary sources). WP:MEDBOOK. Tristario (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

These are actually secondary sources as defined by Wikipedia. Notice your link does not use the term tertiary source. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS used to say, "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

That was the original reason for implimenting MEDRS, although that has since been removed. However, I think that just as Wikipedia should not provide advice, it should not tell readers where to get advice. While the source is in my opinion generally reliable, Wikipedia does not have a method of determining whether a source is totally reliable in all its information. If people are trying to determine whether to take a drug or to seek treatment, they should look at several advice sites, talk to their doctors and make their own decisions. But I can't tell them which sites to visit or who to talk to.

TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Under WP:MEDDEF textbooks and encyclopaedias are defined as tertiary sources. Tristario (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There is an important distinction you might be missing.

An example of a tertiary source is an "undergraduate or graduate level textbook."

Whereas WP:MEDBOOK says "medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Textbooks for undergraduates and graduates are typically published by academic publishers and they're still medical textbooks. WP:MEDBOOK even mentions undergraduate and postgraduate textbooks, with the caveat that those for students may not be as thorough.

If you read through all of WP:MEDRS it's pretty clear that tertiary sources aren't forbidden - it also mentions them under Basic advice. Information in tertiary sources is still based on secondary sources - the use of them doesn't contradict the first sentence in WP:MEDRS. This is all besides the point, though, this doesn't mean that Drugs.com is a reliable medical source. I don't have an opinion on that currently. Tristario (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that section is just saying tertiary satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Re-read the first sentence of WP:MEDRS two more times. If after that you haven't changed your mind then we agree to disagree. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the opening line of MEDRS is very explicit: only secondary sources are allowed for biomedical information.

WP:MEDBOOK does not contradict this: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources."

The rest of the section is mainly pointing out difficulties when using books such as them often being out of date, containing too terse of information, and not being peer-reviewed. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, some encyclopedias are considered to be secondary sources. Typically, these are specialized and contain signed articles written by experts and providing sources. Do not confuse use of the term tertiary in Wikipedia and in the rest of the world. Review studies for example are considered tertiary in the rest of the world, because they summarize secondary sources. First year university textbooks are generally considered tertiary in Wikipedia, while advanced textbooks are considered secondary. TFD (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Example of an encyclopedia that is a secondary source? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Government and Politics, Volume 1. TFD (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant relevant to this discussion about medical sources. Also, how did you determine that this particular encyclopedia is a secondary source? WP:TERTIARY explicitly states all encyclopedias are tertiary. Perhaps this page needs clarification? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain on my view of this, but it seems like this might fall under the advice given about webmd and eMedicine under Other sources on WP:MEDRS - okay for uncontroversial information, but other sources are preferred. Tristario (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Since MEDRS is a guideline, there may be exceptions, but each one needs to be explained. In this case, you would need to explain why drugs.com is preferable to reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was just answering about drugs.com generally but in this particular case there may be a reasonable argument for preferring it, but that wasn't what the question was. Tristario (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In the exact same sentence that WebMD is mentioned there is "however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly". i.e. according to WP:MEDRS, things like WebMD are never preferable when reliable secondary-sources are available. And when reliable secondary-sources aren't available, things like WebMD should never be used for anything that could be considered controversial as per the rest of the sentence. Uncontroversial things might be chemical name or molecular formula for a drug, not the supposed health benefits or lack thereof. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This argument about whether Drugs.com is a tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good) is silly. It is a big site. Some of its material is secondary and some tertiary. The disputed article for Lavender Oil cites the primary research literature and therefore is more similar to a secondary literature review than it is to other more typical tertiary sources like the NHS, WHO or CDC websites, say.

The underlying dispute is about "a patented lavender flower extract, known as Silexan" and a review of small studies all conducted by the same team and funded by the manufacturer, is sufficient evidence. Looking at the current article, it seems editors have found PMID 33638614 to be an acceptable current review upon which to make limited claims. Arguing over whether Drugs.com is generally better than x or y or z is not really productive, as it is too varied in its content. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"tertiary source (and therefore in some people's opinion, less good)". WP:MEDRS is more than just some people's opinions. It's a very important community-wide guideline with community-wide consensus. The conclusions reached on drugs.com are not peer-reviewed by a third-party, and they are self-published. It's important that we reach a consensus about whether or not drugs.com is WP:MEDRS compliant because it is currently being widely used as such, which is potentially extremely dangerous for the readers and Wikipedia's reputation.

After-which... Wikipedia might need a lot of clean-up depending on the consensus reached. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The premise introduced by the IP for this discussion is incorrect: Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source, to my knowledge or in my editing, but rather mainly as a monograph for herbal products and prescription drugs, providing for the former some of the best reviews available in its Natural Products Database where publications are commonly in unreliable alt-med journals, and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors. Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information, and among clinical practitioners I know, the professional edition is a go-to resource for pharmacology and prescription details, and for FDA drug monographs and approvals. Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes under Clinical data, and has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade. I suspect it will continue to be a valued resource for updated drug information. The frantic editing behavior illustrated in this thread and nearly all of some 150 edits in 4 days by IP 50.45.170.185 indicates WP:SPA over a single issue: that weak publications on lavender oil be used to claim efficacy in treating anxiety. Two admins have page-protected Lavandula and Lavender oil against the disruptive editing by IP 50.45.170.185. Please stop and move on - WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

>Drugs.com is not used as a MEDRS source It absolutely is. And you even admit to wanting to use it for a biomedical claim here. "I retain the position of our previous article conclusion: 'There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety', as well as here admitting that not only do you not know who publishes drugs.com but you think Drugs.com is a superior source over a meta-analysis, which flies completely in the face of MEDRS. This is like adding "Vaccines don't protect against viruses." to a page and sourcing it to some self-published for-profit encyclopedia under your dishonest concern of "better to side with skepticism about research quality"[50]

>and are reviewed critically by Drugs.com editors Reviewed and published by drugs.com? That's makes their reviews WP:SELFPUBLISH and thus not suitable for biomedical information.

>Drugs.com has a relationship with the FDA for disseminating time-sensitive consumer information What does publishing FDA alerts in this blog have to do with anything?

>has been used by experienced medical editors for more than a decade Doc James's 10+ year old inquiry didn't even have that much support in the discussion you linked, only a handful of responders, and them saying things like "I wonder occasionally if it has an American bias" and "I'd say it was preferred to editors doing an amateur version of NICE themselves"

>Wikipedia has included Drugs.com monographs in most drug article infoboxes Which is very concerning, considering Doc James was the one who added an external link to a private website filled with ads at the top of every drug-related Wikipedia page after his inquiry got that weak response. I notice you yourself are also a major source of edits adding reference to the site.

<more personal attacks against me> Can you please stop? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Also since you seem to have not seen it, I will quote WP:MEDRS again here:

• "Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review." 50.45.170.185 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Drugs.com may be useful as an external link, but clearly is not a MEDRS source for statements in Wikipedia's voice. It may also be a source of further MEDRS-compliant references. I hope that clarifies matters. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

In response to the extensive WP:TENDITIOUS editing and commentaries by IP 50.45.170.185 in this thread and others, use of Drugs.com in the lavender oil article is appropriare because the topic under dispute there - that an oral lavender oil product can be used to treat anxiety - is less of a MEDRS issue and more of an herbalism issue, a topic for which high-quality MEDRS sources, like systematic reviews or Cochrane reviews, either don't exist (who would invest the funding and time on unpatentable herbs or quackery?) or mainly have negative conclusions; Cochrane example here for lavender aromatherapy to treat dementia. Drugs.com is used in Wikipedia medical articles as a trusted encyclopedic synopsis of prescription drug facts, and is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources. The literature under dispute about anxiety therapy at the lavender oil article falls into this unreliable herbalism category, as discussed on the talk page. A meta-analysis of junk studies reported in the Journal of Junk remains junk. Zefr (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for general information since it uses information from (what seem like) reliable databases such as multum/micromedex while also utilizing expert opinion from ASHP. I'm also assuming that older medications like aspirin, which have been around for awhile, wouldn't have new research that show what their general side effects are etc. and drugs.com can be used as a reliable source for such info. I was also curious to see if WP:PHARM or WP:MED listed anything about this and looks like WP:PHARM lists it as a reliable source [51], wondering if there's already been a previous consensus on this or similar sites? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That resources page does not show a consensus that drugs.com is a MEDRS-compliant source. It just says it contains material from reliable sources. Wikipedia also contains material from reliable sources, but we aren't supposed to cite Wikipedia or drugs.com for biomedical claims because they are self-published, self-reviewed tertiary sources.

Additionally, Doc James was the one who added drugs.com to that resources page. If you look at the discussion above, you'll see that he was also the one who first asked about it as a source and got a very weak response from only a handful of people, he is also the one who added an external link to it (a privately-owned site filled with ads) to the top of almost every drug page on Wikipedia. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

>[drugs.com] is a reliable source for herbal topics that don't have reliable sources. Well... glad we agree it's not a reliable source then.

If a topic doesn't have reliable sources, then it doesn't have reliable sources. We can't cite Dr. Quack's blog on his miracle pill just because there are no other sources talking about the pill. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Voetbalprimeur

Source: https://www.voetbalprimeur.be/ (Note: English translation is "Football scoop")

This source is extensively used (80 links as of this moment) in the following article List of Belgian football transfers summer 2022, as a reference for specific football transfers. IMHO this website falls under WP:Questionable sources, because it often publishes article on transfers based on rumours, before these transfers have been officially realized/published. Often they do become reality, but sometimes the website is mistaken and the transfer doesn't come through.

I feel it would make more sense to use the official website of the in/out-going club once the transfer is final, rather than to rely on this website. Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003)

Is heise online / c't (heise.de  ) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?

Source

"c't 3003: Ent-googletes Android dank Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla" [c't 3003: Un-googled Android thanks to Calyx, /e/, Graphene, Lineage & Volla]. heise online (in German). 15 April 2022. Archived from the original on 15 April 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2022.

Article

GrapheneOS

Content

In April 2022, Jan-Keno Janssen of heise online for c't stated GrapheneOS' approach of running Google Play services differently without system level access "works quite well", and said the operating system's focus on security is "uncompromising".

The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video) includes a disclaimer at the bottom: c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week. ​

84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not use the particular source (without comment on heise.de reliability in general), as it is contrary to WP:RSPYT.

• Correction Re: "The cited source (including a transcript of a c't 3003 YouTube video)"

The cited heise.de source does not include a transcript. It, in essence, is entirely a transcript.

• As stated in the Talk[52], the more concise issue is: a transcription of a Youtube video is just as contrary to WP:RSPYT as the video itself. This is trying to use a Youtube videos as a source, by "laundering" it through an (maybe) otherwise usually reliable source, for articles within editorial oversight, if any. This particular source is outside any editorial oversight, as stated in the disclaimer at the bottom of the transcript of the youtube video. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• It is? As I understand RS if a source reports something and it is an RS it does not matter if the origin is "some bloke down the pub" as we would source it to the rs. And to accuse an RS (assuming of course it is) of "laundering" smacks of wp:or.

As to the question, a publisher is not an RS, it is only a publisher. What they publish maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don´t think this disclaimer is meant in that way (no editorial oversight), my understanding is the channel provides content not available in the magazine. Author of said video/transcription is an editor of the ct magazine, the channel is sanctioned by the magazine ("c't 3003 ist der YouTube-Channel von c't") and the transcription is on the magazine website (well, heise.de is the site of several tech related media of the Heinz Heise publishing house). From my humble POV, this source is reliable (as a source for the above paragraph), certainly not "a self-published group blog". Pavlor (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the videos were "endorsed" by, and given editorial oversight by heise.de (or c't subsidiary or whatever), then the disclaimer would say something like that. Instead, they use words like "standalone content" and "independent of the articles". If they were given oversight, they might avoid obvious errors. An example of obvious (to me) erroneous content in this particular YouTube video: They say, at about 3:38 in the video, which includes English subtitles, ""The five custom ROMs that I tested together with my colleagues from c't are all based on Google's AOSP, but of course do not have Google's closed-source software integrated. Instead of Google Maps, for example, Magic Earth is preinstalled on /e/, Organic Maps on Calyx, and OSMAnd on Volla." This is an obvious error to me, because I am familiar with Magic Earth being not open source; rather, being a closed source, proprietary app, included with /e/.[53] A suggestion: They say the video is based on previous testing done for the c't magazine. That may be a better source. I could not get beyond the paywall to see that article, but if available at least a written article, clearly endorsed, would not be contrary to WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Google's closed-source software. It's not to be taken out of context or interpreted to mean something it doesn't say (WP:OR / WP:SYNTHESIS); the statement also does not say the other software is all open-source (rightfully so). There's no Google in Magic Earth (publisher General Magic), at least according to the external link you've posted. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary "Yae4 taking things out of context for his benefit (again))" is a personal attack, and false. I don't think they meant to say instead of Google's closed source software, you get someone else's closed source software. In context of all they say about "open source" throughout the transcript, I think they made a mistake. The other two Maps apps they listed - Organic Maps and OsmAnd - are indeed open source. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Even reliable sources can be sometimes wrong (don't know if this is the case). However, we have here regular magazine staff, posting video on a regular channel of the same magazine with a transcription on the magazine website. I really don't see any reason, why this transcription shouldn't be useable as a reliable source for the above paragraph. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: heise online is referenced by other (at least marginal) publications. Some examples (English translations of foreign source titles have been machine translated):

• Sattelberg, Will (5 September 2021). "Germany wants to extend your smartphone's lifespan with seven years of security patches". Android Police. Valnet Inc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Mehrotra, Pranob (6 September 2021). "Germany wants smartphone makers to offer 7 years of software updates". XDA Developers. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Hardwick, Tim (6 September 2021). "Germany Urges EU to Require 7 Years of Updates and Repairs for iOS Devices". MacRumors. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Stich, Simon (27 June 2022). "Microsoft fliegt raus: Erstes Bundesland zieht die Reißleine" [Microsoft flies out: First state pulls the ripcord]. GIGA (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Geuß, Martin (28 June 2022). "Microsoft Teams soll auch in Rheinland-Pfalz von den Schulen verbannt werden" [Microsoft Teams to be banned from schools in Rhineland-Palatinate as well]. MSN (in German). Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Carnevale, Robert (13 January 2022). "Linux replaces Windows in one German state's bid for software independence". Windows Central. Future plc. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Sen, Sayan (23 November 2021). "25,000 German state computers will bid goodbye to Windows and say Hello to Linux". Neowin. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• Farivar, Cyrus (16 December 2006). "BMW getting supercomputer; iDrive still sucks, though". Engadget. Retrieved 30 June 2022.
• "Apple arbeitet wohl an Mac Mini mit M2-Chip". Swiss IT Magazine. 12 April 2022. Retrieved 30 June 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Android Police. Valnet Inc. rang a bell. Previous comments on Valnet et all at RSN have not been favorable.[54][55][56] This suggests I should not have added Android Police sources, and we should remove them. Stopping here, assuming you listed the strongest first. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In no order of preference. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Heise Online is an umbrella website for several Heinz Heise magazines/publications - content quality may vary (there may be even "sponsored content"). The transcription in question is under ct magazine heading, so reliability of the ct magazine (and its web content) should be judged here. Pavlor (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP#Engadget has referenced the c't magazine on several occasions. I've added more references are below. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: c't magazine is used as a source by other independent publications. Some examples:

• Fingas, Jon (4 September 2021). "Germany wants phone makers to offer 7 years of security updates". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Shah, Saqib (20 December 2018). "Amazon sent private Alexa audio recordings to a random person". Engadget. Yahoo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Brown, Jennings (20 December 2018). "The Amazon Alexa Eavesdropping Nightmare Came True". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Brien, Jörn (29 May 2022). "Apple-Übersetzer: KI wandelt harmlose Sätze in Pornotitel um" [Apple translator: AI converts harmless sentences into porn titles]. t3n (in German). yeebase media GmbH. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Bauer, Manuel (30 May 2022). "Pikant: Apples Übersetzungs-Tool hat ein Porno-Problem" [Spicy: Apple's translation tool has a porn problem]. Computer Bild (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• "'Next generation' flaws found on computer processors: magazine". Reuters. 3 May 2018. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"The videos on c't 3003 are stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine."

You continue sidestepping and giving distractions from the main issue and the disclaimer, regarding the stand-alone, independent YouTube video (transcript) you wish to cite. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The editor of c't 3003 web videos also appears as an editor or co-editor for the paper c't magazine in their work (several examples):

• Janssen, Jan-Keno (August 2018). "Deep/Fakes". c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. p. 100. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Janssen, Jan-Keno; Wirtgen, Jörg (January 2022). "Desktop-Handy". c't (in German). No. 1/2022. Heinz Heise. p. 148. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• Janssen, Jan-Keno (January 2019). "Wolkig mit Aussicht auf Gaming" [Cloudy with a view of gaming]. c't (in German). No. 1/2019. Heinz Heise. p. 46. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

His opinionated personal experience news report has been published in heise online (not c't):

• Janssen, Jan-Keno (22 January 2014). "Uneasy Rider: Radfahren in Las Vegas" [Uneasy Rider: Cycling in Las Vegas]. heise online (in German). Heinz Heise. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment:

• "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 8/2018. Heinz Heise. August 2018. p. 201. Retrieved 1 July 2022.
• "Impressum" [Imprint]. c't (in German). No. 15/2022. Heinz Heise. 2022. p. 193. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

See managing directors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC); edited 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Jan-Keno Janssen was listed for "Cover story coordination in this issue" (Titelthemenkoordination in dieser Ausgabe) and "Managing Editors" in "Mobile, Entertainment & Gadgets Department" (Ressort Mobiles, Entertainment & Gadgets, Leitende Redakteure) in an issue in 2018. Today, I cannot find their name on the current Impressum. I'll grant you the videos are entertaining, but I could only watch the one you want to cite for less than 4 minutes before seeing misleading info' and feeling they were careless with details. Their written articles are more likely to receive independent oversight by other editors (and not be tagged with a disclaimer), but that is not what you are citing. You are citing a YouTube video (transcript) which is "stand-alone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine." -- Yae4 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alle Redakteure. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Direct link: [57]. Independent of the articles in the magazine (in sense of new content), but certainly not independent of ct (their staff member, their channel, their webpage...). Pavlor (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Are any of these sources reliable?

While looking for a good source on the fact that about-to-be-Prime-Minister of Israel, Yair Lapid, is color blind (at that time I ended up using a Hebrew source, today I upgraded to an English-language one), I found a more interesting claim - that Bill Clinton is. Can any of the following sources be used for this? And can the same source also be used for the other listed people?

1. https://www.ranker.com/list/color-blind-celebrities/celebrity-lists
2. https://www.improveeyesighthq.com/famous-color-blind-people.html
3. https://healthresearchfunding.org/famous-people-color-blindness
4. https://embracebio.wixsite.com/education/single-post/2017/09/06/colour-blindness-awareness-day

Animal lover |666| 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ranker is a low quality content farm (e.g. the blurb for each entry is scraped from Wikipedia). Improveeyesighthq is a self-published blog (see their about page). There is no information about healthresearchfunding whatsoever, but the nature of their articles suggests that they are also a content farm. Anybody can create a personal page on wixsite and there is no information on who is behind the content on embracebio.wixsite.com. In summary: None of these sources can be used for anything, let alone BLPs. 87.115.237.229 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

For Clinton and others, you could use: Sun-Sentinel & San Diego Union Tribune. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC:Unfortunately, I was told on this noticeboard (the thread is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject) that any off-topic claim made by an article can't be used. This means that a proper source for such a claim must come either from a list of people with color blindness, an article about the person in question, or an article about a specific event/action/product/situation where this specific person's color blindness is relevant. Animal lover |666| 09:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=v0oL8xDJ0VEC&pg=PA43 Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

While I understand the basis of that, the guideline says should find sources that focus on it where possible. Either way the section from the book above should work. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this source is any better. It's also aggregating without citing a source. It seems likely to me that someone misinterpreted a joke about his poor fashion sense or his racial outlook at some point, because if he really was it'd be in an RS. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems better (pg. 95) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Encyclopedia_of_Genetic_Disorders_an.html?id=kXaMjwItP0oC GordonGlottal (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary source with similar language: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZolYAAAAYAAJ Unfortunately I don't have access to the full book to see if they cite anything. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lavender oil has an RFC

Lavender oil has an RFC for adding proposed sources to the article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Worn and Wound watch blog reliable?

• wornandwound.com: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This describes itself as a "blog" [58]. It's not clear whether they publish corrections and so forth as we usually require for a RS. The site is used in about a dozen articles; here is a sample where it is used to establish the first electric watch. Not sure a blog is great for historical firsts. Other examples seem more squidgy and fan-like, such as a list of "special edition" watches from a "lifestyle brand". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider news reporting

Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).

Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?

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

-- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be neutrally worded, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))

  @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
  1. Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
  2. The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
  3. I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the poster child for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.

In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• No numerical vote yet per within: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (BI)

• Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious publishers

Are books published by religious publishing companies (see Category:Religious publishing companies and its subcategories) WP:RS for biblical scholarship? In the event of variation or conflict, how should religious-publisher sources be weighed as compared with non-religious academic publishers (see Category:Academic publishing companies and its subcategories)?

Prior RSN discussions in Jun 2010, Sep 2010, Nov 2010, Jan 2011, Jul 2011, Apr 2015, Nov 2018, and Feb 2021 were inconclusive (I'd sum them up in the words of the last comment in the most-recent discussion: "depends on the topic").

This is a broad question that would affect many articles, but here are some examples of articles and some of the religious publishers they cite (in addition to non-religious academic publishers):

• Bible#Development and history, in its discussion of "variants" (how much do various copies of the books of the Bible vary from one another, and do those variations matter), cites sources published by Baker Publishing Group and InterVarsity Press
• Biblical criticism#Textual criticism: Westminster John Knox Press
• Textual criticism#New Testament: Kregel Publications
• Textual criticism of the New Testament: Far Eastern Bible College
• Textual variants in the New Testament (which actually lists the textual variants themselves): Tyndale House Publishers (which was discussed in the Feb 2021 RSN thread linked above, and should not be confused with the Oxford University house of the same name, this is an American evangelical publisher)

Does it matter that a publisher is religious or not, for "stuff about the Bible" (for lack of a better way to phrase it)? If it does matter, how does it matter--how should editors treat such sources? Thanks in advance, Levivich^[block] 02:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Way too broad. There are stellar sources within that category and its subcategory (Ave Maria Press is an imprint that University of Notre Dame Press at times will use for religious studies texts), and some non-reputable ones (BJU Press is historically affiliated with Bob Jones University and doesn't really publish the sort of stuff we should be citing). Merely because a press is religious does not disqualify it as a publisher; as such, the particular publisher should be examined for its general reputation within the field.

The thing that you will encounter a lot of these religious presses is that there will be academic-level books, but also some that are written for a lower level or more popular audience. Within Ave Maria Press, for example, there are undergraduate textbook-level books written by world-class Notre Dame faculty but there are also high school textbooks and popular press books. It's similar to MacMillan in this respect, where the publisher is reputable and undergraduate-targeted works published by them are generally tertiary pieces of scholarship, but their high school textbooks and popular press books shouldn't be treated as if they were academic sources. WP:SOURCEDEF provides guidance here inasmuch as the piece of work itself (i.e. things particular to the specific book) and the author of the work are going to affect reliability; examining a book's target audience (undergrad/grad students vs high schoolers or the general public) and its author's credentials (i.e. are they a rando or are they a well-respected professor in the field) is going to be necessary, as reliable nonfiction publishers might well treat books with different target audiences with different editorial review rigor. But that goes for all non-fiction publishers that publish both popular press books and academic works, not just religious ones. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you tell the difference between a reputable religious publisher and an unreputable one? For example, the publishers I listed above, how would I determine if they are good/bad? Assume for the sake of this thread the author is bona fide and writing for an academic audience, and the book is well-footnoted, etc. The only "variable" is the publisher. Levivich^[block] 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It's much in the same way that you'd determine a reputable secular publisher vs an unreputable secular publisher. Does the publisher have a reputation for a strong editorial review process and do they have strong editorial controls? Are they affiliated with a reputable academic or scholarly institution (such as the relationship between Ave Maria Press and the University of Notre Dame)? Do well-respected authors in the relevant field frequently choose to publish scholarly works with them? And do their scholarly publications tend to get cited in other scholarship as a source for facts?

If the answer to these is all of the above is "yes", then it's likely that you have a reputable publisher within the relevant field. If the answer to all of them is "no", then it's rather unlikely that you have a reputable publisher in that field. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So basically evaluate it like any other source, it doesn't matter if it's religious or not? Levivich^[block] 05:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Merely having (or not having) a religious affiliation doesn't move the needle towards being more reliable or less reliable, ceteris paribus. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: a good test for any of these publishers attached to Bible colleges or schools is to check their accreditation. Generally, if they're not accredited (such as Hyles-Anderson College), or accredited only through a Christian accreditation agency (such as Pensecola Christian College), I wouldn't consider them reliable, and I doubt others would, either.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Belarusian Telegraph Agency

Belarus News | Belarusian news | Belarus today | news in Belarus | Minsk news | BELTA

This seems to be the main propaganda organ of the Belarusian state. A cursory look at the English site shows most articles are direct quotes of officials and especially Lukashenko w/o editorial commentary. In general, BELTA seems to stick closely to the concept of a wire service and the vast majority of its articles are long quotes. However, the opinion section and esp. articles relating to the invasion of Ukraine take a much more clearly misleading position that does not appear substantially different from Russian state media. Furthermore, in 2012 the EU imposed sanctions on Dmitry Zhuk, then director of BELTA for "relaying state propaganda in the media, which has supported and justified the repression of the democratic opposition and of civil society on 19 December 2010 using falsified information." [59] As far as I can tell, it seems like a great source for who is claiming what, but the claims themselves are nearly all worthless. Should BELTA be used for information beyond ascertaining that an individual made certain claims? Hussierhussier1 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

treat it like any other propaganda outfit, it is useable to say "BELTA claimed". Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

japanese-wiki-corpus.org

In the past few days I've come across www.japanese-wiki-corpus.org used as a source in at least two articles related to traditional Japanese culture. A quick search shows that it pops up on English Wikipedia as a source about 22 times.

My concern is that, per the website's About page, "The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) has created this corpus by manually translating Japanese Wikipedia articles (related to Kyoto) into English", with the articles "formatted into human-readable text". The "more info" link on this page links here, where the project is described as "[aiming] mainly at supporting research and development relevant to high-performance multilingual machine translation, information extraction, and other language processing technologies".

This website seems like a mirror of Japanese Wikipedia, machine-translated into English with the sources removed. Its goal seems to be accurate translation rather than sourcing, and I'm concerned that it's being used as a source on Wikipedia. I think this falls under WP:MIRROR, but since it's mirroring a sister project, I just wanted to make sure it would count as a mirror, and therefore be unsuitable as a reliable source.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say, yes it is a mirror. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)