Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: NewsClick

An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

The reliability of NewsClick is:

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

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NewsClick)

• Bad RfC. ND61F has not indicated what Wikipedia article has disputed cites, and four-way forms with blanket-ban options are always bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am counting 4 uses of this as a reference, using a very silly search. [1] I am not quite sure it is used extensively enough to warrant an RFC as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using insource is a better way, as it can see the URLs hidden inside cites.[2] Using that shows 333 pages with references using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  OHH. did not know about that. thank you! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with a note warning about bias and a lack of independence related to the Chinese government and its talking points. I can understand the concerns about the lack of prior discussion, but I think this is clear-cut enough that we don't have to waste time on it unless someone wants to argue for unreliability or deprecation (which it could still be downgraded to in a later discussion if evidence comes up or if it remains an issue.) There are sufficient reasons to believe it is biased that some sort of warning where people will see it is called for; while it isn't perennial yet, RSP is the only logical place to put such a warning, and a source like this shouldn't be used 300+ time without at least some indicator of the problems where people might see them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsClick)

• For reference the New York Times articles can be found here or in this archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Was there any WP:RFCBEFORE relevant to this RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Let's do RFCBEFORE now. The source is used quite extensively, including for topics like Right-wing politics (the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  The source is only briefly mentioned in the NYT article, with it showing bias towards China and talking points of the Chinese government. Would a note about these issues be enough? If so is a RFC even necessary. In the first example you give above the source is one of four used to support the statement, the second is used to support an attributed statement by David Golumbia who according to his obituary[3] was "an expert on cyberlibertarianism, bitcoin, blockchain". Is there any concerns with the reliability of these statements?

  To be clear my point about RFCBEFORE was that it could make the whole RFC unnecessary, not that discussion shouldn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would suggest we close the formal RFC (unanswered) … and continue to explore several of the citations that use this source and the context in which they use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  If so I would suggest a note be added about the validity of the concern of Chinese bias, lest the closure of this RFC become a way to brush those off. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought that, and that it probably shouldn't be used for reporting on the Chinese government or Chinese history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that at the very least noting its biases is worth doing, and that even in the absence of previous disputes over it it's worth adding something like that to RSP (or somewhere) in situations, like this one, where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious. The problem is that AFAIK we can't actually add something to RSP without a designation, or at least it would be fairly awkward to do so. Would it just default to a yellow "unclear" entry, if we don't discuss it in any context except its bias? At the bare minimum concerns over its biases appear serious enough to be an "other stuff applies" situation even if the rest were reliable (which we haven't really examined.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a point I would love clarity on; I was considering for some weeks now starting a discussion about the related question of: where and how do we discuss that a source is biased? Because WP:RSP records when sources are biased, but the "standard options" for RSN RFCs are only about reliability (not bias, which editors have to decide on their own to mention); if someone doesn't dispute the overall reliability of a source (let's even say, one that's already present on RSP, so how to colour-code its reliability isn't an issue), but wants to discuss adding that it's biased, where do they do that? Here? How, a custom RFC which people will complain doesn't have the "standard options"? And then, yes, as you ask, how do we note the outcome / bias in RSP if all we want to note is "unexpectedly, this source is biased about X" and not "this source is reliable/unreliable"? Should there be a separate page—or section of WP:RSP—WP:RSPOVP, where this is noted? -sche (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, nothing prevents us from adding a new record to the RSP table with blank status and a note about the bias in the summary field. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bias is even more contextual than reliability. I think that it's valuable to note it down precisely because of sources like this one (where the bias is clear-cut but may not be obvious at a casual glance); to me, part of the value of RSP is to give people an at-a-glance sense of a source in order to provide a starting point for local discussions. I don't think we need an entire column for it or more details than that - it's the kind of thing where if there's a dispute or problem related to it you really want to read the entire entry and think about how it applies to using that specific source in that specific context anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the evaluation and documentation of source bias. Your observation highlights a significant gap in our current processes for assessing source reliability and identifying potential biases. The current system, while effective for determining overall source reliability, does not adequately address the nuanced issue of bias. As you correctly point out, the absence of a dedicated platform for discusing source bias creates challenges for editors seeking to address this critical aspect of source evaluation.

I agree that clarifying the appropriate forum for discussing source bias is essential. A dedicated page or selction within WP:RSP, as you suggest, could provide a structued approach to these discussions. Addtionally, developing standardized criteria for assessing bias and documanting finding would enhance consistency and transparency in process. I propose we initiate a formal discussion to explore potential solutions for this issue. This could involve creating a task force in order to develop recommendation for addresing the evaluation and documantation of source bias. I look forward to collaboratng with you and other interested editors to find a satisfactory resolution.

Please let me know if you would like to proceed with creating a task force. ND61F (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that RFC is not necessary. The fact that NewsClick is heavly influenced by Chinese gov propaganda is a serious allegation that requires detail investigation and talk. It can't be dismissed with a simple note. 333 unchecked citations of NewsClick are alarming. It is imperative that we review these instances to analyze impact of this potentialy biased source on our articls. I understand your concern about the length of the RFC proces, but in this case, it's essential to ensure accuracy and neutrality of our content. A well structred RFC can expedte the process by focusing the discussion and gatherings. The NYT article provides imp evidence of NewsClick bias, but it' is not enough. We need a comprehensive analysis of the source, including its editoril policies, funding, connection to the Chinese government. RFC will allow to collect evidence, check the source content, and reach a consensus on its reliability . ND61F (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?

Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.

However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.

Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.

The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:

1. "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" by James Paulose. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd DIvision.
2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. There are a number of passages stating the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but the majority lack citations for where this information came from. One page cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169" which is from the same English-language essay mentioned above which states only pages later the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred).
3. Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network. Web article with no citations.
4. C. Peter Chen (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database. Web article with no citations.

Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article.

These sources conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division albeit nearby, was outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.

Given the English sources I presented above are in direct conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, I feel it is safe to conclude they are not reliable.

However if it is solely my opinion on this matter presented, editors on the contested articles are likely going to keep reverting my changes. I would really appreciate some comments or any input from others regarding these sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gerontology research group

I do not think that the grg should be considered Reliable they have been "validating" hundreds of supercentenarians that have been convenientlly years before serveal other organizations existed so they can claim to have validated them beforehand also some of the "vaildations" have little to 0 actual documentation such as 2 instances in the oldest verified people article Furthermore the people credited with "Vaildating" them were not a part of the group back at the time the cases were allegedly vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/brazil/ several of these cases that were alleged vaildated include people who didn't even work at the grg at the time and some of these cases are in the pages for both Vaildated Supercentenarians and Validated Brazilian Supercentenarians Wwew345t (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of these cases were not on the site until the last few weeks and have been given fake Vaildation dates that predates any competitions so essentially they are speed validating fake claims and giving fake Validation dates in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you post the examples? Hard to evaluate just based on what you've said. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about from the link I provided pretty much all but a dozen of them were not validated until recently for example comparing https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are several more instances of this Wwew345t (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the point is they are faking the validation of hundreds of cases Wwew345t (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, I think people are having trouble understanding what the goal is. So maybe it'd help if you could list out the standard information. Try this format:

• Link to article or section:
• Link or citation for source:
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article:

For example, you might say something like:

• Link to article or section: Lee Longlife
• Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: I want to remove the sentence that says "They claim to be the first to discover it."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the source and evidence proving it's inaccuracies I move to delete every "retroactive" vaildation added to List of the verifed oldest people that has been added in the last 2 months due to a"retroactive vaildation" by the grg on the grounds that the grg is faking the vaildations to make it look like they did it way before anyone else could've done it in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems I am having issue linking the page but that is the name of it The cases on the lists I am Referring to are Easter Wiggins, Magdalena Oliver Gabarró, Diolinda Maria da Conceição, Ophelia Burks, Olindina Juvêncio da Silva, Horacio Celi Mendoza, Maximinao José dos Santos, James King, Jules Théobald,Victor Santos, Efraín Nunez, João Zanol ,Silverio Ayala, Frank Morimitsu, Faustino Perez (this one has a reliable link from another source that can be used as a replacement) Jesus Perez, Henry Tseng and Rodger Auvin, Wwew345t (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They may all seem different and there are a lot of them but they hav several things in commen none of them were on the old grg website all of them were just added recently with dates that conveniently predate the founding of a group that removed Robert Young one of the administrators of the grg and all of them were Added after they hired a new assistant Administrator (who was the same person who created an sockpuppet pretending to be Ilie ciocans Granddaughter) Wwew345t (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that these "Vaildations" are an attempt by the grg to look credible it is no coincidence that they all started popping up right when the new assistant Administrator was promted who has been permablock from this platform Wwew345t (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't going to base its assessment of the source on discussions of internal disputes at the GRG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The internal issues are why the source has become unreliable also I am not arguing for the complete and total removal of the source I am arguing for the removal on the above mention "retroactive" Validations that have just recently been added I do not think that we should be using a source that is using poorly rushed results that they are doing to make themselves look good Wwew345t (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I have just written. We don't base decisions regarding the validity of sources on personal opinions regarding unverifiable claims about internal disputes. Repeating yourself isn't going to change this. Provide independent verifiable evidence regarding the unreliability of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already sent proof that these cases were not validated at the time they claim to be do you want me to post the proof of the other 12 or so instances? Wwew345t (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'proof' you posted here [4], the two links are identical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me post them again there seem to have been an issue https://web.archive.org/web/20240509181035/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2022-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Throught the use of the wayback machine you can see that these cases were not there Wwew345t (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also if these cases were really validated in those years then they wouldnt have just been added last month but they have Wwew345t (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You really aren't helping yourself. Please explain what it is exactly we are supposed to be looking at: provide specific examples which clearly show that a record is being falsified. We aren't going to compare two entire documents to look at differences, and even if we did, we'd need more to go on than vague assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not there if to take the lists and look at the version on May 6th furthermore none of these cases were added onto wikpeida at the time they were supposedly validated because they were not I will provide more info when I have the time (probably tomorrow) Wwew345t (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, are you talking about List of the verified oldest people? Just this one page, or others?

Are you trying to change the actual words in the article, or just the refs (the little blue numbers that look like )?

(For your technical problem: See those buttons just above the Reply box? Try using them, especially when you need to make a link to another article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The refs I dont not think the grg ones are trustworthy since they lie about the date they were Vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

None of those cases were vaildated by the grg in 2019 2020 2021 or 2022 edits on this website on the various longevity lists prove that Wwew345t (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That is my main argument Wwew345t (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And that is easily proven the grg website that I posted ago was only invented last year after all these supposed dates and the old one https://grg.org/Archives/E.HTM was last updated in 2015 so how did these Vaildates exist? Because they didn't they are fabrications Wwew345t (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And yes what I'm referring to are a couple of the refs on the oldest verified people Wwew345t (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so there's a spot in the table that says:

Kane Tanaka

and you don't like the source being cited, so you want to remove it. Do you have a {{better source}} that you could cite instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not kane Tanaka the names I posted a few comments above and the sad thing is not all of them have a replacement source because most of them either refused documentation or have none Faustino Perez is the only one who is actually validated of those names Wwew345t (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The ones that have all been added this year with fake dates that make them look as if they were Vaildated years ago Wwew345t (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would help if you could focus on exactly one small change, so other people can figure out what you're talking about. Are you unhappy with the line that says:

Easter Wiggins

and which cites https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2020-validations/ ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes cause that case and many others were not Vaildated in the year that they list (in this case 2020) Wwew345t (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, are we arguing as to whether the supercentenarians listed by GRG are not actually as old as GRG certifies them to be? I don't feel that the date of the verification or the identity of the GRG people doing the verification is particularly relevant to that information. BD2412 T 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes and no I am arguing that the cases that I listed either dont have any proof of their age or that they dont have any yet and that the grg is rushing them in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sending this message to keep this from getting archiver before its finished Wwew345t (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Wwed345t: I'm not sure if there's much point keeping this open, it doesn't seem the community shares your concerns. I think a part of the problem here is that you haven't articulated well enough that many other participants have understood your concerns.

  If I understand correctly, your concern is that GRG says a person's age was accepted on date X but older versions of the page (from after the acceptance) do not show the person. Therefore you fear they cannot be trusted as they might be lying or misleading about when the acceptance happened. (Added:) If I'm correct, while I understood the point you were making, I'm not sure how many others did. (end addition)

  Also, while I would agree that if a source lies or misleads about when something happened that would be a concern, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe this is what happened. In one of your comments you suggested their pages were poorly updated in the past anyway, it seems easily possible that and/or sloppy record keeping means they only posted some of the people who's ages they accepted. Alternatively perhaps there was some legal, ethical or other reasons why they did not post these earlier despite accepting the claims. (I had wondered if it might also relate to the people doing the validation and e.g. re-assessments of whether they trust these people, but some of the new people seems to have been validates validated by people they accepted previously and in any case, "acceptance" implies this is when GRG accepted the validation rather than when the person performed the validation.)

  While those earlier issues are slightly concerning, and I do think it's disappointing they don't seem to have posted any explanation why they suddenly posted a bunch of new validations from earlier dates; I'm just not seeing enough here to warrant not using the source.

  That said, personally I would support not using any of those oldest people websites/groups as the sole source for information. I feel relying on more general reliable secondary sources, even if they are getting the info from GRG which they've chosen to trust, is a better course of action. Meaning that List of the verified oldest people should only be blue links. But while there seems to be some in the community who agree, unfortunately there has never been enough to change the practice.

  Nil Einne (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Wwew345t: sorry I made a mistake with your name. Also corrected and clarified my original comment. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press famous birthdays lists

The only prior discussion I could find regarding this on one of the main talk pages was here, but I feel like a discussion regarding the birthdays sourced to The Associated Press birthday lists may be relevant. There are several issues in my opinion, but the main one is that when changes are made they are not noted or marked as corrections, and The Associated Press has never stated where they obtain their birthdays from. Both Rebecca De Mornay and Doris Day have other newspapers commenting on the AP discrepencies included below, as well.

Lou Ferrigno - born 1951. AP had birthday year as 1952 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1951. 2002 (50),  2003 (51), 2004 (52), 2005 (53), 2006 (54), 2007 (55), 2008 (56), 2009 (58), 2010 (59)

Scarface (rapper) - Born 1970. AP had birthday year as 1969 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1970. 2002 (33), 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36), 2006 (37), 2007 (38), 2008 (39), 2009 (39), 2010 (40),

Pepa (rapper) - Born 1969, AP had her birthday year as 1969 from 2003 until 2020, when it was changed to 1964. 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36) 2006 (37), 2008 (39), 2009 (40), 2010 (41), 2019 (50), 2020 (56), 2023 (59)

John Leguizamo - born 1964, according to both Mr Leguizamo, the copyright.gov office, his book, etc. AP changed birthday to 1960 in 2020. 2019 (55), 2020 (60)

Doris Day - sources put birth at 1924 as well as Doris Day herself. In 2017, her birth certificate was found to have a birthday of 1922 by the AP. From 2009-2015, they had her year of birth as 1923. Their 2008 birthday was originally for 1924.

2008 (84), 2009 (86), 2010 (87) and noted here.
2012 (89), 2013 (90), 2015 (92)

Rebecca De Mornay  - Born 1959; AP had year of birth as 1962 from 2004 until 2009, then switched it to 1959. 2004 (42), 2005 (43), 2007 (45) (also noted in USA Today), 2008 (46), 2009 (50), 2010 (51)

Michael Jai White - Born 1967, according to his Facebook, being 27 in 1995, and interviews since 2001 putting his birth year as 1967. Associated Press has listed his birthday as 1964 since adding it in 2003.

According to their values and principles, When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction, we point it out both to subscriber editors (e.g. in Editor’s notes, metadata, advisories to TV newsrooms) and in ways that news consumers can see it (bottom-of-story corrections, correction notes on graphics, photo captions, etc.)
A correction must always be labeled a correction. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies,” “minor edits” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

Awshort (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see them as reliable on even a case by case basis due to their issues with corrections that aren't labeled as such or are just randomly added with no explanation, inability to respond to issues presented to them*, and lack of openess on where their information is obtained from.

I contacted both the FactCheck email address, as well as used their Contact Us form February 6, 2024 to find out where they had sourced their birthdays from and note the error on Michael jai White - I never heard back. Awshort (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• If a birth date/year is missing, use AP (latest iteration) unless something contradicts it. This seems a no-brainer -- AP is consider an independent WP:RS, and if nothing contradicts it, use it. If it is contradicted by something else, then either discuss on talkpage, or with discretion use what seems to be more reliable (knowing that other editors may contest whatever source that is). Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: I appreciate the reply. I agree with that, except AP is consider an independent WP:RS is the exact reason I brought this up here since the reliability of their birthdays section has never been discussed in depth, and most discussions brought to talk pages point back to 'The Associated Press is a reliable source'.

  To put it another way - we have disallowed WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS on BLP articles for not providing their sources of their content, or providing fact checking for it's material. In that respect I feel it warrants discussion when other well used sources do the same.

  Awshort (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• In general, the AP is reliable. It does seem that the "Today in History" section occasionally has errors in the ages reported. We should prefer sources for birthdates which explicitly say the year, but I don't see a need to WP:RSP-style deprecate this based on occasional errors. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll admit that I am not a frequent user of RSN, so my example above regarding Famous Birthdays was not to suggest I think AP should be fully deprecated; I dont. It was more to suggest that my reasons for bringing it here were similar to the reasons FB was brought up in discussion.

  Since it is often used in BLP pages and has shown to contain errors in that area, I thought it should be noted to use caution with dates pulled from it's birthdays section and prefer something more reliable similar to what Softlavender suggested above. If it's the only source and nothing suggests it is wrong, use it. If it's the only source among hundreds that list one date, it could be an error.

  Awshort (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would assume the AP probably publishes a lot more birth dates than many other outlets and is therefore going to have more errors. Newspapers in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing when compared to academic articles or research books, especially when it comes to things like lists. Birthdays should be widely found in multiple sources per WP:DOB to avoid concerns with one source getting it wrong. – notwally (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can see no evidence presented here for the proposition that "newspapers are in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing". For contrary evidence about historians, see for example: Betty Radice in the introduction to "The War with Hannibal"; and "The King's Parliament of England" by G O Sayles. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not present any evidence for my statement. It is simply a fact. WP:NEWSORG also discusses this. Just because higher quality sources also sometimes contradict themselves does not change the fact that news sources get information wrong far more than academic sources. If you think that human interest news stories have the same general quality as peer-reviewed academic articles, then you are just wrong. – notwally (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  To begin with, WP:NEWSORG only says that scholarly sources are generally better "for academic topics" and only says "for academic topics", a qualification that you are omitting. Facts such as who did or said what, and where and when they did or said it, are not necessarily "academic topics" (whereas, for example, the solution to the time dependent relativistic Shrodinger Equation does appear to be ipso facto an "academic topic"). You are glossing over that caveat in the guideline. The claim that "news sources get information wrong far more than academic sources" is a claim that should be proved with evidence, and not merely asserted, because it is not unambiguously obvious or self-evident that it is always true for all topics. If your statement is "simply a fact" you should have no difficulty producing evidence that statistically proves that "fact" in a mathematically rigorous fashion. I said nothing about "human interest" stories, nor did I claim to believe anything, and I would be grateful if you do not put words into my mouth by claiming to know that I think things that I have not said. All I said was that your claims ought to be supported by actual evidence and not advanced on the basis of faith. In theory your claims could be true, but can you actually prove that they are? To give a further counter example, suppose that news reports from 1974 write 1,000 words about what happened during a news event in 1974. Now suppose that an academic history book from 2024 summarises those news reports of that event in 50 words (and uses no other historical sources, because no other sources are available). It should be obvious that there is a potential for oversimplification or distortion in that kind of abridgment. I can point you to history books saying that narrative history always involves some oversimplification: [5]. To give another example, there is a large body of literature written by historians saying that newspapers are often particularly good historical sources and encouraging historians to use them. To put it all another way: It is obvious that the average newspaper journalist is not qualified to write about the tensor calculus (because he is not a mathematician), but that does not prove that, at the other extreme, he is less likely than a university professor to accurately report the result of a football match (which is clearly not an "academic topic"). James500 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in wikilawyering or your assumptions about me. The rest of your arguments aren't even relevant. Obviously there is a heirarchy for average reliability of different types of sources. You're initial comment showed that you were just trying to start an argument, and your follow-up didn't disappoint. – notwally (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unreliability not proved. WP:NEWSORG says that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". A small number of cherry picked errors does not indicate whether a publication is reliable. If you want to know how accurate the AP really is, you need a sample that is large enough and random enough to be statistically significant, and you need the actual percentage error rate. Seven errors is a very small number and is not enough to prove that the AP is even less than 99% accurate. What is ideally needed is commentary on the accuracy of the AP from independent sources that have studied its accuracy properly. The birthdays of celebrities are frequently extensively disputed by numerous sources. Indeed, they are frequently unknown. It is no good cherry picking celebrities such as Rebecca De Mornay whose WP article gives three different alleged years (1959, 1961 and 1962) supported by six different sources that do not agree with each other. That disputed birthday is a cherry picked and useless example. You need to use people whose birthdays you actually know for certain. Your claim to have contacted AP and not received a response is useless evidence, because we only have your unverifiable good word for that. The AP's failure to disclose their source of information is irrelevant, because that is normal for news sources. I suspect that it could be quite normal to simply ask a celebrity what their birthday is. That depends on the honesty of celebrity. Since we can probably guess that a minority of people are in the habit of pretending to be younger than they really are for vanity reasons, birthday errors are likely a poor indicator of general reliability. It is not clear that clippings from single individual newspapers are capable of proving whether the AP failed to disclose their source, or failed to disclose that they made a correction. How do we know it is not the newspaper doing that? The AP is a news agency, not a newspaper. Why would it be able to control what newspapers print? For that matter, how do we know that the "discrepencies" are not cherry picked typos from particular newspapers, rather than actual discrepencies in the AP's reporting? The point is that AP reports printed in a newspaper are being filtered through that newspaper, and the accuracy of that newspaper may be entirely dependent on that newspaper. Some newspapers have a reputation for typos, which may not even be deserved, since it might be due to the quality of the readership rather than the typesetters. There is no evidence that the AP are less reliable or accurate or contain more birthday errors than any other publication in this field, and no apparent reason to single out the AP in particular. Numbers, such as birthdays, are more vulnerable to typos than words and may therefore be a particularly poor indicator of general reliability. I am under the impression that some "journalistic" sources might regard birthdays as a weapon with which to attack the reputations of other sources they do not like. I am skeptical about the utility of using celebrity birthdays to gauge the reliability of sources. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The AP is a news agency, not a newspaper. Why would it be able to control what newspapers print?

  It wouldn't be able to control what they print, but it would still be responsible for their accuracy per WP:NEWSORG.

  For that matter, how do we know that the "discrepencies" are not cherry picked typos from particular newspapers, rather than actual discrepencies in the AP's reporting? Assuming for a second that this wasn't an attempt to Poison the well, you or any other editor could always search them up to verify the data. I used the wiki library link; exact date of the birth date in question was used for the date, keywords were set to Associated Press under 'with the exact phrase',  and 'with all the words' set to birthday.  One typo would be believable; multiple 'typos' for the same day would be an error from the newsorg rather than the paper.

  There is no evidence that the AP are less reliable or accurate or contain more birthday errors than any other publication in this field, and no apparent reason to single out the AP in particular. When it is a widely used source that people use based on the expectation that the data is correct, there is very much a reason to 'single out the AP' when the accuracy of their information supplied is incorrect and has never been discussed.

  I am under the impression that some "journalistic" sources might regard birthdays as a weapon with which to attack the reputations of other sources they do not like. ....What? A newspaper is going to intentionally mess up one birthday to get back at the news organization supplying them birthdays?

  And lastly, attempts were made to find corrections for the examples using the same search terms above and 'correction'/'corrections' in place of birthday and the dates set to be between the date of the last different birthday and the date of the change in the paper. I was unable to find any corrections.

  Awshort (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources on Jordan Peterson and Climate Change

Sources:

1. The Guardian, [6]: Canadian psychologist and darling of conservatives and the alt-right, Jordan Peterson, has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating.
2. DeSmog, [7]: ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.
3. Chapter in Open Universe book, [8]: Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message.

Content currently in the article Jordan Peterson): Peterson is a climate-change denier...

Are these sources sufficient for this content?

I think the Guardian is RS for "Peterson has attacked the science of climate change."

I think DeSmog (which has been discussed previously on RSN [9], [10]), which appears to be a group blog (formerly called "DeSmog Blog") is a biased source that would require attribution.

The Open Universe volume is non-refereed, the chapter is written by a philosopher, and the press is the source of the "pop culture and philosophy" volumes which are generally marketed to a popular audience, so I'm not inclined to think this is RS on the topic of climate change. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual way to handle this is with language closer to the language of the sources (denial as a verb or denialist attached to the content rather than to the person, see e.g. Patrick Michaels wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimizing climate change, Fred Singer was best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking). These sources would be fine for that. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the correct direction here. The Guardian is a generally RS. DeSmog is an activist organization so their views, if due, should be attributed. The book is likely good for fact but we should probably be careful regarding using it for subjective claims. That said, the claim in question, with attribution seems reasonable. The summary that Peterson is a "climate change denier" is problematic since the sources don't actually say that and, as is said above, the language of the sources are a better way to handle this. I would also note that the definition of "climate change denier" varies by source. Some, including the Wikipedia article, use the term to mean someone who either denies anthropogenic climate change or those who accept anthropogenic climate change but doubt the extent or otherwise undermine actions to address it. Peterson appears to fit into the latter category. However, the latter is not compatible with, for example, the Marriam Webster definition which only refers to not accepting anthropogenic climate change.[11] Thus I would say these sources are not sufficient to support the LABEL, "climate change denier" but they are sufficient to support the claim that Peterson's statements attack climate change since and the risks associated with global heating and that his comments deny a climate crisis while giving support to a denialist message. Springee (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, phrases I think these sources clearly support include:

• Peterson denies the scientific consensus on climate change (my first preference)
• Peterson opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (my second preference)

My ranking of these two options follows the overall tendency of sources on climate change in general, where "deny/denial" is generally preferred over "oppose/opposition".

Also, since the filer has not pointed this out, it seems relevant that the Catholic Reporter has chosen to re-publish this particular DeSmog piece as a news article, thus lending it strong WP:USEBYOTHERS support for inclusion.

And as a parenthesis, a chapter by a philosopher, with scholarly apparatus and coming from an established publisher, seems to me more than an adequate source to characterize comments Peterson, psychologist of meaning and YouTube philosopher, has offered about climate science. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems the issue is really what is written about Peterson in the wikiarticle. Perhaps rewording to something Newimpartial has proposed (I say second preference) would solve this. Are there other better sources on this? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements are logically supported by the claims in the sources. Thinking of it as a Boolean, While the group of people who have done the things provided by the sources above logically can be filled by someone who denies anthropogenic CC, it also could be filled by someone who accepts anthropogenic CC but dismisses/discounts the magnitude of the issue. For that reason it is better to stick with language that is truer to the sources. Springee (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Shinealittlelight is asking if the sources are sufficient. I would say that there should be better sources for this claim. DeSmog does not look like a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog are an advocacy organisation but known for high-quality research.[12] It has a heavyweight team. It co-publishes with The Nation and The Intercept[13] and is cited by RSs such as The Guardian.[14][15][16] Definitely usable, preferably with attribution.

The book chapter is from a book published by Carus Books, a hundred year old US-based small publisher specialising in environmental issues and philosophy. The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Tampere University. The book is edited by an associate teaching professor in philosophy at Arizona State University. I think this is a borderline scholarly source we can cite but if so should attribute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian piece appears in the opinion section of the website, "commentisfree", and would need attribution. DeSmog, as an advocacy organisation; and the book chapter likewise should be attributed. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it appears to b e misfiled. It's in the environment section, not an opinion piece, and authored by Graham Readfearn, the climate and environment reporter for Guardian Australia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Other possibly relevant sources?

• Weeks, Carly (23 August 2023). "Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 1 August 2024.

  Dr. Peterson rose to prominence in 2016, following the release of videos criticizing federal legislation designed to prevent discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression.
  Since then, he has gained a worldwide following and regularly posts anti-transgender content, climate change denial and criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau online.

  Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In context this is a weak source since the full extent of the paper's discussion of Peterson's comments on climate change is literally "regularly posts ... climate change denial, ..." Absent any explanation of what he posts that would be a poor source. I would say we are better off using the original three sources and crafting a sentence that is closer to their actual claims since those sources support the claims. Since this is a BLP we need to be careful about disparaging claims that aren't supported within the source. Springee (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional source

• Landy, D.; Lentin, R.; McCarthy, C. (2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78699-652-7. chapter "Privilege, Platforms, and Power: Uses and Abuses of Academic Freedom" p. 310 by Arianne Shahvisi: "Thus conservative controversialist Jordan Peterson’s damaging and misleading misogyny, transphobia, and climate-change denial are bolstered by the platforms and credibility his academic post affords him"

(t · c) buidhe 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to attribute, per Bobfrombrockley, on any sources used for the claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree: where there are several sources saying the same thing, attribution is often unnecessary and impractical. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:YESPOV comes into play. This looks like a case where attribution would likely have the unfortunate effect of watering-down & would smell of POV-pushing. Just WP:ASSERT as there's no doubt in RS what this guy says and does on this topic. Anyway, we're straying from the purpose here. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly cannot tell what content Bon courage or Buidhe are claiming to be reliably sourced, or to what sources they are appealing. Could either of you (or both of you) clarify content and source please? Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient sourcing to state either: 1) JP is a climate change denier or 2) JP promotes climate change denial

Since it seems to be somewhat controversial among editors you can just throw all the sources from this thread into the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, seems kind of an unexceptional claim given the sourcing. Hard to see what the fuss is about. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a fuss. Denying everything relevant to climate change makes one a climate changed denier. Stating "I do not deny climate change" and then continuing to *deny climate change* doesn't work. The attempted repackaging of "climate change skeptic" or "denies some tenets of climate change" are just obvious attempts to make any ensuing statements more palatable.

We have in this very discussion both evidence of the individual *denying climate change* and material calling him a *climate change denier*. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the source that says Peterson is denying everything relevant to climate change? When applying a contentious LABEL we need to be careful to stick with the sources. Springee (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the sources. Seem like we've already been over this. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You made the claim, please provide the quotes that support what you have specifically said, that he has "denied everything relevant to climate change". Springee (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee, the policy-compliant terrain for this discussion is what independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, not what he says in his own words (and our interpretation). Newimpartial (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is sources don't call him a denier Springee (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are trying to split the hair between "denier", "denying" and "promoting denial" - well, I don't think other editors see those as distinctions relevant either to our P&Gs or to the literature on climate change denial. This "issue" looks from the outside like some kind of language game. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We frequently do that. We say politician X's ideas are far-right vs politician X is far right. The other way to avoid this issue is focus less on the label and more on what the person said and how other people say that is wrong. For example we can find a RS that provides a summary of Peterson's complaints. We don't have to provide much detail but sufficient so the nature of the complaint is clear. We follow that with the reactions from RSs. When the section starts off with LABELs it looks like writing to persuade rather than inform. I don't recall where I read it but somewhere there was a comment about the issue with front loading the negative in this way. To the uninformed reader it comes off as editors having a bone to pick. However, when the statements of the subject are fully presented and then the reaction from experts are also presented it comes off as editors working on being impartial and trying to inform. Springee (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee: we should definitely stay close to the sources. So, to be clear, Springee is not alone here. Moreover, it's not just me and Springee. So let's try to work to a constructive comprormise that will improve this section of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The CCDH does a good job of articulating "new denial". Effectively, now that saying climate change isn't real or outright denying that humans have anything to do with it has become too unpopular or ridiculous, the new strategy for climate change denial is to challenge that humans have much to do with it, trying to undermine efforts to fix it, saying it's real but none of the solutions put forward by science actually help, etc. Kind of like the white supremacists in the US don't wear pointy hoods anymore -- they've moved on to talk about things like the Great Replacement, migrant crime, the history of slavery/the Civil War, etc. In other words, it's climate change denial intended to make it harder to use that label. According to the report, Peterson is a leading figure in this "new denial". The report itself wouldn't carry a ton of weight as a primary source, but it's been reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. In the end what we have are a bunch of sources explicitly calling him a climate change denier (see above), a bunch of sources associating him with this "new" form of climate change denial, and a bunch of sources using other language to describe the same behaviors captured by the terms "climate change denial" or "new climate change denial". I'd get the argument that "we shouldn't use the term if people describe behaviors characterized as denial but don't use the term themselves", but that's not the case here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the measured and thoughtful reply. I do have a concern regarding "new denial". The problem is not everyone reading "denial" will realize what "new denial" includes. Many may assume denial aligns with the more traditional definition [17] of someone who denies human caused climate change. The other issue is trying to assign intent. As an example, someone who opposed school bussing in the 1970s may have done it for racist reasons. However, they also may have done it for practical, non-racists reasons. Someone who is concerned about uncontrolled immigration into the US may feel that way because they are racist. However, they also might feel that way because they think immigration outside of the legal process is wrong etc. Certainly someone who is racists will be happy to use an argument, even a legitimate one, that supports their side as justification to get the outcome they want without having to provide a racist reason. The problem is how can we tell the difference? There has been a concern in academia that the system can sometimes be biased against outside ideas etc. I certainly saw people who understood how to write grant proposals to appeal to those with the purse rather than what might have been the best way to increase knowledge in the subject area. So someone arguing that politics associated with climate change may be resulting in less than idea research and public policy certainly should be a reasonable claim (assuming it's properly supported with evidence). I think it would be hard to argue that, at least at some marginal level, politics and questionable policies aren't associated with climate change even if only at the very marginal level. So if someone points this out, by the new definition they are undermining efforts to stop climate change and their arguments may be abused by those who are clearly opposed to climate change efforts. Does that mean the original concerns are invalid? When we start getting into slippery slope, political definitions we really should err on the side of not using them and instead state the facts (Peterson has argued XYZ, expert in the field says the idea is crap because of ABC). Springee (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Blabbermouth

https://blabbermouth.net/news/james-hetfield-is-honored-metallica-music-was-used-by-us-military-to-help-us-stay-safe

I was planning to pull the following quotation for the James Hetfield article: "I'm honored my country is using something to help us stay safe, if they are. But then again, once the music is out, I don't have control over that. Just like how someone's giving it away online. They're using it to do what they do." However, the site it pulls the interview, Thrasher, accepts user submissions with an unclear level of scrutiny given. Is it OK to include the quotation given above? Based5290 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Accepting freelance journalists' submissions is not the same as accepting user submissions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was bit unclear. It appears that you just need to email your article to get it in the magazine. Its possible that there's some more comprehensive requirements or review behind the scene, but the fact that no extra requirements beyond formatting are listed seems to be suspicious (for me, at least). Is this type of thing common among reputable publications that take freelance journalists' submissions? Based5290 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have explained a bit more. That page looks like a standard submission page for a small magazine; there's nothing suspicious about it. Nothing indicates that they're just publishing everything that they receive by email and not reviewing or fact-checking them. Submissions, int his context, generally means just that: you can submit, and we will review and tell you if we want to buy the story. To be sure, there's no published editorial standards on the website, but it looks like pretty legit music journalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As both a freelance writer and a publisher, I'm going to echo what voorts says here. "Accepting submissions" merely means that you just look at and consider material sent in from outside the staff. It in no way implies that you're going to run everything (or even anything) submitted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSMUSIC classifies it as reliable, but to exercise caution with WP:BLP related issues. I'd say that sounds about right here too. Sometimes reliable sources pull information from lesser ones. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Many metalheads appreciate Blabbermouth's coverage, while some completely despise and disagree with the publication's music review process. Some call it a tabloid. But this is a source reliable for music facts at the least. ato—mic 05:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FilmDaze

I used this for an anime-related article. The author seems aware of the creator's interviews and POV about the anti-otaku theme; I can't see something wrong in this essay. This is their policy and staff: they proundly state to have high-quality essays with no clickbait and spam. What's your opinion? Is reliable enough to use for entertainment articles? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Which article and what content? Rotary Engine ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hedgehog's Dilemma (Neon Genesis Evangelion). TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

This is regarding the deletion [[18]]

@Amigao's concern is that a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:GLOBALTIMES

However, as discussed on Amigao's talk page, I believe this is reliable sourcing as the content is a primary source for an opinion, and WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL apply. It is not factual content of a kind where WP:GLOBALTIMES prohibition should apply. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Editorial commentary is a reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated after a RFC in 2020. In general deprecation means the source shouldn't be used for anything other than statements about the source itself. I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• When trying to use a primary source for an opinion, the issue is usually more WP:DUE than WP:RS. Saying that Chinese state media's Global Times applauded Cheng's sacking... pretty clearly implies that this is a significant position taken by the Chinese government itself. While that might seem obvious to you, there's a lot of Chinese state media, and they produce a lot of stuff; I don't think it's appropriate for editors to dig random things out from them and put them up in lights like that. If it's a significant position taken by Chinese state media worth noting in the article, secondary sources will have covered it. (More broadly, while there are certain situations where a source can be unusable for facts but still usable for opinion, I feel that people tend to overestimate how frequently it's applicable. If a source is generally unreliable then it usually isn't reliable for establishing WP:WEIGHT, either, which makes it very difficult to use for anything nontrivial without a secondary source.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[19] [20] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [21] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [22], [23], [24].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was unreliable. [25] The most recent one, had three participants, two of whom agreed it was unreliable, but my vote likely shouldn’t count since I am a paid consultant to a company written about by Bloody Elbow. [26]. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that to declare a source unreliable you need significant discussions between at least two qualifying editors about the source's reliability or an uninterrupted RfC. @ActivelyDisinterested: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be listed, and starting discussion and RFC just to get it listed on RSP is non-productive. This board is for advice for disupted sources, not a place to fulfil thr requirements setout to get listed at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally unreliable, as its just a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC As the RFC was only started to get the source listed at RSP. Blogs are covered by WP:BLOG, and strongly oppose listing this at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

profootballarchives.com

Upon a cursory glance, nothing about https://www.profootballarchives.com looks like a reliable source. There's nothing at that site about its authorial or content policies. In fact, aside from apparently originally-sourced statistical data, there's nothing there about the site itself. It's been cited in maybe 1500 articles, but I can't find any other discussions about its reliability. Does anybody have any insight or thoughts on this one? Much obliged! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that the site should be deemed unreliable by default, since there's no indication as to where the information is coming from, or who's behind the site. Are there reliable alternative sites available that offer similar information? Perhaps those can be used to replace usages of this website. Left guide (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide: I spoke more on the site's creator below, but Pro Football Reference is my personal choice for American football database related sourcing/statistics. It's run by Sports Reference, a source that's considered generally reliable. With that said, I know BeanieFan11 likes to use this site sometimes, so I'll let them speak to why they do so. I'd assume there's some minor differences as well as possibly a preference for the layout of this site, which is definitely easier on the eyes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Searching on Google shows it's a regularly used citation in books from seemingly reputable publishers, which could make it reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I find this WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be convincing (or at least promising) since a Google Books search shows that the website is cited frequently by publishers that seem reliable like Rowman & Littlefield and McFarland & Company. I've struck part of my first reply accordingly. Left guide (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The site was founded and ran by a man named Tod Maher, who may actually be considered a subject matter expert based on the number of books associated with their name. I don't agree that it should be deemed unreliable, as they've actually been cited quite a number of times, as ActivelyDisinterested mentioned, but @BeanieFan11 can probably speak more on the experience of the site owner. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And how can we verify that Tod Maher founded and runs the site? Left guide (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide: I feel dirty saying it... and I hate that this is the way to "verify" their ownership... but they actually take ownership and are recognized by members of the Professional Football Researchers Association's (PFRA) forum as such. PFRA is typically considered a reliable source among those involved in sourcing American football content. See this link, specifically posts #3 (site moderator/former executive director of the organization) and post #5 (Tod responding). They also stated here in December that they had shut down the site (which was true at the time). I've also found that Tod Maher was also the president of the organizational at one point, and is mentioned at the PFRA page as receiving a couple awards for "outstanding achievement in pro football research and historiography." Looking through archive.org, this version mentions Maher Sports Media and shows books that Maher was specifically involved in. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

From experience in using the site, I can say it should absolutely be considered reliable. It is the sole reference available when it comes to early non-NFL statistics (e.g. American Association, Dixie League, early independent football, etc.) and I've almost never found an issue with its data. The question of its reliability was previously discussed here at WT:NFL, where I provided a list of other reliable sources citing it. I can verify that Maher, an expert football historian, is the owner – having talked with him previously through email; this book also mentions that he runs the site as well, in addition to everything Josh mentioned above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The archive is reliable per USEBYOTHERS, which points to it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Maher has also been published by other independent reliable sources, so he would also qualify individually per WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This was exactly the sort of rationale-based analysis I needed. Thanks so much, everybody! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WSJ says it can't prove claims that 10% of UNWRA staff had ties to militant groups

• Tani, Max (2024-08-04). "Journal still can't confirm January story about UN agency for Palestinians". Semafor. Retrieved 2024-08-07.

“The fact that the Israeli claims haven’t been backed up by solid evidence doesn’t mean our reporting was inaccurate or misleading, that we have walked it back or that there is a correctable error here,” Elena Cherney, the chief news editor, wrote in an email earlier this year seen by Semafor. That one of the paper’s biggest and most impactful stories about the war was based on information it could not verify is a startling acknowledgement, and calls into question the validity of the claims as reported in the Journal. The piece had major reverberations internally and raised serious concerns among some staff. According to three people familiar with the situation, since the story was published earlier this year, reporters have tried and failed to corroborate the 10% claim at the center of the story.

To clarify, The Wall Street Journal has not retracted its original story and stands by it.

I'm just posting it here for the record. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly we can put it in Israeli_allegations_against_UNRWA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

AJ expose on Israeli disinfo about UNRWA, back in March "That Wall Street Journal report on UNRWA, which relied entirely on uncorroborated Israeli accusations, was co-authored by a former Israeli soldier" Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I24NEWS

This edit [27] used i24news as a source for a contentious statement in I/P . I dont think i24NEWS would be reliable as an Israeli news channel .(Also the user has made many unreliably sourced additions in other articles) AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They appear to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, there appears to be some reporting not bias but bias doesn't mean unreliable WP:RSBIAS. I case would need to be made to show they're not reliable.

The specific edit has a different issue, WP:HEADLINES, the specific details added are only supported by the headline and headlines are not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think i24NEWS would be reliable as an Israeli news channel

Simply being Israeli doesn't make a source unreliable on I/P - there's plenty of respected Israeli outlets that we use frequently (such as Haaretz, Times of Israel, Ynet, etc).

i24, while certainly rather biased in my experience, isn't inherently an unreliable source on Wikipedia unless/until hard evidence is provided to the contrary. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone already removed this edit , so no problem anymore in this specific context. AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I24 has a strongly biased editoral view, and should be used with caution. They were also responsible for propagating a lot the sensational erroneous claims of atrocities in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attack, like the decapitated babies, so I would definitely not use them for anything that isn't being supported by other sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Iran International in Iran related topics

A previous discussion involving 3 editors had consensus that it is unreliable as it is funded by Saudi Arabia and is unreliable in this topic like Arab News. But Iran International is used in a lot of WP articles about Iran politics. I would like to start a new discussion. AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested the prior discussion from 2020 can be found here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#Arab News on Iran International. It highlights reports from The Guardian[28] and WSJ[29] about Saudi Arabian ownership. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

iran intl is the sole source we have and context should be taken into account even new York Times is lying 99.9% of time Baratiiman (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What ?! AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you trying to write about that Iran International is the only source to talk about it?

The New York Times is listed as "generally reliable" in the Perennial Sources list and it's been like that for years with stellar reputation, so you better have some BIG pieces of evidence to make us accept a claim like that. Viral weirdo (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia and the Women's boxing controversy

Videos published by Sky News Australia recently, in the beginnings of August, claim that 2 Olympics competitors, namely Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, might be, or undoubtedly are, Transgender Athletes. As we can see on their YouTube Channel (6 links of videos):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eo1LcoDkBs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyFHgzU0FA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxUP77Z55Oc&t=445s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUdJapujYxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6hFu0a_DhA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMi6w755qSM

A specific journalist, correspondent, and talk show host, Rita Panahi, has been involved in this the most. Sky News Australia's website says a different and more corrected version of the story, and has repeated it a bunch of times. Their newsletters don't seem to make accusations, but they put the claim out there to say it exists without measures to mention the claim is false or correct. As we can see on their website:

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/sports-icons-react-after-female-athlete-drops-out-of-olympics-fight-with-boxer-who-previously-failed-gender-test/news-story/9ec0063c5f3fb8372fb919a597c330af

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/public-relations-disaster-ioc-slammed-as-womens-boxers-imane-khelif-and-lin-yuting-eye-olympic-gold-medals/news-story/29c061d5108cbe3c7c920a5dbb83d5f7

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/trending/international-olympic-committee-under-pressure-after-female-athlete-pulls-out-of-controversial-bout-involving-boxer-previously-banned-for-elevated-testosterone/news-story/c1b1eb4c7899395c52760d7eeded19ec

Some of their articles say the story with no denial or bias and they do mention that the claim has no evidence, but they persist with a misleading video on top:

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/boxing-legend-jeff-fenech-weighs-in-on-sickening-olympics-gender-debate-after-imane-khelifs-opponent-pulled-out-of-fight/news-story/3914356077d149965c7b1f807922435c

It is distinguishable that their video content is the more hard-line and pressing part of them when it comes to this accusation. Some of their online articles give a vague report, where they don't say it for certainty, they just put it out there, and they cite the IBA tests. Their videos and talk shows, on the other hand, pass around this claim like it's a fact.

Sources that refute this claim: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. There is no indication that they identify as transgender or intersex. Viral weirdo (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What’s the claim that these sources are being used to support? I only looked at a bit of the first video but the banner says “opinion”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, is that video content by Sky News Australia appears to double down on the unproven belief that Khelif and Lin have XY chromosomes, and that their video content is misleading. I understand that the content hosted by Rita Panahi is opinion, but it still makes false claims that I believe makes Sky News Australia a little less reliable than what it says on the Perennial Sources list. It may have been unimportant if Rita was just a random person being interviewed, but she is one of their most common hosts and probably one of their most common faces.

Basically, my point here is that maybe we should hold some of SN Australia's shows to a lower degree of reliability on transgender issues, considering how hosts like Rita Panahi just say false information with no corrections from their newsletters. And even when their newsletters publish correct things, they put misleading videos on the very top of the page, as if they want to promote their opinionated video content more than anything else. Viral weirdo (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sky News Australia is coded yellow at RSP (in contrast to highly reliable Sky News): it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. Our article says Especially since the acquisition of the channel by News Corp Australia, Sky News Australia has faced scrutiny from the press over its increased focus on opinion programming. Comparisons were drawn to Rupert Murdoch's American news channel Fox News, and there have been accusations that the channel's opinion programming has promoted misinformation and untrue conspiracy theories. We should generally avoid using it for any controversial topic, and gender is certainly controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with BFB. Sky News Australia is primarily an opinion publication, and it's coverage should generally be avoided in favour of fact based journalism. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Sky News Australia is yellow and is an opinion piece. Trans issues are controversial and this story is controversial too with other news sources expressing that there is a debate on it. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Close review - "RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues"

Following a close review at WP:AN#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues[30], the close of the Telegraph RFC on trans issues has been overturned to the preceding status quo[31]. The closer has also updated the WP:RSP entry[32]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The close of the RFC review has been formally rescinded [33]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this at all, but I'm a bit surprised the Telegraph is still considered reliable for anything these days; it really has gone to seed. Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of NewsReports

NewsReports.com is a news website and i want to know if it fits the criteria to be used in a Wikipedia article. OliDaHoli (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Per [34], I'd say it's not useful for anything on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For their critic reviews though? They do cover video games. OliDaHoli (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty sketchy. Per this, it appears to be a guest posting site where 'guest writers can post as many articles as they wish'. They do claim editorial review and proport to avoid promotional material, but the articles say otherwise. Here's some SEO-linked miracle gummy spam. Plastic surgery spam, travel spam and so on. All of those written by the primary 'editor' for the site. It also appears to be linked by tags to several other open publishing 'personal branding' sites run by the same company. I'm sure you can find more reputable sites for game reviews. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! OliDaHoli (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Tunebat and other BPM detection sites

I've seen a lot of singles (including in some GAs like The Lakes and Flower) cite Tunebat to verify a song's key and BPM. While it, and other BPM detectors like songbpm.com can be correct, sometimes it calculates the wrong key or BPM. I don't know about key, since I'm not studied in that area, but I have seen BPM be miscounted (to use an example from a field I'm most familiar with - old K-pop - Seo Jiwon's I Miss You is listed as 140 BPM when it's obviously half that time (70 BPM). Tunebat has been deemed as unreliable by a few scattered users, but on the other hand some users have gotten reverted for removing info based on these BPM detectors (see the history of Dice (Nmixx song) for an example). There's only been one discussion about this on Wikiproject Songs, and I'm looking for clarity from the wider community. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ for their Analyzer tool states:

The results you see on this page are estimates. The accuracy of these estimates has been measured across multiple large data sets and compared to several prominent commercial key and BPM detection algorithms. For some datasets this finder proved more accurate than existing commercial key and BPM detection tools. But for other data sets this finder was less accurate. Overall you can expect results from this finder to be as accurate as key and BPM finders found in other commercial softwares, more or less.

In my view, a black box algorithm that we don't have accuracy or precision data for is not a reliable source. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Peoplaid.com and geni.com

I just want to address two suspicious sources popping up on the Philippine side of Wikipedia. Peoplaid and Geni. The articles where peoplaid is regularly used are on Philippine House of Representatives articles, while geni is used in Norberto Romualdez. Peoplaid is reliable for me because it supplies information the same by reliable sources, while geni is probably user generated. Reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Geni.com is mentioned on the the perennial source list, and there is a strong consensus that it is not a reliable source.

I can't find anything on Peoplaid.com, it's website doesn't have any 'About us' information, I can't find any uses of it by other source, and it's never been discussed in the RSN archives. There is a small chance that it's well known in the Philippines, so I've messaged the Philippines project here WT:TAMBAY#Discussion at RSN on Peoplaid.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can see a discussion on my talk page (archived) related to the subject here, which also links the about us section, and also stating that the website is a blog, making it a little less reliable, reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on Geni, but Peoplaid seems to be a Wiki, so should fail WP:RS but sometimes I stumble upon the website checking for Filipino politicians for their past positions and it should be vwry accurate. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes no other sources state this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PeoPlaid has a Facebook page that started out as "Isko Moreno Fanpage" in 2020 before changing its name, if that's relevant in any way. It also looks like a blog? I can't find any other sites that use it as a reference other than Wiki pages (mostly politicians), and it's hard to verify where the info came from. Personally, I'd err towards not calling it RS. NyanThousand (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Peoplaid.com seems to be a blog, which falls under WP:UGC, failing WP:RS. While the contents it publishes provide information that other reliable sources do, Peoplaid's reputation or reliability as a whole is questionable. Their posts about certain individuals do not cite any sources that could prove that the information is reliable enough. Even their disclaimer page states that the reliability or accuracy of their content is not guaranteed. So yeah, as @Hariboneagle927 has said, if known reliable sources already provide that same information, then it is better to rely on them instead, especially if the information is about a person. AstrooKai │ Talk 21:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"https://peoplaid.com does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of our posts. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (https://peoplaid.com), is strictly at your own risk. https://peoplaid.com will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website."

— Peoplaid.com Disclaimer page

I do not feel confident about Peopleaid.com, the administrator/s of the website which follows a blog format even says so. Using Peopleaid.com is not prudent imo, its better to just use those "same other reliable source" than using Peoplaid.com itself. And we don't settle for Peoplaid.com in cases such information is solely mentioned in Peoplaid.comHariboneagle927 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably partially reliable though? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This generic legalese disclaimer means nothing—many reliable sources have something similar, it doesn’t convey any actual information about fact-checking or editorial policy or any other signifier of reliability. 12.188.91.199 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of ARD Documentary

I would like to seek input regarding the reliability of a 31-minute documentary produced by ARD (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland), a major public broadcaster in Germany.

The documentary is titled Dadvan Yousuf: Kryptomillionär mit 17 and was aired on Das Erste on December 21, 2022. It focuses on Dadvan Yousuf, a young cryptocurrency Investor, and his journey in the crypto world.

The ,,early life" section of the Article could be expanded with this documentary, as Yousuf and the German television team went together to Iraq. The Documentary is just in german available as I could not find any other languages. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've watched one ARD documentary on an article topic I was working on and it was excellent with regard to facts. ARD is a respected public broadcaster so their documentaries would, AFAIK, be just as reliable. Don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, ARD is a reliable WP:NEWSORG, as far as its news programming is concerned; it gets substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS (e.g., here is a France24 piece about a report the ARD and NYT worked on, and here's Reuters relying on ARD reporting for a story about cyber attacks). If a particular claim is (for example) only made by Yousuf and not by the ARD's reporters, and is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, or if it or other claims in a particular documentary are contradicted by other sources, it would be prudent to discuss that specifically; however, unexceptional statements about his early life made by the reporters/documentary can be expected to be generally reliable. -sche (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is "All That’s Interesting" a reliable source for Ron Wyatt

The link is [35]. They say they have tight editorial control.[36] It was removed and restored here:[37] Doug Weller talk 16:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable for what statement? Simply for the label "amateur archaeologist"? Sure, that's not especially controversial or out of line with other sources over the years, such as Biblical scholar James D. Tabor who calls Wyatt an amateur archaeologist, as does the Wilmington Town Crier which used the same label. UPI noted he was a "member of an archaeological expedition". The Orlando Sentinel article (likely from a news wire) called him an "American archaeologist". An AP article in Times-News called him an "archaeology buff". Popular Mechanics called him a biblical archaeologist. Christianity Today called him a "self-styled amateur archaeologist", and luckily one book even calls him a "pseudoarcheologist". In the realm of amateurs, the boundaries between labels like 'archaeologist', 'adventurer' 'explorer', 'researcher' etc. are often vague. Semantics over whether he was or wasn't technically an amateur archaeologist are rather secondary to his actual accomplishments and claims. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Animalparty I'm impressed by and grateful for your research. And a bit concerned by that Orlando Sentinel article and the Popular Mechanics one. But I was really only interested in that particular source. As an amateur archaeologist myself, at least in my younger days when I could dig, I agree that is a suitable label for him. Thanks. I may change the source. Tabor looks like a good one. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian (Nigeria)

I was reviewing a draft and was surpised to find this article by The Guardian (Nigeria) as a reference. It is very promotional, sometimes nonsensical, and most of it scores 100% on https://gptzero.me/. It is marked as generally reliable on WP:NPPSG but I found this discussion on RSN that seems to be based on the same issues. There is no indication of it being a paid/guest piece or anything out of the ordinary. I think further consideration needs to go into this source, especially if they are using AI to generate articles. C F A 💬 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

They are known to engage in undisclosed advertorials. People from other countries looking to promote something for someone have latched onto that. So if you see puff pieces that have nothing to do with Nigeria or normal news reporting that's the reason. They are a generally reliable source but this is how they pay the bills, so content from them should be scrutinised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Self published source by founder of Glen's Markets

I have the book International Leadership by Glen A. Catt, son of Glen's Markets founder Glen Catt and longtime employee of the chain. Although the book is self published, is it considered a reliable source for historical information on the Glen's chain? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Short answer 'yes?'. Long answer they aren't going to match the requirements of WP:SPS, but there's no doubt they would have intimate knowledge of the subject. I would be cautious of any exceptional claims due to the familial / employment connection. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say only for noncontroversial claims, and even then maybe only with attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Quick note for anyone investigating: Not International Leadership but Intentional Leadership. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be wary on verifiability grounds alone. Worldcat says two libraries have this book: the Otsego County Library (in Gaylord) and North Central Michigan College, a community college in Petoskey (next county over). That's probably not enough critical mass for interlibrary loan. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's also on Google Books, albeit only in snippet view. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is NPR a reliable source?

In 2014 a study was conducted to find the reliability of news organizations. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/which-news-organization-is-the-most-trusted-the-answer-is-complicated/

One of the things that stood out was NPR because it showed that not a lot of people have heard of NPR, only 53%, And only 55% of the people trust it.

0.53 x 0.55 = 0.2915

So, 29.15% of the total population trusts the news source.

This tells us that while just over half of the people are aware of the news source, only about 29% of the total population actually trusts it. The overall level of trust in the news source is therefore relatively low in the context of the entire population. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is not measured in general fame. 53% is in no way "not a lot of people". It is literally most people, and far more than most of the things we rely on as sources.... but again, that's irrelevant. And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public. And the study is not a study of the reliability of sources, it's of the trustedness -- which is different than trustworthy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What I meant that 53% of people know of it, I meant by 53% of all the people within the survey know it, the other news articles had at least 90% of people know them. Also, trustedness often stems from perceived trustworthiness. If something is deemed trustworthy, they are more likely to achieve a high degree of trustedness in the eyes of others. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk)

No, that section of the page is just showing select examples from the sources studied. If you look at the full list, you'll find 36 sources listed, with 15 being less famous than NPR. It ranked 12th among the total percentage of the poll respondents who specifically trusted it, beating such sources as the Washington Post and The Economist. And none of that matters, none of that is how we measure reliability. As you can see at our list of sources that have been brought repeatedly to this board, NPR has been repeatedly judged reliable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As Nat Gertler pointed out, Wikipedia does not evaluate sources based on how much trust the general public has in it, but on reliability as defined by Wikipedia itself.

NPR is also part of the perennial sources list since its reliability is often debated and currently reads:"There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution". Yvan Part (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the ranking that Nat Gertler said it got was also based on the general public too. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a ranking but part of Nat Gertler's first reply "And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public". Yvan Part (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying your statements were simultaneously inaccurate and irrelevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most people know their local NPR affialiate, in the pre-internet age thats who actually delivered the content and even today its who delivers the vast majority of it. This means that as far as the listener in Alabama is concerned they're listening to Alabama Public Radio and as far as the listener in Boston is concerned they're listening to Boston Public Radio but both may actually be consuming a NPR program. This has also already been pointed out but just about every inference you draw from that data is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As Nat says, reliability is not measured by a popularity contest.

A stupid example, The History Channel used to air somewhat(?) reliable black and white documentaries of various WW2 campaigns and such. Its viewership had been dwindling for years though.

To increase popularity, it started airing alien documentaries instead and becomes significantly more watched. It is arguably much less reliable now, however, even though it appeals to more folks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While it's correct that we not care about popularity, the example is IMO not particularly apt. It's easily possible people trust The History Channel less than they used to. Even if you are talking about absolute numbers and considering it likely more people know of an have an opinion on the trustworthiness of The History Channel, it's still easily possible less people trust it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people trust it. However as I said at the beginning, even if a lot of people trust a source, it doesn't mean it's reliable (and vice versa). Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is generally also made that the most reliable sources (high end scientific and medical journals) are almost entirely unknown outside of a specific circle of experts and practitioners. They have no public recognition and as a result they have no public trust (at least as Luke prefers to do the math) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just another editor chiming in to say this is in no way how we determine the usability or reliability of sources on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Mike Ashley

There is a discussion at Talk:Historicity of King Arthur#Additions from Mike Ashley whether Mike Ashley is a reliable source for the article. As editors do not agree I am bringing this to RSN. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

His work would in general be considered reliable, but it might not be in a given context (see WP:RSCONTEXT). You should look to the best quality sources on a subject. Ashley's book shouldn't be weighed the same as more academic works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this particular context, Ashley's work is pertinent and reputable. The article is on the Historicity of King Arthur and gives due credit to the skeptical perspective of most current specialized scholarship on Dark Age Britain (Dumville, Halsall, Higham). It nevertheless refers to other scholars' and authors' attempted identifications of a historical Arthur and has a section on "candidates" for him. Since the evidence does not allow a positive identification -- if it did, specialist scholars would not tend to deny his existence, such identifications remain inevitably hypothetical and subjective. If Ashley is considered a more popular author and less of a specialist, his work remains applicable especially to this section of the article. The work in question is A Brief History of King Arthur: The Man and the Legend Revealed, 2010, an updated extract (the first, historical section) from his earlier The Mammoth Book of King Arthur, 2005, which had included a discussion of the medieval literary sources beyond Geoffrey of Monmouth. Despite its title, the more recent work essentially accepted that there was no King Arthur of the kind popularized by Geoffrey of Monmouth; Ashley's disagreement with the likes of Dumville and Higham is that he is not ready to deny the possibility that the Historia Brittonum (829) could contain viable pieces of earlier information that can shed light on Dark Age Britain -- to wit, the list of twelve battles culminating at the victory of Badon. Dumville himself was somewhat ambivalent, denying the viability of the Historia Brittonum as a source on the 5th/6th century (being written in 829), while at the same time showing some readiness to consider this section of it (the battle list, chapter 56) the incorporation of an older battle poem, as had been proposed. Ultimately, it comes down to a negativist and positivist take on the scant available evidence, such as it is. If the article seeks to provide comprehensive and objective coverage, it ought to refer to both. Ashley works through the sources down to Geoffrey of Monmouth in great detail, and then considers the various interpretations offered by others, as well as discussing observations of his own -- all the while referring back to both the sources and the literature, specialist and more popular alike. In the process, he mulls over much that could have been safely left aside (particularly where the obvious fantasies of Geoffrey of Monmouth are concerned), but it is because in the end he seeks to identify possible historical prototypes that might have served as sources for the composite literary figure of Arthur -- in Geoffrey of Monmouth and perhaps already in earlier Welsh tradition and even the Historia Brittonum. He does this with greater patience and in greater detail than Higham, and also serves as a more comprehensive reference to the arguments of other scholars, as well as a basically fair critique on them. I think that the "candidates" section of the article can only benefit from the inclusion of the figures discussed in these publications (Ashley's and those of others, seemingly exhaustively referenced by him), for the benefit of the reader who might want to explore further. And the reader would already be informed that specialists today tend to be very skeptical, so the expansion of the list of candidates to something more comprehensive can hardly be considered irrelevant. StefThrax (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You arguing for the inclusion of content, which isn't an issue of reliability. Although all content must be verifiable not all verifiable information needs being included. Ashley's work is likely reliable but how that is weighed against other sources and what should or shouldn't be included in the article are issue of WP:NPOV, which are better discussed at the articles talk page. Sorry this bounces you back and forth but RSN isn't the right venue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)