Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288

Archive 285

Archive 286

Archive 287

Archive 288

Archive 289

Archive 290

→

Archive 295

Is New Scientist a reliable source for 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak?

As the title states. A search through the archives shows that New Scientist is indeed considered a reliable source. It seems to me that there should be no problem using New Scientist as a source for 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Given that this is a newsworthy event of international importance (and not, say, an article on coronavirus or any of the specific related illnesses per se), WP:MEDRS might not even be entirely relevant. Regardless, I think New Scientist is an appropriate source. Thoughts? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a reliable source in general, but like most popular magazines doing science vulgarization, it depends on what it's used for. If New Scientist makes a recommendation to do X, that really should fall well below the recommendations of the CDC or WHO. And rapidly evolving situations also means that information gets outdated quickly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this article that includes estimates of the fatality rate? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a nuanced article explaining the difficulties but not making absolutist claims. Depends how it is worded in the article. -- GreenC 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Good research applies: use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Imagine you were writing a speech for a public official on the virus outbreak. Would you use as a source an article by a reporter with no particular expertise on the subject or would you use the World Health Organization or similar sources? You haven't said what text you plan to add, which always affects rs. While MEDRS doesn't cover everything in the article, you need to ensure that it does not apply here. Commentary on the reliability of reported statistics certainly should only be sourced to an expert. TFD (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Web resources

Are the following websites can be used as a reliable sources?

https://canadianautodealer.ca http://www.canadianautoworld.ca https://www.prnewswire.com https://www.genequityco.com https://www.crunchbase.com https://rocketreach.co/ http://theontariodealer.com/ https://www.autosuccessonline.com/ https://www.wardsauto.com/ https://www.crunchbase.com https://www.capterra.com https://paulgillrie.com/ https://calgaryherald.com/

Thank you!Nice0903 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

As instructed at the top of the page, this noticeboard is for obtaining input on the reliability of sources in context. We cannot give up an absolute up-or-down answer just based on a list of URLs in isolation. It depends on what you want to cite these for. Crunchbase has been formally deprecated, so it not really be used except in extremely limited circumstances. PR Wire is just a collection of republished press releases, so it cannot be used except for WP:ABOUTSELF content. Most of the others seem like commercial websites and thus generally should not be used. The Ontario Dealer is a publication of an industry group (the Used Car Dealer's Association of Ontario), and doesn't seem particularly good except in limited circumstances where the trade press might be cited (i.e., WP:ABOUTSELF or noncontroversial content within the area of expertise, like number of used car dealerships in Ontario or something). Again, depends on context. Neutrality^talk 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS problems at Spermarche

This concerns [1] and [2].

The first diff declared that the Planned Parenthood website (under "Ask the expert") would be unreliable. I did not revert because I am not completely sure that Planned Parenthood would be WP:RS. Do notice that I had stated it in compliance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The second diff has restored in the voice of Wikipedia medical claims based solely upon WP:PRIMARY sources. As far as I know, WP:MEDRS does not allow us to proclaim medical facts having only primary studies to rely upon. So the claim From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases. is bogus. Who analyzed those primary studies? Wikipedia editors did and they are not allowed to do it.

I had initiated a discussion at Talk:Spermarche#Planned Parenthood, but I did not receive any input, be it thumbs up or thumbs down. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. As you quoted, we can't use only primary studies. Those here are corrobored by others secondary sources, and they don't contradict each others. What's the problem?--Aréat (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: The bogus claim From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases. is WP:Verified to primary source 1 and primary source 2. And you have even dared to state it as a medical fact in the voice of Wikipedia, despite being told that it is a WP:MEDRS violation. The problem is that we (the Wikipedia community) do not trust you to analyze primary medical sources. You have not been singled out for special treatment: we trust no Wikipedia editor to do that. And no, they are not being corroborated: according to 1986 Year Book of Pediatrics more than two thirds of boys reached spermarche at the age of 13. So "between 13 and 15 years of age" means slower development than the WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources say. It means being among the 30% slowest developing boys. And you should mind that that's a figure from 35 years ago, as it appears that the age of spermarche decreased meanwhile due to overabundance of food. As the saying goes, Cite reviews, don't write them. Moshang, Oski and Stockman are allowed to analyze WP:PRIMARY sources, you aren't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a difficult one. From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases is not a conclusion lifted from a cited source. It is a conclusion an editor made after reading the cited sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory

Editing the new Jessie Kerr Lawson, I noticed this [3] ref, which I haven't come across before. It has plenty of info for the article, but I'm unsure how we should look at it, so I'd like opinions. Per aboutpage etc [4][5], is it generally reliable, use with caution, wiki-like and EL at best, WP:N-good or what? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Scope of WP:MEDRS

Lately I have been involved in a dispute concerning the scope of WP:MEDRS and the applicability of WP:OR when sources are cited. Case in point is the article blond, where MEDRS was cited as a reason to remove information based on a cite from The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature and about the appearance of the gene for blond hair in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, but User:Hunan201p has been removing information from a large number of articles on similar grounds, often citing WP:OR, when actual sources are cited. I have had a conversation with the user on their TP, in which User:Flyer22 Frozen took the same view as the user in question, but did not answer my objections. The question thus is, is MEDRS applicable to studies concerning ethnic origins, appearance of genes fro blond hair in Mesolithic hunter gatherers. Am I misunderstanding WP:biomedical information or is it being construed overly broad? Some other articles recently affected are:

• Yakuts, [6]
• Dongxiangs, [7]
• Uzbeks, [8]
• Chuvash people, [9]

These are just recent examples. The users edit history contains many more examples. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In instances in which I have pulled statements from pages based on WP:OR, as in Uzbeks, it is because there was noting in the paper that supported the statement on Wikipedia. That's original research. So when someone (in this case, a known sockpupoeteer) adds a statement to an article about "linguistic assimilation", but the study cited contains no content about assimilation or even the word "assimilation", that's original research. I have tried to inform this Kleuske guy that WP:SCIRS makes clear that genetic studies about phenotypes (intelligence, hair color) have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS guidelines. If he keeps restoring WP:OR and primary research papers as he's been doing, he should definitely be blocked because he's already been warned. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy. I do hope you understand the difference between an essay and a policy. Besides the word “phenotype” does not appear in SCIRS, that’s in WP:biomedical information. Also paraphrasing sources can result in particular words not appearing in the source, without it being OR. As a rule of thumb, if reputable sources are cited, it is not OR. To top it off, you’ve made it exceedingly clear you understand very little about Wikipedia policy, which is why I do not take your word for it, but sought third party advice. Kleuske (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS contains the word "phenotype". You're either confused or you're not reading what I'm posting for you. So pay attention: click this link to go to WP:SCIRS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

Now hit ctrl+F and type "pheno". It will take you to this quote:

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

It's as plain as day for all to see. And by the way, WP:SCIRS reflects consensus. The consensus is that race, anatomy and genetic articles have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: @Flyer22 Frozen:: Would like to inform you both of this user's activity here. Now seems like the time to get a more specific statement over at WP:MEDRS since some people apparenly believe that genetic studies on ancestry or phenotype aren't biomedical information. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For a number of reasons statements like this need to be held approximately to MEDRS standards. This particular book is not a reliable secondary scientific analysis of human genetics. Of course, primary sources are also generally not useful here because any study may have all variety of flaws or limitations interpretation, so we can't simply find a primary source through a secondary source of this quality either. Whether or not you want to see this as specifically MEDRS-related, or SCIRS as Hunan201p points out, we simply cannot be using popular science books (from 25 years ago no less) for statements of fact on human population genetics or anything related to that. There are potentially multiple scientific fields that one might draw from on this topic, but it is clearly one that demands the highest quality and most current information. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of U.S. Board on Geographic Names

This AfD calls into question the reliability of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (GNIS), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. At Parks Place, Mississippi, the text "Parks Place is a ghost town in Issaquena County, Mississippi, United States" is supported by this source. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that such sources are RS for both a place being real and notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A comment at the AFD has pointed out they do not only include town names, this makes it harder. Based on that I am changing to not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Junction Windmill, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Place, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrowhead Junction, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cream Can Junction, Idaho, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Point, Indiana, wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Joseph Youth Camp, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natures Bathing Pool, Kentucky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Dick Crossing, Washington etc. etc. etc. all over the country. Besides GNIS's unreliability in its place classifications (and that it's no longer updated since 2014), you cannot jump from "Class: Populated place" to "community" or "(historical)" to "ghost town", and you cannot assume anything in it is automatically notable merely for being listed in the database. GNIS can be useful for matching names (and alternate names) to coordinates and the elevation there, with a primary source to their own data references like topo maps, but it should not be used as a basis for an article. WP:Significant coverage is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources for putting into disuse an image

Hello, I need some help in a dispute which involves an undesired file used in the article Samuel Fritz.

The person who runs this article states that I have to provide "reliable sources" in order to delete an undesired fantasy portrait of the person described in the article. The file in question is an unhistorical and inaccurate illustration work of no encyclopedic value. For details see ongoing debate on my talk page. The same issue also involves the use of the same image in the article Cambeba.

In my understanding, the claims do not make sense. It is User:Cmacauley who wants to have this content to be in the article(s), so he has to prove its reliability. There is no way to do so, because the portrait was made in the thirtieth of the 20th century (see description page of the file), 200 years after Samuel Fritz's death, and there is no reliable source nor any hint that it is based on contemporaneous pictorial documents from the 18th century. If the user wants to save that image, it would be his turn to prove that it is not a fantasy portrait (which is a virtually impossible thing to do). It is not me to give reliable sources for deleting the undesired image.

Since I am not very familiar with Rules and Regulations on English Wikipedia (I am a user from another language version), I need help to get @Cmacauley understand that and refrain from blocking our conversation with unreasonable claims. Thank you.--Jordi (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not need an RS to remove an image, or anything. You cannot prove a negative.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information.--Jordi (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven is right (for unverifiable content). The verifiability policy states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:BURDEN). — Newslinger talk 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The image in question is sourced to some blog (not available now and certainly not a reliable source), so it is the other editor, who should provide reliable source for disputed content. Note later depiction not based on reality is not a problem in general, many articles about historical figures use works of art created centuries after the death of their subject. Pavlor (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first burden of proof is to demonstrate that the image is in the public domain or freely licensed. If we have literally no remotely reliable source whatsoever for the image, we can't very well do that. Though things may work out somewhat differently for own works, this is not one of those cases. GMG^talk 16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is no problem to use works of art even created long after the death of their subject. Then you can usually say in the image subtext Painting by XY (1Zth century), showing King Alfred XX in his golden robe, or sth like that. But in this case it is not a work of art but a photorealistic illustration (drawing or painting) without any author or context given, showing a human face with a white beard, and affirming that this is Samuel Fritz. The reader does not realize that it is just a fantasy portrait, as he would in the former case. The other problem, of course, is the lack of proof for public domain status, which is more a problem to be resolved on Commons, I think.--Jordi (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The image in question is from a portrait painted by a Peruvian artist, which is displayed at the Charles University in Prague. According to at least two sources, neither of them blogs, the portrait was "made based on the descriptions of his contemporaries." (See [10] and [11].) It is therefore not merely a fantasy, but just as valid a representation as a portrait of any historical figure not drawn from life. FWIW, the original illustration from which the Commons version was derived, contains this caption: "Imagen construida de Samuel Fritz en base de las descripciones de sus rasgos físicos hechos por los misionarios jesuitas que trabajaron con él." (Image constructed of Samuel Fritz based on descriptions of his physical features made by those Jesuit missionaries who worked with him.) So, not a "fantasy." Cmacauley (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say the image is fine, but it should be tagged as an "artists interpretation based upon descriptions of contemporaries" or similar to make it clear that it's only a theoretical. This is no different to presenting a statue, or other graphical depiction of many pre-photographi c historical figures. Koncorde (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @Cmacauley, at last you have delivered at least something. I myself also found the bookpage with the image in the 2nd. edition of the author's book published in 2015, page 21. I have added the source to the file description on Commons. Of course, I agree with @Koncorde: If the image is used, it should be described in the same way as in the book (as a reconstructed modern portrait). On the other hand, we still have the problem of copyright and license. There is no date given, the artist's signature says "o5", which I guess can be for the year 2005. The original description said "before 1935", so perhaps it is not "o5" but "35"? Also, it is not very clear who the artist is. Is the "López" who made the drawing the same Aristóteles Álvarez López who published the book? Or is it his mother (the signature looks like "Eva López")? And when did she draw it? Of course, the image is not in the public domain as originally stated.--Jordi (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

N.B.: Now, I have identified the artist, it is indeed Eva López Miranda, a photorealistic paintress who works as an aquarell painting teacher at the National School of Fine Arts of Lima, Peru.[12][13] The signature is identical, and also her style is recognizable, especially here. I don't know when she was born, but she is obviously not so old to have done this painting "before 1935" (she was present at the exhibition in 2012, about 40 years old, and she is described as "one of the leading artists of a generation that emerged in the wake of the post terrorism years", see [14]). I think the image is from 2003 or 2005.--Jordi (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The picture is an obvious copyright violation, so there's no way we can use it here. Also, it's utterly without encyclopedic information value. See WP:PORTRAIT – though that's just my personal opinion on this type of issue. This is the textbook case of an image we should not use, even if we could (and we can't). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Business Journals / bizjournals.com

American City Business Journals publishes 40 print business journals in the USA with titles such as Birmingham Business Journal and Boston Business Journal under the bizjournals.com domain. Some of these have won independent press awards for example Birmingham Business Journal won awards from the Alabama Press Association the official state press association.

They do native advertising, in fact advertise they do native advertising. This can be a reason to not use it as a reliable source. However, the company confirmed they only started doing some native advertising in 2016, and only when it is flagged "[sponsored content]".

Quote: "We label all native as “sponsored content” – the preferred FTC labelling. We take one of the more conservative approaches in the industry with very clear, prominent and transparent labelling." -- Source

Given this I believe it to be a reliable source, except when there is native advertising flag. The existence of some native advertising, clearly marked and disclosed, should not eliminate 40 award-winning print journals with decades of history at least since 1980. The domain is used in over 10,000 articles (can't count beyond that without trouble due to API limits). -- GreenC 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenC, is there a discussion where the reliability of Business Journals is disputed? I've long considered Business Journals to be reliable, and have routinely used it as a source. feminist (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

feminist Not really. Someone in another discussion said it was unreliable because of native advertising and pointed to RSN as the justification. I couldn't find anything definitive at RSN and so made this post to clarify the situation, in case of future searches of RSN for this domain, since the quote above is key to understanding the situation. I felt it was important to make this post since the domain is widely used on WP and their use of native advertising is somewhat new as of 4 years ago. -- GreenC 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Reliable in my view as the native ad pieces are clearly marked, even the Guardian has some paid for pieces (which are also clearly marked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable - Bizjournals is likely well-known to most WP:NPR and WP:AFC participants as it (for pay) churns out press releases and propagates native advertising for companies, but I have not seen anything indicating the information published by Business Journals is unreliable. The reason I would consider the source generally reliable is that there are some occasions where the site - acting in its role as a paid service - will publish WP:PRIMARY information which should be viewed with caution. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Youth Ki Awaaz

Youth Ki Awaaz is being used as a source in a handful of articles (73 articles) over here at the English Wikipedia. Youth Ki Awaaz is a user-generated crowd funded platform (with internal checks) in India and I wondered if it was reliable enough to be used extensively over here during referencing in the future. DTM (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• No.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• While it does have Community Guidelines, the content is not generated by trained journalists, but by independent users. I am not sure how much content is verified? I would say it is unreliable. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Youth Ki Awaaz is a community-based thought sharing platform/website. The guidelines describe it YKA is a people’s platform. That means thousands use it daily to share their thoughts and opinions[...]. Opinionated articles are published by anyone without any verification on this platform. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously unreliable per WP:UGC. buidhe 19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable per others. Glades12 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable platform has very much poor editorial standards, it allows user generated content which are enough not to pass WP:RS. I have changed indent to bullet. -- Brihaspati (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Aggregate polling vis-a-vis individual polls

I have a proposal for a change to Wikipedia policy / guidelines (maybe a change to Manual of Style guidelines or Reliable Source guidelines). I want to propose something along the lines of: "When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls". I've noticed that the tendency of some editors to use individual polls when aggregate polls exist creates unnecessary headaches, edit-warring and tendentious editing. The big issue is that editors may cherry-pick (whether intentionally or not) individual polls that are consistent with a particular narrative even though these polls are inconsistent with other polling. I've seen this in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as in various individual congressional races over the same period. There is no upside to using an individual poll when there is aggregate polling on the exact same issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly, in non-list articles, aggregate polls should be favored over one-off polls. This is for the same reason we generally favor meta-analyses over individual studies for medical content — it reduces the risk of citing outliers. Citing aggregate polls also avoids the "house effect" of individual polling companies. And it's more consistent with an encyclopedic summary style. Neutrality^talk 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Any type of polls can be included if they are from reliable sources.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• A month ago, you appeared to express support for creating a policy change (rather than implementation of this on a single article), so that this commonsensical proposal would get accepted across Wikipedia articles.[15] Now, you appear to insist that no policy change is necessary. Why the change of heart? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• As for the substance of your comment, no one is claiming that an individual poll is necessarily unreliable. The argument is that aggregate polling will not only be more reliable and have greater long-term encyclopedic value, but it avoids cherry-picking of polls, debates about which polls to include/exclude and tendentious editing. This is not rocket science: let's say there have been 20 polls that measure support for Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary (a page you've edited a lot on)... which of those 20 polls should we use (because it's certainly not feasible to cover them all)? Someone who wants to portray Bernie as unpopular might pick his two worst polls whereas a supporter may pick his two best polls. Why isn't the commonsensical solution to use aggregate polling, and thus take the discretion from individual editors and reduce edit-warring and pointless bickering? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have two policies that should suffice: Due and undue weight and RS. Specifically, we should emphasize the polls that mainstream media deem most important, which could include aggregate polling, and ignore polls that are considered outliers or insignificant. Unfortunately, any set of rules is only as good as the editors applying them. If editors come with the motivation to make Sanders look good or bad, then they'll find excuses for whatever they do. Even worse, the existence of multiple rules confuses editors and allows tendentious editors to find loopholes. There's no reason to think that aggregate polls are more reliable. There are competing aggregates and they can be skewed by including outliers. Also, they cover polls over a period of time. So for example they could include polls taken both before and after candidates dropped out. Polls for Supertuesday for example showed Biden doing much better once Pete and Klobuchar dropped out, hence aggregate polls would be misleading. TFD (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No, those two policies clearly do not suffice. In the same way that the RS guidance has to spell out to editors that academic sources are usually preferable over non-academic sources, we need to clearly spell out that aggregate polling is usually better than individual polls. As for your arguments against aggregate polling, it's absolutely mind-numbing to read them (and astonishing that someone could actually hold these views): (i) Aggregate polling is skewed because they include outlier polls? Yes, that's the point of aggregate polling: all reliable polling is included, and the aggregate includes the outliers, as well as the polls that are not outliers. How is it better that editors have discretion to pick random individual polls, including the outlier polls (which POV editors are far more likely to do)? (ii) I see absolutely zero confusion in recommending that editors use aggregate polling from a RS in a situation where such polling is available. What loopholes are editors going to find in that? It sets a clear guideline that takes discretion away from tendentious editors. (iii) Regarding your last comment: There is nothing that's more misleading about using aggregate polling than individual polling in that situation. If anything, aggregate polling provides greater clarity in who is included in polling over time than randomly picking individual polls over time periods. Anyone looking at the 538 national polling visualizer for the democratic primary can clearly see that Biden spikes in polling just as Buttigieg and Klobuchar leave the race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The encyclopedic value of any poll is individual notability for inclusion in an article about polling itself, and how far/close they were to accuracy once the elections are over. They have -0- lasting value beyond the latter. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Rolling Out

I'd like some opinions on Rolling Out as it's the single argument for a BLP's notability. Doesn't really have readily available staff/publisher info but it appears to be run by this guy, who appears in turn to own Rolling Out as basically a one-man show (the Steed Media Group website is down.) Feels bloggy, and I can't find examples of major mentions by clearly reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really an RS issue so much as notability. But I doubt this is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like an RS and even if it were I'd say it does not establish notability, because it's basically full of hype. Guy (help!) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

YouTube video and COVID-19

Requesting comment (or editing) on whether a YouTube video is a reliable source as claimed here for what appears to be an unverified (or bogus) COVID-19 cure at Deschampsia cespitosa and Calamagrostis epigejos. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming its a verified account it is reliable for the claim "this TV station has claimed...", and that is about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; another editor has resolved it per WP:MEDRS. Doremo (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question Can we make an FAQ that people are requested to read before posting here, and have the first one be that "YouTube" is not a publisher but rather a medium, and therefore a "YouTube video" is no more or less reliable than any other source, depending on who the actual publisher (channel owner) and the content being attributed to it? It's obvious from the OP's wording that they consider "a YouTube video" to be some statement on the reliability of the source, and this kind of claim comes up over and over and over again, even when the actual source is, for example, a video lecture published by Yale University. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Add Current Pain and Headache Reports to the citewatch

Because of this https://pubpeer.com/publications/87D82A8CA1C4CB9B74A0C1B111AC4F# and of the fact after exchanging with Springer editorial board, nothing happened not even an answer from the authors... Walidou47 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

We'll need more than a blog post by a "Blechnum Maximum" and a single complaint to add that journal, especially if it's just an brainfart from people who interpreted the sentence to mean "other NSAIDs tend to be...". Like other sources often do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Muflihun.com

I see that muflihun.com is used in our Wikipedia articles for Islamic material. Recently, I saw Koreangauteng add a muflihun.com source. But it doesn't seem that muflihun.com passes our WP:Reliable sources guideline.

Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Muflihun.com describes its editorial processes.[16] Muflihun.com is cited within Wikipedia.[17] Koreangauteng (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the hadith in question[18]. It (and similar) are available from other sources. It is not the ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʻīf of any given hadith. It is the reliability of the source which publishes it. I appreciate the matter is sensitive but WP:NOTCENSORED Koreangauteng (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I already noted that it's cited within Wikipedia. That it's cited within Wikipedia doesn't make it a WP:Reliable source. And why cite this website instead of a reputable media source or academic source? This isn't about WP:NOTCENSORED. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this source, but being cited in Wikipedia is an indication of absolutely nothing. Bad sources are used all the time on Wikipedia. But if it's bad and cited, what that means is that it should be removed, not cited more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I pointed editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources here for more opinions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is Sunnah.com a WP:Reliable source [19] ? Koreangauteng (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, either one. Muflihun's About page shows that it is someone's personal website and thus fails WP:SPS. It is also sectarian (i.e. promotes a particular POV within Islam). Sunnah.com is of anonymous origin and so is also unreliable. Note, though, that much of Muflihun.com and nearly all of Sunnah.com appear to just be the text of Islamic hadith or other religious texts. Many of the pre-existing cites to these sites are probably citing hadith (and note: I agree that pre-existing cites on Wikipedia count for absolutely nothing in terms of reliability). Might it be okay to cite these websites to cite hadith? No, they are not trustworthy, and we should not be citing hadith anyway per WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:PRIMARY. It helps to analogize it to Christianity, with which many of us are more familiar. Would it be proper for an article explaining the Christian viewpoint on marriage to just cite the Bible, or, say, Catholic saints that Protestants don't view as authoritative? No, because these sources have varying interpretations and/or are viewed as authoritative by only some parts of Christianity. For an editor to interpret scripture is original research. To cite a figure viewed as authoritarive by only some Christians and treat his POV as "the" Christian POV constitutes religious evangelism. The same hazard exists when covering Islam. As always, we avoid this by sticking to sources that meet WP:RS and WP:PSTS, especially academic sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bouhdiba

• Is Sexuality in Islam by Abdelwahab Bouhdiba [20], a Reliable Source? > page 76 > "Whenever one sleeps with a houri . . one finds her a virgin. Indeed the penis of the Chosen One never slackens. The erection is eternal. To each coitus corresponds a pleasure, a delicious sensation, so incredible in this vile world that if one experienced it one would faint." Koreangauteng (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You're not helping your case by starting to quote out of context: what you quote above, is from the author quoting another author (properly indicated by Bouhdiba, but not by yourself in your misquote above). See [21], 2nd paragraph. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is at first glance an RS on the words of (I'm guessing) Al-Suyuti (15th century). That may or may not have a place in an article somewhere. Context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Al-Suyuti

• Is the The Strong Delusion: Invasion of an Otherworldly Islam [22] quoting Al-Suyuti a RS, for content within Sexual intercourse#Ethical, religious, and legal views  ? Koreangauteng (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Short answer: no. The author's field of expertise seems to be extraterrestrials, which would mean you'd have to take this to WP:FTN to see whether the author passes the WP:FRINGE criteria (short answer: quite unlikely), and even if that works out it seems very unlikely that one would take an author writing outside his field of expertise as a source, while there are appropriate & reliable sources written within the field of expertise matching the one likely acceptable for the "Sexual intercourse" article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition to that, iUniverse is a self-publishing company. Anyone can write a book and publish it there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Two points

1. 2020 society and Islam

Irrespective of the commentator's "Islamic" notability and / or qualifications, material relating to 2020 society and Islam (if it is thought to be controversial) is rejected for variations on these reasons [23] Point 3. On the other hand, material deemed to be supportive of Islam is . . .

2. The proposal

It is proposed to cite 'Abdelwahab Bouhdiba' in Sexuality in Islam [24] page 76, quoting Al-Suyuti, published by Routledge within the Wiki article.[25] Koreangauteng (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen I take it that there is no disagreement with the above proposal. Koreangauteng (talk)

The Islam related discussion in the section seems to be of a general nature so discussing the specific views of of a single scholar in the section seems out of context and rather discordant. Perhaps the article could say something along the lines of "Some/or Scholar X,Y have provided vivid, imaginative descriptions of sexual intercourse in paradise (cite)", then again the section is supposed to be about Islam and Sexual intercourse, not Islam and Sexual intercourse in the afterlife. Thoughts by other editors?119.155.38.8 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

HaeB Could I ask IP editor 119.155.38.8 | 119.155.40.215 | 119.155.50.185 | 119.155.36.215 | 39.37.152.160 | 39.37.166.23 | 39.37.128.82 from Lahore Pakistan, who follows me around, to please create and use a Wikipedia account. WP:ACCOUNT [26] Koreangauteng (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Offtopic, but I only started reviewing your edits (they are only a click away), after you permitted for them to be tracked, (point 12 of your recommendations). The frequent IP changes are annoying to me as well. I am not sure why this happens. Other IP users have stable addresses for months. Will take note of your recommendation. Regards119.155.21.118 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Koreangauteng, what text are you proposing to add? The proposed source doesn't seem necessary. On a side note: No need to ping me. I've been checking back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is proposed to include the following sentence within Sexual intercourse#Religious views > Islam:

Academic, sociologist and Islamologist, Abdelwahab Bouhdiba writing in Sexuality in Islam, citing Islamic scholar Al-Suyuti, refers to the pleasure of sleeping with virgin houris in paradise.

Koreangauteng (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are proposing this or why it's important to include. So I oppose. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is Sexual intercourse#Religious views > Islam. The proposed content is Sexual intercourse#Religious views > Islam. The proposed content cites, Sexuality in Islam. The proposed content meets the requirements of WP:CONPOL.

Flyer, why do you oppose its inclusion? Koreangauteng (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Koreangauteng, I know where you are proposing to add the content. So do others. You don't need to point to it. You seem to making the argument that the proposed text should be added because it's verifiable. That is not so. WP:ONUS states, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." An IP (above) already made a solid argument against including the material. And I questioned the necessity of the proposed text. You have not made a convincing argument for including the material, such as why it's important to include/how it improves the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than, "An IP (above) already made a solid argument against including the material". The IP words (above) included, "Perhaps the article could say something along the lines of "Some/or Scholar X,Y have provided vivid, imaginative descriptions of sexual intercourse in paradise (cite)"". Flyer, you did not answer my question, "why do you oppose its inclusion?" I will await a Consensus. Koreangauteng (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I did answer your question. I was very clear that I do not see why it's important to include/how it improves that article. I was clear that not every verifiable thing should be included. I clearly stated, "You have not made a convincing argument for including the material, such as why it's important to include/how it improves the article." You are proposing to include material simply because it's verifiable. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This just seems like such a random, arbitrary thing to want to include. So this one academic quotes this one ancient scholar about houris in heaven. I don't see a wider significance. Is it to show that (some) Muslims believe in sex in heaven? I recall hearing that this stuff about houris is disputed in Islam. In any case, your proposal doesn't say anything about Islam generally, so I don't see the point. Also, note that you should never cite a Wikipedia page as a source, as you did in your proposal, per WP:UGC. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and continuing with my comparison with Christianity above, it's like randomly wanting the article to refer to, say, Song of Solomon 7:7, 8: "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The uncompromising, "I-do-not-see-why-it's-important-to-include-/-how-it-improves-that-article", form of Wikipedia editing by-decree

"if you battle over every point and refuse to concede anything, you hurt Wikipedia in many ways". [27] Koreangauteng (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There was no need for you to create this subsection. I do not battle over every point and refuse to concede anything. As for this particular case? If I am battling over this minor point, so are you. Let it go and move on. As is clear by WP:ONUS, acting like every verifiable thing should be in a Wikipedia article harms Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for an indiscriminate amount of information. If you can't make a case for why content should be included beyond "its verifiable", then expect WP:ONUS to be cited to you more often. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

playdb.co.kr

The Korean site https://playdb.co.kr appears to be a site listing stage acting credits (at least), based on a conversation at Talk:Han Ji-sang#Credits. Perhaps a Korean-speaking editor could evaluate whether it should be considered a reliable source? My concern is that it may be another user-contributed site like IMDB. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Please explain to me, why I am not allowed to use Wikileaks as a reference. On Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks Newslinger linked to a discussion about a Jehovas Witnesses letter that was not published on Wikileaks. How does that prove anything? If Wikileaks is not a reliable source, there must be some erroneous document on their website. Please either provide that, or let me use Wikileaks in a reference. Thank you. --Raphael1 21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing the mislisted discussion to my attention. I removed it from WP:RSP § WikiLeaks at 21:38, and struck my comment which mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses letter at 21:36. Please refer to "Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors for being inadequately authenticated.

  Your attempted edit to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface article (logged at Special:AbuseLog/26184477) needs to be supplemented with a reliable secondary source, since the claim is contentious and WikiLeaks is a primary source. A blog post from Purism, which you cited in Special:Diff/944416302, is self-published and not considered reliable. — Newslinger talk 22:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks does not edit (as far as I know) or even check veracity, it just publishes what is handed to it. We are not even sure much of what it publishes is genuine.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wikileaks does no fact-checking. Therefore, they don't count as publishing for WP:V / WP:RS purposes, which requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if we did count that, they would still clearly be a WP:PRIMARY source (although I don't feel they can be cited in even that way - even a usable primary source has to do basic fact-checking.) Remember that anything noteworthy there will be cited elsewhere, and we can just use that secondary source instead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks does indeed authenticate all documents it publishes and has never been proven wrong. Wikileaks does not claim, that all documents it publishes only contain factual correct statements, but they do check, that the documents are genuine and come from its respective authors. I.e. the discussion here refers to a document put together by the pilots union. Wikileaks doesn't claim that the list is correct, in fact it even states, that it "may contain inaccuracies". So yes, Wikileaks should be classified as a reliable source for WP:PRIMARY sources. --Raphael1 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Raphael1, authenticating is not the same as fact-checking. Pretty much by definition, anything that ends up at Wikileaks got there because someone has an axe to grind. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The motives of Wikileaks sources are irrelevant. It is a fact, that Wikileaks has never been caught publishing faked documents. And that is all that should matter to an online encyclopedia, that tries to publish true information. —Raphael1 21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

​Responding to "tries to publish true information", you may find Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to be a useful read. — Newslinger talk 17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Only source Wikileaks if the information you are citing from them has been confirmed. Otherwise, not appropriate. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. Wikileaks does not usually provide much commentary on the documents it publishes. On notable occasions it has partnered with media organisations to publish documents and under this arrangement the commentary is provided by journalists from the other organisations. Wikileaks has created tools that allow researchers to use the Wikileaks databases more easily. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However there will be occasions where it is useful to link to the original document in the Wikileaks database and, as pointed out by an editor below, there is a template for this, at least for the cables release. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Burrobert, given your inexperience of Wikipedia';s sourcing policies, I am not surprised to see you make this error. They may well check the person who submits the documents, but they do not check for selective release, and in some cases forgeries have got past them so they don't seem to check for that either. It's basically self-publishing by anonymous people. Guy (help!) 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  It is good practice when making claims to provide a supporting reference. Do you have a link to a forged document published by Wikileaks? How you know what Wikileak's does regarding whatever you mean by "selective release"? Do you have an inside source? Burrobert (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Re the claim that Wikileaks has never been proven wrong, there is another WL-related discussion further down the page where this article was cited, which includes clear instances of WL publishing fake documents. It also often includes misleading and inaccurate summaries of its documents. I agree that it should be treated with caution as a primary source and not be used without independent verification of its content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself but, since the Wired article has been mentioned, here is my comment from the section below:

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

Burrobert (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section

Skwawkbox is currently in the unreliable section. The site is fully and independently regulated by the UK's only Press Recognition Panel-recognised regulator, IMPRESS, with a published and binding complaints procedure. It is also fully green-lit by Newsguard, including for transparency, credibility, differentiation of fact and opinion and for factual accuracy and sourcing.

It has got some things wrong, like any news outlet. It has published corrections where appropriate and it follows IMPRESS rulings where complaints are upheld. But it has a far longer track record of exclusives and information that later prove to be accurate and which have often been used by so-called "reliable" publications.

It has a completely transparent political-editorial position and in that it is no different from any of the UK's supposedly mainstream press, most of which follow a right-wing line versus the left-wing of the Skwawkbox.

But that has nothing to do with reliability, nor does the "self-published" barb some use, as this is negated by its IMPRESS regulation. Just because some disagree with it politically or dislike the news it breaks should not allow a 'consensus' to put it in an "unreliable" section with a list of publications that can claim none of what it described above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.134.69 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Why would we want to base any content on a left-wing news blog? That's what it is, after all. Guy (help!) 11:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually no, being under IMPRESS regulation does not negate SPS concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. As mentioned in the 2019 discussion, The Skwawkbox is a single non-expert person's blog, which makes it a self-published source. Third-party regulators and browser extensions might not take whether a website is self-published into account, but Wikipedia's verifiability policy does, and that's why we generally shouldn't use this site. — Newslinger talk 21:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't see what left- or right-wing has to do with reliability, 'Guy', or is Wikipedia a right-wing organisation now? Of course regulation is relevant, Slatersteven. If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of an article, they have a means to do so via an independent adjudicator who issues binding decisions. It's nonsense. Ultimately any news publication is published by "non-expert" people, the accuracy of the published material depends on the qualifications of sources and contributors and the Skwawkbox has a record of very good sources and demonstrable accuracy in its fields of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.134.69 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes but not self published. The point is he writes and edits it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am notoriously right-wing. Guy (help!) 17:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The Sun on BLPs

The Sun is deprecated anyway, but it's especially a problem on BLPs. Please see discussion I started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general) - how to filter this, and technical details of how to hamper its use on articles and especially on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem, AFAIK this link reports citations to The Sun on all BLPs (or at least all articles in the category "Living People") and there are zero hits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

That a category, not all articles that fall under BLP (such as articles about clubs) may be on it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think insource: is needed to search for text in citations. This search returns just 3 citations in BLPs, which is also pretty good. There are only 23 articles (including BLPs and non-BLPs) that still cite The Sun or its regional variants. — Newslinger talk 14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Sun (yet again)

Moved from WP:BLPN#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general)

David, per the RfC: Furthermore, this closure does neither permit a blacklisting nor a wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion.. What kinds of discretion are you using? I notice that today you deleted 5 Sun cites in 5 articles in less than 2 minutes; or 15 cites in 15 articles in 7 minutes. All replaced with {{cn}}. Nevertheless, many of these cites could be easily replaced by other sources (example). My concern is about leaving smoking craters in our zeal to eliminate an undesirable source (generally) even when that source is making claims that can supported in other reliable sources. -- GreenC 15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it isn't David's responsibility to search for sources; the burden lies with the person wishing to add the new source to find it. David has done nothing wrong. --Jayron32 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I remove Sun references one at a time, in accordance with policy (WP:V, WP:BURDEN), strongly accepted guidelines included in policy by reference (WP:RS) and strong general consensus (WP:THESUN).

1. WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
2. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. The deprecation RFC for the Sun says: the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
4. WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Thus: removing links to the Sun is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

Deprecated sources are completely unacceptable for articles on living people, obviously, except in extremely narrow circumstances. (That we still have so many Daily Mail links on BLPs is a disgrace, although I'm slowly going through those too. Help is most earnestly welcomed.)

I hope this adequately answers GreenC's well-meaning defenses of The Sun. Further discussion of how to treat The Sun should probably go to WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Answering here because I probably won't say any more, The Sun links are now all gone at the hands of one determined editor for better or worse. WP:THESUN RfC is nuanced, it is deprecating not blacklisting. These terms concern two possible types of actions when a source has been found generally unreliable. With blacklisting actions we add a block filter and remove the links on-sight is usually acceptable. Deprecation is a softer approach, we add warning filters, and remove links only with discretion. You said you made discretion because links were removed "one at a time" (so do bots) but the rapid timestamps, scale of deletions and almost total annihilation ie. it is in effect a nuke. You said that is OK because the source is generally unreliable per the RfC, but this selectively interprets the RfC because it also says this closure does not permit wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion. It is circular reasoning to say the "discretion" is because the RfC says the source is unreliable! It makes the RfC self-canceling. There is an easier answer: the RfC never intended or recommended for someone to delete all the links "wholesale". RfCs are customized solutions based in policy vs. policy pages themselves which are generalized and can't guess the specifics of each case - RfCs have a high degree of consensus because they are specific to the issue. The RfC gave guidance for this case, it even guessed someone might do a wholesale deletion. Pinging the RfC closer @Winged Blades of Godric: in case they want to add anything and perfectly OK if not! -- GreenC 22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a crappy source, and by that I mean bottom of the barrel, perhaps one step above The Onion, so I don't understand what all the hubbub is about. When it comes to RSs, trust is key, and the moment you lose your reader's trust you'll pay hell getting it back. Fool me once... they say. If we've lost valuable information in the process, wouldn't it be a better use of one's time to simply go replace it with better sources? And if that's not possible, isn't that a good reason to be suspicious, in light of their reputation? If you think The Sun should be taken more seriously, then I would suggest first taking that up with The Sun. Play devil's advocate and insist, as a devoted reader, that they do something to renew their reputation. In the meantime, we can only play the cards we're dealt, provided they come from a clean deck. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The RfC says: "There has been a feeling among the opposing side that this can lead to a draconian purge of Sun references from WP without due discretion and that the newbies will bear the brunt of any over-zealous enforcement. Hence, I will urge all editors to exercise due restrain and use common sense; whilst dealing with removals. For an example, please harvest some efforts to source a cited-info to a reliable source, prior to removal of a DM cite. This "due restraint" has not been followed, no effort was made to source to a reliable source prior to removal. -- GreenC 04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

GreenC - the Sun is a terrible source, and I maintain that pretty much every usage of it that I removed was bad. The one thing you haven't done above is list which removals you think you can show against the stated policy (WP:V) and strong guidelines (WP:RS) - and which replacements of this generally-non-reliable-source you think you can show the WP:BURDEN (which is policy) for. Even if you think rules-lawyering the wording of the close (which literally says generally prohibited and actively discouraged) will make a point, that can't override WP:V and WP:RS. Please list the specific removals you consider indefensible under WP:V, given that a deprecated source is prima facie unreliable - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I must note, I'm absolutely not claiming perfection here. I'm going to make mistakes, and I welcome correction on them! But I've seen a lot of Sun and DM sourcing, and almost all of it is actually bad and should be removed. Even if a fact is plausibly true (using my editorial judgement), we should not be putting a little blue number next to it as if it's well-cited, we should be noting it isn't well cited.

Also, I seem to get a lot more "thanks" clicks than reversions, and a lot less reversions when removing terrible sources than I do in my general editing. But YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WE do not have to keep poorly sourced material. No issue with Davids actions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I've merged this discussion with the previous one on The Sun. — Newslinger talk 13:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The difference between blacklisting and deprecating is simply that when a source is blacklisted, you are not even permitted to re-instate it by the software. When a source is deprecated, you're warned against such addition and the burden is on you to get consensus that the deprecated source is suitable to back up whatever it is supposed to backup. So unless there was a debate on the talk page that resulted in a consensus that The Sun was appropriate to cite, it wasn't and removal is appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way - help on clearing down the backlogs of deprecated sources, and thus improving Wikipedia, would be most welcomed! See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Clearing_down_review_backlogs_of_deprecated_sources:_call_for_help for a list with links - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Removing a dubious source and replacing it with a CITATIONNEEDED template is terrible practice and any editor who is doing that en masse should knock it the hell off. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  +1. All replacing a bad source with {{cn}} does is hide the fact that the material in the article is dubious and reduce our ability to figure out where text came from. The point of declaring a source unreliable is to reduce the amount of possibly inaccurate info in our articles; I don't see what is accomplished by removing bad sources without the accompanying content apart from making it seem like we're doing a better job of not using unreliable sources than we really are. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Feel free to go through and remove the claims entirely - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Do not remove apparently factual information if you are offended by the source being cited to document the fact. Call for a better source with the { { dubious source } } template if you are in a hurry, or better yet: SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Carrite, Any of us who works at this has been told, with equal force and conviction, that (a) we must remove the content with the source; that (b) we must leave the content and tag it as {{cn}} and that (c) we must find an alternative source ourselves. If you would like to run an RfC to decide which is preferred, please do, but anything that places additional burdens on people whoa re, in the end, just cleaning up dross, seems harsh. Guy (help!) 13:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there not a "dubious source" template? If not, some template person needs to make one. Then just paste after the problematic sources we all love to hate... Carrite (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — See, there already is one. THAT'S what we need to be doing, right there. { { dubious source } }. Carrite (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I've argued my position earlier in this very section. These are not just unreliable sources, they're deprecated sources - anti-sources. They flatly don't belong in Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances.

Please answer the arguments already posted, rather than appearing to start afresh as if this has never been discussed before - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Arcade Heroes

This website ([28]) is being used on surprisingly many articles on relating to arcade games (an area with a shortage of media coverage); however, it does not seem particularly reliable. It is basically a group blog according to the about page, and no editorial oversight is mentioned. Immediately removing all use of the website would be reckless at this point, so please discuss the matter. Glades12 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC), updated 07:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. — Newslinger talk 23:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If its a crap source remove it, and it does not look RS to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:FANSITE to me. Guy (help!) 22:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (Here via WT:VG notification) Why "reckless"? The site has no hallmarks of reliability: reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, editorial policy or even staff listing. Remove on sight. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I believe i brought this up in the past and reached the same conclusion as CZae and JzG.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• It's a fansite. The about page is just "we love arcade games" and doesn't indicate any notion of them having editorial oversight or even journalism experience. I'd say it's unreliable. Plus a lot of the information they have is already covered by reliable sources anyway, so I don't think we're at a real loss for getting rid of this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs publication by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.

Is this source (book by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. and published by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs) a reliable source?

It was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran and it was used for this information:

• "In August 1971, many leading members of the MEK were arrested by SAVAK, and by the end of October, most MEK members had been arrested. While in prison, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book disassociating the MEK from radical leftists. There was split between the current (Muslim) MEK and the "extremist secular splinter group. − − Vahid Afrakhteh, who led was responsible for the assassination of three U.S. officers in Tehran in 1973 and 1975, also attempted the assassination of surviving MEK leaders. The splinter group also killed Majid Sharif-Vaqefi, an MEK member who was later honoured "for defending Islam" (Arya Mehr University of Technology was renamed Sharif University after the revolution, before Rajavi and Khomeini had their falling out).

Ypatch (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Tortoise Media reporting on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

This report looks like it could be a good source for our article Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, but I'd like community input on whether Tortoise Media is an RS for these purposes. It seems a serious venture [29][30][31][32][33], but it doesn't seem to have an established reputation yet. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What claims in the article would you like to support with this source? It seems to me that most sources for COVID-19 articles, especially one about misinformation, would be required to meet WP:MEDRS. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS and COVID-19 claims

Could someone with a better sense of WP:MEDRS and how it's applied please check over Didier Raoult#COVID-19? I am particularly cautious about any claims of efficacy of COVID-19 treatment at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The project talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19, is a good place to ask - editors experienced in WP:MEDRS are all over this topic right now, for obvious reasons - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer! --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

worldometers.info coronavirus statistics

They seem to be an ok source,[34] but should they be used in preference to official stats? (Hint: that's what people are doing). Worldometers often gives a higher result than the cdc and state health department websites and it's unclear how they learn about new cases before they're posted. Furthermore, it fails MEDRS... buidhe 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

i wouldn't use it because there is no information about who they are or how they determine their stats. Also, there is a limited value of tertiary sources. We should not insert raw statistics without analysis. TFD (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are at the bottom of the page. They look okay to me. This is a WP:TERTIARY source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As a question, are they still a reliable source if they do licensing for the counters?. I ask because of this edit from a related discussion regarding a potential CoVid-19 source. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would use John Hopkins info @ https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html instead; the data is reasonably authoritative and comes from a non-profit source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

So, a separate (and highly unusual) RFC was started elsewhere, two days after this request (and with a very unusual interpretation of consensus), and there are indications in that disucssion that this is NOT a reliable source. Someone needs to rationalize this mess, because we don't determine local consensus via a 50% or more vote when a general discussion is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Source IMO is fine enough. This is a balance between uptodateness and reliableness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Doc - see RUSA rating which is a division of the American Library Association. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding that they include a column titled "Sources" which lists the sources they used to gather the information, and that makes them a reliable secondary source which is a bit better than using primary sources like the CDC, although it is always good to corroborate the information. The fact that they exercise oversight and correct errors is a plus for their fact-checking abilities. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is not reliable enough and it actually hinders our update efforts if it is used to replace official sources. Worldometer uses either official statistics or press reports. We should use these official or press reports directly. If we had done this in the first place, we wouldn't have needed to revert changes to Angola counts multiple times in one day because the underlying source for the first case was a viral WhatsApp audio that was denied by the authorities. Or we wouldn't have needed to edit war over an obvious transcription error of Spain statistics. Or attend edit requests from users reporting a wrong report on unusual high death count in Pakistan. Worldometer is doing a great job on keeping the most fresh data overall, but that comes at the expense of reliability. I'm using it daily to prioritize countries to update and sometimes to find new sources, but I don't think it is reliable enough to use directly. --MarioGom (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely with MarioGom. Worldometers had a huge jump yesterday in cases in the United States (~38,000 cases) which they eventually rolled back. I tried quite hard but was not able to find a single source supporting that number, including those cited on their site. I think that Worldometers should be treated as a great source for prioritizing updates and finding reliable sources, but not as the only source for numbers that conflict with more reliable sources. Eitan1989 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins is at 35,000[35], this site is at 39,000.[36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Big jump appears to be based on this "According to Cuomo, New York now has 20,875"[37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reporting by worldometers of Ohio's stats is definitely suspicious -- they say they're sourcing to Ohio Department of Health, but ODH is reporting only cumulative cases and deaths, and worldometers is doing arithmetic to arrive at a number for "active cases" for Ohio, which is then apparently being used to assume no recoveries in Ohio since worldometers is also reporting a "recovered" number for the country as a whole, so they must be aggregating stuff that can't be aggregated. At best they should be reporting "reported recoveries" and "cases reported as active" if they're getting that level of detail from some depts of health. --valereee (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• They look good - quite readable, more up to date than what WP could do, open on sources with their sources are presented in the drilldown by day re GMT+0. Could wish their per nation display showed days-since-data as some nations are not providing timely reporting. (While I’m wishing, I could also wish for a confidence level against reports of whether medical experts think the data has timeliness or underreporting issues.). I see concerns on aggregation, but think that’s inevitable in any summary. e.g what one nation defines as ‘serious’ isn’t what another does, the hospitalised counts may be more an indicator of hospital availability than of need, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I keep finding Worldometer updates where underlying source is not cited. Also updates where numbers do not match with the cited source. Yesterday I updated at least two countries where Worldometer figure for recoveries was lower than the cited source. There are other problems like Canada figures including not confirmed cases (presumptive cases), which makes other editors repeatedly updating figures to wrong counts. Their world totals may be double counting some territories whose cases are listed both in their own entry as well as in another country (e.g. France and its overseas provinces). This is really not a realiable source for Wikipedia standards. Reliable sources with up-to-date data DO exist. See reference section for Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data or the work-in-progress list at Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force. --MarioGom (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 data compiled by BNO News

• The link to latest data about positive cases, dealths etc. caused due to COVID-19 published by BNO News is being circulated by many people everywhere. Can it be considered a reliable source?

References

• Yes. The information and the data looks probably correct to me. Also, the data represented for every country is being retrieved from the official governement websites of the respective countries and have specified links to those websites. I am not so sure about the day-wise timeline of the incidents but seems that it is also derived from the linked official government sources for respective countries. The data representation is easier to understand the overall impact of the spread of the novel coronavirus 2019 globally. Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  No. The company does not provide information about its editorial board and most articles are not bylined and/or transparently derivative is this a copyright violation? For disease information especially, it is important to use a reliable source. buidhe 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Preferably, no per above. They also host a donation link so I don't think it's appropriate to link as a source while other websites provide same info. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No per Buidhe - I can't find anything on their website about editorial board, who writes their articles, or specifically where the information in this Coronavirus table is coming from (beyond saying that it's 'updated by our team'). Not being obviously wrong isn't enough to make it RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

News outlets that report on social media

What weight can be afforded to normally-reliable news outlets, such as CNN or The Guardian, who write an article based on nothing more than a Tweet by someone, or a Facebook post? Normally, by WP:BLPSPS we would discount the source as primary, or use it with caution, as long as it did not contain e.g. claims about a third party or is not unduly self-serving. So when a WP:RS reporter picks it up and puts it in an article, do we suspend BLPSPS and go right to giving it the weight due to an independent primary source? Do we assume that they exerted some measure of editorial oversight and fact-checking on the Tweet (even though they probably didn't, and rushed to press with it)? If the Tweet makes a claim about a third party, is that claim now valid because it's been filtered through a reliable primary news source? Inquiring minds want to know! Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, if the Guardian say that someone tweeted something, that's a good source to use to assert that the person tweeted something. If they report it as fact, I'd probably fall back on 'it depends' - is there a particular case you've got in mind? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia and Swarajya

OpIndia

OpIndia is currently cited in 23 articles  , including List of riots in India and Shaheen Bagh protests. It is on the spam blacklist due to its practice of doxing, which has negatively affected at least one Wikipedia editor. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on OpIndia. Two previous discussions refer to OpIndia:

1. Unreliability of website Opindia.com (2017): No responses
2. Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc. (2018): OpIndia determined to be generally unreliable

Is OpIndia a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, fact checks, or other topics? Also, should the citations of OpIndia in the 23 articles be removed under WP:ELNEVER, or should some of them be whitelisted? — Newslinger talk 02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Asbolutely unreliable per what Newslinger said and I think it clear this site is absolutely unreliable and that they are attacking Wikipedia because they don't like what we write because it doesn't fit their Islamophobic agenda. I have seen this source used many times on this article. It's full of stuff that are only sourced to this source. I think it needs to be rewritten.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Completely depreciate I have read some of their articles due to certain case of abuse which has befallen our community recently, and they are clearly partisan hackery. If there was ever for a case for a "news" (tabloid) site to be completely blacklisted on Wikipedia, it's OpIndia. They serve as a reactionary dumping ground for mankind's worst natural tendencies on a level of surpassing even Breitbart. They'll stoop to any low to push their pathetic agenda, and it infuriates me that it has come at the human cost to this very project. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate - rejected by the international fact checker organization - that says it all. It’s irresponsible to link our readers to such an unreliable source. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate For any number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate including any archived links. OPIndia is nothing more than a rag-mag and has no reputation for meaningful fact checking or truthfulness. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate including archived links. Absolutely no modicum of reliability, any news website which outs an editor cannot claim to be journalistic/news portal/fact-checking site. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate on the doxxing behaviour alone. Legitimate journalists know better than to alienate potential sources or place sources/subjects in harm's way. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Depreciate no reputation for fact checking what so ever. Curdle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate Any media site that doxes a Wikipedia editor over what it judges to be "political" edits is unethical and, therefore, unreliable. I think we can find better sources for anything that has been linked to that site. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, this discussion is followed (Redacted) by "journalists" from this site who've already doxed one editor and (Redacted) threatened on Twitter to out more. The doxer has almost 200k followers. Need more proof? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've decided it's best to remove the links from the current discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate Doxing & lack of editorial control. Cabayi (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Cited by reliable sources as a news source, albeit one that explicitly leans right and is "against mainstream media".Pectore^talk 21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate, per Praxidicae, Liz, and Levivich. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate doxing, lack of editorial control. Which means my name will be added to the Twitter feed documenting this. I see there's a big dispute at the article itself started by an SPA (and see this edit by them. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate and fuck the Twitterati. ——SN54129 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Other editors discussed the doxing issue, so I will be focusing on other aspects of OpIndia that render it an unreliable source. For one, OpIndia - a news, opinions, and fact checking site - makes no pretensions about being neutral in its reporting; the site has made the conscious decision to direct its content towards investigating the mainstream media establishment, with the logic being that the establishment (be it government, media, global elites, etc) has a corruptive effect on society and is suppressing dissent. This is all well and good - similar arguments are made by both sides of the political spectrum - but also puts the site at odds with Wikipedia, which is innately drawn to a centrist position as it is the oft-maligned establishment that produces the sources used to generate Wikipedia articles. If the site had a stellar reputation for accuracy despite its biases then a case could be made that it could be cited on WP:NPOV grounds, but OpIndia has been criticized for its reporting/fact-checking methods; for example, the IFCN rejected the site's request for accreditation, noting that while OpIndia performed some fact-checking, it rarely relied on data and often employed quotes or information from the India government to disprove claims made by opposition parties. OpIndia was also criticized for primarily following up claims of misinformation related to its ideological opponents and for failing to have a clear corrections policy in place. True to form, OpIndia later issued a rebuttal stating that their application to the IFCN had, in fact, been its attempt to check the IFCN for bias; the rebuttal would then go on to criticize other sites that have been accredited by the IFCN while claiming that, while OpIndia is ontologically opposed to some political dispositions, its fact-checking is done without bias. This paragraph from the OpIndia rebuttal sums up the site's innate political disposition and by extension its focus while fact checking - well,

The IFCN construes our disdain towards the ‘left-liberal narrative’ as evidence of bias. It appears that they do not realize that these are our ontological positions on the basis of which we operate. For instance, we do not believe gender is a social construct. We do not believe a man can transform into a woman or vice versa through medical procedures. We do not believe secularism as it is practised in India is ideal for the social fabric of the country. We believe illegal immigration is a threat to the sovereignty of the Indian state. We do believe Hindus suffer institutional discrimination in this country. We do not believe Hindutva is a genocidal ideology. We believe in the multiplicity of the Divine. These are our ontological positions which place us at odds with the left-liberal narrative. As is clear, this is not evidence of partisanship, these are evidence of a difference of opinion about the nature of our reality.

This seems to be a common theme with OpIndia's content - vigorously attacking its opponents while holding its credo as a shield to deflect any criticism of its fact-checking and editorial practices.

In addition to the above, some of OpIndia's other practices indicate it is not a reliable source. For example, it - via myvoice.opindia - allows for account holders to submit articles as "Guest Authors" to the site. These articles are checked by staff, but this is (somewhat ironically given OpIndia's recent criticism of Wikipedia) still user-generated content. The site's reliance on social media users to forward leads to instances of misinformation is also a concern. OpIndia's website is also somewhat vague on the status and backgrounds of its editors; for example its "About Us" section lists a "Core Team" of editors mostly identified with their social media handles, while its "Fact Check Team" - though less vague - only provides brief descriptions of its members. This is in stark contrast to other fact checking sites like Vishvasnews, which was accredited by the IFCN, offers more extensive details of its staff, and shows instances where it issued retractions. In light of the above, my conclusion is that OpIndia should be considered an unreliable source of information. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate as above, they have shown themselves to be partisan to an extreme extent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Completely deprecate over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Depracate: Its misreporting is fairly well documented. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Depracate per OpIndia (their statement, quoted by Sam Holt, was enough for me). GirthSummit _(blether) 22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per above arguments, they are clearly not interested in providing journalistic content, but in providing a viewpoint only. Waggie (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per everyone above. These editors, the smartest on Wikipedia, the most experienced, the eloquent, the considerate, toward all points of view, even those least deserving an attribution of reliability, have spoken, and done so unanimously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Blacklist. Vicious and dangerous doxxing. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: Already blacklisted. -qedk (t 心 c) 23:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate and blacklist. Among all of the sources I have examined on this noticeboard, I have never encountered a source that blatantly undermined Wikipedia's reliability to the extent that OpIndia did in this recent incident. Nupur J Sharma, the editor of OpIndia, doxed a Wikipedia editor in good standing with a history of constructive contributions in order to make it unsafe for them to continue editing Wikipedia – solely because she was unhappy that the editor's strict adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines formed articles that did not align with OpIndia's far-right pro-Hindutva perspective. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, Hindutva is a form of Hindu nationalism, which is like white nationalism but more popular.) This is a corruption of the third pillar of Wikipedia, which establishes the fundamental principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia.

  If this weren't bad enough, Sharma then contacted Jimmy Wales on Twitter and demanded that he take action against the editor she doxed. Wales responded with a number of corrections, revealing that Sharma did not fact-check her hit piece at all. Instead of correcting her errors or retracting the hit piece, Sharma sent a 4,000-word email to Wales petitioning for the editor she doxed to be removed from Wikipedia. According to publicly available information, Wales ceased further communication with Sharma. It was clear at this point that Sharma's reputation is that of a blogger who specializes in punditry, not an actual journalist who produces content suitable for referencing in Wikipedia.

  OpIndia has more general problems than their doxing, and SamHolt6 covers some of these issues above. When OpIndia gets called out for publishing fake news, they sometimes respond by marking the article as "satirical", as documented in their rejection from the International Fact-Checking Network in 2019. OpIndia is an Indian version of The Gateway Pundit (RSP entry) that pretends to be The Onion (RSP entry) when others catch them publishing false and misleading information. In a 2018 RfC, Breitbart News (RSP entry) was criticized for having a "black crime" section on their website; it is now deprecated and blacklisted. If Breitbart had a "Muslim crime" section, it would look like much of the propaganda in the 300+ articles listed in opindia.com/tag/muslim.

  Nupur J Sharma had a chance to make OpIndia a respectable publication. Wikipedia does not exclude publications for being biased or opinionated; the fact that OpIndia is far-right and pro-Hindutva does not, by itself, disqualify them from being a reliable source. However, what do make OpIndia a questionable source are their unbreakable habit of publishing false and misleading information, and their tendency to attack any entity who questions their reporting, instead of making error corrections like a respectable publication. The presence of bias does not excuse unreliability. Swarajya, which was owned by the same company as OpIndia, republishes entire articles from OpIndia (lightly reworded) under the "Swarajya Staff" byline and should be treated similarly.

  In conclusion, OpIndia has no place in Wikipedia citations as long as they continue to act this way (especially if they dox and threaten to sue when they are called out on it). — Newslinger talk 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate per Newslinger, et al. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate and blacklist (through an edit filter if necessary) due to doxxing, which is unacceptable. Guy (help!) 13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate per [38]. I also endorse blacklisting it per above. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Swarajya

Swarajya, the former parent publication of OpIndia, is currently cited in 305 articles  , including Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Malala Yousafzai. It is on the spam blacklist for republishing OpIndia's doxing attempts. Like OpIndia, Swarajya has not yet been extensively discussed on this noticeboard, but was mentioned in two previous discussions:

1. Book reviews of a brand new book are primary sources? (2016): Minimal discussion
2. I searched for Swarajya magzine in archives or its reliability but cannot find either. (2019): Identified as biased or opinionated

Is Swarajya a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, Indian news, international news, or other topics? Also, should the citations of Swarajya in the 305 articles be removed under WP:ELNEVER, or should some of them be whitelisted? Finally, should a distinction be made between Swarajya's weekly print magazine (published 1956–1980), its monthly print magazine (published 2015–present), and its website (active 2014–present)? — Newslinger talk 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Depreciate. for the same reasons above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Courtesy ping. I added the last question (about Swarajya's print and website eras) right after you submitted your comment. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: That last question requires too much thinking, so I'm glad I answered when I did :P –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Deprecate website for same reasons as above. No opinion on the pre-1980 print version, but the gap between 1980 and 2015 is large enough that I don't see much reason to judge the former version by its latter incarnation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate per my reasoning above. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than edit my initial statement, I'd like to add that I think one thing we can and should all agree on when it comes to sourcing is that any media outlet which puts out hit pieces on our editors because of political motivations and presents it as gospel is an unreliable (and unethical) source. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Selectively deprecate site’s news section or articles written by Swarajya staff are unreliable. But their opeds seems to have high quality editorial standards. They’ve editorial policies, correction policies and similar structure like any media house. That’s not case with OpIndia. — Brihaspati (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is that their op-eds are of good quality and editorial oversight but their actual editorial board published pieces...are not? Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, most of their fake news are being spread on the name of Swarajya Staff. It is unreliable for news reports for sure. Except one case of op-ed, I didn't see much more fake news thing in op-ed and they apologised for it too. Brihaspati (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing my opinion to reliable as Swarajya took those pieces down.-- Brihaspati (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate No way that Swarajya has ever produced unbiased respectable journalistic content. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Again, based on being accessories to doxxing. My reasoning is above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate as above. Curdle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate Ditto. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate Whilst bias may not be an issue but their stuff may not be reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate Re-doxing & lack of editorial control. Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - Cited all the time by other Indian newspapers as a news source, albeit a right-wing one.Pectore^talk 21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. In several years of working on this topic I cannot recall factual information that they reported on that better sources did not also report; conversely, I can think of a number of occasions on which the material they have published is unquestionably inappropriate, including the recent episode. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate and fuck the Twitterati. ——SN54129 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate - and Vanamonde makes a good point. If it's significant enough to be included in our articles there will be better sources. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate unreliable and partisan to an extreme extent, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Completely deprecate over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control; reposting of OpIndia material. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment:- Swarajya has took those pieces down. I can't find them on their website.-- Brihaspati (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  After Swarajya published the article, they also shared it with their 670,000+ followers on Facebook and their 170,000+ followers on Twitter. The damage has already been done. — Newslinger talk 15:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention they are still tweeting and sharing FB posts about it and encouraging people to continue to dox editors. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: I was going through the policy on reliable sources and as I understand it, editorial POV alone does not mean a source is unreliable WP:BIASED. It’s not a reason to blacklist or deprecate the source. Additionally, as per WP:NEWSORG, “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.” In the case of Swarajya, I feel that their news is generally reliable as they present it with evidence to back it up, and they have an editorial policy that they adhere to. So, having a liberal center-right perspective doesn’t make a news source unreliable. Wikipedia editors should have access to a liberal center-right perspective so that Wikipedia as a whole can maintain a neutral point of view and doesn’t become slanted to the left, which is what would inevitably happen to India-focused articles if reliable right-of-center news sources like Swarajya are blacklisted or deprecated.Harshmellow717 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717, there are other Indian right leaning news agencies which have reliable reporting (e.g: Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Aaj Tak, etc). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate (excluding archives): The news reporting is certainly unreliable, more or less on par with OpIndia with which it has a strong association. It's political stance is more a matter of branding derived from the older magazine. It does maintain the archives of the old magazine which would be reliable though care must be taken in its utilization due to its then connection with the Swatantra Party. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: I feel that Swarajya is a generally reliable news source. It has a distinguished editorial advisory board, and while it does make mistakes like any news source, it also makes corrections when necessary. Also, some people have said it is okay to deprecate it since other available sources offer the same information. However, on the contrary, I find this point to further corroborate against deprecation, since if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information, why would we single out and deprecate Swarajya? I also read the policy on reliable sources and didn’t see anywhere in the policy that a news source’s use of publicly identifiable information (as has been done about a Wikipedia editor) is a criterion for evaluating reliability of a news source. If I missed this detail, I am open to being directed to where it is mentioned in the policy. I think we have to stick to stated Wikipedia policy to determine reliability of sources so that an objective decision can be made. PinkElixir (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Responding to "if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information": actually, we are. See the section on OpIndia above. Swarajya regularly paraphrases entire articles from OpIndia under the anonymous "Swarajya Staff" byline. See https://swarajyamag.com/search?q=opindia for a long list, which establishes that Swarajya inherits the unreliability of OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate per above arguments. Waggie (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable: In reviewing this thread, I didn’t see any evidence presented of its inaccurate reporting or the absence of an editorial policy (WP:RS). In fact, Swarajya Magazine has an editorial policy: https://swarajyamag.com/fact-checking-and-correction-policy editorial policy. Its Wikipedia article lists 8 references as evidence of ‘misinformation,' 2 of which refer to an article reporting misinformation about the name of an actor in a movie. In one of these articles, a third-party news organization acknowledges the actions Swarajya took to correct the misinformation:

  “It is noteworthy Swarjaya later updated its report with the correct information, although clarification on its tweet – “The main accused in Lakshmi’s acid case was Naeem Khan but he is said to have been named “Rajesh” in Deepika’s movie” – is yet to be provided… [Update: Swarajya deleted its tweet after this report was published. Vikas Pandey’s tweet and erroneous reposts published by News18, Inda TV and Jansatta have been added to the fact-check.]”

  Additionally, after reviewing other policies, I feel that sanctions (such as blacklisting or deprecating) against either news organization due to the issue of “doxing” appears to be against Wikipedia policy. The Wikieditor in question made their private information public which technically excludes them from any sanctions as outlined in WP:OUTING:

  “If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy.”

  Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner, the news organization used that publicly available information to help reveal the identity of the editor in question to raise a related question based on the data they presented. I agree with PinkElixir that doxxing is not a criteria per WP:RS which also means it’s not a valid argument to support deprecating this source. If there are other policies of which I’m unaware, I’d be happy to review them, but for now, Swarajya fails to meet WP:DEPRECATE based on the evidence presented on this thread. Moksha88 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  "Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner...": That argument is a form of victim blaming. Doxing doesn't suddenly become ethical because someone's personal information is available. (In fact, doxing is only possible when someone's personal information is available.) Doxing is a questionable editorial practice that – when done with the intention of making it unsafe for an editor to remain on Wikipedia (as was done by Swarajya and OpIndia) – is in direct contravention of the third pillar of Wikipedia, which states that anyone can edit Wikipedia.

  See SamHolt6's comprehensive takedown of OpIndia for why Swarajya fails to meet the standards of the reliable sources guideline. Swarajya frequently republishes lightly rephrased content from OpIndia, so the same arguments apply here. — Newslinger talk 04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been numerous cases where Swarajya reports have been picked up by Constitutional bodies of India (not the government, but those independent of government) and followed up for police action.

These cases involve some of society's marginalised and vulnerable sections including minors.

Examples include a case in Begusarai district where the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) ordered follow up action based on a Swarajya report. This involved the rescue of a minor who had been kidnapped.

Illegal slaughter houses, a major environmental and crime related issue, were ordered to be shut after a Swarajya news report.

The Scheduled Castes Commission, an independent Constitutional body picked up a Swarajya report and ordered help to a member of a marginalised community.

Many of the stories cited as Fake News on the Swarajya page are articles which are citing mainstream news outlets NOT blacklisted here. Hardly evidence of malicious fake news plants - these seem to be stories that relied on large media outlets - how one can read malice here, when the original sin was by other media houses, beats me.--Adurcup23 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) — Adurcup23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Administrator note due to canvassing by Moksha88 (AE report) having tainted this process, several preferences from those users may need to be discounted. El_C 14:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: Swarajya's reporting has forced other news outlets to take down reports and is therefore reliable - Timbim111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 13 March 2020 — Timbim111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Struck comment from blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adurcup23/Archive for details. — Newslinger talk 03:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I repeat the above, which also applies here: I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: - It is clear that this outlet is a pro-Hindu but I consider their reporting is factual and they push more stories discussing the issues related to the Hindu community as compared to news on other topics. This practice does not make this outlet unreliable. I do not see that they have misreported anything or harassed any specific community so far. Especially, due to personal political and ideological hatred, some of the other IFCN-verified fact-checker sources which are often un-reliable and mis-report incidents such as AltNews (the founder of AltNews himself is a public hater of Hindutva and whoever is inclided towards that ideology whereas shows a soft stance towards the left-wing believers) seem to have selectively bashed this (Swarajya) outlet in the past. Vishal Telangre (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: - Swarajya's reporting has been factual. Its editorial policy is sound. Reporting on a WP Editor doesn't make it unreliable, unless the report was fake. Is there a policy that makes news sources critical of Wikipedia "unreliable"? IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  There were a number of false and misleading claims made in the hit piece published by Swarajya (and OpIndia) that contained doxing. The piece was not "factual", and the author(s) clearly did not bother to confirm their claims with the subject(s) of the article or any related people, which reflects a poor reputation for fact-checking. — Newslinger talk 07:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  The website truthofgujarat.com which now redirects to altnews.com had hosted all articles which are good examples of doxing, most of which were authored by Pratik Sinha who is the founder of AltNews. AltNews, still continues publishes similar material. So if we do an apple to apple comparison, AltNews should be deprecated, too? Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  Can you provide a link to the piece? Did they report anything that was untrue? What claims were false or misleading? I have been reading Swarajya for some time now. I wouldn't disagree that they have an editorial bias, much like the wire or quint, but overall, I haven't seen any problems in their reporting. Marking a publication as unreliable out of vindictiveness sounds petty to me. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  We don't provide links to blacklisted sites. That's what "blacklisted" means. As for "vindictiveness", that's a good word for the practice of both OpIndia and Swarajya. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

  I didn't know Swarajya was blacklisted. Why are we having this discussion then? Nevertheless, I would stick to my opinion. The source is ReliableIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  You didn't know that, IndianHistoryEnthusiast? Maybe you'd like to read the opening of this thread that you're opining in, to see that Swarajya is blacklisted and a brief explanation of why we're nevertheless having this discussion. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

• Deprecate. The connection with OpIndia and republication of their hit piece on our editor is enough for me. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

  Interesting. Who is "our" in "our editor"? Wikipedia do not employ editors, so is there a "group" whose that editor is a member of? I am also an editor (have done some translations) and I have not hit by something like that. Vishal Telangre (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I am unpaid member of a local club, all it members, they would still be referred to as "our members". We are in fact all unpaid) and volunteer) editors. Thus yes, they have doxed one of our editors.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also recevived threats of blocking my editorial rights in the past from a Wikipedia editor. I believe we are not "we" but groups of ideologically parted "we". Good to know and thanks for the information. I also would like to safegaurd myself from getting doxed by someone on Wikipedia, where can I learn about it? How should I report it? Is there a list of community meetups that happen in India? Vishal Telangre (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The argument presented here is flawed, there is no policy that makes a page unreliable or worth deprecating because it published a piece critical of an editor, or even if the site engaged in doxxing. Is there a policy that clearly states that news sources that have doxxed wikipedia editors are unreliable? I think not.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Swarajya (and OpIndia) doxed the editor without properly fact-checking the article, which is characteristic of a questionable source. The verifiability policy instructs editors to generally avoid questionable sources. Doxing an editor with the intention of subjecting the editor to harassment that prevents the editor from editing Wikipedia due to safety reasons, as was done by Swarajya and OpIndia, corrupts the third pillar of Wikipedia ("Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute"). — Newslinger talk 10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to lump both Swarajya and OpIndia in a single category. Swarajya has a well defined editorial policy, R Jagannathan is a well respected journalist. While I don't agree with the practice of doxxing, one article is not enough to characterise a source as completely unreliable. Had it been a news source that doxxed someone not related to wikipedia, we wouldn't have had a problem. Editor of pages like AltNews have doxxed twitter accounts in the past, that doesn't make them unreliable. Swarajya has done great reporting in various fields, publishing one article, which I cannot seem to find on their website anymore, doesn't make them worthy of being deprecated. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

So what? AltNews doxxing someone does not equate to making doxxing ethical for other outlets. OpIndia (and Swarajya) published an article about the very doxxing incident and guess what both of these outlets did now. Ironic, no? Stop defending journalistisic (in the least meaningful sense of the word) institutions which have no integrity. This thread is not about AltNews and no one cares, if you want to raise this in a separate thread, feel free to do so. I'll do you one better, I will lump Swarajya, OpIndia and AltNews in the same category, because above journalism, the editors of these institutions just want to placate their audience and hold on to their bases without a shred of respect for actual fact-based reporting. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate, for the record. My rationale can be found throughout my comments in this discussion, and in my evaluation of OpIndia. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Too many issues. Maybe they will straighten up their act one day, but for now, this is not a usable source for Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 13:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• Deprecate and it can be seen clearly. Can't agree more with Newslinger and Praxidicae's reasons above. I checked contribution histories of a few of these editors because of Moksha88's canvassing and guess what? Most of these editors has less than 100 overall edit counts. This gives a clear hint of disrupting the community's consensus. QEDK, can I request you for a CU here? I am sure users like Adurcup23 or Timbim111 are clearly WP:NOTHERE. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  @KartikeyaS343: I'm not a CU, I'm just a clerk at SPI. As someone who has requested CU before in this area and is familiar with it, the result will be be unrelated - I'm pretty sure it's meatpuppetry, while the editors themselves might not the same, there's off-wiki canvassing going on, it is a reasonable assumption and it has always occurred in this topic area. If it results into more egregious POV-pushing I will block the accounts for disruption. --qedk (t 心 c) 07:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and thank you for keeping a watch over this. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi KartikeyaS343, there is an ongoing investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. — Newslinger talk 07:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

They are unrelated to the suspected master. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 心 c) 13:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You were right but I would still request you to keep a watch because of WP:NOTHERE. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No worries, my talk page is always open. --qedk (t 心 c) 22:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you QEDK --KartikeyaS (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Birthday Cake for Breakfast

Does anyone know if Birthday Cake for Breakfast is a legitimate reliable source? The writer is based in Manchester, and I came across it because it seems to have several interviews with bands (including one I'm doing some research about, called Field Music) but I had never heard of the site before, and looking at it I can't really tell if it's a legit site or just some blog. Visually it appears to be the latter, but the interviews made me wonder if it's not? — Hunter Kahn 23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's just somebody's blog. It says so at the bottom "Create a free website blog at wordpress.com" and the sidebar exhorts you to "follow the blog via email". Note that wordpress.com is listed on WP:RSP as a generally unreliable source, except in areas where the author is a legitimate expert.

That said, if they have interviews with notable people, it could probably be cited for statements those people make about themselves, but primary sources are to be avoided if secondary sources exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Anachronist slightly. A self-published source (blog), even for a validated identity, can't support statements about other people. Anybody can start a wordpress blog and publish fake interviews. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, generally that's true. You'd have to exercise some judgment, though. In this case the interviews seem legitimate, considering that a band he interviewed republished it on their own website.[39] ~Anachronist (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point, and yes, I wasn't saying these interviews were fake; just that they easily could be. But if Birthday Cake for Breakfast is used for a source on an article and any editor objects, there's not much to stand on. It's a self-published source and, as best I can tell, not by a recognized expert, just a serious fan. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, and a blog with under 300 followers, at that. Seriously, it's a blog. Just... no thanks. Guy (help!) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

newsweekly.com.au

• newsweekly.com.au  

News Weekly is used as a source in over 60 articles right now. From the About page:

News Weekly has been published continuously by the National Civic Council since 1941, and was originally called Freedom.

The National Civic Council (NCC) is an organisation which seeks to shape public policy on cultural, family, social, political, economic and international issues of concern to Australia.

Five Primacies of the NCC:

• Promoting the national interest
• Assisting small enterprise
• Supporting the family
• Fostering the tested values derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage
• Defending life

In other words, this is not a news organisation, it's the newsletter of a Christian-right group, the National Civic Council. Anti-abortion, of course, and also anti-gay and apparently Dominionist.

I don't think this is suitable for any use other than WP:ABOUTSELF. What do others think? Guy (help!) 11:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you may not be paying close enough attention to our longstanding PAGs about what is and isn't a RS, or how we can use sources. Is your plan to rewrite those guidelines? BTW, are you quarantined at home with too much time on your hands? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, from our interactions at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think I'd back my understanding of Wikipedia policy on fringe sources over yours any day. And I was self-isolating before it was cool. I work from home and have done for a decade. Guy (help!) 09:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the site, I find headlines like this:

• Victorian Road Map smooths way of NZ anti-life clique to abortion 'reform'
• Where's the evidence for man-made global warming?

Obviously, this isn't a publication dedicated to objective reporting. The non-neutral descriptors and obstinate ignorance of science speaks volumes. Definitely not a reliable source for reporting facts in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed except for historical things they were involved in. Had a quick review of the places that it's used and it doesn't seem like they're the sort of things that should be sourced to it. I would add that the NCC is a very significant organisation historically and is relevant to many different Australian topics, so it might have wider WP:ABOUTSELF usage than your average source in this position - I don't want to find myself having to argue to keep it in articles talking about stuff the NCC did down the track. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

From a policy/guideline standpoint, attributed statements from advocacy organizations (and their publications) about third parties fall under WP:BIASED or WP:RSOPINION instead of WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether these statements are appropriate to include in a relevant article is a matter of due weight, and organizations that are more prominent are more likely to be due. — Newslinger talk 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's less statements about third parties than about themselves - historically, the NCC were effectively built as an "anti-Communist Party of Australia" (working along much the same organisational basis as the CPA with the intention of countering them) and their tentacles run right through certain flavours of political and industrial history over several decades, quite often (at the time) covertly. For example, they effectively took over and ran several extremely important trade unions from the late 1940s to the 1970s. It's a situation where it (in many situations) essentially takes the form of an active historical participant talking about stuff they did: they're obviously biased, but their opinion about/recounting of what they did is generally going to be very relevant in a whole bunch of historical contexts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, interesting. Of the 65 current cites to the website, which do you think are likely to be valid? Guy (help!) 09:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Extremely few of them, but something like this is the kind of thing I'm getting at. It's an 80-year old publication of an organisation that was fundamentally involved in important parts of Australian industrial and political history, and they're absolutely a relevant (if obviously biased) source about things they were involved in. We shouldn't give two hoots about their opinions on climate change or science because it's crankery, but we should absolutely be interested in things they publish about (to give two examples from a much longer list) the Industrial Groups or the Federated Clerks' Union, two things that they effectively ran. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it would be helpful if you could flip through some of them and add WP:ATT where you think it's a valid source. The ones I have looked at so far have clearly not been, but you know more about this source than I do, evidently. Guy (help!) 14:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, that source I cited might well be the only one in current use. It's obvious to me that the site is widely being cited inappropriately and that those uses should stop. I've just got the historical background to know that there's a limited but important subject area where they've got a valid use (and a subject area that still needs a lot of improvement so wouldn't necessarily cite it already). The NCC are cranks, but once upon a time they were very influential and somewhat less-cranky and I don't want to find my hands tied writing about the NCC and their shenanigans over several decades to not be able to cite them for their side of the story. I would be content with something like "do not use at all on general topics, use with caution on topics relating to Australian history in which the NCC were involved". The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, sure - and in order to qualify, it has to be an objectively significant viewpoint represented in proportion to its acceptance and with compelling evidence of its significance, in the form of third-party commentary. Otherwise we'd have a crank climate change denialist group cited in "rebuttal" to every data point on climate change, for example. It all comes down to WP:UNDUE, in the end, and the fact that this website is not RS for statements of fact, only for the opinions of the site's publishers, right? Guy (help!) 09:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement that we should absolutely not cite them on climate change or on current-day issues more broadly. However, it is the 80-year old publication of a once-very important organisation, and they were involved in some really important stuff in which their opinions about what they did are absolutely relevant. In those cases, they absolutely are objectively significant - because it helps tell their side of the story. I also think it's over-egging it slightly to say that it's only RS for "the opinions of the site's publishers" - they have published/will publish relevant things that are not so much their opinions as opinions they approve of, and they should be appropriately cited in context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

infotextmanuscripts.org

• infotextmanuscripts.org  

The home page says "I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial", and further down "We have scored two victories, in particular an out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police after a raid at the behest of Imperial Zion in 1993". I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say this site isn't reliable for anything in any article under any circumstances? FDW777 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Depends for what exactly. Many sources seem to be things like [40], which have no relationship whatsoever to the holocaust/conspiracy theories in general. But for anything from this Alexander Baron, or anything Jewish/Nazi related, in general, it's a complete wackadoodle source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It does host various primary sources through the 'David Webb Virtual Archive' which might be permissible under WP:ABOUTSELF though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this not (in effect) an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerns over scope of RS/N

It is my understanding that the scope of this noticeboard is as stated in the banner above: Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context. IN CONTEXT being the descriptor. It appears that quite a few of the most recent discussions are not about context at all; rather, some are about sources that have published opinions which tips the scale as far as "fact"-checking and what WP:SOURCE dictates as being an independent RS. That is why context is important when determining whether a source is suitable for inclusion. I'm of the mind that choosing sources that publish opinions we may not agree with and asking for input in general rather than in context if the source should be deprecated is not the best way to handle WP's use of sources. By doing so, are we not being noncompliant with (1) the scope of this noticeboard, (2) NPOV, (3) WP:RS or WP:SOURCE, and probably more that I haven't factored in? I can certainly understand and appreciate why Project Med created MEDRS, and I applaud their efforts, but when the sourcing issue involves opinions, such as the case with politics, or threatens to eliminate all but the popular scientific POV while eliminating the not so popular scientific view, are we not opening the door to POV creep in defiance of what science actually supports; that being the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment? By eliminating context are we not opening the door to the potential of censorsing all substantial views? Again, it goes back to CONTEXT and facts vs opinion. It could be a source that published well-sourced information that was cited to a source that not all editors are able to access. Use it, cite it and if another editor has access to the better source, then cite it instead. To do otherwise may prove detrimental to the project, and that is my major concern. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Got, say, three clear examples? - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, David - I think you can begin with any question above that asks if [XXX] is a reliable source. Such a question begs generalization of an entire source (and opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise) rather than affording editors an opportunity to reach a consensus by discussing the inclusion of specific material published by that source and its suitability of the material per context, which is the scope of this noticeboard. I'm of the mind that discussions here that involve the deprecation of and/or dismissal of sources as unreliable or questionable (other than the most blatantly obvious junk sources, of course, rather than sources that are debatable) should involve community-wide discussion at venues like the VP that has a much wider reach. Examples off the top of my head begin with some of the questions asked here regarding the reliability of an entire source. There are also some sources on the perennial list that are rated generally unreliable (partly because they are state-owned), yet Al Jazeera is not among them despite being owned by Qatar. Fox News is rated generally reliable but it states: Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows). How is that a NPOV? We see nothing like that for MSNBC or CNN, the latter of which clearly demonstrates a biased opinion. It is difficult to leave POV at login when we have such a list guiding editors. Does the perennial list by its sheer existence tend to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V and NPOV? I am concerned that it may which is not a good thing for the reasons I mentioned above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree in context is a bit vague, what context? Usage, policy?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the following will clarify context: (see WP:RSCONTEXT)

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand the context. There have been a number of recent RfCs that are focused not on, "is this source reliable for this claim" but instead, "should this source be deprecated". Here is an example [[41]]. I have no idea if "Grayzone" should or shouldn't be a RS but the RfC is an example of what I think Atsme is talking about. My feeling is we should be less reliant on general RfCs and spend more time looking at specific examples. Springee (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It's inconvenient and troublesome when trying to delete thousands of URLs to think about context. -- GreenC 14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also context must include the context of the reliability of the source in general "st Ralph the liar" cannot be a source for anything, even his own opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Many sources are found to be unreliable generally, but reliable for some things ie. contextually reliable. -- GreenC 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We should not be going back in time to delete thousands of urls, particularly if it's being done without consideration for context per WP:V which is one of our core content policies. For the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, yes we should, if the thousands of urls are the result of people not thinking about reliability. Wikipedia has evolved from the barn-raising phase when we were trying to build as much content as possible as quickly as possible, to a global resource and one of the most visited and trusted sites on the internet. We have, rightly, become firmer about the sources we use, not because we have changed our policy, but because we now recognise that we need to be more consistent in meeting our own standards.

The media landscape has also moved on. Over the last five years there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media. This is a pressing problem for Wikipedia: some editors think that the right wing media bubble has parity with the mainstream, but mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative.

To address the question of verifiability, my (long) experience has been that if you tag a citation as self-published, dubious or whatever, it pretty much never gets fixed. A statement drawn from a questionable source will stand indefinitely. If, however, you remove the source and replace it with {{cn}}, it often will get fixed. There are Wikignomes who specialise in sourcing or removing unsourced statements. It's one of the few instances where an unsourced statement, identified as such, is actually better for the encyclopaedia than a sourced statement. Especially in a world of fake news and disinformation where state sponsored propaganda can appear like legitimate news sources, as has been seen with Russian websites masquerading as Ukrainian news sources.

Incidentally, you'll note that I proposed a more robust process for deprecating and blacklisting widely used sources. That would seem to me to be a good first step in alleviating any concerns over weaknesses in the review of deprecations / "generally unreliable" classifications. Guy (help!) 10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, with all due respect, I disagree, particularly your opinion that "there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media." It has been demonstrated time and again that the transition from print to internet, increased competition, and clickbait has effected all media. For you to single out right/conservative media is very disconcerting. I am also concerned over your denigration of FoxNews despite clear consensus here, as well as voicing your generalized criticisms of conservatives and the Republican party. Responsible editors, particularly administrators who are supposed to be above the fray, are obligated to leave their biases at login. With regards to your repeated references to the Griffin BLP - an incident that took place 5 years ago and one that you misconstrued and are repeatedly misrepresenting - keep in mind that this noticeboard is for discussing the use of RS, and should not be used to harass or hound editors with whom you have an opposing view. Your constant dredging-up of the past to discredit me and diminish my input is unconscionable, particularly for an administrator. Let's not forget that you were warned over your behavior at the Griffin article, and argued until the acting admin removed the warning from the DS log - we call that professional courtesy in the media industry. You were clearly not happy with the consensus that favored my position, so please stop spreading misinformation in your attempts to discredit me in an effort to gain traction for your proposal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No, he's right and I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. More broadly, old nonsense from bad sources is nonsense from bad sources, and lots of it is a cleanup task, not a reason to claim it has tenure. The cleanup task is quite doable too, I got WP:THESUN from 8000+ uses to 5 in a few months of chewing away at it, and WP:DAILYMAIL is now below 20,000 from about 26,000 - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know there is a policy that says that poorly or unsourced content can be removed, there is no policy that says we must include information. We are not requited to have everything here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

David, which part of my comment do you consider incorrect? In my initial statement above, I agree with you in part which is why I said "...the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria)." Please consider the following: the sources that have recently been depracated or are being considered for it, and the sources being considered questionable or poor may have been part of a discussion at RSN or an RfC in the past and were approved by consensus for inclusion of a particular statement (in context). We cannot simply ignore that history and start wiping out sources. See DGG's statement below wherein he stated, No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. I'm of the mind that wiping out sources after the paradigm shift (analog to digital, & from print to internet), or when/if there has been a change of ownership or management may turn out to be a huge mistake. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme you're welcome to disagree, but that view comes directly from published sources, e.g. Network Propaganda by Yochai Benkler. It's also visible over time in analyses of media bias such as this - note how the conservative media all cluster together with a substantial gap between them and mainstream sources that is simply not present in the left-leaning media. So, yes, you're free to disagree, but my reading of the literature says that makes you wrong. Guy (help!) 14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy - but we have had this discussion before and I have cited several, not just one, highly reputable academic sources as well as interviews with highly reputable journalists/news anchors that dispute your position, including "The War on the Press: A Conversation with Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel", and this CJR report about media bias. There are many more, such as Cornell Library which cautions about adfontesmedia by stating they are ...a useful adjunct to your own research and evaluation of the news sources that you rely on provided that you evaluate these rating systems with the same care that you use to evaluate the news sources directly. And Gallop, and on and on. Many highly reputable sources TNT your theory about right and left leaning sources, bias and clickbait. Surely you're not putting all your eggs in the "Network Propaganda" basket. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The relevance of the Ad Fontes chart is simply that it provides a clear visual picture that illlustrates Benkler's findings. There are many within the Benkler book as well. The thesis is not that right-wing media have become more biased, inherently, but that previously mainstream conservative sources have changed the feedback mechanism from fact-checking to ideology-checking. You can see this in the increasing discoinnect between Shep Smith and the bulk of Fox reporting, leading up to his departure from the station.

The CJR report you cite says Academics are making advances in large-scale content analysis, with new machine-driven techniques and more sophisticated yardsticks with which to measure content. Such approaches can reveal much about news outlets’ choices of stories, sources, and language. - that is exactly what Benkler's analysis is. He and his co-authors used sophisticated network analysis techniques to analyse cross-sharing between media, and found that over a short period of time the conservative bubble effectively isolated itself from the mainstream and its "fact-checking dynamic".

It's very clear that over a relatively short period, conservative media has turned almost entirely inward, forming a positive feedback loop that amplifies tropes regardless of factual accuracy, and this contrasts with a fact-checking dynamic that dominates in the mainstream. Left-leaning sources care about what the mainstream media says about a story, so tend not to publish egregious bollocks, whereas the conservative media bubble does not care at all: when mainstream sources disagree with a conservative narrative they merely dismiss it as "lamestream media" "fake news" and carry on. And yes, that has changed over time, quite profoundly.

And this is consistent with a lot of other research. Example: Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity describes the effect of closed media bubbles, and numerous subsequent studies have verified Pew's 2014 finding that liberals consume a broader range of sources than do conservatives. Conservatives cluster around Fox News, they distrust mainstream media, and they reward (with likes and shares, that drive advertising revenue) ideologically consonant information rather than factually accurate informaitont hat contradicts a conservative narrative. Liberals do, however, selectively avoid conservative media. So you now have two disconnected media ecosystems, with different systems of incentives (because only one contains the mainstream). Guy (help!) 14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If editors followed policy correctly, the majority of discussions would be unnecessary. Editors should always seek to use the best sources available and only provide information that meets weight. A lot of discussions are about using obscure sources for information that does not appear anywhere else. It's only topics that have received very little coverage in mainstream sources where one would expect that obscure sources would come up for discussion. These would be articles about local history, minor political figures, minor novelists and musicians, etc. TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Lots of sources are so unreliable, they are unusable in any context except for WP:ABOUTSELF. It's okay to establish that here. We don't need to discuss every single use individually of, say, Breitbart. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard since they fall under the corresponding policy. However, due weight does partially depend on the reliability of the publication. If an opinion from an insignificant individual or organization is either self-published or published in a questionable source, that opinion is undue. If the individual/organization is significant (in the context of the article), or if the opinion is published in a reliable source, there is a possibility that the opinion is due. Reliability plays a bigger role in determining whether a factual claim belongs in an article. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, yes. This is where we establish whether a source is reliable for statements of fact, NPOVN is where we discuss whether a source that is not reliable for statements of fact, is, nonetheless, appropriate for citation in a specific article. That seems pretty clear to me, and is not a particularly difficult distinction to draw IMO. Guy (help!) 10:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In July, for using a review mentioning an art gallery by Theodore Dalrymple i.e. an opinion article, Newslinger didn't say "questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard", Newslinger said here on WP:RSN that it was among items that "should be removed because they constitute WP:UNDUE" so an RfC on WP:RSN "addresses" the use. Subsequently David Gerard removed, with a confusing edit summary, the review was in Taki's Magazine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Taki's Magazine (RSP entry) is considered a questionable source, Theodore Dalrymple's opinion piece in Taki's Magazine holds a similar amount of weight as a post on Dalrymple's personal blog (i.e. minimal weight). The opinion piece does not qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, as The New Art Gallery Walsall is a third party. If Taki's Magazine were not determined to be questionable, then Dalrymple's opinion piece would have been eligible for inclusion, and the best venue for a discussion of the piece's due weight would have been the neutral point of view noticeboard. But the result of the 2019 RfC is clear, and this discussion is moot. — Newslinger talk 22:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

God's Not Dead

Editor JzG says it is appropriate to cite the student newspaper Iowa State Daily as a reliable source for content about the film God's Not Dead. The citation is here. I am challenging the reliability of this source to use. In the context of critiquing this film, is this source really appropriate? It strikes me as essentially quoting a college kid's thought on the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• God's Not Dead (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iowa State Daily

It is asserted that a review in Iowa State Daily is unreliable in God's Not Dead because "you cannot cite a college kid to make an overall claim about a film. The content in question is:

though, as Michael Heckle of Iowa State Daily noted, "the movie provides no actual intelligent debate, instead opting to use common stereotypes of atheist and straw man arguments".(ref)

It seems to me that this is a curious view: not only is the statement WP:ATT, rather than a general statement of fact, but college students are both the subject and the target audience for the film. The statement is neutral in tone, not hyperbolic, and backed by other analyses of the film and its sequels: the consensus of independent reviewers is that the characterisation in the film is woeful. This argument would appear to preclude, on the same basis, Harvard Crimson and other student newspapers. Obviously some are unreliable (Liberty University's student newspaper is controlled by Falwell) but I don't see this as an unreliable source for this content? Guy (help!) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally no comparable rejection was registered for the inclusion of an entire paragraph on the reaction of the creationist fringe group Answers in Genesis sourced from two links on their own website, or (and entirely reasonably in this case) to the Catholic News Service's review: "There might be the kernel of an intriguing documentary buried within director Harold Cronk's stacked-deck drama, given the extent of real-life academic hostility toward religion. But even faith-filled moviegoers will sense the claustrophobia of the echo chamber within which this largely unrealistic picture unfolds.". In other words, even if you subscribe to the Christian persecution complex fallacy, this film is still bad. I think Heckle's comment is actually much more rational, in that it points to a specific issue with the way David A. R. White habitually portrays atheist characters in his films, a matter of both mockery and frustration among the atheist community. Guy (help!) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think we can live without it. A college newspaper can be a reliable source, but it is generally considered to be second best compared to more seasoned sources. If there were a shortage of secular reviews of the film, we should put it in, just to balance out the multiple religious reviews. (There are a large number of religious reviews listed; even including half that don't like the film!) But we already have reviews from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The A.V. Club, and The Washington Post, which are far more reliable, and are saying basically the same thing, so we don't need a student paper. --GRuban (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, Normally I would agree, but this seems to be a source uniquely well qualified to comment, as the film is both about and for college students, and the commenter is writing with apparent knowledge of the specific class of subject that is being falsely portrayed in the movie - college age atheists. WaPo and the others do not go into the specifics of this caricature presentation. That seems to me to be a pretty solid reason for including this specific voice, but with caution and attribution, as I did. I can find a bazillion atheist blklogs that make this point, and a couple of hillarious episodes of God Awful Movies, but this is pretty much the most cogent and least hysterical presentation of the matter I've come across so far. Have you seen better? Guy (help!) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But the quote it was being used for, above, doesn't mention anything about college students specifically. It just says strawman and stereotypes. Basically that can be found in the other 4 bigger name reviews: HR: "the film is clearly designed as propaganda"; "Radisson is a pretty one-dimensional tyrant"; "plot gimmick is pretty tacky. It cheapens the issues"; AV: "designed ... to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds"; "preaches to the choir"; "any legitimate critiques of Christianity are ignored in favor of suggesting that all atheists are just haters"; "The movie’s deck-stacking arguments could be refuted in a matter of seconds by a pro-atheist subreddit"; "reduces all of its characters to props in an object lesson"; Variety: "The Almighty deserves better advocacy than he gets in this typically ham-fisted Christian campus melodrama"; "about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head"; "just might be the Almighty’s worst advocate since William Jennings Bryan.The movie’s risibly myopic worldview...". Honestly, if you really want to use almost those same words, you could write "the movie was criticized for using straw man arguments and common stereotypes of atheists instead of any actual debate", and cite these 3 reviews to back that, I would support you. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, OK, I am happy with that. Guy (help!) 10:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is more one of WP:DUE vs UNDUE weight than one of Reliability. Any paper is a reliable PRIMARY source for stating the opinion of that paper’s movie critic. The question is how much weight we should give that critic’s opinion. Given that this is a student paper, I would say: very little. So... omit it. Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• This seems similar (in the mirror sense) to what I saw over at Unplanned, an anti-abortion propaganda movie which mainstream critics panned but critics at papers published by anti-abortion organizations liked. Somehow they are all placed side-by-side as though they're equivalent sources for film criticism. I don't think this is just a due/undue issue (although it certainly is in part). There's the reliability of the critic and the publication to consider. On this board we ask is [author] writing about [subject] in [publication] a reliable source for [use] in [article]. I don't think it's a good idea to lump film critics in with any other opinion. Some are better to include than others based on who they are, where they're writing, the kind of film they're writing about, etc. A student just isn't as good of a source for film criticism as professional critic, and criticism in a paper published by a church about a film relevant to the church's ideology just isn't as good of a source as a mainstream publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency

If Xinhua News Agency [42] is an state-run news agency, is a reliable source. By the following reports of this article, 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

With attribution maybe, what is their reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy: Context matters. What is the exact usage you are referring to? In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Government sources and state-run news agencies from a few countries are so far the most reliable sources for some claims, such as confirmed cases. --MarioGom (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Use with attribution. China has extremely low press freedom (ranked #177 out of 180 countries on the Press Freedom Index in 2019), which is an unavoidable issue that is brought up in discussions on any Chinese news source. However, Xinhua News Agency is the largest news agency in China (and in the world), and anything it publishes is certain to be representative of what the Chinese government intends to communicate. (Contrast this to the Global Times (RSP entry), which publishes incendiary opinion pieces that do not necessarily represent the Chinese government's position.)

  For the coronavirus pandemic, statistics from the Chinese government are certainly due in the relevant articles, and Xinhua is probably one of the best available sources for this information. In-text attribution is necessary, because it's unclear how accurate the statistics are (see reporting from Financial Times (RSP entry), Fortune, CNN (RSP entry), CNBC, and PBS NewsHour for details). — Newslinger talk 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: Note that this is not a Xinhua-specific issue. Xinhua figures for China come from the same source as Reuters': the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. So this attribution issue is independent from the usage of Xinhua as a source. On the other hand, Xinhua is publishing quick reports for many underreported countries (e.g. in Africa) that, as far as I can tell, are as reliable as any other, since they are just informing about figures from the corresponding authorities (example). --MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I agree with you here, since health figures in underreported countries have very little to do with Chinese politics or affairs. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute if used at all, Xinhua does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial independence and they are headquartered in a country with one of the least free press ecosystems on earth (not to mention a part of a government which has an overwhelming and current record of spreading disinformation through official channels). The use of Xinhua should be avoided entirely in articles that are controversial or political, whether COVID-19 related articles are controversial or political I will leave up to others to decide. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainer News

I am interested in using this article for User:Jlevi/Tom_Kawcyznski, but I want to check for reliability first. I am specifically interested in adding details about Kawcyznski's prehistory, such as his (brief) runs for Congress, his time in the Free State Project, and possibly details on his wife.

This source seems valuable because most other sources only cover Kawcyznski's life since moving to Maine, whereas this article starts much earlier. However, its bombastic style and the fact that I don't see many citations (for the source on Wikipedia or in the article itself) makes me interested in checking it before adding it to a BLP.

Here are some arguments in favor of the source:

1. A related article from the same publisher and author was cited by The Daily Beast for their own article on Tom_Kawcyznski, so this author and publisher have been used by larger sources.

2. The about page for the publisher indicates that their is a stable editing staff, a set of writers, and physical publishing for the paper in Maine.

Thoughts? Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Newsblog from real paper, if small; real journalist, discussing his work (the sort of things newsblogs publish). Should be fine with attribution - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Use with attribution, overall it looks pretty good. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiLeaks cable

Is it just me, or is {{WikiLeaks cable}} a prime example of making it easier for people to do something they should not be doing? It seems to me that linking to the leaked US cables on Wikileaks is a bad idea on several levels, and providing a template so this continues to work as WikiLeaks male changes also looks ill-advised. I would have thought that, per Wikipedia policy, if we're discussing any event in the leaked cables we should be doing so via reliable independent secondary sources, not directly from WikiLeaks, because the secondary source may be expected to have authenticated or contextualised the content, where WikiLeaks does not. Guy (help!) 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with it. Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However, there will be occasions when we want to link to the primary document and this template is useful for that. Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiLeaks has on numerous occasions leaked documents that are incomplete and thus lack context. Further, WikiLeaks intentionally misrepresents the documents that they are leaking, providing completely false explanations of what a particular document is saying. Thankfully, reliable sources have started to treat WikiLeaks more carefully than they did in the past due to this history of intentional deception, which is perhaps why fringey Wikipedia editors now increasingly seek to insert primary source WikiLeaks content into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

And, just as relevant, the material that ends up with Wikileaks is itself selective. It's an axe-grinder's dream. Guy (help!) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is used for, but if its BLP's that would be an issue, as would the use of illegally acquired material.

As to rumours of faking stuff [[43]], its just has not got that much coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks. The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the press.

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility".

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

Burrobert (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert, with fewer than 1500 edits, an average of one every other day since you registered, I don't think you have sufficient experience to comment meaningfully. Guy (help!) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of edits, what you're calling experience, doesn't automatically equate to judgement, which is what counts. But, then, I've only made an average of 1.8 edits a day over my own Wikipedia career, so what do I know?     ←   ZScarpia   12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A WikiLeaks cable is not a RS and shouldn't be used as a source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if it is verifiably from Wikileaks and has been through the rigors of substantiating originality as with all the other leaked material they've published. Wikileaks material is as useful as were the memos in the Steele Dossier which few editors objected to including in our articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what "rigors"? See above. There are none. And no, the meos in Steele are different, the primary sources there were assessed by the former head of MI6's Russia desk. Material published by WikiLeaks has been assessed by no verified subject matter expert. Guy (help!) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, this article may help shed some light. Wikileaks provides analysis as do news sources (like the NYTimes) that engage in investigative reporting and publish leaked info by anonymous sources. Wikileaks about page, dated 03-Nov-2015, lists their awards/recognition & partners (at that time), the latter proving most interesting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they do not provide expert analysis. They are a primary publisher of stolen information, and as such, we should never base any content solely on a document on WL. That should not be controversial. Guy (help!) 23:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Where {{WikiLeaks cable}} is used as a primary source, it should be removed (especially in WP:BLPs): only secondary-sourced material about the cable leaks should be included in articles other than about the leaks themselves. This reflects concerns about use of primary sources, illegally obtained sources, selective leaking, axe-grinding etc.
• In articles on the content of the cables, e.g. Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak) it should be used only as a supporting source, no section should be drawn entirely from {{WikiLeaks cable}}. This is to ensure that we have reliable independent sources to provide context and establish significance for any leaked content that we cover, and ensure that individual editors do not cherry-pick the source to support a personal view.
• Ideally the "contents of..." articles should probably be moved to WikiSource, as we already have articles on the impact of the leaks.

Does that seem reasonable? Guy (help!) 08:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

No. We can use primary sources with caution but it is discouraged...Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. This noticeboard is not the place to rewrite our PAGs. My concern is that it will open a can of worms regarding the use of primary sources in existing BLPs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to ALA showing their Wikileaks' rating. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, that looks like a bunch of motivated reasoning to me. We have solid evidence that WikiLeaks publishes indiscriminately, is vulnerable to the agenda of the leaker, has been hoaxed, and may publish material that endangers lives. Just because we may link to these stolen documents doesn't mean we should. And looking at your input on this page, it's hard to see this as anything other than personal. Guy (help!) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, perhaps you didn't realize that you separated my back-to-back comments when you replied so I moved it back. Your accusation that my reasoning looks "motivated" and that you view my input on this page as personal is unfounded. Why would you would make such an accusation, or is it an aspersion? I provided a RS that supports my position. Following are a few RS that published highlights of the cables: BBC, Reuters, NYTimes, and NPR which refers to them as an "online whistleblower". What RS support your input? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, and here's the point: where those third-party sources discussed the stolen cables, then so can we. But where they diodn't, we shouldn't either. If the BBC, for example, discusses a specific document, thent hey will have checked it, they provided context, and established the significance of the content. Including them without a secondary source is analogous to mining PACER and writing about court cases that have not been reported in the press. Why has the press not reported it? Is publishing this data a violation of BLP in osme case? We can't know because we have no secondary sources to guide us. We're allowed to use primary sources buyt we're not allowed to use only primary sources. That's WP:OR. And those are the uses we should be removing. Guy (help!) 13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A strong No. Use of Wikileaks documents as sources should continue to be governed on a case-by-case basis according to Wikipedia rules. Contrary to what is written above, quoting documents to show what they actually say, rather than what 'reliable' sources may claim they say, is a legitimate use.     ←   ZScarpia   12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, see WP:UNDUE. Content sourced directly and solely from WL also places Wikipedia edotrs in the position of being arbiters of fact. We are not allowed to do that. Guy (help!) 12:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I'm ok with whatever consensus determines; however, I disagree with you in that editors are put in the position of being arbiters of fact. I see little to no difference between what Wikileaks publishes vs the unverifiable leaks from anonymous sources published by the NYTimes or worse, the false information published by other believed-to-be RS as reported by the NYTimes here. Also see the MIT review about Wikileaks (WP is mentioned). As other editors have said above, we should handle Wikileaks on a case by case basis. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Hustle

I found this website that has a nicely written article on something I'm planning to write about called The Hustle. It's articles are written in an informal writing style and it caters to millenials, sort of like Vice. Is it a reliable source? Kalimi (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kalimi! Per their about page, I'm sceptical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another article about them in DigiDay. Kalimi (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's strange that The Hustle (thehustle.co) lists its investors, but not its editorial staff. The site appears to be a tertiary source, since most of its articles are summaries of news pieces from secondary sources, which are linked in the articles. After a spot check, I don't think The Hustle does any original research or reporting of its own. I would prefer to use the secondary sources linked in The Hustle instead of The Hustle itself. Which specific article are you planning to cite? — Newslinger talk 08:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This article. Kalimi (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. "The man who won the lottery 14 times" is a two-part long-form article unlike most of the content in The Hustle. This article is definitely a secondary source. While I am still disappointed in the publication's lack of transparency in its operations, I am impressed that the article included a properly labeled error correction after they were contacted by Stefan Mandel's attorney. I would consider this particular article usable for uncontroversial facts, but contentious claims about living persons (including Mandel) should also be supported by other reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Aight, thank you very much. Kalimi (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am less sure, this "Stories and insights you wont find elsewhere" is either a lie (thus they may be unreliable, they tell lies) or is true, which mean they must right their own stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Stefan Mandel story has been covered in many other publications and it is likely that The Hustle based its story on them. So it's better to use the other publications. Also, the claim in the article that the odds can be beaten goes against received understanding, hence WP:REDFLAG applies. TFD (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tatler

Tatler hasn't appeared on this noticeboard before as far as I can tell. I am interested in what other contributors think of this source, especially for BLP information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, as far as I can tell they comply with https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ and have an editorial complaints policy https://www.condenast.co.uk/complaints/policy/. Did you have anything particular in mind? Vexations (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Conde Nast gives them points - CN is reasonably good at fact-checking. Is Tatler a dubious example of a CN mag? - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable print magazine with full staff, long history (1901), no evidence of unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Probably reliable for fashion and high society which they cover.--Eostrix (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes

Genuinely suprised this isn't on the perennial sources list, currently has 84 articles   using it. As far as I am aware Guido Fawkes is simply a right wing political blog with no editorial oversight and is Daily Mail and Sun tier in terms of quality for fact checking. It shouldn't be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia for the same reason The Skwawkbox isn't. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Would agree. Why is this used?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's one of the more long-running political blogs, but in the end it is just a blog and shouldn't be used, except in its own article and Paul Staines. There may be other odd exception where something that it's written has been picked up by RS and become notable. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we would use those.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, absolutely. I would not use this any more than I'd use Occupy Democrats (which I successfully proposed for deprecation). We also know that Paul Staines is not above using smears and falsehoods. It's unclear how much of his blog is written while sober - he has a documented issue with alcohol abuse. Guy (help!) 09:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: The source has been mentioned five times before on the noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5, with the general consensus being that it is an unreliable source, so I definitely think adding it to the perennial sources list is pertinent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

+1 - generally unreliable at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is one of the more respected UK political blogs out there, breaking items that are often reference by media, it is still a blog. I agree it shouldn't be used.--Eostrix (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Eostrix, for some values of respected.... Guy (help!) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Detested as well, certainly. But the likes of the British Broadcasting Corporation do WP:USEBYOTHERS Fawkes: [44][45][46]. In the upper echelon of blogs, but still a blog.--Eostrix (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

aglasem.com

Recently spammed by 182.69.143.56, once frequently used by RichaChaudhary (76 links) and Rameshpoonia1 (12 links), currently used as the only reference of articles like Government Medical College, Jalgaon by Soumitrahazra (30 links), with a huge history of additions on many wikis (see meta:Special:PermanentLink/19939844 for the last 190 additions), but apparently often removed later (see Special:LinkSearch/https://*.aglasem.com for the few remaining links on the English Wikipedia).

• Is aglasem.com a reliable source, especially when it is the only one in an article?
• Soumitrahazra, do you have any connection to aglasem.com?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok... I do not have any connection with aglasem.com. However, these colleges exist that's clear from their own website. Wikipedia needs some independent link supporting this...that's why I use that. However, it is necessary to include as many references as possible. Some students of this college will eventually do that.

Soumitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumitrahazra (talk • contribs) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)