Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?

The applicability of the Daily Mail ban to the Mail on Sunday has bee raised multiple times, and yet many editors are labouring under the impression that it does. These are the facts (briefly):

The question of the Mail on Sunday has been raised on several occasions:

I certainly don't dispute that an argument exists that the Mail on Sunday shares the same reliability issues as its sister publication, as noted by Mazca, but the key word here is argument. The case has not been successfully prosecuted, which must surely mean that the ban does not apply to the MoS if we accept the prevailing opinion they are editorially independent publications. I also don't dispute Mazca's statement that the proscription of the online platform (that houses some MoS content) acts as a de facto barrier. It is statement of fact. If we can't cite Mailonline then the print version of the newspaper must be consulted directly. But Mazca does not state whether the Daily Mail ban explicitly applies to the Mail on Sunday or not. It is certainly being interpreted as such by David Gerard.

I am pinging in all the editors who closed the two Daily Mail RFCs: .

@Yunshui, Primefac, Sunrise, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Tazerdadog, Vanamonde93, and Ymblanter:

I appreciate everybody is tired of debating these damn newspapers but can we PLEASE reach a point where the Daily Mail ban either explicitly states it applies to the Mail on Sunday or explicitly states that it does NOT apply to the Mail on Sunday?? If the ban is to encompass the Mail on Sunday then we should proceed with replacing the sources in an orderly fashion. Ripping out content (which is probably 99% good) is not constructive and detrimental to building an encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Have we not just had this very discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

is what the last discussion said, and your laughable content (which is probably 99% good) flies in the face of reality.

The prohibition on citing in practice provides a significant de facto barrier to using the Mail on Sunday as a source

I'd say that the Wikipedia readers are being insulted by the numerous long-term editors using shitty sources, and I know whose side I'm on. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

numerous long term editors, who have spent years on this project, are being insulted left and right by this automated process

Betty Logan has neglected to link the cause of the present discussion: she used this unreliable tabloid source to reinsert controversial claims about living people, sourced only to this unreliable tabloid, at - apparently in the belief that using this trash source is acceptable as long as it isn't specifically deprecated.

I mentioned this in talk, Betty Logan blindly put the content back after without responding to the material having been challenged (thus not meeting WP:BURDEN, and then claimed the question I raised in talk was about WP:DAILYMAIL rather than her deliberately edit-warring in a reference to an unreliable source when making claims about living people.

I would suggest that even if the MoS is not covered by WP:DAILYMAIL - and not a word of either RFC's conclusion supports it being excluded, and nor does the result of the discussion, which concluded a carve-out would likely need a fresh RFC - that this is WP:POINTy behaviour, and material concerning living persons is absolutely not the place to be doing that - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

1. 31 August 2014, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ featured an article by David Rose which claimed that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice extent had slowed.

2. MoS accusation "Muslim" gangs 25 July 2015, corrected to just a "gang of youths" 18 September 2015

3. 4–5 February 2017 MoS alleged "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data", 18 September 2017 MoS forced to publish IPSO correction

4. as 3., plus two subsequent articles on February 12 and February 19 repeated the claims, 22 April 2018 page 2 of MoS print edition concede incorrect, "Corrections to these articles have been published online."
Article also noted IPSO complaints upheld against two other articles.[1][2]

5. MoS 29 September 2018 "Number 10 probes Remain MPs’ ‘foreign collusion'"

6. MoS June 2019 false claim about "Labour's tax plans", IPSO ruled inaccurate in November, publication of the correction delayed until after the election.

7. MoS December 2017 "rogue beauticians" story, IPSO upheld complaint but correction on wrong page, June 2019, Associated Newspapers agreed to pay damages.

10 MoS 29 January 2012 "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

11 MoS 14 October 2012 second article claiming "no warming in last 15 years", refuted by Met Office

1. It's not 'whatabouting' the issue. You're trying to referee the discussion, which given the magnitude of your involvement is totally inappropriate. If you fail to understand this, then that would render you patently unqualified to have any weight be given to your statements regarding reliability (since that would mean that you lack a fundamental understanding of what reliability even is).
To deprecate a whole media publishing group is very problematic. It's merely indicative of the slippery slope that Wikipedia is heading down with its whole deprecation process. The next thing to appear on this board will be an attempt to ban the Rupert Murdoch publishing group. The problem with this board and its perennial sources list is that it has a legitimacy problem. Were all the editors individually notified on their talk page who will be directly affected by this upcoming Mail on Sunday decision? If not, this local group decision has a legitimacy problem. And a vague RFC advert in the wiki-jungle doesn't cut it. Those editors who used the source have a right to defend their decision. And, the only way to defend your decision is to be notified. I know for a fact that a group of editors who are in the middle of a content dispute over the Mail on Sunday have not been notified. This is very problematic.
That people keep raising this topic is not, at all, a logical reason to block a source that is not the Daily Mail nor managed by the same people. It will also not end the discussion because the people who keep raising this topic can not stop raising it - they simply move the goal-posts. Hence the recent discussion on the DM in the past being an RS because banning the DM of recent decades wasn't enough for them. Additionally, saying "we should ban this source to stop discussions about banning it" is essentially a WP:BLACKMAIL position.
I agree with FOARP. No argument has been provided in this opinion for deprecation. In this request for comment, two flawed arguments have been presented for deprecation: the mutual ownership argument and the cherry-picked complaint argument.
The cherry-picked complaint argument presents a few complained about articles from the newspaper (in the past ten years the Mail on Sunday has published over 400,000 articles) and then concludes that the newspaper should be deprecated. This argument is flawed given that the full IPSO complaint statistics have been presented below. The full set of complaint statistics indicate that the Mail on Sunday had few complaints and ranked similar to its competitor the Sunday Times. No one is proposing to use the cherry-picked complaint argument to deprecate the Sunday Times even though a number of cherry-picked complaints against it were presented below.

I haven't studied yet the different sources that David Gerard has provided for his case, but I did look at Betty Logan's table which is quite rigorous and not prone to cherry picked examples. I provided a copy of the .

The results are quite informative. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, some people are advocating for deprecating/banning the Mail on Sunday, I thought it would be useful to provide a sampling of some notable journalists and writers who write or have written for the Mail on Sunday.
Some notable Mail on Sunday writers:

It would be a loss to the neutrality of Wikipedia if editors were not able to mention the opinion of some of these notable writers from the right-leaning Mail on Sunday, which is the highest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain. It's hard for me to believe that the Quillete or Iranian Press TV, which both received option 3 from this board, are of better quality than the Mail on Sunday. I cannot see how the Mail on Sunday is equivalent to Breitbart News or the National Enquirer, which received option 4 from this board. Wikipedia which is neutral does its readers a disservice by not allowing the opinions of conservative British commentators to be voiced. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side note: it is not ok to cherry pick corrections to build one's case, when there is a very clean and precise comparative table available with complaint and accuracy data. I believe many of the above editors are not aware at how problematic their method of analysis is. I believe the best way for me to show the problem with cherry picking reported errors is to provide cherry picked counter examples of how its competitor the Sunday Times has made similar reporting errors. This is a counter list of reporting errors by the Sunday Times.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The table above is the proper way to compare the complaints and accuracy of the different newspapers supervised by the IPSO committee. I'll note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

note that the Guardian is not monitored by anyone, or for that matter, any other newspaper in the English-speaking world

Regrettably, this RfC conflates the Mail's website and the printed Mail on Sunday newspaper.

While I have no time for the company's owners, nor their outlets' politics, I recognise that, like most newspapers, the reliability of its coverage varies. Large parts of the content of the Mail on Sunday - especially outside the spin of its political columnists - are both reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) and well-written; some of it by guest contributors whose relatability we would not doubt if published in another newspaper (most recently, for example, David Attenborough). Sadly, I've seen too many cases of the DM being blindly removed as a source even where its coverage is both reliable and unique, leaving statements unsupported or, worse, substituting source which do not support the valid statements made. This RfC, if it passes, will see the same happen to the Mail on Sunday. Wikipedia editors should - and should be allowed to - exercise judgment on a case by case basis, just like other adults. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that this specific debate is lingering on this board, stale to the point of mouldy, and long overdue a summation? HangTenBangTen (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe the traditional thing to do is go to the admin's notice board and make a request. If someone does this can they please make it just a request for closure without all the palaver about how this is a contentious subject and how the closing Admin will need a "thick skin" or to be "flame proof" that some people like to put in? Admins don't need to be told how to do their job. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have a couple sources and I don't know if they are considered reliable independent and sig coverage, I tried to create the article through AfC but it got deleted. I am not happy with the explanation. These are the sources[1][2][3][4] I would like to know if they meet WP:NCORP, thanks to everyone :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talkcontribs)

Hello, there is an ongoing long discussion without concensus on Vasojevic talk page about the letter send by Radonjic (2 letters in 1788. and 1789.) to Queen Catherine 2 , is it reliable source and does it goes under WP:AGE MATTERS since there is also reference of the letter from an autor from 1900. Thank you. User:Cobalton (talk) 15:24, 20.September 2020 (UTC)

Hi I think we need to have a proper discussion about using Indymedia as a source. I'll try to give a breakdown of the situation as I see it. The Independent Media Center (also known as Indymedia, IMC) was an early use of the internet by left-wing anti-globalisation activists in the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a boom and bust, as corporate social media took on all the facets of the new phenomenon of open publishing, a newswire, a website accessed for free from anywhere etc etc Hundreds of indymedia websites sprang up for different local collectives and most have folded, although some continue eg indymedia NL and indymedia Ireland and many sites are archived. So when I am talking Indymedia, I am talking about many different, mostly city-based news networks, mainly from the 1990s and 2000s.

Indymedia is therefore is proudly self-published and do not worry I will not attempt to argue otherwise. However, I will argue that in specific circumstances, indymedia is a useful and reliable source. Not least because of the specific point made by WP:SOCIALMEDIA but also for other reasons. Wikipedia has changed a lot since the 2000s regarding referencing and verifiability and that is of course great. We need to be sure we are correct, especially regarding BLP issues. Yes if it appeared in indymedia, it probably is in other sources too if it was notable (and some things are, some things aren't), but many of these other sources are lost or paywalled. The 1990s and 2000s are a bit of a deadzone for social movement history since many websites have expired and gone without archives, before the advent of the wayback machine and other means of archiving stuff. So when writing about many of the marginal (and not so marginal) historical events, then I would argue the indymedia service can be useful with specific caveats.

Indymedia is currently listed on perennial sources as "generally unreliable" with the blurb: "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." I would dispute that and prefer to see a warning for "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" and a link to this discussion, or whatever else people decide. There have been previous discussions and I can link to them here (two are linked at perennial soources) already. I am struggling to see any sort of consensus formed there at all. 17, 23, 275. 23 and 275 are mentioned on perennial sources.

As a final point, indymedia articles are used judiciously in academic literature and we shouldn't forget that either. I find it strange to contemplate all use of indymedia on wikipedia being deleted when academics will use it with discretion. Here's a quickly compiled list of articles which reference indymedia from my recently read pile, just to illustrate my point. I'm not talking about pieces ABOUT indymedia, I'm talking about academics using indymedia as a source on social movement history.

Unreliable to me this does not seem to be a reliable source. Consistency appears to be key here. If we allow this self published sources to be legitimated as a reliable source, then there is nothing stopping one from legitimating other self published sources as well. That does not seem to me to be a can of worms that we would want to open. Fortliberty (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable It is essentially user generated contents. Using something there isn't a whole lot different from putting things on Wikipedia directly without reference as you could put whatever you want on there, then reference to it as if it was legitimately published. "What will happen with your contribution: Anyone can publish on Indymedia through the links to the forms under 'publish yourself!' to use. All contributions appear almost immediately on the website. The collective tries to read through most of those contributions. The collective can leave the contributions on the basis of the criteria, delete them or move them to another category." (Google translation of ) Graywalls (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment thanks for the replies that are coherent, Graywalls you are doing yourself no favours talking about dogshit. I feel my point is being misread slightly since I am not disputing that indymedia is self-published. I am talking about how many social movement actors published manifestos, listings and so on at indymedia in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This means that as other sources are lost / disappear / get paywalled, indymedia will become a useful source for wikipedia since it will be all we have as a record of projects and groups, and this is what makes it different to the given example of Breitbart and Infowars. That's why I brought up academics using it, but I should have realised that would have got us sidetracked into a primary sources discussion which was not my intention. I suppose I'm happy for indymedia to stay marked as generally unreliable and I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". This allays my fears of all indymedia links being wiped from wikipedia. Regarding my specific example, I only see an answer from Buidhe so far, although I note Graywalls has referencing this discussion which seems odd, since I see no consensus for its deletion here. Mujinga (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see an emerging consensus for that, as long as we have the caveat of WP:SELFSOURCE, referred to by "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable".

Before this goes into the archive, it should be clarified that there is no such consensus. What editors said above is that self-published sources can be used on the condition that they attribute authorship but the nature of Indymedia is that authorship is rarely attributed nevertheless authenticated. Indymedia is marked as unreliable in the above discussion particularly because it does not, as a publication, have an editorial process to confirm the details or authorship of its posts. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we only report that which has been reliably stated in reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to fill out necessary, uncontroversial details that for some reason were excluded from the topic's general, reliable source coverage. But if we need to rely on a primary source to source, e.g., a manifesto, then editors should question why we're mentioning the manifesto at all, since it wasn't covered by reliable sources, especially if the manifesto cannot be attributed by a reputable source to the individual/group. Academics are welcome to discern for themselves whether a primary source is authentic, but that task is outside of our purview. As a tertiary source, we rely on the judgment of such secondary sources and the editorial process that reviews their work in journals to decide how to cover a topic. We specifically avoid the whole authenticity discussion by relying on the reputation of the publisher to decide what to include in an encyclopedia article. The whole point of this discussion and WP:SELFSOURCE is that Indymedia should be cited only under the rarest conditions, not regularly, and not certainly not carte blanche. czar 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I found it completely unreliable and unverifiable. It has no about page. The website in question's person (mixed martial artist) profiles are all over the place, seems outdated and and have huge discrepancies between other reputable sources such as the sport organizations themselves, UFC, Bellator, One or their media partners like ESPN, CBS, Fox, BT Sport, Independent or even the Athletic Comissions that organize competitions. But nearly all of the Mixed Martial Arts-related content have as the main source instead of the reputable sources that were mentioned above. A few editors seem to enforce it as the sole reliable source for thousands of biographies of living persons and their infoboxes. Even more various reputable sources that contain high-quality recorded footages or images or statistics or commission reports are disregarded in favour of Conor McGregor's Height section of the Talk:Conor_McGregor page have a rather more detailed discussion about its reliability.

We've reached a consensus to disregard Sherdog as a reliable source and use the reliable, independent and secondary sources, such as The Independent and CBS in the case of Conor McGregor's height, in the Talk:Conor_McGregor page. The consensus was only for the height of Conor McGregor but I think it was a very lengthy and detailed discussion with a lot of sources which had the participation of 7 editors, one being an administrator, so that should be considered unreliable site-wide. Nil Einne also agreed to consider unreliable here and I also want to inform another administrator Woody who also found self-published which has no about page unreliable in the Talk:Dan_Henderson page after another lengthy discussion.

Does anyone including ImTheIp who found reliable here previously before the achievement of consensus for Conor McGregor's height, has any objections to being considered an unreliable source?Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've an objection to finding it unreliable just yet - the previous discussion (11 years ago, IIRC) that found it to be reliable was flawed because it was literally three or four editors deciding it, after one asked the question, over a very short space of time, and that led MMA editors being able to declare "It's a reliable source, as agreed by WP:RS/N!". I understand your desire to move quickly on this, but there's no rush. And yes, I know that can be frustrating... I've learnt patience after having people stall decisions by creating 30-day Requests for Comment over issues that are obviously only going to go one way, but hey, patience is a virtue!

Sherdog is not self-published. Their "contact us" page is their "about us" page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

One instance of a fighter's height not matching what CBS and The Independent lists does not make sherdog unreliable. More often than not, sherdog lists the correct information. There isn't one individual authority that measures all fighters; they're measured by different people (networks or promotions) using different methods (a wavy measuring tape or stadiometer) at different times in different places. Common sense says there will always be discrepancies in such cases. Sherdog is as reliable as a sporting database can be when there is no single source to pool all its stats from. As for the site being self published, says who? I think the fact that their news section is filled with articles by multiple journalists says otherwise. – 2.O.Boxing 19:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a total outsider to this topic, but Sherdog is obviously not self-published, and it seems likely to be reliable:

You should focus on the content and comment on the reliability of instead of reading my mind. About page is just an anecdote.

Lordpermaximum (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please report invites, pings, mentions of any kind and newly opened sections that inform other editors about this RfC, so we can list them here in the spirit of transparency.

Anything below that is meaningful has already been covered above. Everything else is only disruptions and false reports that aren't related to the RfC.Perm 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)But I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_( if we are to stop them from using as the sole source.I think there's an option for your thoughts such as "reliable in the absense of generally reliable sources" which seems to suit your opinions or another option if you likeBut I really need your vote no matter what it is at WP:RSN#Responses_( if we are to stop them from using as the sole source has generally been used as "the sole reliable source" on thousands of articles which are related to MMA and mostly WP:BLP. In favour of, all reliable sources such as The Independent, CBS, ESPN, UFC, Fox, BT Sport, BoxRec, Bellator, One and Athletic Commisions such as NSAC have been disregarded. Lordpermaximum (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it gives some background to the discussions that were happened before the RfC since it's still under the main section. The starting point of these dicussions was pointed out at the top of the main section and this section only refers to that background. It's up to other editors to bear this in mind or not while evaluating's reliability but I thought it was important since it's going to affect thousands of pages because of the fact that is relied upon very heavily in those articles.Perm 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
"if the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same."

. As ESPN is considered reliable - reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS), and they partner with Sherdog (use Sherdog's coentent) that would make Sherdog a reliable source. (3) Sherdog is not a self publishing firm for it is own by Evolve Media LCC, thus Sherdog is not a self publishing company. (4) There was also discussion in the past in with the outcome that Sherdog is a reliable source - see WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:SOURCEDEF. (6) Site note: Sherdog is voted by MMA fighters the leading source of breaking news, fight reviews and in-depth features sites - see [ HERE. Cassiopeia(talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that deal wasn't for a lifetime and it ended a long time ago. Probably years ago.

Really? You've started discussions at two different noticeboards (which are still active), both of which are currently showing consensus against your opinion that the source is unreliable and somehow a serious BLP violation, and now you open an RfC? This is getting a bit daft now. This all stems from you saying sherdog is basically shit because you found a video source that says Conor McGregor is 5'11, contradicting sherdog. Shall we also start an RfC to attempt to get CBS Sports and The Independent deprecated as well? They also disagreed with your video source after all. – 2.O.Boxing 23:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I edited my vote comment without changing my vote to make it more precise after getting new information from everyone involved

I suggest Lordpermaximum reads WP:STICK and does something more productive instead of the constant arguing here, since there is absolutely zero support for their claim is self-published. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You should tell that to your friend Squared.Circle.Boxing who had extremely disruptive behavior under this RfC and tried to damage it as best as he could.Perm 04:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of the Byline Times? article could be of relevance in the Great Barrington Declaration article. GPinkerton (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

articles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligenceimmersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts.
The Full Fact article is basically a question of accurate but incomplete reporting. Byline Times says 'the number of shorts taken out for after the end of the conservative nomination rose sharply after Johnson announced his candidacy' to which Full Fact replies 'of course it did, most shorts are taken out in the short term and there wasn't any great rise in the number of shorts being taken out after Boris announced' to which one might reply 'that is irrelevant, all we care about is shorts taken out for after the end of the conservative leadership race and besides your own data shows a slight spike' at which point Full Fact replies 'we never said you were inaccurate, only that you should have reported the rest of the data' at which point the argument dives deep into a level of economics and logic that is not really relevant here.
The Spectator is an extreme-right magazine who's recent articles include calling upon parents of university students to "do anything, just stop them voting" and asking for the election to be held on a Muslim holy day to stop them from voting. It has been as "far-right" and has had one of its columnists described by the Private Eye as a "fascist". I'm not saying to take an allegation about exactly what a tweet may or may not have said coming from the person who was criticised by the tweet with a pinch of salt (I'll leave that job to the Spectator's WP:RSP entry) I'm just saying that a Spectator columnist trying to "foment violence" against a specific ethnic group would not be entirely out of character.
I can not speak for the reliability of Biznews but the whole thing reads like an opinionated sweary blogpost.
Requiring article talk page notifications for RfCs that would remove references used in those articles

I propose requiring that notifications linking to the RfC are added to the talk pages of affected articles so that article editors can participate in the RfCs before they are closed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'vw fixed the typo in the "unreliable source?" template. That can only be applied post-discussion, ie after the discussion result, which is too later to enter the discussion.00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As a consequence of the RfCs on Global Times and Xinhua, some users have been stripping citations from large numbers of China-related articles, which will probably lead to the eventual removal of large amounts of information about China. To give a few examples of items removed just in the past day by one user:

These are all Global Times sources, but I've seen similar things happening with Xinhua, which wasn't even deprecated. When the discussions occurred here about Global Times and Xinhua, I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen. In my opinion, much more focused guidance should be given, particularly about Global Times. Broad deprecation is damaging to the encyclopedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The community expressed worries about political propaganda, but I don't think most people had mundane factual matters on their minds, like who won a particular acting award. The mass removal of such straightforward information from articles, which I think will be highly unexpected to many who took part in the RfC, is why I'm raising this issue here.
Djm-leighpark, the default is to exclude poorly-sourced material. Anyone who wants to restore it after replacing the source with a reliable one, can do so.
Global Times is not a poor source for most of these cases. There were concerns about GT being used for political purposes, but that does not mean that it's unreliable for all sorts of mundane information. What is going to happen is that as more and more Chinese sources are deprecated or otherwise deemed unreliable in broad spheres, there will be very few sources left for many Chinese topics. Xinhua is still considered broadly reliable, which at least means there's some coverage of Chinese issues, but some users have argued that the RfC close is essentially a deprecation (which is a gross misreading of the RfC result, in my opinion), and are also systematically stripping Xinhua from articles.

I saw some of these removals in my watchlist earlier today and am very troubled, both by the removals and the cavalier and unprofessional attitudes used to justify them. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the consensus gained during the RfC was somehow invalid; rather, I am arguing that the consensus established was that these problematic sources would fall within the well-established frameworks we already have for dealing with depreciated sources—that is—usage of these sources is heavily discouraged, however not outright banned for all circumstances. A depreciated source is not a blacklisted source.

Still unconvinced? If you read the section at that uses the Global Times citation, can you please clearly explain precisely how the GT reference is problematic or harmful to the project? I can understand telling lies about COVID-19 or Taiwan, but why would the GT tell lies about how many countries were mentioned within People's Daily articles? I am arguing that our existing rules on depreciated sources do not dictate a strict, hardline enforcement on preventing these sources from being used; even if these rules were somehow supposed to be rigidly enforced without mercy (they aren't, by the way), , and thus is a net detriment to the project? --benlisquareTCE 00:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Like all other non-government media organizations Caixin is banned from doing independent investigative journalism and primarily publishes rewrites of stories from state media, sometimes they do add their own reporting to these stories but thats not what people in a free country would consider investigative journalism. The problem here is Chinese law, not the companies themselves. If the law changes then we can reconsider.I would support depreciation for *every* mainland news source besides Xinhua.

I would like to discuss the usage of articles from Mises Institute, a lot of which appear in right-libertarian articles, and sometimes in articles related to economics. I would like to propose that this source should only be used as a primary source about the Institute itself, and opinions of its members, but it's an unreliable source of information for anything else.

Mises Institute is a non-profit "think-tank" promoting right-wing libertarian economics. Most of its content are , but also some and .

Should Mises Instute articles be allowed for anything else apart for quoting opinions of its members/writers? BeŻet (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay if I ask: where can I find someone or something who or which can quickly check some 450 cites on Cleavage (breasts) to see which cites are unacceptable? It is alright if there is no one or nothing that can help. Aditya(talkcontribs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I just removed some HTML errors and ran the Organize References bot on the page.

Can we make some assessment, for the perennial sources board, of The Scotsman, The Herald, The National, and the other Scotland-only papers? GPinkerton (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs here or on the talk page. This article mentions many items that are of interest to us. For example:

Maine Business Daily is part of a fast-growing network of nearly 1,300 websites that aim to fill a void left by vanishing local newspapers across the country. Yet the network, now in all 50 states, is built not on traditional journalism but on propaganda ordered up by dozens of conservative think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals, a Times investigation found.

An editor has attempted to Rebel News to the Jessica Yaniv article. I consider Rebel News to be a highly unreliable web site, that's never usable for facts, and definitely not facts about a living person. It's fairly well known in Canada, and it's likely others would also try to use, so I feel it should be added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As discussed on the , they actually use articles like about the subject of the article, to fundraise for a court case against them. The owner/operator of the Rebel News, Ezra Levant has repeatedly lost libel cases against himself (see article for sources). The site is really a commentary site, not a news web site.

At the moment, nobody seems to be arguing the site is reliable. The editor who added it, seems to be arguing that it's not blacklisted, and is therefore allowed. --Rob (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

In University of the People, Weatherextremes has repeatedly inserted the following sentence: "According to UNESCO the University works with other universities and governments to advise, teach and partner with them on how to launch an online education system to meet the current need and demand in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.[1]"

It's obvious that the source is published on a UNESCO website but I cannot find any other information about its reliability. The information certainly reads as if it's written by the university and not an independent third-party. Except for a statement at the bottom of the page that says that "UNESCO does not endorse any product, service, brand or company," I cannot find any information that says how the information was written, whether it was fact-checked, how errors are corrected, or any other information that would allow us to know if it's reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the information is published in the UNESCO websites makes it reliable information. We are talking about an highly reputable organization. Of course UNESCO is right to point out that they do not endorse anyone. The main question is how can you prove that this information was written by UoPeople when it originally appears in the UNESCO website? Weatherextremes (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I beg to differ. The burden of proof lies with the editor who has doubts on the content of a credible source such as UNESCO. ElKevdo should be the one to provide sufficient evidence that the statement is actually written by UoPeople when it appears originally only in the UNESCO website. The source is credible until we see proof otherwise. Please include it in the article. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, what is actually foolish is to assume that UNESCO is not a reliable source Weatherextremes (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also what GPinkerton suggests seems a fair compromise and I could go with that.It actually makes it more neutral in terms of wording.Weatherextremes (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy I have been a wiki editor for the past decade and I have consistently edited mostly around meteorology and climatology and occasionally on education. I have repeatedly said that I have been impressed by UoPeople and I have been researching this institution for the past 5 years. I do not see how this is an argument you can use on the reliability of the UNESCO source. To answer your question I believe a lot of people care! Especially in light of Covid-19.I am proposing to change the wording in the article according to what Chess has said. It will make it more neutral and given that it is from a reliable source it will improve overall the quality of the article Weatherextremes (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Grayzone is a deprecated source; however, José Bustani has been recently there and made several noteworthy claims. Would it be acceptable to use the interview as a source of the claims, clearly attributing them to The Grayzone and Bustani? This looks like something allowed by WP:DEPREC. BeŻet (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. For instance if we were to say: José Bustani claimed during an interview with The Grayzone that he has been spied on while working at the OPCW - would that require a secondary source which talks about said interview, or do we feel that the primary source in this case is enough? BeŻet (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard has redirected the to this noticeboard. This is the requested information:

This source has been cited nine times at least. Among them, J. H. Field published two articles:

Hello! I have a source called Cinema Cats (here is the home page ). It is a self described blog and there is no evidence that the information that is posted on it is reviewed or checked for reliability. I don’t think this would be considered a reliable source for information about movies or cats, but I just thought I’d stop by and check! Thank you in advance for your comments. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently used in eleven articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

SPS by none expert, not an RS>Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an issue across Wikipedia song articles of songs sung by males where many of them list the vocal register as being an octave above what it actually is. This is due to an error in MusicNotes transcriptions where they do not differentiate between the octave of a male vocal melody and a female vocal melody. Because of this there are a number of Wikipedia song articles that list male vocalists as singing in the vocal range of sopranos, when in fact the actual pitches that the males sing in each song is an octave below that. These articles incorrectly state the singer of the song as singing in that high range, when it is that MusicNotes incorrectly transcribes the vocal melody as being an octave higher than it is. I outline a number of examples of Wikipedia song articles with this issue in this previously had discussion, as well as further expand on the issue

The reliability of MusicNotes as a source has been brought up here before, however the issue in that discussion was of a different nature. They were discussing the general credibility of Music Notes but didn't actually have any issue with the content that it was providing and they all agreed the information offered from Music Notes was correct. The issue in that discussion was whether it was reliable enough to speak to the recorded version of the song but did not have any specific grievances with any of the information itself from Music Notes. What I'm pointing out is a bit of a different matter since it is evidence of demonstrably incorrect information that we are using rather than being correct information that comes from a source we aren't entirely confident in.

It is likely quite evident that I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia editing and thus do not feel that this is an issue I am fully-equipped to undertake. I merely have the knowledge necessary to bring forward this issue in hopes that it is able to be resolved, as I have seen a number of people confused as to why Wikipedia lists so many songs as incorrectly having such a high vocal range. My apologies if anything in my formatting or protocol is incorrect here, I was referred to take this issue here when my previous efforts of correcting this were not effective. Chukulem (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to create an article about Sirfetch'd, but I'm not sure where to start. Can someone help me out? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Some contributors demand a blanket blacklisting of any online publication that includes "blog" in its title - even highly respected online publications like SCOTUSBLOG. While I agree we shouldn't use online publications written by non-notable people, or non-notable organizations - over 99 percent of blogs shouldn't be used. But I think we shouldn't be blinded by these so we exclude using the tiny fraction of things called blogs that do merit being considered reliable sources.

Scotusblog should be an open and shut case. Journalists from respected print publications assigned to report on the SCOTUS, the US Supreme Court, routinely cite SCOTUSBLOG, and defer to the opinions voiced there.

IMO Chuck Hill's blog falls into less than one percent fraction of things called blogs that should not be dismissed because it is called a blog.

Hill is a retired USCG officer who comments on maritime, naval and military matters. This Coast Guard page, full of related links, links to his blog.

This September 2020 article from the US Naval Institute Proceedings cites his blog.

The Center for International Maritime Security has published Hill. Their author's biography of him said :

Does this respect shown his blog by RS mean we should consider it generally reliable? Geo Swan (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The two articles are about new advanced munitions for a 50mm version of the US military's widely used 25mm M242 Bushmaster autocannon.
Are Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx acceptable sources to confirm Alexis Texas co-hosted the AVN Awards?

Is Uproxx an acceptable source to use, to confirm that Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards?

Is this peer reviewed paper sufficient to say that M269 originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe?

User:Peleio Aquiles changed R-M269 by replacing its origin (Neolithic Expansion) with Pontic-Caspian steppe. This is mentioned nowhere in the article, he didn't source it or leave an edit summary although he later said he did it on his mobile and had planned to source it later. I went to his page and having seen that he'd already had an argument with User:Drmies about sourcing, so told him it was a bad idea to continue not to source. He exploded there, which doesn't matter, but then went to saying he wasn't going to edit the article again, claimed that Neolithic expansion wasn't sourced (it is, in the lead) but at least helpfully giving this article as a source.. My problem is that looking at that source, it only mentions M269 twice - it does however say " all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade". And of course the Yamnaya were a steppe tribe. But this is just a bit of data in the article and not in the results, which do however start with "Our results support a view of European pre-history punctuated by two major migrations: first, the arrival of the first farmers during the Early Neolithic from the Near East, and second, the arrival of Yamnaya pastoralists during the Late Neolithic from the steppe." But the article is not about R-M269. Oops, dinner's almost ready, this might help. As he also went to to complain and an editor responded, I'll invite User:GenQuest to see if he has any insights. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of There are a lot of citations to it, supporting articles of bishops and things. The Wikipedia page itself has recently been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ GPinkerton (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC) is an nonprofit organization the provides comprehensive information about the Catholic Church[2][3][4] via its online database of bishops and dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. The website is not officially sanctioned by the Church. It is run as a private project by Gabriel Chow, journalist for Salt + Light Television, in Toronto. It also provides information about the performance of the Catholic Church itself in different countries and territories and provides biographical information on current and former bishops of each diocese, such as dates of birth, ordination, and (where applicable) death. When created, the site name was Giga-Catholic Information due to the fact that there are around 1 billion Catholics in the world (billion = giga).[5] It is used as a source for information on Catholic bishops and diocese, current and historical, by various news organizations[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and authors.

I couldn't find a definitive list of reliable sources for MMA on Wikipedia and I was wondering if is considered one. It seems to have a vast database of fighters and stats seem very up to date they have the last weigh in info of almost fighter.

"MMA fighters, gym owners, and promoters can claim their page and directly manage their information on Tapology. Visit the Info Management page for more information."

is a long-running music blog that features news and reviews, as well as with many notable bands. Several of the interviews are already used in many of our articles. The site and its founder has been featured in several mainstream sources, such as and . According to the site itself, it "has been voted in the BT Digital Music awards top ten music blogs and nominated in the Record of the Day Journalism and PR music awards, being named as runner up in 2009. Andy was also a member of 'The BBC’s Sound Of 2010 taste-makers panel' and has had press accreditation for numerous gigs and festivals including Liverpool Sound City , The Great Escape And Glastonbury." I'm unfamiliar with the site and more used to working with more mainstream sources. I'm particularly interested in opinions on its use for:

It seems to me that using the site for news and other facts might be a problem owing to the lack of editorial oversight, and the founder might not be quite notable enough as a critic to feature his reviews, whereas we may have more leeway with the interviews. Thanks for any and all advice given. Steve T • C 12:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

On the Talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, some members raised concerns about the reliability of the NGO Genocide Watch. In response, sources were provided to highlight the reliability of this NGO. There were as well comments made about it being "minor" and hence not reliable, which to my reading is irrelevant as size of an entity should not have a bearing whether its claims are reliable or not. However, even the size question has been answered. Here is key part of the comment I made which for me adequately answers the concerns. Happy to hear more from the community (tagging @Armatura:, @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @Rosguill: please tag others as you see fit)

Summary: WP:NOTADEMOCRACY but nevertheless most of you think GW is as reliable as it could get. Again I reiterate, the intention of this forum is to determine whether GW is reliable or not, and nothing to do with the Nagorno Karabakh topic. However, a valued feedback is to paraphrase what they always claim without mentioning the stages. @Armatura: do you want to do the edit? If anyone else has anything to add on the topic of GW's reliability or not, please do so

This appears to be squatting on a site formerly belonging to New Sarawak Tribune which went out of publication circa 2006. I suspect it is a Wordpress blog, based on the site icon. They seem to reprint news wire items but add some local content which may be promoted or paid. Second opinions are sought. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC) is a site run by Guo Wengui. His Wiki article descibes him as a corrupt figure who is pals with Steve Bannon. His site has been used to spread COVID-19 disinformation (see Guo Wengui#GNews. This morning, some IPs have tried to add a BLP smear at Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Hunter Biden (also at WP:RFPP now that the talk pages have been semiprotected) using links. This site was briefly discussed but no action was taken. I would like to see the source formally deprecated so that these links cannot be added, including to talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

We apologize if this picture has caused you any serious discomfort! But it is for the sake of justice that we, the New Federal State of China, have made this picture public. Because the friends of the communist are our enemies.

We will not allow anyone to steal from the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to enslave the Chinese people!
We will not allow anyone to abuse our children!

This picture shows only the tip of the iceberg of what is important in the Chinese Communist Party’s Blue-Gold-Yellow (BGY) program. They take advantage of all those Western politicians, celebrities, and their families who are greedy for Chinese wealth, and threaten them by getting hold of and recording their sex and drug videos, forcing them to sell out their countries and people, and even their own national security in order to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party’s world domination.

Citing just about anything on GNews would constitute a violation of the living persons policy. There is no valid use case for this website, and it should be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's been an ongoing dispute about an editor excluding general reader RSs and replacing them with only some non-U.S. sources and economics treatises. A discussion today about this can be read here. The following sources are included now in a replacement section:

Among the reliable sources deleted are those below. And along with those cites, the entire former was also deleted. Any opinions on this replacement of generally acceptable sources with only a few selected expert economists would be helpful. All of the cites above and below also had links to the articles. Thanks.

Most government sources relating to trade wars are going to be of questionable use due to bias as they are created by parties to the conflict in question. For example, the source "EU steps up WTO action against China’s forced technology transfers" is written by the European Commission and isn't exactly a reliable source on whether China actually is doing forced technology transfers. Likewise with a White House speech, a page from the office of the US trade representative, and some of the other sources mentioned above. Newspapers based in the countries that are party to the conflict are also going to be biased. The SCMP, Fox Business, the New York Times, etc. They're not biased to the extent of a government source but they still have bias.

Fantastic website with lots of great in-depth info about films it reliable? It has an and section, seems pretty legit but I need to know before I use it in an FA. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There's some disagreement about the reliability of over at WikiProject Albums, so I thought it would be useful to get a consensus on it over here. It is being used across quite a few album articles as a source of review aggregation. —Torchiest talkedits 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why aren't my ratings showing up on an album page and why don't they have an effect on the overall score?
You rated an album that isn't available yet. (i.e. it hasn't leaked, it isn't streaming, etc.)
Creating multiple accounts for the sole purpose of gaming the overall user score is not allowed. Once these ::accounts are discovered, the ratings will be removed and the account will be banned from participating on the ::site.

^ That section of the FAQ refers to the "user score" found on every album page—the registered users rating an album. This has nothing to do with the "Critic score", which is calculated using professional ratings. I'm not gonna vote either way, but I thought I'd point this out. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No. A count of what critics say is, in general, something we allow in film articles, but the count has to be in a reliable source, not a self-published source. There are two major reasons for this:
Second, how do you know that the count wasn't just made up out of whole cloth?

Book of Trifkovic Srdjan, "The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies". According to WP:FTN comment (here) there is an opinion that this book is not RS (if I understood correctly), so I'm interested in what you think about that source. According to editor @Fiveby: "Trifkovic is executive director of the foundation which published his work". Mikola22 (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I came across Russian news site . While its bottom shows the site's placement in some external ratings (e.g. Rambler Top 100 and Yandex Webmaster), the content's reliability looks dubious, in addition to evident Armenian bias. E.g. they use some Twitter account named notwoofers for in Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Their section states that anyone can become their author, while the current editorial staff includes four people. Brandmeistertalk 14:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I found few sources cited in Hindi to some of the India Related Articles, I want to Know that from Rajasthan Patrika is considered as reliable or not? Dtt1Talk 18:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)