Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9

< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 4 months ago by ActivelyDisinterested in topic Adding an FAQ to the noticeboard
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RFC archived without closure

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Similar to the one at the top of this page, this RFC was archived today without being closed. Anyone want to step in to do so, and update the perennial list? The Kip 19:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've created a closure request at WP:CR § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#RFC: The Cradle. — Newslinger talk 05:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanderwaalforces, for closing this. See the result at WP:RSN § RFC: The Cradle. — Newslinger talk 09:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Youtube and Spotify as sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have just added an edit to the page on Madonna's Drowned World Tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowned_World_Tour), explaining that the rendition of the song Lo que siente la mujer, Spanish version of What It Feels Like for a Girl, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axlNwcRga7Q) contains elements from the Calderone & Quayle Dark Side Mix of the original English language version of the track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_K54-27qFY), instead of using the original instrumental (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdULo9N7A0Y). My edit got questioned on the basis that Youtube is not a reliable source, but this is Madonna's official channel. Doesn't it count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phastolph (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Madonna's own channel is a reliable source under WP:ABOUTSELF limitations... which doesn't mean that you might not be doing some WP:OR here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
No websites specifically state that the mix I cited was the basis for the live rendition, but it's very clear upon listening to the videos on Madonna's channel. Does the fact that it's not outright stated make the addition irregular? Phastolph (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
It does. It's both WP:OR and, lacking a source caring to talk about it, not shown to be worthy of inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Reference

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some time ago I added a reference on the buccellato di Lucca page, is it reliable or not? Also, I would like to ask that the reference I added, in case it's a good reference, be corrected, as I didn't format it very well. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ICTFSOURCES

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is undergoing in the talk page of WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force for the verifiability and for the inclusion of reliable sources for Indian cinema. Any veterans of RSN who are good at judging the sources, please drop by with your comments and insights. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Archived without closure redux

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As above, this RfC was archived without closure. I've made a close request here. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Archived here and at Close requests here (89 days) Don't think it is that hard, probably same as it is already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Done here now. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Independent Australia

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Independent Australia has been censored(Talk: Don't be evil, 2024, "Criticism" section). I am not promoting this organization or trying to spread their views, but I want to ask the question why one biased news source gets targeted while others romp free here (Fox, CNN, The "Guardian" OMG so bad..) are we really going to play favorites to the bigger media companies? This too is a slippery slope. Ref https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-australia/ Ref https://journalists.feedspot.com/australian_news_websites/ Ref https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/News%20in%20Australia_Impartiality%20and%20commercial%20influence_Review%20of%20literature%20and%20research.pdf Also note the section in question is not about right or wrong per say, but is focused purely on major criticism (using a specific motto), as a general topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanf (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you read the discussion about Independent Australia, you'll see that it's not just their biased reporting, but that their reliability is awful—reporting rumors as facts, misrepresenting or faking sources, etc. We also don't use the New York Post, so I've removed that source at Don't be evil.
As for Media Bias Fact check, see WP:ADFONTES.
Also, please remember to sign your messages on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok. Sorry, it's been a while and I can see now things have changed. I'll try to go through some of this when I get a few mins. Ty. Scanf (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments9 people in discussion

My edit to the ongoing RfC on the ADL was removed citing WP:ARBECR. I am under the impression that the RfC is open to users generally. I do not see any policy or warning about it being only open to XC editors. May someone please confirm whether I have the right to post there or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1229936088&oldid=1229935646
Enbylvania65000 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Under ARBECR, discussions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict are restricted to editors who are extended confirmed.
However, that specific example gets a little complicated; given that we have split Israel-Palestine into a separate sub-question, my impression is that editors who are not extended-confirmed should be able to respond to Part 2: antisemitism and Part 3: hate symbol database. However, such editors would need be careful to ensure their !vote doesn't not mention Israel, Palestine, or the conflict between the two.
In other words, my impression is that if you resubmitted your !vote after correcting those issues it should be fine. However, this is a grey area, so it may be removed again. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that I can't mention the conflict that is the central issue behind the entire RfC while others in the same question can. I find it ridiculous that people can claim that there is no relation between Part 1 and 2 when denying my argument and then the same people can claim there is a relation in their own argument. But I will abide by these ridiculous rules as it is important to me that my point gets heard. Enbylvania65000 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Where did you hear about the discussion? I find it strange that you have no edits for years (and your user page says you are semi retired) then suddenly pop up to !vote in an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I outlined my reason why. I am Jewish. I am afraid for how Wikipedia policy can exacerbate antisemitism in the real world at a time of increased persecution. I also fear the precedent it sends to other marginalised populations that we cannot define or discuss our own oppression without the approval of people who are not members of our group.
I semi-retired years ago in disgust over how in a discussion on Wikipedia policy on deadnaming, people who are trans and have direct stake seemed to be outright ignored and their opinion discounted almost as if it was *because* of their direct stake. I now wonder if that was a mistake. I now see the stakes as too high to continue to remain uninvolved.
As for where I heard about the RfC, I heard it from Times of Israel via a friend in Discord. I would have likely participated in Section 1 as well if I could, but Section 2 is a much higher stake issue for me. I did not participate in Section 3 as I don't feel informed enough for what I think ought to be a very technical discussion. Enbylvania65000 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
My view is that the subject of this discussion is intrinsically enmeshed with the matter of the Israeli/Palestine conflict and is thus covered by the broadly-construed provision. The entire crux of the discussion is based on definitions of anti-Semitism as it relates to positions on Zionism. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I would think the same, except we’ve explicitly split Israel-Palestine out - almost by definition, this means the other sections should be unrelated to the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Our Zionism/AntiZionism and IHRA definition pages are all tagged Arbpia for a reason. I'm not that concerned about the database RFC but even then, non EC editors showing up out of the blue would still be a little concerning. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
They're different areas of coverage by ADL, so there is a possibility that different considerations could come into play, but with the discussion approaching closure it's clear that the main points of contention involve discussion of ideas regarding Zionism as a central feature. Section 3 on the other hand is maybe a bit more distinct, with editors raising concerns largely unrelated to Zionism and focused on ADL's reference-work in identifying neo-Nazi symbology. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Generally, something doesn’t become part of IP just because editors start discussing IP. For example, if there is an RfC about the 2024 Election at Joe Biden, non-ECP editors can continue participating even if there is significant discussion about Biden’s role in the current war, so long as those editors avoid joining those specific discussions.
In other words, if the scope of the discussion is sufficiently broader than IP - and with IP split out that is clearly the case here - then non-ECP editors can participate in the aspects outside of IP. I believe this has come up in previous RSN discussions and the decision was to allow those editors to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
No argument there. This case is different, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with BilledMammal: parts 2 and 3 are not, generally, part of PIA. Some commenter's rationales are, and non-ECP editors should not be engaging with those (or making such arguments themselves) but I see no justification for excluding them from the discussion as a whole - especially part 3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as the arguments are unrelated to I/P, there is no policy-based reason to exclude the votes. FortunateSons (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
How can I know whether the debate on whether I am allowed to post a comment on part 2 or not is settled? Enbylvania65000 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Someone will probably restore your edit for you if it does settle in favor of allowing your to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I very much disagree with @Rosguill's attempt to extend the contentious topic restrictions to issues 2 and 3, for the reasons mentioned in my back and forth with @Rosguill at my user talk page, and I agree with @BilledMammal. Indeed, it would be helpful if someone here could issue a definitive ruling on this point, as my position is that @Rosguill, intentionally or not, is stifling this important discussion, and often in a way that disadvantages editors seeking to defend the reliability of the ADL. Coining (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Arbpia/CT is "broadly construed" so for example, a while back there was a discussion about whether David Miller fell into Arbpia and it was decided that parts of it did, there is a "partial" template which is obviously not available for this. So it is then a matter of editorial agreement and for me, it is a clear cut "partial" and quite possibly it should just be full, given the overall background. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
By that logic, everything related to Arab countries or Israel, or Muslims or Jews, is covered by the contentious topic restrictions governing the Arab-Israeli conflict. That simply cannot be the rule. It is way too broad. Antisemitism (issue 2) existed well before the Arab-Israeli conflict -- it precedes by millennia the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. The ADL itself was established in 1913. And hate symbols (issue 3) are a much broader topic than the Arab-Israeli conflict. I think that in essence this is an attempt to claim that antisemitism itself is a contentious topic (or that hate symbols themselves are contentious topics), but because Wikipedia doesn't have a determination saying that is the case, the effort is being made to shoehorn everything into the designation for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Coining (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
"Broadly construed" is the rule, what it means is usually pretty obvious and where it isn't so obvious, a short discussion soon resolves it. As for antisemitism it depends, the article for Antisemitism is not restricted but the Working definition of antisemitism is. Also, you should realize that only less experienced editors are caught by this, those with less than a 500 edit count, where experience has shown that the benefits in such exclusion outweigh the occasional losses. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Even Zionism is not inherently linked to the Israel/Palestine conflict; indeed, it was a topic that existed well before there was such a conflict. It can certainly be discussed in that context, but then, Twitter can be discussed in the context of Elon Musk but that doesn't make every statement about Twitter a BLP matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, the symmetric property implies that the antisemitism section isn't inherently about anti-Zionism. This is a ridiculous double-standard and I agree with Thryduulf and BilledMammal. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No-one actually disputes that some AZ is equal to AS, so your math is wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments9 people in discussion

I'm thinking 'Deprecate' shouldn't be one of the options for standard RFCs. It's always contentious and often misunderstood (as simply being worse than unreliable). That's not to say we shouldn't have it or use it, I think we should, but the standard discussion should be about how reliable a source is rather than if technical methods should be used to discourage it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement. At worst, and only in cases where a source has a history of being abused across articles, the question of deprecating (such as adding to the blacklist) should be handled as a separate section asking “if the source is determined to be unreliable, should it be added to the blacklist” or similar. And to make abundantly clear, the vast majority of sources shouldn’t need this extra question - if the discussion is about specific topic area(s) then the question is moot as that generally wouldn’t be added to the blacklist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this, it seems somehow to create a drift towards ever more harsh judgements of sources. Deprecation should be the end of a process and not a potential outcome at the beginning. For example comments such as 3 but I wouldn't object to 4 don't actually make a lot of sense. In fact, I believe that we should not deprecate a source unless it has been designated generally unreliable first (there are possible exceptions to such a rule but then that is like every other WP rule). Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I think there could still be need of discussing deprecation as a first measure, but I agree that that should be the exception. That it being proposed in the current DT discussion shows that there's a certain level of misunderstanding going on, as it's just not a feasible outcome. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
There was actually an RFC to try to remove deprecation, but it failed. You could run another one - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a link? I vaguely remember the RFC, but can't find it in the archives here. If those vague memories are right this is a different question, this isn't about the use of deprecation but how the RFC header should be formatted (I could be wrong about that). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
ah right - well, I'd say discussion belongs on the main board - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you perhaps vaguely remembering Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I was just talking to someone about this recently. I don't think that deprecation should be on the table, except for the most egregious cases, like websites that churn out made-up AI-generated stories. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons stated by Philomathes2357 in their agreement. Further, having deprecation as an option in RSN RfCs limits the procedural nuisance that would otherwise arise by making deprecation a multi-step process. Finally, we should not obliviate an option from consideration by the community because of our belief that community is not cosmopolitan enough, or is too unsophisticated, to understand its meaning. Whether or not that's true, less autocratic and more inclusive methods -- such as explanatory notes -- should be tried first. Chetsford (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Some of the sources listed at RSP as "generally unreliable" are not actually generally unreliable. So, if there was a separate deprecation process, I would want to be able to !vote for options 1 and 2 there and then, during that deprecation process. I would not want to have a choice between only options 3 and 4. Subject to that qualification, I do not have a problem with the exclusion of deprecation as an option in RfCs on sources that have not already been classified as generally unreliable in a previous RfC. James500 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Header tweak

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've tweaked the RSN header, mostly adding [Before starting an RFC on a previously-discussed source, ask yourself Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed?].

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This duplicates the sentence directly below RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. Having the same sentiment twice is not going to get editors to read it, extra clutter just means that editors are less likely to read the header at all.
This is especially true when the edit notice that appears when you start a new section has an even blunter sentence stating that you shouldn't open an RFC. So I don't see how stating it for a third time is going to have anymore impact.
Instead of duplicating the whole thing would highlighting the pre-existing sentence be a better option, see example here (the formatting still needs work, it has issue on some screens). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't duplicate it at all. Above it says check that these discussions about the source haven't happened already, and that you're not just threading old grounds. There's 50+ discussions on Daily Mail. Over 45 for NYT and Twitter. 30+ for IMBD. Near 20 for CNN. We don't need more discussion on those sources unless something drastic happens to them.
Below is says don't start an RFC about a source unless it's widely used and there was multiple discussions about it. That's because you shouldn't jump to an RFC as a first resort. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok I think I've slightly misunderstood you intent, but I still think having to sentences for two very similar issues isn't necessary. Would modifying the current sentence on RFCs be a way forward? Adding a part on not starting a new RFC unless there is material reason for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that extra note is necessary. The header already tells editors to check the archives, and as a regular lurker, I don't see people opening discussions about over-discussed sources too much. Ca talk to me! 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Page is very large right now

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

And a big chunk of it happens to be a single closed RfC. Would it be OK to manually archive it, so that the page size can be reduced? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I had been thinking the same, loading the board is glitchy at the moment. So I would support manually archiving it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, I'm going to archive it now, manually. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate post?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it. Diff

I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As there's been no comment I'm going to archive the section. That will get the board down to 500k, still to big but it's a start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Preload formatting

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We generally want the same bits of information for each source, so I am wondering if we could Wikipedia:Preload some of this. It could say something like:

  • Link to article or section: Example
  • Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
  • Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
  • Why you think this source is/isn't reliable for this statement: I think this is a reliable source because...

Do you think that would help editors, especially folks new to this noticeboard, organize the information that they need to provide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Investor's Business Daily

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since Investor's Business Daily is used in citations it appears to be regarded as a reliable source but Investor’s Business Daily Short-Arms Correction, Investor's Business Daily editorial doesn't support claims ... and In Which Investor's Business Daily Completely Mangles My Data. cast doubt on its reliability. As a result I don't know how seriously to take Terrorist Ayers Confesses Sharing Obama's 'Dreams' published in 2013, especially in the light of Bill Ayers Punks Conservative Blogger and Bill Ayers: Sure, I Wrote Obama’s Book. Now How ‘Bout Those Royalties? originally published in 2009. Mcljlm (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone have anything to say on whether or not the Investor's Business Daily is reliable?

You should post this to the main page, as it's a question about the reliability of a source. This talk page is for discussions about the main page, and few editors check it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Manual archive

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just manually archived the TOI RFC and the Lockley discussion, the bot should have archived these yesterday but failed to do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph is going to come up again soon

Latest comment: 1 year ago56 comments10 people in discussion

Since the last discussion The Telegraph has gotten significantly worse... [1][2] etc, I know its the last thing anyone wants to do but they're going downhill so fast in terms of reliability in this topic area that a new discussion will be due shorty if not already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

These days it's a joke paper (plain reportage maybe excepted), everyone with a brain in the UK knows that. Wikipedia as usual is going to take its own sweet time to get it? Bon courage (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The Mirror is far more of a joke paper, yet still permitted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
It's an endemic problem on Wikipedia that a large swathe of editors don't realise that newspapers are terrible sources that should hardly ever be used. Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
As a British person, I can only apologise for the absolute filth that passes for print media in this country. I'd like to blame it all on a certain Australian but, if I'm honest, he's less than half the problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That would probably help explain why Donald Trump's article is such a mess. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That second link should not be taken as the Telegraph's stance, that seems to be reporting neutrality on the issue (where other people in the world are showing their bigorty towards the matter) The first one obviously is a problem as that reads like an op-ed without such a byline. — Masem (t) 19:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
In terms of pure reliability the two articles together reveal a major issue you've overlooked... One article says "Research shows biological males punch around “162 per cent” harder than females, experts add." but does not name those experts, at the end of the article they quote a "Emma Hilton" without connecting her to the previous statisic... The second article says "It was a telephone call to Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist whose work illuminates why sex matters in sport, that gave a first inkling as to the freight train hurtling down the tracks. Given her research had illustrated the average man could punch 162 per cent harder than a woman" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Tons of reliable sources cite statistics and other aspects to unnamed experts (or often without any citation), it is not unique to the Telegraph. Vetting that information upon inclusion within WP is part of the normal editorial process, and in the case of that specific stat, which relates to the human body, that's at the edges of what MEDRS would say we'd need a far more reliable source. I know that we're worried about the Telegraph overall in their negative coverage of trans issues, and I'm not saying that the first one is more fuel to add to that fire, but the second one has the typical issues that any mainstream publication has that we have to be careful about. Masem (t) 20:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
"Tons of reliable sources cite statistics and other aspects to unnamed experts" err, not. Indeed it's probably a tell of a rubbish source if it does that. Reliable sources tend to back up assertions with citations. Bon courage (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
You're saying its common practice to represent a single source as two seperate sources? Because the issue isn't that they're citing unnamed experts... Its that they're citing the same expert twice in the same article, once under their own name and once as an unnamed expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
As described below, it's sloppy writing, not that itself is not a means to declare a work unreliable.
I also think the question of use in WP is important here. If we are focusing on the 162% statement, then it would seem that we should be stating in WP space "According to Emma Hilton, a man punches with 162% more force than a woman." and using the second article would not be an issue for that as a source. The Telegraph is not falsify or misreporting what she told them or the underlying research, but simply reporting on it in a very sloppy fashion along with the papers bias against trans. Now, if we said that same statement with the attribution, then I would beg the question if the Telegraph is a reliable source there. So a lot of this is very context dependent, none which point to a problem with the paper overall that needs to be addressed. — Masem (t) 16:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I fail to see how systemic "very sloppy" reporting due to a notable bias isn't a reliability issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
But as I said below, that's all based on pure supposition that Hilton is the only possible source behind the Telegraph's "experts add", when the IBA quoted the same stat in their press conference and in context it makes far more sense that that is what the Telegraph is referring to. I simply don't see what the issue is here at all. Void if removed (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Its from Hilton & Lundberg 2021. Void if removed (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we've already established that. The Hilton in question is Emma Hilton. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I read the discussion and I don't see where you established that was the source. Also Hilton & Lundberg's citation for the 162% is Morris et al. 2020. I think unnamed "experts say" is a pretty common summary of 6 authors across two papers in a popular media source. Not aware of this figure being in any way controversial either. Really not seeing what your point about reliability is here.
(added)
I think I understand - you're concerned they say "experts add", without naming them, and then later mention Emma Hilton, and put those two together to presume that she is the sole source? I think that whole section is badly written TBH - making a claim of the form "experts add" without going on to explicitly say which experts have added is quite poor. Not sure that's exactly "unreliable" though, unless its demonstrated that there are no other experts and that the claim itself is a contentious one? Void if removed (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Not mentioning that a specifically quoted individual is one of the experts quoted earlier is a reliability issue, you can't double up your sources like that. Thats beyond sloppy or badly written, its plainly misleading in a way that a paper of record never should be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The source for that is also The Telegraph... "It was a telephone call to Dr Emma Hilton, the developmental biologist whose work illuminates why sex matters in sport, that gave a first inkling as to the freight train hurtling down the tracks. Given her research had illustrated the average man could punch 162 per cent harder than a woman" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
But as I made clear (and as the phrasing in the Telegraph actually permits), she and Lundberg just illustrated this particular figure. They are not the source (that's Morris et al) and both papers are cited by other sports scientists eg. in this BASES statement.
So I think you're making a leap from Hilton's mention in one (opinion?) piece in the Telegraph by one journalist to another summary of the issue in another article by a different journalist, which also quotes Hilton, and making the assumption that the "experts add" in that second one refers (solely?) to Hilton.
I don't think any of that is remotely definitive, especially when the IBA brought up this stat themselves in their press conference on the issue, in that case stated by Dr Ioannis Filippatos.
Given that context, the quote:
The IBA maintains both have XY chromosomes. Research shows biological males punch around “162 per cent” harder than females, experts add.
Starts to look more like the journalist is actually referencing the IBA's position, no? Much simpler interpretation IMO.
Hilton is not the only expert to draw attention to this punch strength differential, nor is she the origin, and it isn't even a figure that's in question, so I really don't see what the issue is. The idea that this is a sloppy double quote seems to be your own interpretation, and not the only possible one, nor even the most likely. Void if removed (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The larger problem is as you point out the opinion? Peice referred to as source 1 above. A confusion between whether a piece is opinion or not is a huge problem and occurred in the original RFC (although only 1 or 2 times). LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok but that is a different claim, but that's not a "trans" issue - in fact none of this is, really, a "trans" issue.
If someone wants to make the claim that the telegraph is questionable across the board on the basis of not correctly distinguishing between news and opinion then a quick trawl through this author's contributions has loads of similar examples, eg. this or this.
Are these opinion? Or are they supposed to be analysis? It is hard to say, and if that's worthy of an RFC so be it, but I think a narrow, subject-specific one is way off-base in that case. Void if removed (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The Hilton paper is about transgender althletes "Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage" so if this is not a "trans" issue what are they doing talking to Hilton and refering to a paper about trans athletes in women's sports? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Hilton & Lundberg is about "male performance advantage" in sport and the extent to which it can be mitigated with testosterone suppression, which is relevant to any discussion about balancing fairness and safety in female sport including those regulatory bodies arguing certain DSDs can be included in the female category with testosterone suppression - and in any case the claim itself simply comes from a paper on male/female dimorphism in punching power. Its a completely uncontroversial background statement that male punch strength is on average about 2.5x that of female punch strength. Void if removed (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not a discussion "including those regulatory bodies arguing certain DSDs can be included in the female category with testosterone suppression" (testosterone suppression simply does not appear to be a part of the current discussion) and its not uncontroversial because its use asserts that in this sitaution we have a man and a woman, which has not been established. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI "and it isn't even a figure that's in question" is a false statement, the figure in question appears to be highly controversial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Nothing against whataboutery in general, but whataboutery with no examples provided isn't useful. Feel free to uncollapse this if equivalent sources are provided.

I don't like The Telegraph one bit, but I don't see it as any less reliable than similar newspapers such as Guardian. Both have a fairly strong political bias, and sometimes go off completely, but I wouldn't argue against using either one. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance of the British press but what issue or issues does the Guardian abandon all pretense of reliability on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
French politics for example, several recent examples of flat-out lies (I'm talking factual lies, not opinions). 29/30 times I agree more with Guardian than Telegraph but that reflects my political outlook and not any difference in reliability. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Generally someone would provide examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Certainly - if the discussion were about Guardian. It's not, and I don't propose Guardian should be classed as unreliable (quote the opposite, I would oppose that). This discussion is about Telegraph, and I see no reason to see it as unreliable apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
If the claim was not relevent to this discussion it would not have been made. Please support your claim with evidence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim was to this discussion. As very poor with little substance from the start, mainly due to the poor discussion start, there's not that much to add. To sum up: you dislike the Telegraph. That has little relevance for its reliability. My point is that sometimes media write things we dislike, and occasionally gets things wrong. That's hardly news. Jeppiz (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Your summary is incompetent, I actually like the Telegraph in general and have been shocked at the unreliability of their coverage concering gender issues at the Olympics... It seems to go well and beyond any issues they have had before (and any issues that previously comparable sources have encountered, I really don't think that the Guardian has an issue on which they have become fundemntally unreliable like The Telegraph and gender). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
And let's not mention heat pumps. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The first source is analysis by a sports writer, hence would not be considered a reliable source wherever it was published. I don't think sources should be banned because they publish opinions that depart from mainstream liberal opinion, but only if the accuracy of their news reporting falls below standard. CNN had two talk show hosts who promoted right-wing conspiracy theories (Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs), while the Wall Street Journal publishes columns by people like the climate change denier John Fund. Tucker Carlson had a show on PBS. If we banned all of them, we wouldn't have any news sources left. TFD (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
What tells you its analysis/opinion? It doesn't appear to be presented as such, its not in the opinion section or marked as analysis unless I'm missing something Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not marked as opinion but that it clearly used strongly opinioned language without attribution and or to themselves (I, me language) we at Wikipedia can clearly consider it opinion despite the lack of a by line.
A source that repeatedly does not disclose the difference between news and opinion can be considered unreliable, I just don't to how much this happens with the Telegraph — Masem (t) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Not marking opinion pieces as opinion pieces is a reliability issue, but it is not my intention to litage The Telegraphs reliabilty here on the talk page just to note that enough has changed since the last discussion for a new one to be valid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
One should be able to distinguish between news and analysis without it being labelled. A news story is "An account of events prepared by a reporter or team of reporters. It is our best effort to present true facts in real time." A news analysis is "An interpretation of news events using context, trends and data often seen in other media." (''The San Diego union-Tribune'')[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news-vs-opinion/]
The title of the source is:
"Blinded by ideology: Inside boxing row that undermined IOC and tarnished Olympics/President Bach has failed in his duty to protect female athletes by allowing Khelif and Lin to win gold despite failing sex tests"
That reads like an analysis, not a reporting of fact. That the article is attributed to the Chief Sports Writer is a further hint.
The author states the scope of the article: "I had wanted to establish what, to put it bluntly, the International Olympic Committee was playing at by allowing two biologically male boxers into the female category." He concludes, "The only possible conclusion is that the IOC simply does not want to listen, that it is more interested in burnishing its credentials as “inclusive” than in upholding what is fair."
Note that there is no presentation of facts in real time. Instead, it is an analysis of facts that have already been reported, which incidentally is one reason that analyses are not reliable sources.
No one should think that the author is expressing anything other than his opinion. TFD (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Historically we've taken a low opinion of sources which do not explicitly label opinion pieces as such, that would be an important additional consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
When something is unlabeled between news and opinion, the next step is to question whether the paper is trying to mask opinion as news or simply blatant opinion without the opinion label, on a regular basus. I feel we had Breitbart fall into the former catagory of masking opinion as news (and definitely put contestable claims as fact without zero attribution). I don't think we can judge Telegraph this way yet. Masem (t) 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats the thing... The Telegraph does label commentary, you can find labeled commentary from Oliver Brown on this same issue [3][4][5][6][7][8]... But you can also find a bunch of other pieces which like the ones we've been talking about here are labeled news which push the same editorial line [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I acknowledge that many tendentious editors will, against policy, use analyses, opinion pieces and editorials in new media if they support whatever they want to put into an article. But that's not specific to The Telegraph. TFD (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
If it isn't marked by the publisher as analyses, opinion or editorial I hardly think we can say that all editors who AGF that it is what the publisher says it is are tendentious. Thats clearly an issue with the publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Unclear thread start, and several comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Some users (myself included) don't like the Telegraph's coverage of gender. Still, an opinion is not automatically outrageous just because we don't agree it. Moreover, it is all about one single incident (women's boxing at the 2024 Olympics). I really don't see the point of this entire thread and suggest it be closed with no action taken. Users who want to vent about the Telegraph can use their social media. Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Please substantiate your aspersion that "several comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM" by providing the diffs for those comments and an explantion as to how they violate NOT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's rather clear that comments such as As a British person, I can only apologise for the absolute filth that passes for print media in this country. I'd like to blame it all on a certain Australian but, if I'm honest, he's less than half the problem. or That would probably help explain why Donald Trump's article is such a mess. do not add tp the discussion about notability. Jeppiz (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
That comment is in reply to "It's an endemic problem on Wikipedia that a large swathe of editors don't realise that newspapers are terrible sources that should hardly ever be used." so it doesn't seem to be a NOTAFORUM violation, it appears to be directly related to improving wikipedia. What are the other comments you contend violate NOTAFORUM? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I already answered your question. Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
You were asked to provide several comments and you provided one. Until several comments are provided the question will not be answered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
First of all, learn to count. I provided two comments. Second, who do you think you are? Neither I nor anyone else here need to answer to you last time I checked. I commented there were comments outside the topic. Anyone could have read through the discussion themselves, but when you asked, I still provided two comments as examples. And here you are again. Read up on WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND and try to improve your behaviour. A lot. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
If you cast an aspersion you are required to provide evidence, two isn't any more several than one is. Please AGF. In terms of OWN I want to make clear that I didn't hat the discussion above, that was another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Which I already did. Move on. Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you did. Where is the third? I only see the comment from @Neveselbert: and the one from @DanielRigal: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
You may have missed the recent months-long discussion that started in June and subsequent just as long closure review on the issue recently.
On that note, while the original close was overturned, it still has not been re-closed with a new consensus yet.
But this note was just to say that this wasn't just about one single incident, it was another new incident that was brought up to add to the previous discussion that has been going on since June on the issue that adds to the change of moving the Telegraph to MREL or GUNREL on transgender related topics. Raladic (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is user @Samuelshraga: allowed to participate in the RFC on the Jewish Chronicle which revolves around the ARBPIA topic area, considering they are a non-confirmed user just under 500 edits? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the RFC question I'd say that it's borderline. TarnishedPathtalk 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't make an issue of it, personally. But I'm not an admin. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline of the mainstream media generally

Latest comment: 9 months ago14 comments11 people in discussion

It seems to me that there has been a steady decline in the reliability of mainstream-media sources - even once-respected ones like the New York Times and the Guardian - over the last ten years or so. I think it has multiple causes (the decline in revenue of newspapers because of competition from free Web sources; the increased pressure from governments after Snowden) but that doesn't really matter; what does matter is that these sources no longer deserve the deference that Wikipedia accords them.

I don't know what can replace these once-reliable sources. Personally, I look for consensus among individual good journalists who now blog independently, but I can't see how to construct "generally reliable sources" out of that. Desassossego2 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there an evidentiary basis for the "It seems to me"? I usually try to assign zero credence by default to the numerous 'it seems to me' just so stories my brain likes to make up to make sense of complicated things and go and look for the evidence. Either way, the noticeboard is really for specific sources in specific contexts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Desassossego2, adding onto what Sean said, do you have any evidence of this happening? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】 11:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk)
I have been saying this for years, but short of using academic sources only what do we do? Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Realistically, it's either we deprecate the current MSM sources which are considered reliable as unreliable, or we reevaluate the current MSM sources we deem unreliable under the lens of what is currently consider reliable. I don't see either happening though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
That is what I have been saying for years, no use of News as sources, but it ain't gonna swim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean I agree that we should not be using news as RSes for an encyclopedia. If there aren't books from reputable experts or academic publishing about topics then these topics probably aren't encyclopedic in scope. Of course we should also be cautious about "academic" publishing to continue avoiding scam journals which remain a real problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If we exclude news from RS what persentage of currently notable articles do you think remain notable? 20%? 30%? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Part of it us reestablishing that NOTNEWS is a policy, and that while we encourage editors to keep articles up to date with news, we shouldn't be trying to write these massive dumps of reactions and anysis from the media in the short period after an event, but instead wait for state longterm views take over. — Masem (t) 16:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, we do not need an article on ongoing events (for example) we are not a new paper. We can wait until the actauly analysis starts to appear, months (or even years) down the line. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Possibly, we are still classifying such sources, if you want to contest the NYT or the Guardian reliability, that can be done, with evidence. A generic discussion like this is unlikely to produce any change in specific classifications.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I think in general journalistic practices in the modern day have declined, due to the collapse of print media and the lower revenues of online publishing. However different publishers are handling this in different ways, some are pushing for subscriptions or have gone completely subscription based, while others have gone for SEO clickbait.
How each source should be handled, and if a particular source needs to be re-evaluated will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. I doubt relying on blog posts by former journalist is a solution, poor editorial oversight may well still be better than no editorial oversight. And of course academic sources would be preferable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Declining relative to what? If every source is worse or more biased, than the most reliable sources are still the most reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Your examples don't work... Both the NYT and the Guardian are at all time highs in terms of quality, reliability, and scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can I notify all the editors who participated in the Jerusalem Post's RFC about new evidence being presented to ask their opinion about it by pinging them without violating WP:CAN? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging admins for their advice @Barkeep49: @ScottishFinnishRadish:. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
This isn't an administrative call or anything, but I'd say that pinging every participant is probably unnecessary. This isn't information that wasn't available when the discussion started, and editors interested in following developments in the discussion will have subscribed or watchlisted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sunday Mirror and Daily Record (UK)

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone advise on the usability of material from the above publications. Are they reputable sources in the own right? Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I might add: for the purposes of BLP. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Depends; if it's contentious I would be very wary of doing that - I would say that WP:DAILYMIRROR applies to both titles (they have the same owner). Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering about the material in this article, Simon Weston#Personal life, concerning information about the subject's father, and sourced to the publications in question. Two issues: BLP in itself, and the use of the possibly questionable sources. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:BLPSOURCE "material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism" and this info seems quite irrelevant to the subject's life and very tabloidy. Orange sticker (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed the contentious material from the Simon Weston article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
There are probably reliable sources for that, but it's almost certainly UNDUE in the article anyway, especially as Weston has been estranged from his father for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Facts on File, Inc.

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are books published by Facts on File, Inc., considered reliable for use as sources in Wikipedia articles?

On a related topic, does Wikipedia have a list of book publishers with reliability indicated (something like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Facts on File is an established textbook publisher. Generally with book publishers a lot of reliability depends on the author but I wouldn't look at a book with that imprint and consider it any sort of red flag. Just keep in mind standard Wikipedia guidance about textbooks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Simonm223. I appreciate your response. The one I have looked at seems reliable to me, and I feel better about it after reading your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2025

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I am requesting to reopen discussion on allsides.com reliability. Previous discussions came to a non unanimous decision and counterpoints not addressed.

The major critique is their methodology. It was brought up how methodology is rarely questioned for primary sources and this was never addressed.

The crowd sourced bias ratings are brought up but this is only used for the initial rating and states the website has low confidence in that ratings, it will then proceed to give its professional analysis given by its independent fact checkers at the bottom if they have independently verified or will state they have not independently verified the crowd sourced poll.

Allsides will also cite examples of articles and the exact reasoning for the achieved rating.

The only inaccurate part of the website is the public opinion polling which described by the website as a “low confidence rating” doesn’t seem like a valid reason to discredit the organization

  • Methodology

(Copyright violation removed)

[1] 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:24C0:85AE:4701:D1AE (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods
I have removed the large amount of text that was copied and pasted from the AllSides website, because it is a copyright violation. Please note that content on Wikipedia pages must either be freely licensed content that is compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 or the GFDL license, or satisfy fair use requirements if the content is non-free. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I don’t know what I dust did 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:24C0:85AE:4701:D1AE (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, it looks like you made the same edit twice on this page. I've merged your comment into this discussion, with the copyright-violating content removed. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I've marked this as answered, as the page is no longer protected. If you want to raise you question you can go ahead, less the copyvio obviously (try including [links] to what you want to discuss instead). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pegging
 – Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with how to reply to the conversation with Nat Gertler and Photos of Japan in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard under the subject "Pegging" posted yesterday here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-RubyRyder-20250123051500-Pegging This seems to be the only avenue I can find to reply.

Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you comment and move this conversation to the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I think she wants that comment added to the thread "Pegging" as the page was ECP'd because of MAB. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

VPP has an ongoing (ish) discussion about RSP processes

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see § General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed. Thought I'd drop a notice here (and also at WT:RSP) since there's a comment wondering why it's not at WT:RSN. Since it's at VP already though, probably best to keep it at VP to avoid forking. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Manual archive

Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've manually archived a couple of sections, as the page was over 500kb again. The first should have been archived on the 4th and the other would have been archived tomorrow. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've manually archived a couple more sections due to size issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I've completed a third round of manual archiving, but that has only just brought the board under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe archive all the obvious threads that have been around a few days and got like one clear answer and no further responses... I know they're individually short but there are a fair number of them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately they tend to be so small as to not make any difference. For the moment I've reduced the archiving threshold, which has temporarily reduced the page size to under 500k. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

(Informal) closure request

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, since this discussion s nominally about sourcing (but has now derailed a bit), could any passing/uninvolved editor close it? I don't think it needs a consensus evaluated as such, but closure would nullify the heat/light ratio. Thanks in advance, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

citing wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Asked and answered. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

I recently had a chat about a citation style.

Illustrated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline&oldid=1281204539#cite_ref-37

The chat was on the WP:Verifiability talk page. And it resulted in a dead end and is not a very interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#citing_wikipedia

I am writing this to get a fourth opinion if anyone is interested. I am already eyeballing arbitration.

They don't seem to care much about Verifiability, because the citation style does not diminish it in any way. According to them, because the way WP:CIRCULAR is written, the citation style is illegal, but they are also not really defending their point, because in their mind they don't have to.

I am investing some extra effort to make the citation more useful. Should they be allowed to chase after me and undo my work? Am I really that far out of the box here? I am aware that there is a long standing policy that wikipedia should not be quoted because of reliability issues, but that policy contradicts reality and it would be more appropriate that it should not be quoted unless the editor knows what they are doing. In other words, when the rule is followed only for the sake of following the rule it stops being a policy and becomes an issue of some editors imposing their preference and style on other editors.

I am not interesting in creating a new right for everyone. I usually work on articles that are of low quality where progress is made once every few years when somebody with spare time comes around. Nobody cares about citation style rules in this part of wikipedia, because the main focus is to produce something above meme quality. The simple act of announcing where a particular source is principally handled (already summarized in context) is useful information. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Am I really that far out of the box here? Yes. There have been at least two lengthy discussions (I closed one of them) where over a dozen editors of long experience explained, at length, that they disagree entirely with your proposals. They also explained why. That you don't fully accept their explanations doesn't change that. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability was the right place to have this discussion, and you couldn't persuade anyone to change WP:CIRCULAR. You need to let this go. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to change WP:Circular. I am letting go of the idea to change it.
And yet, i say what i say. Is that illogical? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (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.

Adding an FAQ to the noticeboard

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I think there might be value in adding an FAQ to the noticeboard to answer frequently-asked questions such as "Does a publication being too (political position) make it inherently unreliable?" or "Is (this random blog) reliable no I won't say why I want to know." Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There's already a header (copied below) that addresses both of the issues you just raised. I don't know that a FAQ would be more effective. Maybe we just need to be more consistent about saying "did you read the header?" It might help a bit to number those issues, so we can say "that's addressed by #x."

The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions.

Certain types of sources have specific guidelines:

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with FactOrOpinion that the current header more or less accomplishes what a FAQ would... That being said it could work better as a longer FAQ, but off the top of my head I'm not sure what else we would want to say that isn't basically duplicating WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
yeah. The trouble is that nobody who you'd want to read it would read it and take heed. Adding more instructions against wrong behaviour basically doesn't work - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
No one reads the header or edit notice, both of which attempt to point people in the right direction. But would a FAQ on a separate page, with just a link from the header, be worthwhile? It could cover the most basic points in simple language (bias, opinion, user generated content, self published sources, etc) with links to the relevant guideline and policy sections. Include anchor points and new editors could be pointed to the relevant sections. A kind of a 'RSN for dummies' guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9&oldid=1302320204"