Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preload formatting

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)[reply]

Investor's Business Daily

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Manual archive

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)[reply]

The Telegraph is going to come up again soon

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Mirror is far more of a joke paper, yet still permitted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would probably help explain why Donald Trump's article is such a mess. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Its from Hilton & Lundberg 2021. Void if removed (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've already established that. The Hilton in question is Emma Hilton. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Generally someone would provide examples. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And let's not mention heat pumps. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I already answered your question. Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which I already did. Move on. Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1243465531"