Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

:'''Unreliable''' for claims of direct casualties. Levivich said it the best: {{tq|The fact that The Lancet published it means it is to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean The Lancet thinks it's true, but it does mean The Lancet thinks it's worth reading.}} The Lancet did not endorse the contents of the letter; so we can't consider it reliable just because it was published in The Lancet. The claim that the casualties are 4x higher than what the Gaza Health Ministry reports is a [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] claim and an [[WP:EXPERTSPS]] doesn't meet that bar. What we have here are {{tq|challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest}}, which our verifiability policy says requires multiple high-quality sources, not one primary letter to the editor that was written by a doctor. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

::This is not self published. And it was written by three epidemiologists. Why is the claim an exceptional claim? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:*'''Reliable''' the Lancet has a reputation for its reliability and editorial standards. The fact that this is a letter doesn’t nullify either. This particular study has also received coverage in mainstream outlets like [https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/top-stories/blog/rcna160902 MSNBC]. Like others said, this isn’t an end-all be-all source; due weight still applies and the figures should be attributed correctly, but this definitely appears to be a reliable source to me. [[User:Elspamo4|Elspamo4]] ([[User talk:Elspamo4|talk]]) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)