Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 443

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 440 Archive 441 Archive 442 Archive 443 Archive 444 Archive 445 Archive 446

Objective statement in WikiVoice or an opinion requiring attribution for Swift album

Does the following statement, to be added to The Tortured Poets Department, require in-text attribution or can it be stated objectively in WIKIVOICE:

"The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions."

Sources for this statement are:

  • "Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17." Romano, Aja (June 1, 2024). "Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the Feud Real? Who's Dissing Who?". Vox. (Romano is a culture reporter with over a decade of experience; see WP:RSPVOX)
  • "There was a moment, late in the week, when it looked as if Brat would debut at No 1. Then, on Thursday, Swift stepped in: at 6.57pm, Taylor Nation, Swift’s public-facing PR arm, which interacts with fans and provides news and updates, announced the release of six deluxe reissues of her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), each with different additional live versions and voice memos, available only in the UK until 11:59pm that evening – the end of the tracking week for the album charts. (The new releases bring the total number of TTPD variants to 34.)" D'Souza, Shaad (June 14, 2024). "Taylor Swift May Have Captured the Charts, Cut Charli XCX Captured the Zeitgeist". The Guardian. (See WP:THEGUARDIAN)
  • "Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish are poised to have a heated chart battle this week as Eilish’s latest album, Hit Me Hard And Soft, will compete with The Tortured Poets Department to top the Billboard 200 albums chart, as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales"; "Releasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." Murray, Conor (May 23, 2024). "Taylor Swift Could Block Billie Eilish From Debuting New Album At No. 1 As Fan Rivalry Grows". Forbes. (Murray is a Forbes staff writer, which means his article falls under the generally reliable standard of WP:FORBES)

Previous discussion can be found here. Pinging Ronherry as the other editor involved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is fine without attribution.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion is to provide attribution, such as: "According to some journalists, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts—a method other artists have also used to bolster album sales and chart performance." ℛonherry☘ 17:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
But why is such attribution for a well-sourced, objective statement necessary? This is the consensus of multiple reliable sources. Also, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts unnecessarily makes Swift a passive actor in the release of multiple versions and deletes the sourced statement regarding active fan engagement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Like you stated before, we've already discussed in circles in the talk page. My response here is simply providing an alternative way of phrasing the prose you added. I'm not placing an argument here. But to answer your question, it's simply because it's not "objective". The sources state it is Swift's intention to release multiple editions to stay at the top spot, but how could any source know Swift's intention unless she stated it herself? I'd like to highlight WP:V here. As it's the source's belief that she is doing it for that reason, this is why attribution is important. If unattributed, it would not be neutral and would just pushing a POV. An objective statement would be "Swift released an edition", whereas a subjective opinion would go on to guess why she released an edition. Opinions about a release, just like the critical reception section, must be attributed to the source(s). ℛonherry☘ 10:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not a guess, though. This is a known marketing strategy, described as such by not critics but rather reporters. In any case, we now have a decent consensus in favor of including this information. If you want, you can appeal elsewhere, but three editors to one seems fairly conclusive. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not how consensus works. This discussion here is barely a day old. Excluding you and me, only two other editors have expressed their opinions. I'm not going to edit the contended prose during an ongoing discussion like you just did, but I have to let you know there's no hurry. I'll wait till more editors show up. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's fair to leave it unattributed given the certainty and unanimity in sources. XeCyranium (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think attribution is warranted here. It is a strong consensus of sources without any contradictory evidence.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm also not seeing a need for attribution. This isn't an opinion like 'the album has some of the most stirring music of the generation' or 'Swift's lyrics are well-worn but effective' (to just invent some hypothetical statements that would require attribution). The sentence/claim in question an observation that involves some interpretation, but in the way that, say, a historian or social scientist or journalist interprets human behavior as an observer attempting objectivity, not as a critic assessing subjective merit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Absent the actor’s statement of intent, we should attribute historians who assert about the motivations behind an act. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Curiously enough, 90% of my edits are related the attribution of viewpoints. That's not what our rules on sources state, nor is it how they are used in practice. If we do not have a statement on the intentions of a historical actor, but all historians who voice an opinion agree on those motivations, there is no need to attribute.--Boynamedsue (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You do agree the journalist is "interpret"ing an act from Swift, then shouldn't the prose be "media publications interpreted the release of [...]"? ℛonherry☘ 16:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
No, I disagree, as stated above. This is a consensus of reliable sources, so we can state it without attribution.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you may have replied to the wrong person, I completely agree with your response though. XeCyranium (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that needs attribution. Any reader would wonder if Swift or her camp actually stated that, or if it was the impression of the stunt received by critics and journalists. It's the latter; attribute. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, only Vox comes out and says "Swift did this so she could stay on the charts". The others intimate it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
If Swift or her team provided a rationale for why they released multiple versions of the same album, that would require attribution. Multiple reliable sources acknowledging a widespread market trend do not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
A market trend, sure. But an assertion about intent? What privileged insight could these sources have into the motivation behind releasing lazy deluxe issues? We have to consider how this sort of motivation gets ascribed in music journalism—it’s not because they got a memo. They’re surmising. But actually in this case they’re not even stating their guesses, they’re just nudging about it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how you square the Forbes source saying "as both artists have released additional versions of their albums to boost sales" with just nudging about it. Either way, the journalists are surmising and publishing researched claims subject to editorial processes. Nor is anyone suggesting Swift is just accidentally releasing multiple versions. According to Wikipedia, that's what characterizes an objective statement, rather than a subjective appraisal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That was my point. It would not need attribution if Swift or her team said so, but that's not the case. In case of such claims about a person or their estate, the information should abide WP:BLP. A journalist's interpretation of a work is most definitely not a fact, but just their opinion. This is textbook media frenzy and feedback loop. It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts, and catgorize the rest as interpretations with attribution. There are no statistics or research in the above sources, breaking down the album-equivalent units of Swift's album and its contender (the #2 album); two of the three sources quote tweets from "stan accounts" criticizing Swift for releasing the editions to "stay at the number-one spot". If something is this uncertain regarding the intent, what is the harm is adding the clause "According to some journalists" or something similar to the claim made in the prose, like we always do in these cases? It is also to be noted that there are not enough sources. Only the Vox source supports the "were a way for Swift and her fans to stay at number-one" claim; the other two simply say Swift released the editions and do not say that her intent is to "stay at number-one. ℛonherry☘ 16:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Claims about a person or estate would only fall under BLP if the subject is living or recently deceased. "It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts" just isn't true, who told you that? We publish plenty of opinions, analysis, interpretations, and whatnot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Further evidence regarding the multiple versions being a tactic to maintain the number-one position from Variety (WP:VARIETY) and The New York Times. From the NYT: "Swift has also demonstrated a highly effective strategy in releasing successive 'versions' of her albums. In the days before last week’s chart, when she was competing with Eilish, Swift released six limited digital editions with bonus tracks. Over the weekend, she announced two CDs, each with an exclusive acoustic track. Week after week, fans keep buying them, helping Swift stay strong on the chart." This is verified fact, not opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, your quote says it helped "Swift stay strong on the chart", where does it say "stay at number-one the chart"? All the sources you've showed here only say the versions helped the album's chart performance. None of them (except only Vox) say it helped "Swift and the fans stay number-one of the chart" like the claim you make in the contended prose. ℛonherry☘ 17:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That seems to be splitting hairs... "strong" "top" and "number-one" all appear to be substantially equivilent in context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Substantially equivalent in context" how? You cannot assume what the author means. That's not how sourcing works. An album morving forward from No. 168 to No. 5 is also a "strong performance". That's not equivalent to going No. 1. You can add a citation only when it explicitly supports the prose you're adding. "strong" and "stay at number-one" different words with different meanings. ℛonherry☘ 17:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's an article explicitly about how Swift has remained number one on the charts. It describes the competition between TTPD and Eilish's album for the top spot, saying "This week she is atop the Billboard 200 album chart for a sixth consecutive time, after a monster debut in April and a series of challenges — each handily fended off - from Billie Eilish, Dua Lipa and the rapper Gunna" and "In the days before last week’s chart, when she was competing with Eilish, Swift released six limited digital editions with bonus tracks".You're suggesting an article entitled "Taylor Swift Is No. 1 Again, With Little Competition on the Way" isn't about Swift's album holding the top spot. Are you worried that this information is somehow defamatory or negative towards Taylor Swift? The NYT, Variety, Forbes, Vox, and The Guardian all have editorial boards that seem confident in stating objectively that multiple versions sell more albums meaning more time at number one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:HEADLINE, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly." Did the authors of the sources you've shown here say the versions helped "Swift and her fans to stay number-one on the charts"? No. Only Vox makes that claim. The NYT, Variety, Forbes, and The Guardian don't make that claim and only say that Swift released the versions to boost her album; there is not a single mention of "staying at number one" in any of those four sources. Hence, the material you're trying to add is poorly sourced, as per WP:BLPSOURCE, which also states such material "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", which is in turn the point of this discussion. ℛonherry☘ 18:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the body of the article directly tied the release of multiple versions to Swift and her fan maintaining the album's position at the number one position. Those quotes I provided all bear that out. Look, seven editors have chimed in to discuss this. Two (including you) have opposed the material going unattributed. However, five editors believe it can be stated in WIKIVOICE, and three (including me) have even reiterated their support for the proposed version. What more do you need? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Nope. Can you quote me the prose from the sources you listed (apart from Vox) that supports the claim "helped Swift and her fans stay number-one on the charts"? Thank you.
Plus, a RSN discussion is not about anybody "needing" anything. It's about the article and what's best for it as per Wiki guidelines. Do you have a problem with the discussion happening under the discussion topic that you opened? ℛonherry☘ 14:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not necessary that you personally be satisfied as to the wrongness of your initial position, it is sufficient that there is a clear consensus here that you are wrong. (With which I agree.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
That's what I said. I don't "need" anything. I don't need to be satisfied. And I don't believe there is right or wrong here, just what most editors believe is good for the article. ℛonherry☘ 16:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Substantially equivilent in that in the given context they appear to mean the same thing. How does one read the english language without making assumptions about what the author means? Thats how our langauge works, its largely context based which means that you make an assumption about the meaning given the context that the word is presented in. Its not a word match game, and those who insist on playing a word match game on wikipedia tend to eat up the patience of their fellow editors at an alarming rate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
What about the rest of my sentence? I said "It is Wikipedia's job to only publish verified facts, and catgorize the rest as interpretations with attribution." The "plenty of opinions, analysis, interpretations" fall under the latter, which are always attributed in Wikipedia. Thanks for making my point for me. ℛonherry☘ 17:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
But they are not always attributed in Wikipedia, what makes you think that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. "Opinions, analysis, interpretations" are always attributed. It's the uncontended facts that have critical consensus that are not attributed. ℛonherry☘ 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
That is simply not the case. If it were, any statement about the motivation behind an individual's actions which was not confirmed by their own words would have to be attributed. We don't do that. The consensus is against you here, move on.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
You have no idea what you're talking about and are going to be lucky to avoid a competence block if you keep this sort of act up. If the seven eminant experts in a field all share the same opinion/analysis/interpretation then its perfectly reasonable to put that in WikiVoice... For example "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." is unattributed analysis... We don't write "According to a number of highly regarded academics the Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: I am glad to let you know I definitely know what I'm talking. Can you please stick to the topic and cease commenting on me personally? Every other editor in this discussion are only talking about the topic of this discussion, while you have been trying hard to provoke me. You've been previously told to stop hounding on me. I have stuck to the topic of this discussion and tried ignoring you, following me everywhere on Wikipedia, but as your attacks targetting me don't seem to cease, I believe it I have no other choice than directly addressing this here. I think it is you who is going to be lucky to avoid a block if you keep your well-documented sealioning up. ℛonherry☘ 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a rather strong way of saying "Yes you guys are right, I was wrong about how in-text attribution worked on wikipedia." To quote another user "That is simply not the case. If it were, any statement about the motivation behind an individual's actions which was not confirmed by their own words would have to be attributed. We don't do that. The consensus is against you here, move on." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No, I was not wrong about how in-text attribution works on Wikipedia. But if the consensus is not what I believe in, so be it. You seem to think I have a problem with that? I don't. I will accept the implementation of the consensus in the article and I will move on, but that does not mean I have to agree with the consensus. I don't agree with it but I won't stand in the way of it being implemented. That's a foreign concept to you, I know. Your sealioning, hounding and battleground behavior is very real and you're literally doing it right now. Looks like you have not made any improvements that have been suggested in this vast ANI discussion delving into your unconstructive pattern of behavior. ℛonherry☘ 17:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess we have to agree to disagree on how attribution works then. I would note though that after saying that you "won't stand in the way of it being implemented" at 17:26 you then took to the talk page at 17:58 to stand in the way of it being implimented complaining that "you're rushing to wrap up the discussion and pulling up the percentage "in favor" when a formal poll did not even take place. You, the editor who opened the RSN discussion, have self-declared a consensus (when guidelines suggest a third person uninvolved in the original disagreement as best-suited to declare a consensus) and have already restored the contended edit on what is now a good article before even formally closing the RSN discussion."[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Reliable with no in-text attribution needed. These sources are discussing the business ramifications (album sales rankings) of business decisions (album release strategy), and the context indicates that the intent of Swift's album release strategy is not unusual or extraordinary in any way. What is extraordinary is the number of album variants released, which The Guardian places at 34; that number should be attributed if it is not supported by multiple reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Citing anonymous sources from a reliable source

Is it reliable or unreliable to cite quotes or content from a reliable source that interviewed anonymous subjects? The source in consideration is [2]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/waco-texas-magnolia-fixer-upper-antioch-chip-joanna-gaines in it, the article's author, Anne Helen Peterson interviewed former related members of a church who probably wished to remain anonymous. They are only referred to as "former members." The use case would be for the Antioch Movement page, using quotes about their experience at Antioch as a "harmful place" with "cultic tendencies" the church's MLM structure, spiritual incentives, social pressure to spend time and money, "Life Groups," discipleship, "abuse of the culture of authority," "Antioch survivors," "made to feel unwelcome by the church" etc. DUE or UNDUE? Also source consideration using a former member describing the church's origin of using entrepreneurial evangelism to grow, “They just decided to own Waco instead,” the member told me. “All of the weird evangelizing, it went away. They all became ambitious entrepreneurs. They employed each other. They developed a monopoly on the upwardly mobile class of Waco. If you want[ed] to rise through the social and economic ranks, the only way to do it was through the church.” as is all this content DUE or UNDUE? Pride2bme (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pride2bme: If the published source is considered reliable, and the journalist is doing a proper job, there is no need for the journalist to reveal the identities of the sources. Because it's a reliable source, we can assume the journalist's inclusion of the quotations was a decision appropriate to the journalist's profession. Therefore the quotations are fair game to use.
As to whether it's due weight or undue weight, that's rather out of scope for this noticeboard, and better suited for the article talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Reliability of a source is in the editorial oversight of an editor or publisher from wikipedia's standpoint. Peer review is an easy benchmark for reliability. The content in the source does not have to be true or false. See WP:TRUTH. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Whether content is due or undue isn't a matter of reliability. Any content included in an article must be verifiable, but not all verifiable information needs to be in the article. What content to include in an article should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Lancashire Telegraph

I've noticed Lancashire Telegraph being cited quite often in articles related to topics of different varieties, from football to politics, and was wondering just how reliable it can be considered. Apparently it has nothing to do with The Daily Telegraph, the Wiki article about Lancashire Telegraph states that it's a tabloid but no information whether "red top" or "compact" type of tabloid. Kacza195 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  • The effect of WP:NEWSORG is that, as a "well-established news outlet", the newspaper is presumed to be "reliable for statements of fact" unless and until someone proves that it is not. It was broadsheet from 1886 until paper rationing forced it to become a tabloid during the war, and it was a broadsheet from 1958 to 1991: [3] [4]. It says that it is a "compact". Most quality newspapers are compacts these days. James500 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • A search of the IPSO website found six complaints from 2014 to the present: [5]. Those include one correction of "a single line which appeared in the body of the article" [6] and one removed article [7]. The other four found no breach of accuracy. WP:NEWSORG says "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". James500 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
They're part of a group of news websites owned by Gannet, see The Oldham Times, Lancashire Evening Post etc. They all interpost articles amongst the different sites. They should be generally reliable unless there are specific concerns that are outside of the IPSO reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

TruthDig (especially after Nov 2022 relaunch)

There have been discussions in the past regarding TruthDig, and it seems unreliable and falls under either WP:OPINION or possibly WP:BLOG?

Is it useful to cite as WP:OPINION or should I avoid it altogether? Also, apparently, it relaunched since November 2022 and has been funded by some source called the Tides center. Per its awards page:

  • "Truthdig was originally founded in 2005. Since our relaunch in November 2022, the site has won 19 awards from the Los Angeles Press Club, two Headliner awards, an honorable mention in the ‘Best Writing – Editorial 2022’ category from the Webby Awards and was a finalist for the best “Website - Independent Publishers” at the Webby Awards in 2023. Overall, Truthdig has won six Webby Awards, 37 first-place awards from the Los Angeles Press Club, and four awards from the Society of Professional Journalists."

User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If one is seeking to cite an opinion piece, WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact (other than the fact in the primary source sense that a specific author has a particular opinion). Unless that particular opinion is referred to in secondary reliable sources, we would generally not include it for reasons of WP:WEIGHT. Because the sorts of considerations regarding whether or not to say "X person said Y in an opinion piece published in Z" rely on WP:WEIGHT more than whether an opinion piece is reliable for its author's opinion, that sort of discussion is out-of-scope for this board. WP:NPOVN might be a better location if you are looking to escalate to a noticeboard regarding a dispute with this source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Shakshouka has an RfC

Shakshouka has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In case people are wondering why this is here, the RfC specifically relates to the reliability of a range of sources, and would benefit from RSN-experienced editors' participation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons

If Pope Francis says there was a genocide at residential schools in Canada[9] -- largely run by various Catholic orders -- and the House of Commons unanimously declares that there was was genocide at residential schools in Canada[10] -- largely funded by the Canadian government -- is this RS enough to say that there was genocide at residential schools in Canada? Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC):

Not necessarily? It would be a bit odd to cite an off-the-cuff statement from a Pope on his plane and a House of Commons resolution for a claim of historical fact. But it is possible to use them for a statement like both Pope Francis and the House of Commons of Canada have described the events as genocide or something like that. There should be better sources if we're going to put it in WikiVoice. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Both are opinions, and so should be attributed in text AS opinions. That said, both are noteworthy opinions that should be mentioned in the text. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The legislative branch of government was unanimous. How does a branch of government have a personal opinion? But talk amongst yourselves. I need to go do some stuff. Btw the sources are not the problem. CBC and CTV are both respected newscasters. There are literally hundreds of others. And then there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the medical officer in charge of the schools who was forced out of office for thinking there was a problem with so many children dying preventable deaths. What would a better source look like? Elinruby (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Government's declarations don't make historical fact, going down that route opens up all kinds of problems. What of declarations from the Russian, Turkish, or Sri Lankan goverments, or is it just governments we argue with on issues we agree with. This isn't the solution to deal with those that would deny the facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Their statements are potentially due with attribution, depending on RS coverage. However, we should (as always) prefer high quality peer reviewed texts from scholars. FortunateSons (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Journal articles it is. How many do you need and apart from peer-reviewed, do we care in what discipline? I'll crank up JSTOR tonight. And the requirement is that they describe this as a genocide? There are lots of those out there also. Scholar gives me 64,100 hits, but some of them will be about residential schools in the US. [11] I really do have to go right now though. But in Canada, this is incontrovertible fact, over which the federal government is currently paying reparations. There really is no both-sides to this. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I’m not familiar enough with the relevant discussions to make a definitive statement, and this would like be a question of due weight or title policy, not a question of reliability regarding some sources. What are you trying to do? FortunateSons (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on certain podcasters and astroturf magazines, articles on the topic attract a constant stream of editors who insist that this did not happen. That the schools were just bringing civilization to backward people and everyone died all the time anyway in the 19th century. (Maybe, but a lot faster and younger in the schools). Editors who disagree are chided for being rude enough to think that a genocide might be a genocide. I am trying to discover how to get en-wikipedia to look at the sources on this. The usual reaction is to assume that this is a FRINGE notion when in fact it is Sandy Hook set against a historical background of institutionalized racism. It may need an RfC I guess, but I started here. My thinking was that the Catholic Church considers the pope infallible on Church matters. But I see why everyone is saying peer-reviewed. However I don't know how much more done the deal could be if the perpetrators agree that it happened. My ride is here and tapping his foot. Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware of that, it’s rather unfortunate. I’m not sure on what measures already exist, but perhaps amping up the contentious topic restrictions might cut down on the worst disruptions?
You will probably need an RfC, particularly if you’re going for more than “x considers y to be z”. However, assuming there is a plethora of indisputably reliable sources, the rest is out of scope for this board.
PS: I’m not an expert on the catholic rules, but as far as I recall, Papal infallibility is a bit more complicated than that. FortunateSons (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not especially familiar with the topic myself but if the best relevant scholarship agrees it's genocide, then this would be genocide denialism you're dealing with and you can notify the fringe theories noticeboard to discussions pertaining to it (WP:FTN). I would say the statements by the Canadian government and Catholic Church are relevant, but I'm reminded of something mentioned on our page about the Rwandan genocide. It mentions that the Rwandan constitution gives a death toll significantly higher than scholarly consensus. So that's probably a good illustration of how government statements can't necessarily be relied on too heavily as a source in themselves even when they're trying to make amends for a past genocide. VintageVernacular (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I hadn't thought of that. Elinruby (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
WP doesn't deal with ultimate truth claims (see: WP:TRUTH), but instead what can be sourced from high quality sources. In an article on a crime like murder or assault, an article will cover the details of the case, and whether the person was acquitted or found not-guilty, but avoids actually saying if they are guilty or not. A concept like "genocide" is more of a legal term in international law, which means it depends on the definition that they're using, and whether it applies, so it's not as straight forward as it appears. You can imagine a case being brought for to the international criminal court, and legal scholars become divided on whether actions constitute genocide or not.
So Wikipedia itself should not say if x or y is genocide, because that's a conclusion, but instead cite reliable sources covering the analysis of others. So the real question is who's opinion is relevant to be cited because you can remain neutral and objective while citing the analysis and conclusions of others? House of Commons for sure. Pope? Maybe? He's an international respected figure, and he doesn't go around calling random things genocide. International bodies and human rights groups? Sure. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No. If the pope and the government of Texas (or Uganda) say that homosexuality is wrong, or abortion is murder, is that "sufficient RS" that Wikipedia must abide by the pope? Of course not. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    That’s technically true, but non-analogous. The issue is that the Catholic Church and the Canadian government are admitting to wrongdoing they were (actively) involved in. FortunateSons (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
exactly. Maybe I did not make that clear enough Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No There are several issues here. First, I believe many sources have called this a "cultural genocide", not a "genocide". I don't think any sources claim the original intent was to kill off native populations as compared to something like the Armenian genocide where the intent was to kill off the people. Thus calling it a "genocide" without the important qualifier would be incorrect. Second, as Harizotoh9 stated, "genocide" would depend on the perspective of the one making the claim. While the fact that people have called it that is absolutely due for the topic, it should be attributed. While certainly some sources would call these programs some type of genocide in their own voice, I suspect others might dispute such claims while still largely agreeing on the underlying facts. Denying that something "is a genocide" doesn't inherently mean denying the truth of the facts that support the claim. Springee (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's get the definition straight of what a genocide is: [12] The ICC does not have jurisdiction here but their definition of the crime seems to be authoritative as working definitions go. Tl;DR there is no requirement that it look like the Armenian genocide: First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
  • the point above about "cultural genocide" is repeatedly being made by far-right groups in an effort similar to what happened to "woke". Fluorescent Jellyfish may wish to comment. The term originated, as far as I know, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which wanted to say genocide but was constrained by litigation at the time the report was published. If that is wrong then I am listening. In any event, I am not referring to that term at all, and since Spingee seems to be answering me, he is beside the point. Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fluorescent Jellyfish: Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) @Springee: Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks!
There are a number of peer-reviewed, scholarly, academic sources which state that Canada's residential schools were part of a genocide against Indigenous people. These are all, as mentioned, highly reputable sources.
For instance, this 2018 article by Anthony J. Hall, "A National or International Crime? Canada's Indian Residential Schools and the Genocide Convention" (from the peer-reviewed academic journal Genocide Studies International) describes it as a genocide, stating:
"Those who commit crimes against humanity on the side of triumphant power are usually put behind shields of impunity, and this propensity sets the framework for the contained domestic handling of the international crime of genocide in Canada. This justiciable genocide took place historically through the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their biological families with clear intent to terminate First Nations as distinct peoples. The Indian Residential Schools were one part of a larger complex of enforced laws and policies including the effort to enfranchise schooled Indian adults as regular Canadian citizens bereft of Aboriginal and treaty rights." (Hall, 2018, p. 72).
Another article," Introduction: Residential Schools and Decolonization" by Nagy & Sehdev (2012), from the peer-reviewed journal the Canadian Journal of Law and Society, states:
" “Home” to more than 150,000 children from the 1870s until 1996, the residential school system was aimed at “killing the Indian in the child” and assimilating First Nations, Métis, and Inuit children into white settler society. It was, in short, a genocidal policy" (Nagy & Sehdev, 2012, p. 67)
There are many more, but I'm running late for plans. If you widen the scope to include the term "cultural genocide", you get many many many more reputable sources making that statement. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care what the Pope says about historical facts, but I do think that the government of Canada saying this officially is in fact pretty strong evidence that it happened. We don't currently have a way to express this, as far as I can tell, but it seems pretty intuitive that if the subject of the accusation admits it, it's much more likely to be true. Not guaranteed, so I'd also want other sourcing, but if there was a source conflict this would push me pretty strongly towards "yes it was a genocide". Loki (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)er.

I don't care what the pope thinks about the American Revolution or the British Raj either. But here we have Wikipedia telling the final authority on Church matters (as far as the Church is concerned) that he is wrong about what the Church did in the 19th century in Canada. Put it this way, if that is what the Pope says, then nobody from the Catholic Church is going to contradict that. In legal matters, an admission of responsibility is dispositive and this one is not going to be appealed because it was the pope that said it. @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: may wish to comment even though I realize that this is a little out of his area of expertise. Even some approximate expertise would be welcome here however. Elinruby (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
In this case sure, but as a general principle, these things can be politically polarized and governments change all the time (if the makeup of the House of Commons changes a few years later and they put out the opposite statement, does that mean it didn't happen?). It's best to rely on scholars even if the government's position is relevant. VintageVernacular (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I see your point about precedent but this is Canada not the DR Congo we are talking about.Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My 2c: Technically, the answer to the original question ("if the Pope and Canadian government say X happened, are they RS that X happened") is "no, the Pope is only RS for 'the Pope says X', not for history"; however, if other RS which are reliable sources for history say X happened, which seems to be the case here, vs. certain other sources saying X didn't happen, the government and Pope admitting "yes, we did X" (where X is something they wouldn't admit to if it weren't true) suggests the RS saying X happened are right. (And the Pope and government, respectively, are reliable for "the Pope/government said X", and their statements seem to be given enough weight in RS to be due.) From other discussions on this page, it seems like the sources saying X (the genocide) didn't happen are mostly low(er) quality and less or un- reliable(?). -sche (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hits on Google Scholar

[13],[14] (note date), [15], [16], [17], [18] (see p.39 for example), [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24],[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The above were screened only for mentions of "genocide" in the text. Discredited author Ward Churchill was also omitted and I also skipped a publisher I did not recognize (SSRN?), a couple of links that didn't like my oddball browser, everything before 2000, and a couple of sources that seemed to solely discuss "cultural genocide" because they might not be on-topic. This is what is left from the first three pages of 30+ Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
SSRN is a preprint repository; articles posted to it might or might not have been gone through a review processs and been published elsewhere. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
ok, so not necessarily what we mean when we say peer reviewed journal then. Given that there were another 27 pages of hits on Scholar, just as well to triage it out IMHO Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

True North

Is this a reliable source for 2021 Canadian church burnings, the proposition the arsons were committed in retaliation for residential schools?

No, True North is a far right propaganda outlet. I would never use them as a reliable source for anything, probably not even about themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Referenced story provides a list of fires, and states "far-left radicals have used this opportunity as an excuse to terrorize Catholic and other Christian communities" with no supporting evidence, quotes, or explanation. The organization can't seem to decide if it is an advocacy outlet, media, or charity. They don't look reliable to me. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Definitely no. True North is a far-right publication that is very unreliable and inaccurate. It frequently spreads far-right conspiracies, including anti-vaxx/Covid conspiracies, and anti-Indigenous residential school denialism. Extremely unreliable for most topics, but especially anything to do with Indigenous peoples. Not reliable for info around church burning, particularly because they use that to push implications of Indigenous people deliberately burning churches, or more generally 'Christianity under attack!' conspiracy theories. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
so if an article is based on a list compiled by True North? Elinruby (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I would personally deem True North unreliable, and would look to find (and cite, of course) other reputable sources that either also feature the items on the list, or trim the list to include only those items backed up by reliable sources. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Replying to myself here, to give some more evidence/background on why True North (a far-right, extreme conspiracy-spreading disinformation publication) is a deeply unreliable source.
"The site is known for focusing on far-right culture war themes and has regularly featured anti-immigration and anti-2SLGBTQIA+ views, as well as playing a role in promoting the 2022 Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa." [1].
They also feature straight-up lies to try to 'prove' their conspiracies. For instance, that quote above is from an article discussing how True North was spreading a conspiracy theory that all of the 2023 Canadian wildfires were all started by arsonists; to do so, they repeatedly claim that certain events happened in 2023 that actually happened in 2021 and 2022. They lie, to promote their conspiracies.[1
True North are also extreme Residential School denialists.
"Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) is a controversial collection of essays published last year by right-wing news outlet True North. The book makes the incorrect claim that survivors’ stories about residential schools — federal institutions Indigenous children were forced to attend, where they were separated from their families and culture, were frequently abused and died at high rates as a result of overcrowding, malnutrition and disease — are “either totally false or grossly exaggerated.”" [2]
(Also, yes, that's the same book that was co-written by the guy who runs The Dorchester Review)[3]
There's much, much more, but I need to go to bed, hah.
Also, True North, the terrible far-right conspiracy outlet, should not be confused with True North Research, who appear to be a reliable media watchdog group.

Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Anti-Defamation League

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Before we begin, we would like to provide context for people reading this who may not be familiar with Wikipedia processes. This is a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), a venue where Wikipedia community members discuss the reliability of sources. This discussion, concerning the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an information source, was open to all community members whose accounts are at least 30 days old and who have made at least 500 edits. This discussion was not a vote, nor is this a unilateral decision by us, the three editors who volunteered to close this discussion. Our job is to assess the consensus of the community and produce a summary of the discussion that serves as guidance for editors in discussions going forward. Editors' statements were weighed based on their grounding in Wikipedia policy and guidelines; conclusory statements such as "Too biased" or "Respected organization" were given little weight. This discussion contained a range of perspectives, ranging from those who enthusiastically defended the ADL in all contexts, to those who viewed it as categorically unreliable. Most editors, however, favored some middle ground between those extremes.
The starting point for this RfC is a 2020 consensus that the ADL is generally reliable as a source. This RfC did not seek to overturn that in general, but rather to debate three possible exceptions: regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regarding antisemitism, and regarding their hate symbols database.
It is not disputed here that the ADL is an activist source and a biased source. "Biased" in this context is not an insult: Wikipedia policy understands that all sources have some degree of bias, and even significant bias is not necessarily disqualifying. What matters is the degree to which a source can be relied upon for statements of fact. Statements of opinion are another matter, which complicates this RfC: Many statements that the ADL makes are inherently opinion, and are thus subject to different rules as to when and how they should be cited.
In the first part of this RfC, there is a clear consensus that the ADL is generally unreliable regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [See previous partial close.] The second part extends this consensus to the intersection of antisemitism and the conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic. While the second part in theory encompassed all ADL coverage of antisemitism, much of the discussion focused, explicitly or implicitly, on that intersection. There was insufficient argumentation against the ADL's reliability regarding antisemitism in other contexts; much of the opposition in that regard focused on subjective disagreements as to how far the taint of the Israel-related general unreliability should spread. The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned. We remind editors that source reliability is always a case-by-case matter. RSN's purpose is to answer the general case. The reliability of a given statement by a source, for a given statement in a Wikipedia article, must always be decided by that article's editors.
The third part of the discussion, about the ADL's hate symbol database, was largely unrelated to the first two. Editors' concerns were mostly not about Israel–Palestine issues, but about poor editorial oversight of the database. We are aware that the ADL has taken note of this discussion, which affords a rare opportunity to directly address a source that editors have identified quality-control issues with: If the ADL invests more effort in editorial review of its hate symbol database entries, including bylines and other means of establishing expertise, that would address most of the concerns expressed by the community. Until then, however, the rough consensus here is that the database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history. In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases.
The normal approach for reliability applies to statements of fact. Citing the ADL hate symbol database as an opinion is not a question of reliability, but rather one of due weight. Editors should look at usage by other sources in the context of both the database as a whole and the individual statement. In this regard, there is no consensus against representing the ADL's opinions, and perhaps a weak consensus in favor; as always, case-by-case judgment is critical. We note also that, when editors cite secondary sources that in turn reference the database, it is the secondary sources' reliability that is relevant, not the database's. Statements of opinion should be attributed in-text.
We thank the dozens of participants in this discussion for their work toward building a consensus here. The WordsmithTalk to me, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), and Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Due to this discussion's length, the full contents have been moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439.
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.

Sources about the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century text

Help is requested for assessing some sources. In some threads involving me, ජපස (AKA JPS), and Horse Eye's Back (I'm not 100% sure if HEB would consider themself as having been involved in the particular subthreads in question, but they were involved in the same threads, so seems fairest to ping them also) at Talk:Book of Mormon about some material in the article, ජපස (AKA JPS) said that some monographs and journal articles cited in the article and that I brought up on the talk page are actually primary sources inasmuch as they are offering novel arguments, and that the material they've been cited for shouldn't be included in the article. I said that considering journal articles and monographs primary sources is an understanding that prevails in hard sciences but that in history, journal articles and monographs are generally understood to be secondary sources; historical documents (in archives, diaries, newspapers, etc.) are the primary sources. (See #How to classify a source, which gives a hypothetical example with a book written 150 years later that analyzes the proclamation and an academic journal article written two years ago that examines the diary, stating, The book and the journal article are secondary sources).

In reply, JPS suggested bringing the question to RSN, which brings us to the present. Are the following sources reliable secondary sources for the subsequent passage from the article Book of Mormon, included as one paragraph in the Historical context section?

Passage hatted to take up less space for someone scrolling past
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Book of Mormon can be read as a critique of the United States during Smith's lifetime. Historian of religion Nathan O. Hatch called the Book of Mormon "a document of profound social protest",[1] and historian Bushman "found the book thundering no to the state of the world in Joseph Smith's time."[2] In the Jacksonian era of antebellum America, class inequality was a major concern as fiscal downturns and the economy's transition from guild-based artisanship to private business sharpened economic inequality, and poll taxes in New York limited access to the vote, and the culture of civil discourse and mores surrounding liberty allowed social elites to ignore and delegitimize populist participation in public discourse.[3] Against the backdrop of these trends, the Book of Mormon condemned upper class wealth as elitist,[1] and it criticized social norms around public discourse that silenced critique of the country.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Hatch 1989, p. 116.
  2. ^ Bushman, Richard Lyman (September 2007). "What's New in Mormon History: A Response to Jan Shipps". Journal of American History. 94 (2): 517–521. doi:10.2307/25094963. JSTOR 25094963.
  3. ^ a b Sudholt, Jonathon (2017). "Unreadability is the Reader's Problem: The Book of Mormon's Critique of the Antebellum US Public Sphere". Radical Americas. 2. doi:10.14324/111.444.ra.2016.v1.1.012 – via ScienceOpen.

And are the following sources, brought up on the talk page as supporting the content, though not cited in the passage in the current version of the article, reliable sources for the topic?

For the noticeboard's convenience, I've below included quotations from these sources that I shared on Talk:Book of Mormon (bolding added by me):

Quotations from the sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Hatch (1989)
  • The Book of Mormon is a document of profound social protest, an impassioned manifesto by a hostile outsider against the smug complacency of those in power and the reality of social distinctions based on wealth, class, and education. In attempting to define his alienation from the world around him, Smith resorted to a biblical frame of reference (page 116)
  • This "Gospel" was a radically reconstituted history of the New World, a drama indicting America's churches as lifeless shells, blind and deaf to the real meaning of their own history and to the divine intent for the latter days (115)
  • The single most striking theme of the Book of Mormon is that it is the rich, the proud, and the learned who find themselves in the hands of an angry God (117)
  • The interlocking themes of pride, wealth, learning, fine clothing, and oppression of the poor reappear throughout the Book of Mormon (119)
  • Bushman (2005): The book sacralized the land but condemned the people. The Indians were the chosen ones, not the European interlopers. The Book of Mormon was the seminal text, not the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The gathering of lost Israel, not the establishment of liberty, was the great work. In the Book of Mormon, the biblical overwhelms the national. Taken as a whole, the Book of Mormon can be read as a "document of profound social protest" against the dominant culture of Joseph Smith's time.
  • Bushman (2007): the Book of Mormon appears as a deep critique of American culture, including its religious culture
  • Fenton (2013): The Book of Mormon offers a radical revision of American history that presents both documania and the Puritan errand as dead ends. and it establishes a narrative precedent for the critique of US Protestantism that would come to form the backbone of early Mormonism
  • Hickman (2014): A vicious circle developed: antebellum American readers predisposed by their sociocultural location to racism were authorized under the reigning hermeneutic to read that racism into a text that had been elevated to the status of literal word of God [the Bible], thereby making their racism appear to originate from a source not only other but higher than themselves. White domination acquired the sheen of incontestable divine decree. The Book of Mormon severs this vicious circle by simultaneously negating the authority deposited by literalist hermeneuts in "the Bible alone" and diametrically opposing another vision of racial apocalypse.
  • Sudholt (2017): the text’s cultural critique, a critique that is so intense that The Book of Mormon stages the annihilation of America not once, but twice, before its fury is used up. and The Book of Mormon, published in a nation that prided itself on a guarantee of free speech that would allow dissent, presents a nation that absolutely refuses to entertain the slightest dissent. It gives the impression that what this allowance for dissent is all about is to deny people any grounds on which they might dissent, for what country could be less deserving of criticism than that in which one is allowed to point out its failures, its hypocrisies, and its contradictions? Thus, it is designed not so much to be the land of freedom and equality it says it is, as to preempt the very criticism it claims to embrace. So, at least, Smith suggests.

Thanks for any help with this question. And just in case it helps with clarity, I've posed this as a question and not formatted it as an RFC because I'd like to hope we can resolve this as a question without the rigmarole of an RFC, and that's also what WP:RFCBEFORE would have us try to do. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this isn't an issue of the reliable sources policy as much as an issue of undue weight. I don't know the topic but I feel like it's likely that other historians disagree with this, and if the topic is only discussed in papers (not reviews or larger things), it might not be a mainstream view. Ideally the consensus should be presented, and given these papers present novel arguments, they don't make statements on the consensus. I think these sources should be considered generally reliable but require attribution for novel arguments, like these ones. This also falls under the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy, and the claims are somewhat exceptional: they position the Book of Mormon as a radical revolutionary force. As for the specific sources I don't know, but the "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" book appears to be criticized in the paper listed, also written by Bushman (the author of the book) by being part of the Mormon apologetic tradition?
I think the section should be tagged with {\{undue}}, and the claims in the last sentence should be attributed (as with all claims sourced to historical papers relating this, because of the exceptionality of the claims and the need to describe the consensus, which these papers do not describe). Mrfoogles (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I do have two follow up questions and one comment:
You conditioned your comment with the phrase, if the topic is only discussed in papers; however, the claim appears in monographs, not just papers: Hatch's Democratization of American Christianity (Yale University Press, 1989) and Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). Does that change your assessment at all?
My second question is—what establishes a mainstream academic view if not peer-reviewed academic publications?
My comment is that from reading Bushman's "What's New in Mormon History", when he brings up Rough Stone Rolling's relationship to the apologetic tradition, he specifically that his analysis of the Book of Mormon in Rough Stone Rolling contrasts with the way he did it in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, a partial biography he wrote back in the Eighties. Bushman writes that in Beginnings of Mormonism, he had a very apologetic take on the Book of Mormon (When I came to write about the Book of Mormon, I turned into an apologist. I could not resist countering the arguments of critics [519]). However, when he wrote Rough Stone Rolling, he backed off from that: I was much more aware of writing for a general audience [...] They would be more interested, I presumed, in what the Book of Mormon meant to Joseph Smith and to his readers than in the apologists' attempts to defend the book. My aim was to situate the book in its American environment [...] The apologists were less satisfied with my second rendition of the Book of Mormon [...] The historians, including non-Mormon historians, preferred it (520). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I also see this is more a due weight question than a reliability one per say... JPS's primary complaint appears to be the overuse of Bookman, not the use of Bookman at all. The only source there I think I would actually object to (and did on the talk page) is Sudholt... He's almost unpublished otherwise, its a bit of an odd journal, and the article has been cited zero times by other authors (and we're using it to make some pretty significant statements). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
also see this is more a due weight question than a reliability one per say: That may be a good way to put it, but it leaves me unclear about what weight others think would be appropriate. It currently takes up 914 characters in an article of 57316 characters and at present there isn't even one sentence summarizing it in the lead. If it's a question of weight, that makes it sound like you and/or JPS want the material removed entirely, but is that an undue exclusion when the claim is cited to one of the most decorated monographs about the history of Christianity in the early United States (Democratization won the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic's best book award, the American Society of Church History's prize in ecumenical church history, and a distinction from the American Studies Association; on top of its glowing reviews) and has been reaffirmed for the last thirty years?
the overuse of Bookman: If we're still talking about this specific paragraph, in what way is he overused? Bushman is cited only once in the paragraph's current version. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I see ~25 citations to Bushman in the article, I do not believe that the statement was about that specific paragraph but I may be mistaken. If you want to talk about just that paragraph and just the current version I don't think that Sudholt is a RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Dani Cavallaro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus evident from the lengthy discussion below is that Dani Cavallaro is considered generally unreliable due to her reliance on other unreliable sources (including Wikipedia, fansites, and self-published sources), as well as possible instances of plagiarism. While she may be skilled at gathering such sources into well-written prose that may be useful for assessing fan community views, the consensus below indicates that there are enough demonstrated examples of untrustworthiness and poor scholarship to conclude that alternative sources should be used instead, and citations to her should be removed from GA-status articles at least. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (uninvolved in the topics mentioned)

Regarding author Dani Cavallaro, there has been discussion recently about Cavallaro being a reliable source or not. See links to discussions:

Regarding Angel's Egg, there appears to be a local consensus not to cite Cavallaro. If Cavallaro is questionable as an author, then there should be a wider consensus about whether or not to cite them. They are cited multiple times elsewhere on Wikipedia as shown in the search results here.

Does the author meet WP:RS, judging from their publications, those who have cited them, those who have critiqued their works (positively or negatively), and the criticism leveled against them? (On the last point, should criticism be from reliable sources? Are the criticism pieces reliable to consider here?)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion; the reliability of this author has been something I've considered for a while, and was reminded of when TompaDompa brought it up again at Castle in the Sky's FAC. There are multiple academic reviews of her work which I believe are a good place to start when weighing opinions on her writing. I'm quite busy off-wiki right now, but should have a chance to look through them in more detail next week. I don't think consideration of the blog posts written about her would be appropriate in this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for opening this. The website / blog in question (Anime And Manga Studies) published a two-part critical review about Carallaro in 2014. Looking at the site, it does appear to be written by scholars for scholars and, according to their about us, is used as a resource by multiple universities. It would therefore appear to satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS if we only consider reviews by reliable sources when evaluating Carallaro. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
What about the last sentence of WP:EXPERTSPS? "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." While it's not being used as a third-party source within an article, it seems to be used as one to evaluate this person. Unless I'm not reading it right? I guess I am in the mindset of using agreed-upon reliable sources to qualify or disqualify a source. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Mikhail Koulikov, who writes the Anime and Manga Studies blog, is not an anime and and manga expert, but earned a master's in library science[1] and is apparently employed as an analyst at a law firm.[2] While he has published some academic work on anime and manga, they're mixed in with work on several other topics. I don't believe this website is a reliable source in general, and should not be used to assess the reliability of Cavallaro's work. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Notified WikiProject Anime and manga. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
In this blog post PhD and university lecturer Jacqueline Ristola dismisses Carallaro's work as "rudimentary", "hidden under the shambles of academic jargon", and accuses her of plagiarism, including rephrasing portions of Wikipedia entries. Ristola also praises the post from Anime and Manga Studies. Again, this is just a blog post from a subject-matter expert. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The plagiarism point was brought up by a GoodReads commenter. The Wikipedia text was added to the Magic Knight Rayearth article in this revision in May 2010. CLAMP in Context (ISBN: 978-0-7864-6954-3) was published in January 2012, and I confirmed the excerpt the commenter mentions is indeed in the book. This is pretty damning evidence of close paraphrasing from Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, I think we are done here. I would support formal deprecation due to the high risk of WP:CIRCULAR and other copyright violations. Charcoal feather (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to get input from RSN regulars (if there is such thing). It seems like a major step to strip all references to one author out of Wikipedia completely. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that full deprecation might be jumping the gun a little since this discussion is not an RfC, nor is it exactly well-attended. However, I agree that a deep dive of her work is likely unnecessary to come to a consensus on its reliability. The plagiarism above proves even (seemingly) uncontroversial factual statements cannot be relied upon, and Mark Bould's comments on her 2000 book Cyberpunk and Cyberculture ("disturbingly dishonest", "more interested in neatly patterning synopses of assessments and investigations made by other critics than in conducting its own"[3]) indicate that her analyses aren't much better. I'm in favor of designating her bibliography as generally unreliable, discouraging editors from adding citations and phasing out existing ones where applicable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I love Mamoru Oshii's films, so I wanted to find more sources, and was delighted someone had written a full print book on his films so I began to read it. After a few chapters, I found the book laden with jargon and convoluted writing which didn't sit right. I did some searching, and indeed other people were raising questions as to who this person was, whether they were qualified to write at all, and failing to find even basic biographical information (the most we can get is 2 sentences on a publisher website). One major critique is that she mostly cites self-published blogs, and yes, indeed I double checked her references and it was true then it all clicked. This alone is enough to not use her books, as the sources she cites would never be considered a reliable to begin with, and would never be acceptable in an academic book.
Taken together, the publisher and author have not proven that they are experts to begin with (as the burden lies with them), and I would support a complete ban. I consider her works low quality and removed them from the Oshii articles that I could find, but she's cited in other pages as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like we have a consensus that her bibliography is at least generally unreliable. If there's no objection, I'll add a note to WP:A&M/RS and start tagging existing references with {{Unreliable source}}. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done that, and I've gone through the first 40 or so articles in this list, cleaning up where possible and tagging with {{Unreliable sources}} where not. I'd appreciate the help of other discussion participants as there are a lot of them to get through. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I would actually really appreciate it if work to replace the sources was done. In one case she provided a reference for an interview done in 2007, I could try to directly cite that with help finding the book or w/e. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this on a Studio Ghibli–related article? I currently have access to a couple of her books and can help with some of that work. I'm going to be doing a lot of that anyways for some of my project articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The more you examine, the worst it gets. She cites and quotes Wikipedia several times in Magic as Metaphor in Anime which is a huge problem as well. Here a K-On fan accuses her of plagurizing online sources that she relies upon. A 2010 review says her work is "unreadable" with "purple prose" while citing online reviews as if they were scholarship.
You see the same critiques over and over again with anyone who has read her work with a critical eye. Combined with no confirmed biographical background (not even confirmed to have any degree at all), a complete ban as unreliable is warranted as this isn't an isolated case with one or two books but a trend of consistent poor scholarship with her work. How does this happen? It just flies under the radar and only a few people are interested enough to dig deeper.
For English language sources on older anime series, it can be difficult, but we should still strive to improve the sourcing for these kind of articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing those links. There seems to be general agreement in this discussion that all citations to her work on Wikipedia are to be replaced or removed; a few of us have gotten started on that process already, and I'd appreciate your help with tagging or cleaning up the list of articles here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
She also wrote books on fine art as well as literature, medieval history, feminist thought, and Japanese animation? She has written way too many books, way too quickly, on way too many topics to be an expert on all these unrelated topics.
Some of the citations that use her books are minor, or just cite her analysis, but a few pages she's used extensively and would require major re-writes including several GA articles. For better sources I made a topic on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#English_sources Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm not an expert. Just here to say that in the case of Neon Genesis Evangelion Dani Cavallaro appears to me as a good source. Nothing spectacular, but honestly I never in my 10-years-long experience of writing here about NGE seen an error in her analysis, a plagiarism or inaccurancies. I want to be clear: I do not feel competent enought here to express a strong favorable opinion on her as a RS for now, but at least in basically the only field I work here on Wikipedia - again, NGE - I read her books on the arguments literally thousands of times, and her presentations of the series, the authors interviews and views, Japanese context, production notes and so on are accurate. Far, far more than your average Academic from Mechademia. Academics on Evangelion are sometimes alienated and without common sense: they do everything but checking the actual sources like Anno, Tsurumaki interviews, Evangelion Chronicle or even the basic Red Cross Book, but prefer to mention other academics instead of actually study the series, its context and the interviews of the authors. I strongly and firmly defend Cavallaro at least on this series. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey TeenAngels1234, unfortunately it's going to take quite a bit of proof of any of her good work on Evanglion-related topics to overturn the severe issues presented by other editors in this discussion; your word on her writing is not sufficient. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable doesn't necessarily mean always wrong, just that it's academically sloppy and not to the level of a source we should be citing. It leads to issues where you can't validate information she's presented, even if it's possibly correct. Just two examples. On Whisper of the Heart her book is cited for a Miyzaki quote, and checking her book, she sites a fan webpage. Said page does not explain where it came from, who translated it or when which means I cannot verify any of it. It means that small errors become impossible to cross reference and weed out over time. These fan sites shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia, and someone who cites them being used for a source also shouldn't be cited. It's effectively just self-published fan source laundering where these sources get "washed" and look more respectable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
TeenAngels1234 reverted my Cavallaro removals and tags in NGE-related articles. Like TechnoSquirrel69, I also have to insist on her unreliability on all subjects, your subjective good experiences notwithstanding. Charcoal feather (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
"Subjective good experiences" is a very misleading, if not false, statement. Limited and very good - to use an euphemism - experience, maybe: I write just on NGE, guys, so I can not speak for Ghibli or other works Cavallaro wrote about as I said, sorry. I'm agnostic on them, at least for now. So, yeah, limited, but not subjective: her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good, informative and accurate, especially compared to other academics. It's not a matter that Cavallo's works are just vaguely OK and enough accurate. I do not mention the first source I find on the matter, and I think anybody that ever read a NGE article I contributed to can see I'm very selective on the sources. Cavallaro has a 20-pages NGE-related chapter in her book Anime Intersections as well. I can mention some example to prove my point. What kind of evidence should I give? BTW. @TechnoSquirrel69 and Charcoal feather: you have all the right to express your concerns. You are far, far more into Wikipedia than me probably. I think I kept all the templates on the NGE articles: it's your right to express doubts and discuss here on Cavallaro, sorry if I could have looked aggressive or too drastic. Mea culpa, sincerely. I just re-inserted Cavallaro notes for now, since, again, I'm not the Wikipedian who uses the first source, and if I used Cavallaro until now there's a reason. I'm not gonna start a Crusade on her; if the consensus is that all the references have to be removed sine qua non, I will remove it. Most of the articles have 1, 2 or 3 notes from Cavallaro books at most, you know, it's not a big deal. For now, I just want to keep your legitimate templates. What evidence you want? I have to quote some passages from her books and reviews on the matter as well? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234: Like I mentioned earlier, you need to show how "her thousands of pages on NGE are extraordinarly good" (emphasis original), not just that you believe it to be the case. Do other academics who publish on the subject acknowledge Cavallaro as a high-quality writer on Evangelion-related works? If so, why? Should that evidence exist — and I don't think it does — we would still have to weigh those opinions against the demonstrable risk of coming up against text containing copyright violations and verifiably false or misleading information. Please also note that continuing to revert other editors removing citations to her work may be viewed as edit-warring, as you are doing so in contravention of an established consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@TeenAngels1234 Once someone has shown that they violate basic standard rules of scholarship, they can't be trusted. The kind of behavior outlined above would get her into serious academic problems if she did this for under-graduate essays for example and that kind of behavior should not be tolerated for professional writers either. Her books appear to be written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality, and to pick niche topics that few others have written about like anime, Gustav Klimt, or Angela Carter.
Since she's been heavily cited on some pages and it means those pages will require heavy amounts of re-writing but it's ultimately for the best. Also I think there's a consistent pattern of poor quality sourcing that plagues many anime/manga articles. This would be the first step towards rectifying that issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
These 4chan-like greentexts are cringe. Anyways.
@TechnoSquirrel69 Your answer is meaningless. WP:CCC. Consensus can change. I'm now part of discussion, which I did not read previously. I respected you, since I did not revert everything and kept the templates; you have to equally respect me now that I'm discussing here and do not insinuate I'm editwarring. I am now part of the new eventual consensus.
During the years Cavallaro looked to me as a respectable author regarding NGE. I'm gonna just briefly analyise just her Anime Intersection NGE chapter doing a comparison with sources that Wikipedians listed as Reliable Sources for a reason. INB4: thanks, I know that a comparison per sé does not means much, but it's an argument bigger than its singular parts and if you will see just the singular part and not the general scheme here you are missing the point. For example, she is one of the few writers to mention the fact that Anno wanted to do an OVA before the movies Death and Rebirth and End (Anime Intersections, p. 54). The first time I read, since no Wikipedia article or ANN news or Western academic ever mentioned this, I was confused. But it is something that Oguro, a person whose claims are ignored by every "respectable" academic and source listed in WP:A&M/I, discussed in his commentary. Her book was published in 2007, a time in which, as you can see from EvaGeeks, people believed that Evas were created after the Barons of Hell, but she actually mentions the actual inspirations of Yamashita (ibidem, p. 57). She is the only one English writer who mentions and seems to know Der Mond, Die Sterne (p. 61), even the Groundworks of Evangelion and the Filmbooks (p. 57), when people like Napier in her books mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library says that the series was released in 1997. While Napier in Science Fiction Studies said that Evangelion presents a “Gnostic notion of apocalypse” (p. 425, like what?) and the otherwise useful Mechademia – listed in WP:A&M/I - has a weird analysis about Zoe-Lilith-Eva Gnostic triad and its impact on the series (?) and other supercazzole, to use an appropriate Italian term for academic bullshits, she in 2007 was one of the few academics who touched grass and actually mentioned Tsurumaki comments on religious symbolism (ibidem, pp. 57-59). She is one of the rare academics to mention, even if briefly and quite vaguely, Aum Shinrikyo, which proved, as said by the unknown – by academics – Azuma, as an enormous influence on NGE. In the same page at least she mentioned Azuma and the possible inspiration by Godard. Her productions note on 3D use and Production IG involvement (p. 64) at least shows that she probably read the theatrical pamphlets, maybe even other Oguro materials: in any case, this proved that she at least with NGE did not write books with speed in mind "so that she can pump them out quickly". I bet my entire existence that Mechademia academics, Napier or Broderick or whoever you want do not even know what Ombinus Japan (p. 68) is. She is the only Western academic as far as I know who knows at least who Otsuki is and quotes his interviews (p. 67). And I'm mentioning just one of the Achille's heels of Western academics: the inability to actual study the series in its context and at least have a vague idea of who the author actually is or wanted. Something that, trust me, other "Reliable Sources" do not have. BTW. Nothing of what I mentioned was on Wikipedia in 2007: not even in the German version, or the Spanish one - see the oldids. Nor in other websites of NGE - not in EvaMonkeys, not in EvaOtakus, nothing in Japanese websites as well. Far from being the most reliable source on NGE, her prose is not exactly the best and she is more like a reporter than an analyst who theorizes things on the series, I think she's a respectable source for NGE.
For a period I thought she was not so respectable because she briefly mentions in her The Art of Studio Gainax chapter on NGE series the "death threats" to Anno, which were considered a myth by myself until Anno actually mentioned them in the official production documentary on the last Rebuild installment and I read Oguro materials - like the Japanese Eva Tomo no Kai. When that documentary was released on Amazon Prime, even the only possible error that I thought she mentioned proved right. Now. I'm not exactly sure she actually read the Eva Tomo no Kai, but mention me just one academic before 2020orsomething that did all of this, with all the knowledge of NGE production and not academics supercazzole, and I bet I'm gonna do a pilgrimage to Pompeii Virgin Mary. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You're writing long winded replies while ignoring the key issues. In The Art of Studio Gainax she cites Wikipedia on four separate pages including the Rebuild of Evangelion page which brings up issues of WP:CIRCULAR which specifically says "Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." She also uses heavy amount of self-published anime fan sites as sources, which is also a major issue. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
....OK. So, compliments, you are missing my point. An annoying answer - you probably can not perceive it - especially considering I just actually answered to your comment: her chapters on NGE are not "written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality", as I showed you. I repeat: at least on NGE. So I proved you wrong. Anyway. I have now Anime Intersection on my desk, and at least regarding NGE she's just advising to read it as "potential companions of this study", but not using it as a source (p. 56). She basically list Wikipedia and other websites in her bibliography as such: "potential companions of this study". I had the full The Art of Studio Gainax, but not now, but it looks to me - I can be wrong - that at least one of the four instances you mentioned is the same (p. 226), and idem for the URL to the Wikipedia "mindfuck" page - she's possibly linking an article just to help the readers to see what a mindfuck is and other uses of this technique. Regarding the Rebuild part: yes, she mentions Wikipedia among other things. My point is: are you sure you gonna literally delete every helpful and accurate analyisis from her just because in a 52-pages analysis on the series more accurate than 99& of RS she said in a two-sentences paragraph "according to Wikipedia"? Do not get me wrong: I'm not questioning WP:CIRCULAR, and I still myself said that I have doubts about her being the best source, to say it with an euphemism, considering these Wikipedia mentions. I'm not gonna mention that passage on Wikipedia for all the gold of this world, and I did not. I'm saying, using common sense: if this author proved very accurate and more serious than 95% of the A&M/I on NGE, and if nobody mentioned in the NGE-articles her "According to Wikipedia" two sentences, are we seriously deleting all the other serious NGE analyisis I mentioned she provided? I bet that even CBR.com mentioned Wikipedia in its pre-2023 articles, but it still is counted as a situational source. IGN is also listed as a reliable source, but ironically in this Italian article it mentions Cavallaro and Wikipedia. For all of this, I strongly oppose this, and I think the best is to keep her as situational. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Citing and quoting Wikipedia is just one problem of many and in Anime Intersections she quotes or cites Wikipedia a whopping six times. These are not mere mentions, but instead direct quotations or citations. In case there's any doubts:
  • "As the Wikipedia entry for A Scanner Darkly explains," (pg 101)
  • "As the Wikipedia entry for the program points out" (pg 195)
  • "As documented by the Wikipedia entry for the franchise" (pg 196)
It's a general pattern of bad sourcing. She cites an interview on a Ghibli fansite, which was translated from Chinese to English, which even has a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. I am not sure if the translation is accurate, or even what or where the original interview is to be found. Another time she cites a Geocities page which I can't even find an online archive of, for the source of a quote by Ikuto Yamashita. Presumably it was some kind of Japanese publication which was then translated by the fan or taken from somewhere. The main page is archived, but none of the subpages. The same quote is produced on the EvaGeeks page and guess what? There is no explanation where it came from! You see the problem with this? You run in circles trying to find the source for these quotes. And you should only give a translated quote if it was done by a professional translator from a major publication because we can trust it, versus an amateur translation.
I could spend hours finding issues with her scholarship, and the more that I look, the more issues I find, but I digress. There's a lot of these sloppily written books published on niche nerd interests like video games or anime, and we really should hold standards of scholarship. Though, truth be told, some of the sources she cites are perfectly fine, such as Wired, or Ars Technica, or Newtype USA. So why not just cite those directly and cut out the middle man? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I repeat. I'm not gonna read in depth articles full of spoilers on other anime, sorry, but just discussing NGE. I support her as situational just and just for NGE - I have no competence to judge her on other matters. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in responding here; it's been an incredibly busy week for me. I'm going to concur with Harizotoh9 on this one; the fact that Cavallaro mentions this or that is not entirely relevant to our discussion here. You might be impressed by the detail of her research, but there are legitimate reasons that other scholars may not be citing the various interviews you mentioned — not the least being that they might consider them relatively unimportant, or that they may be prioritizing writing their own analyses instead of quoting other works. Harizotoh9 also brings up a good point: if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman, they can simply be cited directly as long as they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
She's just grabbing whatever online source she can find and because it's paraphrasing fan sources, it will quite often be correct. For the above quote by Ikuto Yamashita, she cites a now dead website, and this is being used Evangelion page right now. So as of now I can't verify this quote at all. If I had to wager a guess, I would say the quote is likely real and is sourced to some sort of Japanese guidebook. But I don't know that, and I certainly don't trust she did due diligence to double check it, or assure the quote was accurately translated. We need to have standards and to start somewhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I personally agree 100% with you on "if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman". That's what I always supported and said. The problem is, Techno: recently a user said that direct interviews were not enough for the NGE Angels article. So I have to mention other secondary indipendent sources, like Cavallaro, to keep it as a GA. See the talk page. That's why, as I said, I used her for NGE articles just for 2 notes per article at most until now. I'm very confused about Wikipedia in these days. BTW, if I am not mistaken, that Yamashita quote simply comes from the VIZ official manga translation: I verified that quote a long time ago. I can give you the Japanese text, the English VIZ translation, there's no problem. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I confirm: Yamashita's quote comes from the VIZ manga translation. It's literally in the NGE manga, at the end of the volume. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
You're looking at it primarily through the eyes of a fan, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which operates on rather rigorous scholarship standards. The many many issues outlined above show that Cavallaro's scholarship is sloppy and low quality, if not paraphrasing and plagiarism. Ergo, she should be exercized from any article she's cited even if it's several GA articles related to Evangelion and Studio Ghibli. We are supposed to go backwards from the sources to the article and our viewpoints don't matter because we don't actually write the articles but summarze reliable sources. For an example, I expanded the Project A-Ko article with several English print magazine sources, and I know damn well the movie is a whole plot reference to Macross but not a single source I found mentions that, ergo it's not in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The whole thing is not, in fact, about me, but about her and her work on NGE. Since you questioned her reliability and quality on NGE citing Yamashita commentary, which I showed being a correct official translation from the VIZ manga publication, I'm not exactly sure you are objective about her other works, but as I said I still remain basically agnostic. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello @TeenAngels1234
I would like to make the simple case as for why your reversal of @TechnoSquirrel69’s deletion of Cavallaro’s sources is not only petty but shows that through your attachment to Callavaro as an author, you have been blinded to the wider issue at hand.
The edits in question, revision 1227613317, were to delete two of Cavallaro’s sources from the page on Misato from EVA. These two sources were part of comparisons of other characters to Misato (specifically Kazumi Amano from Gunbuster) and a claim of how her trauma has affected her psychological state. What frustrates me especially about these two claims is that you have actually agreed with similar removals or changes in other articles to the former claim. The example I am speaking of here is the article for Rei. In this article two changes have been made as of 16 June 2024 at 09:00, which are both removal of Cavallaro sources. The latter of which, being an edit you yourself made, deletes an extra source from Cavallaro (supported by a source by Patrick Drazen) because it was quote “redundant”. Why do these conditions not apply to the Misato article where another source (n.174) by writer Akio Nagatomi (someone who by my knowledge hasn’t been outed for scholarly slip ups ranging in the hundreds, possible plagiarism and citing Wikipedia more times than I can count) is also provided? It doesn’t make sense.
As for the latter point, about Misato’s psychological damaged state due to her childhood and adolescent trauma (see citation 149 here), it follows a similar pattern. The psychological problems described in the part of the wikipedia article that cites Cavallaro, is also mentioned in the next and or different citation (see citation 150). We don’t need the Cavallaro citation, and we can reword it so it fits better with the review from Jianne Soriano (citation 150), yet you insist on keeping it for some reason.
If you read this all the way through, thank you and I hope you take this as constructively as possible. Cavallaro is not someone who I want to villify, but it is best to keep her work away from Wikipedia where possible, because of her unreliability shown in this thread. HalfWayEssay (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I can not understand your whole point. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I keep trying to explain how scholarship works, and it's still not coming through to you. In the above example, she cited a self-published fansite, not the original source of the quote which implies she didn't do any fact checking to double check if the quote is real or translated properly. The pattern seems to be grabbing whatever online sources she can find (including Wikipedia) to write her books with little quality control. That the quote is real is irrelevant to the sloppy scholarship that pervades her work. This is even before the accusations of paraphrasing or plagurism as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; I hadn't realized that TeenAngels1234 was going around reverting my edits. TeenAngels1234, I know we've disagreed about taking actions based on consensus from this discussion, but it's now abundantly clear that the decision shall be to designate Cavallaro as unreliable. Every participant in this discussion apart from you has agreed on that, and you have yet to refute the considerable evidence provided by other editors indicating the poor quality of her work. I have requested a formal closure of this discussion, which you are welcome to wait for before making a decision. However, once the closure is effected, at the latest, I'm politely asking you to revert yourself for the same reasons I gave above. Also, edit summaries like "I'm not gonna remove Cavallaro." (diff) are verging on ownership-like behavior. The encyclopedia must always represent the collective will of the community and not any individual editor. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No problem for the ping, realized you maybe hadn't noticed what TeenAngel was up to.
I have looked further into their revision history and it seems that they have been doing this all over EVA Wikipedia since the original discussion of Cavallaro's unrealiablity started (see their edits on the 7th and 8th of June). One particularly funny instance is in the "Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion" where the edit summary reads plainly and authoritatively as: "No"
I will try to reverse their reversal of these edits, as they have not provided substantive proof for Cavallaro's crediblity in the face of the claims to the opposite. HalfWayEssay (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@HalfWayEssay: I did also see those. The reason I asked TeenAngels1234 to self-revert is to avoid unnecessarily creating an edit war, so I'd prefer if you didn't revert either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: Fair enough, that's a good reason. I didn't revert the claims they made, but rather changed/deleted some Cavallaro sources on a few articles (which were article were TeenAngels1234 had done some reverting). I'll stop now and leave it up to you and them to sort this little schism out. HalfWayEssay (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
They are seeing this issue through the eyes of an anime fan, when they should be seeing it through the eyes of what constitutes quality scholarship. We should ensure that a book is up to scholarship standards first before widely using it throughout wikipedia, thus making it a real chore to remove and re-write entire sections of pages. I can see the temptation since she's writing book length treatments on niche subjects, so source hungry editors would be drawn to her, but we should have standards. She also has written about J. W. Waterhouse, Gustav Klimt, Angela Carter, and Italo Calvano, who are subjects worthy of serious scholarly analysis, so we should warn editors to avoid her books. In her book on Klimt, she cites the Wikipedia page for The Kiss on page 180, and she was in turn used as a citation on that very Wikipedia page making the chance of WP:CIRCULAR citations real. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not own these articles and I will never claim that. What's your point? I haven't find a reason to remove Cavallaro on NGE articles, so I reverted that and now I'm discussing here in a discussion I didn't read before the edits. I'm part of the community, and if I find that removal negative I have all the right to express that I didn't find a reason to remove Cavallaro. If you see implication here or an attack then it's in your eyes, not in my edits. I did not refuse anything; the whole point here is simply, again, on NGE. I showed that on NGE her scolarship is quite useful. I said many times that you have all the rights to express your opinions on her other works, but Summum ius, summa iunria; I still want to keep her as situational for NGE while remaining agnostic on other matters she wrote about and your opinions about it, and nobody proved her scolarship on NGE bad for now. And, repetita iuvant, if the discussion closes, then remove all the quotes: most of the NGE-related articles have very, very little portions quoting Cavallaro, but as long as we discuss here I had all the right to do what I did. Wikipedia in these days is a little bit of a weird place and I find that some things and rules are simply out of reality, but things happen. As said by another user, that stuff is the real Achilles' heel of Wikipedia. Unless someone can prove that her scholarship on NGE is bad, my opinion is still that. I can do math, thank you, and I can clearly see that I'm a minority on this.
For Harizotoh9. I do not want to say you are completely wrong: of course I know NGE sources and lore because I'm a fan, you know. But, being a fan or not, the point here is that she showed knowledge of the NGE sources, context and so on, so it's not a matter of being an NGE fan here, but with some knowledge of the NGE sources - fan or not - I think she did very well on this series, and I showed you some examples of her knowledge and scholarship. If you have doubts even on her work NGE, discuss here, but I read them many times and I couldn't find something wrong. Otherwise, well, we just can agree to disagree. My opinion is still the same, and since I am in minority the community as a whole judges and acts. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
We're going in circles now and it's clear you either do not understand or care about what constitutes good quality scholarship, or what Wikipedia policies are. I've tried explaining this multiple times and it goes nowhere. We should definitely make sure that there is a site-wide ban on her works. There might be other people like this, who publish low quality material that slips past the cracks because too few people ask questions about it, especially if it's on niche subjects. we should also double check sources used on anime and manga pages for quality issues. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*"She got in to the English programme at Westminster, when it was run by Dani Cavallaro," Westminster about us
I now have some honest to goodness third party source on her life and background. I checked the wayback version of the Westminster site from 1998, but the site was very basic back then without any information on faculty. So it seems she ran the English Studies department at Westminster University in the mid 90's. Likely means she has a masters or phD in English literature. There's likely some web page on the wayback machine somewhere giving a faculty biography. Her first book was a collaboration book on Fashion published by Bloomsbury appears to be a legitimate book when she was employed at the university and became a freelance writer on anime later. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
If you google this name there seem to be a lot of people named that (and this post from a few years ago wondering who the heck this person was due to having no visible online footprint). Is this the same person?? jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I get the feeling that stuff like this is the real Achilles' heel of Wikipedia, where we are forced to maintain a sort of perfunctory deference to academic sources, insisting that bloggers are inadmissible because they aren't serious enough... even when the academic sources are themselves citing those same bloggers. I mean, do you need to have a PhD to figure out which Keion! is the coolest?[4] For something like, for God's sake, animé opinions, I really don't see what we get by citing a book of some person's opinions, when someone like https://karmaburn.com/ a) has better opinions and b) is more rigorous in the first place -- I am quite sure that among Wikipedia editors we have sufficient expertise as well -- we might as well allow ourselves to use it,jp×g🗯️ 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not about who has the "best" opinions, because that's purely subjective, but to create an objective overview of reliable sources which means avoiding self-published sources like blogs at all costs. Cavarallo's works have the surface level appearance of proper academic books but are extremely lacking. Academic books published by university presses are considered some of the best sources, because they're written by experts with heavy amounts of peer review. Below are two examples of such works which discuss anime media or anime fandoms as examples:
Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I've come across citations to this person's work on Wikipedia and tried to investigate their qualifications, but, like others here, couldn't really find anything to suggest they were anything but a pseudoacademic. That they extensively, uncritically reference Wikipedia is not surprising and I would support designating them unreliable. JoelleJay (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "About Us". Anime and Manga Studies. 2 March 2014. Retrieved 2024-06-04.
  2. ^ "Mikhail Koulikov". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2024-06-04.
  3. ^ Bould, Mark (2000). "A Half-Baked Hypertext". Science Fiction Studies. 27 (3): 520–522. JSTOR 4240933.
  4. ^
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.

"Pakistan Frontier"

Is this source reliable? https://pakistanfrontier.com/ more specifically this article right here. https://pakistanfrontier.com/2021/08/12/over-7000-young-afghan-girls-sold-to-india-for-prostitution-under-ashraf-ghani-govt/

It didn’t seem so to me. I was told to take my concerns to RSN. This is my first time so forgive me if any mistakes are made.

But to me this article seems like some unknown editorial newsletter. There’s a lot of issues I’ve spotted but I’ll just list what I think is most troublesome.

First let’s look at this line

“Moreover, sources revealed that more than 7000 such Afghan national girls were sold to India”

The writer states that sources have revealed this to be the case, and yet there is no citations listed in the article in support of this claim. For that reason, there is no way to confirm this estimate.

But that’s not even my biggest concern. The other issue is that this is the only source which has revealed such an estimate. I did a little digging along with another user and all mentions of the line I cited lead back to the same Pakistani frontier source. Meaning there is no other sources that collaborates this statement. This is the only article where I could find such information.

But those are just my biggest concerns. I’d love to get some feedback. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Most news articles don't use citations.
If you think the source is incorrect, find an article that refutes it.
If this is the only source that discusses this, then use WP:ATTRIBUTION for the claim. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, there’s still some terms used on wiki that I don’t quite understand. What did you mean by “use WP:ATTRIBUTION for the claim”? Apologies if that seems like a dumb questionby. Someguywhosbored (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
(random passerby) it means say where you saw it, like "In an interview with the New York Times, person name said" hth Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Someguywhosbored, when you see a link like that, just click it and read. That's how you'll learn here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby thank you for the answer Elin!
@Sawerchessread
Hello once again Sawer! And thank you for your response as well! Unfortunately, I doubt I could find any article that has written about the “Pakistani frontier”. The website seems to be really unknown. I don't see any source that even makes a passing mention of the website. And again no other sources seem to collaborate that estimate I cited from the article. There isn’t much information about the editors or owners, or really anything. Their about us page barely reveals anything. I can’t even find the website through a Google search unless I type in the url. Like I previously mentioned, information regarding the website seems largely undivulged. It’s definitely not mainstream by all means.
despite all that, assuming there isn’t a source that directly states it’s incorrect, does that make it reliable proving my previous assumptions wrong?
I’m just wondering if the article is reliable or not that’s all. I’m not interested in proving its claims wrong. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I meant to say, is there any other source that talks about Afghanis being trafficked into India? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Well instances of trafficked girls are one thing. But this source specifically stated that ashraf Ghani sent 7000 prostitutes to India from Afghanistan. There are zero sources that confirm this. This is the only source which states that to be the case, especially with that high of a number. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with using this source. Pecopteris (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that site. Besides the fact that McAfee stopped me, it was that suspicious, if it's the only site that makes such a serious claim, we shouldn't include the claim or use the source. If it's true, other mainstream sources will also mention it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, so you would recommend that it be removed from any articles on wiki? I share the same opinion and concerns. It doesn’t seem mainstream at all and I could barely find any information about the website. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
And yikes! I realized now that the website has a ton of ads and as you stated, McAfee stopped you. I mean based on that fact, the site seems kind of dangerous.
But yes anyone can confirm that this is the only website that used the quote I cited. They all lead back to the same Pakistani frontier source and there are exactly zero sources that collaborates the statement. Like Valjean wrote, if it was true, mainstream citations would have mentioned it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. We need to know something about the site, and we know nothing. We don't know if it's some fake news propaganda website. It is not our job to use original research to refute the claim. (The only time we do that is if many sources make the claim, but we really doubt it's correct. Then we see if even better sources refute it.) It's more important to find more confirmation from good sources that the claim is correct. Controversial claims should be backed by multiple RS. We don't have that, so we should ignore the claim and source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
i agree completely. Based on the last two edits is there a consensus not to use this source anymore? Because two editors tried reinstating this source on another article. I was told to take it here. Now that it’s confirmed to be unreliable(which much as it was to abecadare, it seeemed pretty pretty obvious that the source was unreliable to me too and I was surprised seeing two senior editors vehemently defending the claim that it was reliable, although I’ll assume good faith). I think this should clear everything up. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No, Pakistan Frontier is not a usable source for this or any other information. It is just a random website of recent (mid 2021) origins and of unknown bona fides and publishers set up to give the superficial appearance of a news organization. That becomes obvious if one takes a look at its non-informative About us, Contact and Privacy policy pages; its lack of bylines; or, numerous placeholder sections. Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yup. I read the requirements for reliable sources and it seemed painfully clear that it didn’t match any of the boxes. I honestly didn’t think going to reliable sources noticeboard was that necessary but i was told that I had to go there first before making changes. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I repeatedly urged Someguywhoisbored to take his concerns with "Pakistan Frontier" to this noticeboard. It is great that he did so. Both myself and John B123 should have been notified and linked to this discussion, but SGWIB did say that it was his first time doing this. AGF.
I can see that u:Valjean has some valid points; a consensus may be forming; but I will await some note by John B123 here before saying anything else. Once he does so we can close this circle. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a number of separate concerns intertwined here: the use of a single source to satisfy WP:V, the article referring to a source but not naming it etc. The main issue as far as this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is whether Pakistan Frontier is a reliable source. There is no direct evidence that it is not. In these cases we need to look for indicators that might suggest the source is not reliable. Valjean and others make some valid points, but I don't think these are sufficient to condemn Pakistan Frontier as an unreliable source. On a side note, a single user getting a warning from anti-virus about the site is likely to be a false positive. --John B123 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
May I know about the "points" — which, presumably, exist in abundance — that attest to the reliability of this source? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep in mind, as valjean stated, a controversial claim like that requires multiple high quality sources per WP:EXTRAORDINARY Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
And for the reasons we’ve already went over, this source certainly isn’t reliable either. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Unreliable source - Per Abecedare; it is a travesty that this needs to be even brought to RSN. Additionally, the founder of the news-portal-lookalike is one Rizwan Najam — a young man with no known credentials — whose first tweet, being misinformation, does not inspire any confidence. So, all in all, we are looking at a site that uses a bunch of unnamed (and, likely, unpaid) interns to mish-mash content from other journalistic sources and post them at their website to attract clicks (and revenue); add some misinformation — like the one under discussion — and we have the perfect tool for information laundering. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    I had the same thoughts exactly. The worst part is, this source was actually protected from removal for years, largely for the same reason I couldn’t make the changes before coming to RSN. It was discussed multiple times in the talk page of Talk:Prostitution in Afghanistan.
    I mean just by looking at the website for more than a couple of minutes, one could easily see that it does not qualify as a reliable source. I’m not sure why this is even a dispute. No matter how hard I tried to explain, it didn’t seem like words could get through. So unfortunately an RSN was necessary in the end. Someguywhosbored (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on the comments from the uninvolved users (who have written here), I have no problem with "Pakistan Frontier" being removed from the article. Any person wishing to check further will discover the back-and-forth on the talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! It seems like we have a consensus. @John B123 are you satisfied with this discussion? Let me know because the section should be removed pretty soon once this concludes. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with the consensus. --John B123 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The change has been made. I would like to thank everyone for their participation and help here! Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
You are very welcome. You brought this matter to the right venue and got plenty of excellent input. We all learn from the process. Have a great day. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Shaffer, Lynda Norene (1996). Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500.

I am not sure if this qualifies for an RFC, but it was suggested[32] that I bring this issue here. Shaffer, Lynda Norene (1996). Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. ISBN 978-1-56324-144-4. has received two scathing reviews:
1, 2

One of these says the book contains "many errors of fact, misleading simplification of material and references that are frequently inadequate, inappropriate or dated" (and there is more – it is quite powerfully expressed for an academic context). I am unable to find any favourable reviews of it. For a Wikipedia editor to pick out which part of this book is right and what is wrong would be WP:OR. Hence it cannot qualify as an RS.

Only one editor seems to want to use this work as a reference. However, they angrily defend its use, as you can see at [[33]]. The book is not currently used anywhere in Wikipedia, though it used to appear in a number of articles. We are in the position where an editor may seek to bring it back as a source some time in the future.

Comments would be welcome. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

First summary. It was reprinted in 2015 (Shaffer, Lynda (2015). Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500. Sources and studies in world history. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-56324-143-7.). The author (1944-2015) got her PhD at Columbia University in East Asian Studies (1974) and taught Asian History at Columbia for 30 years and retired as a full professor. Her academic qualifications seem good so the question is this particular work reliable. The reprinting by Routledge some 19 years after original publication suggests staying power. The 2000 retirement resolution at Tufts (https://studylib.net/doc/8709766/lynda-shaffer---tufts-university) suggests she rocked a few boats. It also suggests a closely related article is (Shaffer, Lynda (1994). "Southernization". Journal of World History. 5 (1): 1–21. ISSN 1045-6007. JSTOR 20078579. Retrieved 2024-06-30.) I note I cannot see the references to the scathing reviews so cannot check them. I found the following
Erp (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Taking the Brownlee review first, I focussed on "Unfortunately, the book is plagued by problems and factual errors, many of which are obvious to specialists of the region but may not be so readily apparent to world historians for whom the book is intended."
One of the reviews that you cannot access can be found here[34]. The other is the Brownlee review, which can be seen in full at[35]. The complete Brownlee review has more telling criticism later, which you might not have seen. I cannot reasonably quote all of it here - from the paragraph starting "Unfortunately" the review is highly critical of this book – so that is the last three paragraphs of a seven paragraph piece.
The fact that Shaffer's book has been used by a graduate student as a source does not seem to have massive relevance. This is a book which intended to cover this region's history in a way that others have not addressed to any great degree before. Therefore we should see it widely cited in other academic works. It appears that it is not.
To be clear, it is only this particular book for which we have clear evidence of it not being a reliable source. The academic record of the author is not in dispute. The problem is that we have two reviews that give completely unreserved warnings of its reliability, due to errors. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It just occurs to me, the graduate student may have cited Shaffer to disagree with her – have you actually read how this citation has been used? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
We also have Routledge reprinting it after many years. For the record the full cite for your second is first in the next list
Also what facts or ideas in a wikipedia article is this book being used to support? It is useful to know the context. Erp (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Here are some instances where this source was removed as a reference[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] ThoughtIdRetired TIR 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, are you willing and able to take a look at this? I'm asking because you cited the book years and years ago, so I thought you probably know something about the general subject area. The author gets mentioned or cited in a handful of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, the edit by Chipmunkdavis is on a point specifically criticised by the Watson Andaya review: the confusion of Maritime Southeast Asia with Island Southeast Asia. (Yes, I know some insist that they are equivalent, but others – particularly historians working before significant trade developed and virtually all biologists make the basic English language distinction between the two terms.)
The list of current Wikipedia mentions of Shaffer's work does not include the problem book – because I have removed them all. The risk is that they will be reinstated either unwittingly by an editor unfamiliar with the reviews or deliberately by a particular editor who insists we should ignore the reviews. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping WAID. I have some knowledge of the subject area I used it for, but the current dispute seems to be focused around specific points regarding ship technology which is not that related to what I was working on. ThoughtIdRetired, looking at what I wrote in that diff and the Andaya review (which I have definitely read before at some point, it feels familiar), I do not think my edit was misplaced, as it was trying to highlight the overlap and common linguistic replacement rather than state the terms were always used identically. The Andaya complaint notes an overfocus on specific parts of the region, which can exacerbate linguistic confusion, and the terminology criticism seems another element of that (shrinking the maritime region to the island region, and shrinking that to Java). That said, there have been quite a few times when I have had to clear up the mixed usage of both terms on en.wiki, so if you have better sources which specifically talk about the different scope of the terms I would appreciate it if you might raise those on my talkpage. Best, CMD (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • For a Wikipedia editor to pick out which part of this book is right and what is wrong would be WP:OR: Strictly speaking, WP:RS states that The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content; weighing and assessing a source's reliability is always done in context, and a source can be reliable for some statements but not for others. WP:OR does not apply to pages which evaluate article content and sources, so editors could hypothetically discuss with each other on a talk page whether a source is reliable and can be cited for some statements in an article but not for others.
    All that said on the matter of principles, policies, and guidelines, Andaya's extremely scathing review gives one pause. I'd at least want to know what content for which the editor wants to cite Maritime Southeast Asia, which would provide more to work with for evaluating this. (is the claim extraordinary or plausible? can the claim be verified with other works? etc.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The idea seems to be floated that a source that has "many errors of fact" can be used for the bits of it that are right. How do we know they are right: consult other sources. (Not doing so would be the WP:OR bit.) So why not use those other sources in the first place? It is as if we have a book that tells us that the moon is (a) an average of 238,855 miles (384,400 km) from the earth and (b) is made of green cheese. We are pretty sure that fact (b) is wrong, but we check fact (a) against a NASA website[ https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/moon-distance/en/#:~:text=Often%20when%20we%20see%20drawings,miles%20(384%2C400%20km)%20away.] and find that it's right. Do you really think it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia to use the first source instead of the NASA one? Some encyclopaedia users are looking for sources on subjects. If we use poor quality sources, that is a disservice to the reader.
Surely Each source must be carefully weighed to judge... refers to things like weeding out a reference in passing, spotting obvious errors such as typos, being aware of what other sources say – and paying attention to poor reviews. The problem here is if an editor has some sort of objection to acting on the knowledge of these two poor reviews – as has happened. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 21:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Some detail on this book being used to support incorrect information. In this case[62] the book appears to support the concept of the Lateen sail as having originated from Arab seafarers adopting that type of rig from Austronesian maritime technology. The article on the Lateen sail explains (with all the major sources) the current understanding that this type of sail had a Mediterranean origin during the Roman Empire. It is unfortunate that two other deficient references have been used alongside it: Hourani is an entirely outdated source, first published in 1951; "Mahdi1999" is equally wrong; Johnstone is being seriously misquoted (as he confirms the Mediterranean origin of the sail). This general fact did appear in other articles in a similar way, but it is not the only basic fact involved. I suggest that one has to be closely familiar with each subject to be able to spot where Shaffer is right or wrong. Since the reviews say "many errors of fact", there can be only one conclusion of its value. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources

What is going on here with a page which claims that multiple LDS owned and operated entities are reliable for LDS without any discussion having occurred at WP:RS/N? It appears such determinations have been made solely on the basis of talk page discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, interesting project. News to me. I definitely think there's call for this type of list to be discussed officially, maybe regulated in some way by the community at large. I could see it as a good model. Maybe such things could be a feeder system for the perennial sources page. The talk probably doesn't have much advantage over the wikiproject talk pages though. But I'm uncomfortable with individual editors or even wikiprojects unilaterally populating custom WP:RSP clones and claiming the results as authoritative. Especially because there's overlap with RSP in the sources treated. If they exist, these pages should have an official status with specific abilities and limits, and a specific relationship to this noticeboard and to WP:RSP. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikiprojects to do this sort of thing, and this concept of a WikiProject-based source guide well pre-dates the July 2018 creation of RSP. WikiProject Albums has a source list that is frequently used in the context of related articles, as do WikiProject Dogs, WikiProject Board and table games, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Venezuela, and the New Page Patrol, among others. Some of the listings are going to be explicitly referenced to RSN threads, others are going to get lumped in a location more or less based on what the WikiProject editors who are familiar with the source come to a consensus to. But what generally unifies them is that (in themselves) these sorts of source guides are useful tools, but they aren't the be-all-end-all, and editors still have to use their judgement when deciding what sources to cite in a particular context. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Out of all the source listings that there are on Wikipedia, the NPP source guide is probably the most comprehensive. It's not authoritative per se, but it covers a lot more than RSP does and it's quite useful when reviewing drafts and/or doing notability checks. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw that a number of the entries are referenced to WP:RS/N discussions and those entries I didn't find at all controversial. What I found to be somewhat concerning however were the number of entries which were acknowledged to have direct connections to LDS which were determined to be reliable, based only on what I can only presume are the discussions that have occurred on the related talk (no links are provided to discussions). Given recent goings on at ANI concerning COIs and LDS I found this to be potentially problematic. TarnishedPathtalk 03:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fair enough. If you have doubts/don't see consensus for how specific sources are listed, it would be OK to bring them up here if you find it reasonable to contest them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikiprojects regularly maintain such lists, and that's a good thing. The only reason to bring an issue here is if you disagree with their assessment, haven't found satisfaction through discussion, and feel wider participation in the discussion would be helpful. If you have specific concerns I would suggest first raising them on the related talk page, and failing that detail here which assessments you disagree with and why. On a general question of "Is this ok?" the only answer can be "Yes". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It still has problems. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Journal of Book of Mormon studies are both published by the LDS church (through BYU), for example but that fact is not disclosed on the list (in fact, actively obfuscated on the list) and they're both listed as green. I also don't see any COI disclosures on the talk page, despite that list being edited by members of BYU and AML, which I'm sure has nothing at all to do with these errors... Levivich (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
We ran out of steam trying to fix things. I had deprecated AML due to the COI concerns, but nobody ended up pursuing the issue carefully and so it's not back up because it seems like no one in the community cares to deal with the potential problems. jps (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The obfuscation of the links between BYU and the sources used in the space and the lack of COI disclosures have been perennial issues in the LDS topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
What I really see as an issue looking at that WikiProjects page is for 3 or 4 out of the 6 sources listed as Green that there are clear links to LDS detailed and that there appears to be a deliberate downplaying of that to define the sources as WP:GENREL. TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: Those aren't unreasonable concerns; on the WP:V policy page, the very first sentence in the section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable" says:

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

(emphasis mine) Left guide (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Stylecraze.com

This online beauty/health/wellness magazine (using a pink "♀" as a favicon) is used by about a dozen articles. They say that they use AI generated content, although there is an editorial policy of sorts. One online AI detector gave me a 98% prediction that their "Women Empowerment" page was AI-generated. The existing uses on wiki seem pretty flabby, for example "types of bra" and "amazing benefits of (insert food or supplement here)". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say generally unreliable, especially for assertions covered by WP:MEDRS. I removed a few instances just now. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Dorchester Review some more

I just removed According to a controversial publication,[1] the Dorchester Review, attendance was voluntary with the exception of a period between 1920 and 1948.[2] from the article on Kuper Island Indian Residential School, one of the more tragic hellholes of residential school history, where they withheld milk and dental care from children, except for the control group, in a study of the effects of malnutrition. I am sure they were lined up out the door for that. Elinruby (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Got added [63] if it matters Elinruby (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Social media post depicting residential school children 'having an absolute blast' causes outrage | Globalnews.ca". Global News. Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  2. ^ |url=https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/two-thirds-did-not-attend

Notes

References

Retraction Watch has a list of Category:Hijacked journals. WP:UPSD updated accordingly.

RW apparently created a list of hijacked journals in 2022, available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE . The most recent update is from May 2024, so I've pulled all the bad URLS and put them into WP:PREDSCRIPT.

If you use the script see a redlink with the caption 'hijacked journal' when hovering, the link is to the bad site and is not to be trusted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work maintaining this – I find your script very useful, and it would be much less so without regular updates. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

film.ru

We have an article at film.ru, but it doesn't have any indication of reliability (especially for biographical details). It looks middling to me (i.e. I wouldn't use it for anything sensitive like BLP), but I didn't find anything in the archives. Anybody have any better insight as to its use? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you want to use it for? Alaexis¿question? 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to check its reliability for this edit. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's reliable for the date of birth. It's an established website, you can find their editorial team here [64]. Alaexis¿question? 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Blacklock's Reporter

Why just settle with Catholic Register, start a new section
Is Blacklock’s Reporter a reliable source? അദ്വൈZ തൻ (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I wondered that myself. But more to the point why do you want this in the article twice in row? The allocation is already there, cited to a reliable source. Why do we have to argue about various sketchy sources that you want to cite a second mention of this right after the first? Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby allocation is already there, cited to a reliable source.
where in the article as of the latest revision [65] says about the allocation of $7.9 something million at Kamloops for search and excavating അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
On the face of it, it seems like an unexpected source to be using to write that much about that topic (either the budget or Indian-schools-related issues). It's been around a long time, but I'm having trouble finding USEBYOTHERS; most of the few instances I've found where RS cited a "Catholic Register" were actually cases where they cited the American National Catholic Register, not Canada's The Catholic Register, but I did find this Forward article and this Xtra article citing the Canadian one for information about Roman catacomb tours and for the views of a Catholic, respectively: not particularly weighty or contentious matters or part of this topic area. That's not much of a showing, but my search was not exhaustive and perhaps someone else can find more, ideally especially anything relevant to this topic area. (And what are their editorial standards?) If the paragraph/information can be sourced to better sources, use them instead; if it can only be sourced to the Catholic Register, there are likely WEIGHT issues to consider separate from reliability. -sche (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, because this discussion was refactored: at the time of my comment, the discussion was titled as being about The Catholic Register, so my comment was about that. -sche (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Blacklock's Reporter (mentioned above), when I looked for USEBYOTHERS of them, all I found were apparently-unreliable sources citing them (Toronto Sun, discussed in several archived discussions and viewed as unreliable; True North, discussed above; National Post, also discussed in many archived discussions as unreliable, plagiarizing, etc); the mention in True North was a 2022 article saying Blacklock's was being evicted from the parliamentary press gallery for "serious misconduct" after their reporter insulted and threatened journalists. -sche (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@-sche Blacklock's Reporter being mentioned by already other sources which are deemed here as unreliable doesn't make Blacklock's Reporter also unreliable.
Even if any news agency sources are deemed as unreliable, if their news article involves them as first person involved in the article, like Blacklock's Reporter contacted the Department's spokesperson, or applied in Access to Information Act ended with no reply, such as these can be heard and can be included in Wikipedia as a reported speech style like this
A Canadian Conservative news agency Western Standard made headlines(of their reports made headlines elsewhere) when they claimed that … so and so … no reply from Access to Information Act … Spokesperson commented … First Nation Community commented … unless and until a conflicting report from other deemed reliable sources come in. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
OK! (rolling up sleeves) I am going to do everyone in this a favor and attempt to explain that when you say reported speech style everyone will understand you much better if you say "quote". Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
No, we should not use sources which report on WS's weasel words. That they received no response to request made under Canada's version of freedom of information laws is irrelevant. So what? There is absolutely no significance to it. TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Breathe buddy. I know. It is also the case that the excavation that has not take place has not found any bodies, and that is important because reasons. I get it. Elinruby (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby I presume you're replying to someone else again? TarnishedPathtalk 06:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's just say it does not require a reply, was profoundly sarcastic and not aimed at you, and would have been better left unsaid, except that then gouging my eyes out might have seemed like more fun than some of these threads. I apologize to you or anyone else that the remark may have offended. I have now re-niced myself, hopefully to Wikipedia standards.but it wasn't a bad summing up of the situation, just saying. And giving myself a timeout for saying it Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, no need to apologise to me, it just gets confusing when you nest comments so that they're under my comment rather than under the intended recipient's comments. TarnishedPathtalk 10:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you have missed my point: one sign that Blacklock's is unreliable is that there is no USEBYOTHERS. Reliable sources don't rely on them. -sche (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It's been a marathon discussion. Thank you for working on that. Elinruby (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Off topic, moved to own thread
::When did the National Post and the Toronto Sun become unreliable?? I can't find these "archived discussions" you refer to and there's no WP:RSP listing (perhaps we need an RfC?). The best is an opinion column from the National Post accusing others of plagiarism.[66] These are two of Canada's most-circulated newspapers. [67] You can't just handwave them away as being unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The National Post put an op-ed piece by Jason Kenney on its front page. In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country, and this right after the discovery of graves in Kamloops. That was unforgivable. I didn't know questions had been raised about it, and I do not know why, but I definitely applaud the sentiment. And yes, it is one of Canada's highest-circulation newspapers. Which is terrifying. As for the Toronto Star, do you dispute it? I am not in Ontario so I don't see the print publication, but I've described their recent offerings (possibly even here) as akin to People magazine, so I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more complicated than 'on this day person x said y', and certainly not for a fraught and nuanced topic like the genocide at residential schools in Canada.Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
If you don't know the difference between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun you shouldn't be judging Canadian newspapers. Vague claims that a publication is like People magazine is not enough to make a source unreliable.
WP:RSOPINION says you can't cite op-eds anyways. To declare the National Post as unreliable you should be showing how citing it can be used to support untrue information on-wiki, not just publishing editorials you disagree with. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this needs its own thread. But a) I am talking about the Star, ie the one with the star in its logo. I was until now blissfully unaware that there was a Toronto Sun, I think. And worse, you say, huh. b) I would never cite Jason Kenney except in a discussion of the problems in Canadian political discourse c) yes, op-eds are inherently unreliable, and that is why they shouldn't be on the front page. It really bothers me that I have to explain this d) I am as patriotic as the next person and probably more so, but the ostrich approach to the issue isn't solving anything. e) The National Post may need to be used for traffic news in Ontario or inside baseball on the budget bill perhaps, but in general it should be avoided imho. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Being amongst a country's most circulated newspapers does not speak in the slightest towards a publication's reliability. TarnishedPathtalk 10:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Flippantly excluding it as unreliable would affect any article on Canada. [68] Both the Toronto Sun and the National Post regularly win National Newspaper Awards (Canadian Pulitzer) because they are recognized by their peers as being of high quality. [69] [70] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
{{failed verification}} Ok the Star won for photography and the National Post for a column. About the shameful Hunka episode to boot. This is not the flex you think it is. Elinruby (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll repeat again that the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two very different newspapers, despite being named after astronomical objects. If you look at the full awards list [71] the National Post has won 13 NNAs in its 25 year history, 11 of which were not in editorials or columns. The Toronto Sun has won 22, 5 of which were not editorial cartoons/photos.
Clearly we need a new discussion on this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Look, of course the sun is a star, but I am talking about the Toronto Star. The fact that I offtopicto your offtopic post in the offtopic spinoff from my original question does not make me the one that is confused here. I am taking your post as support for refactoring however.Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I was just looking at prior discussions of those sources on this noticeboard that turned up when I searched the archives, in which it looked like editors thought they were unreliable; if you read those discussions differently and/or think it's important to start an RFC on either source, feel free. I suggest starting a new section for it, as this section has already left its initial topic (Catholic Reporter) in the dust and is now even veering off even the secondary topic it had veered onto (that Blacklock's has no reputation for fact-checking, use by other RS, etc, and in general has no signs of being RS). -sche (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY Catholic Register, actually, which I would like to get back to, since it is actually used in an article I am trying to clean up. Considering sorting this into three separate threads.Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a 131 year-old WP:NEWSORG. If the claim isn't WP:EXCEPTIONAL (which it isn't; there typically isn't public accounting provided for each expense of XYZ Canadian government grant), I don't see why the source would be seen as unreliable in this context. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, because this discussion was refactored: at the time of Red-tailed hawk's comment, the discussion was titled as being about The Catholic Register, so RTH was correct to note that it is a very old source (whereas Blacklock's Reporter is a very new source). -sche (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the claim is exceptional, it can be excluded because it is POV pushing. As you write there typically isn't public accounting provided for each expense of XYZ Canadian government grant, which makes making statements that there hasn't been any audit released UNDUE. TarnishedPathtalk 08:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ask yourself why, if this is such a routine thing, this publication is writing about it, and people are trying to use that source about it. Maybe the answer isn't that you are wrong about this thing being routine. Maybe someone just wanted to say that no public accounting had been provided, because that sounds sinister and gave them a google hit that some people will believe. Caveat: I have never heard of this publication, but there is definite some PoV being pushed. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby I think you've misunderstood me. I was quoting Red-tailed hawk who had stated it isn't routine and I agree that governments generally don't give public accounting of the expenses of organisations that they've given grants to. Hence the statement that there has been no accounting is entirely unremarkable. Thus arguments to include it in the article can be seen as POV pushing. TarnishedPathtalk 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I was answering Red-tailed hawk and should have put my comment above yours to make that clearer. I completely agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Not above, rather below but at the same indentation level as TP’s comment. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Just like this comment and my previous one are two responses to your same comment, so are indented the same amount, and are in correct temporal order, with this later one below the earlier one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
nodnod point is I not picking a fight with TarnishedPath. I agree with TarnishedPath. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
👍 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath lets say, if The Catholic Register is deemed as reliable and Blacklock's Reporter deemed as unreliable here in the discussions of RSN, what would be the result when The Catholic Register is making news by quoting Blacklock's Reporter.
That is why I am saying each sources are to be analysed along with the context in which it is applied as citations.
Even if any news agency sources are deemed as unreliable, if their news article involves them as first person involved in the article, like Blacklock's Reporter contacted the Department's spokesperson, or applied in Access to Information Act ended with no reply, such as these can be heard and can be included in Wikipedia as a reported speech style if they made headlines like this
A Canadian Conservative news agency Western Standard made headlines(if their reports made headlines elsewhere) when they claimed that … so and so … no reply from Access to Information Act … Spokesperson commented … First Nation Community commented … unless and until a conflicting report from other deemed reliable sources arrive അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if they are found to be reliable, that does not entail inclusion per WP:ONUS. The fact that they made headlines for using weasel words to report what is already pretty much stated in the article using other sources is of no significance. The article is about Kamloops Indian Residential School not about WS. TarnishedPathtalk 10:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I inserted a subheader for Blacklock's Reporter so that (especially in the future, when someone is searching the archives for whether they've been discussed on this noticeboard before) it's clear this section also contains some evaluation of them. -sche (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

2000s sources

There is a dispute at Talk:Aromanians#Estimates. A user added the results of the 2023 Albanian census for the number of Aromanians (small Balkan ethnic group) in Albania and I found it exceptionally low. 2,459 compared to 8,266 in 2011, with no researchers having ever provided an estimate this extremely low, with Aromanian organizations in Albania having already disputed the 8,266 figure (and they probably will dispute the 2,459 but not enough time has passed for that yet), and with there being allegations of census irregularities regarding ethnicity in previous Albanian censuses.

I've aimed to add estimates by researchers to contrast this low number. Note that I haven't tried to remove it, but to provide users with information suggesting the census result might be different from the real number. These estimates are mostly from the 2000s, some either from or cited by subject experts on the Aromanians (Kahl, Winnifrith, Gica). It is important to note that there are not any recent estimates from the 2010s or 2020s. My argument is that it is appropriate to add these sources while these users argue they are outdated and unfit for inclusion. The sources are basically all of these that I added in the note [72]. The estimates go from 30,000 to an exaggerated 200,000. Even when adopting the lowest academic estimate of 30,000 the 2023 census would imply a decrease of over 90% of Aromanians in Albania in only 20 years. This is an incongruence users are refusing to address and for which there is no evidence in reliable sources. Editors do not appear to have much urge in finding a middle ground and rather seem to prefer to maintain this very low number by itself.

Are the sources at the note reliable or too old? Is my practice appropriate? Should the census result be left by itself? Super Ψ Dro 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to say that another, 2024 source, says that number of the Aromanians in Albania and North Macedonia combined is around 18k (referring to the 2011 census results for Albania), far less that the outdated estimates you want to add to the infobox. There are 2 issues with those sources in question. The first is that they are far outdated, with estimates made 2 decades or so ago. During those 2 decades, Albania's population has shrank by 800k (3.2 mln to 2.4 mln). The Aromanians and Greeks tend to leave at a faster rate, as they can easily get documents and jobs in the richer Greece. The second issue with those sources is that they make those estimates in passing, without providing any explanation on how the conclusions were reached. No in-depth research was done. The overestimation of the Aromanians' numbers in the past was an issue in other countries as well, as some academics tended to hyperbolize. There even are some cases where famous people were described as "Aromanian", and then the persons themselves came publicly to reject those claims. The 2023 census is the first credible one in the history of Albania, and it was done with help from international organizations. If with time academics evaluate the census' results and give alternate figures for the Aromanians, those estimates can be added to the infobox next to the census data. Until then, the only detailed, in-date estimate we have is the census. Time will tell on how academics will evaluate it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I think the estimations are incorrect in the first place, they are from two or more decades ago. WP:AGEMATTERS is particularly important in the context of demographic data, especially in Albania’s case, where in the last two decades the population has dropped by almost a million.
Besides, the estimations are not based on proper fieldwork or demographic data collection. On top of that, we have a source from 2024 that states the following:
Petrariu & Nisioi (2024) - The largest communities are in Greece, according to Kahl (2006), and the numbers are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such5. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania, where Aromanians have been given land through colonization and Romanization of the Dobruja region, since the end of XIXth century to the beginning of the XXth century (Gica et al., 2009; Clark, 2015). The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people.
So in 2024, the number of Aromanians in Albania must therefore be somewhere below 25,000, as this is the rough population number of Aromanians in Romania (which has the second largest community of Aromanians, with Greece coming in first). However, where exactly that number is, we don’t know. The only usable data we have is the 2023 Albanian census right now, and unless you have a source which proves that the 2023 Albanian census is flawed or unreliable, then it should serve as the primary number.
Flawed estimates from decades ago should not be included in the infobox as a reliable indication of how many Aromanians live in Albania in 2024. Botushali (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Have I tried to pass a single one of those estimates as being from 2024? Could you show me an edit made by me showing this? I've already expressed my issues with the 2024 source [73]. And yours is an unreasonable demand because as I understand results on ethnicity came out days ago, or maybe weeks. Again, zero intention to concede anything, and even a misrepresentation of the aim of my edits. Super Ψ Dro 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don’t understand what there is to “concede” here. Where on Wikipedia do infoboxes include questionable population stats from decades ago, particularly in a country that has experienced nothing but severe demographic decline?
Obviously, I am trying to keep this amicable, and I find Super Dro to be a pleasant person to deal with on Wikipedia. However, in regards to this - Have I tried to pass a single one of those estimates as being from 2024? - by pushing for the inclusion of questionable estimations from decades ago in the current population number of the infobox, you are effectively supporting them as estimations for 2024.
The population numbers are supposed to be up-to-date and as recent and current as possible, but we can’t do that by using sources from decades ago. Only sources from recent years can provide a clearer picture of the current population statistics, and that’s what the census is useful for. Botushali (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason not to include census figures along with other reliably sourced estimates, each attributed to its source. I'm puzzled by super dro's approach here. We shouldn't be seeking sources that confirm prior beliefs, rather it's better to put down what the sources say. (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Albania has lost 400,000 or -15% of its population since the last census. And this goes up to -800,000 from the 2001 census. Meanwhile, you wonder, why, a small minority (which is in the process of assimilation) has become even smaller, because some sources from 20 years ago, which throw numbers in the air without any real study, suggest other figures. HokutoKen (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"without any real study" this is what I am talking about. Any source I bring is rejected. Editors do not want to concede anything. One such estimate was 100,000 (of Aromanian origin) by Thede Kahl (2002). The article is cited 44 times in Google Scholar [74]. It is used in 38 different Wikipedia articles [75]. Kahl has authored 189 academic articles according to Google Scholar [76]. Take a look at this article [77]. It is of a pretty niche topic and it includes photos said to have been made by him. This person has obviously spent a lot of time travelling to Aromanian settlements and researching. They are for sure a very authoritative figure on this field. Yeah, I wonder why a minority is said to have decreased by over 90% in 20 years when there is no evidence for that. What sources am I supposed to bring so that users do not continue questioning them? Maybe I need to start taking Aromanians into their houses. P.S., the 2024 source mentioned above was written by two authors, the first it was her second published article ever and the second it was his second published article on the Aromanians. Super Ψ Dro 22:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The census was funded, monitored and had technical assistance from the EU, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Nations. There was a question about the ethnicity, 2,459 answered that they are Aromanians. This is the only fact. All others are (old) speculations, and from that time the Albania has lost 1/3 of its population. HokutoKen (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to mention other estimates in a footnote like you've done here. On one hand the latest census doesn't override all previous scholarship, on the other these estimates are a bit old, so mentioning them in a footnote strikes the right balance. Alaexis¿question? 07:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I need to start taking Aromanians into their houses. Yes - if you can bring 100,000+ Aromanians currently living in Albania to my house, I’ll finally believe you. It’s a ludicrous number. Botushali (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Editors should not misrepresent the sources. The outdated estimates are all hugely contrasting with each other, because they seem to be all guesses, not the result of in depth field research. User:Super Dromaeosaurus brought here an estimate provided by Kahl in his 2002 paper, claiming that this scholar "has obviously spent a lot of time travelling to Aromanian settlements and researching. They are for sure a very authoritative figure on this field", but see how this scholar reached his conclusions about the estimate he provides:
In Albania, there is no census in which the Aromanians are identified as a separate group. While Aromanian associations estimate the number of Aromanians in Albania to be as high as 250,000, estimates of Greek newspapers in southern Albania hardly reach 50,000. Official Albanian sources mention about 60,000 Aromanians (Demirtas Coskun 2001: 40). The estimates depend on the discussions about the number of Greeks in Albania, which is at present considered to be 220,000 (Verémis 1995: 66). If this number for the whole orthodox minority is assumed to be correct, we can assume that at least 100,000 people of Aromanian origin are presently living in Albania. Most of them live in the districts Kolonja, Korça, Pogradec, Vlora and Fier.
That number certainly can't be added as a proper estimate for the present-days ethnic Aromanians, when we have an INSTAT census providing a number of Albanian citizens who identify themselves as ethnic Aromanians today. Another guess was recently provided by Charity Butcher in The Handbook of Cross-Border Ethnic and Religious Affinities (2019): Aromanians (also known as Vlachs), a people who were formerly nomadic sheepherders and are sometimes considered Romanian due to their language similar- ities, are also present in both countries, comprising less than 1 percent of the population of each [Albania and Serbia]. So, numbers other than the census can be added only if they are supported by recent sources that provide proper estimates clearly based on in depth field research and not guesses. – Βατο (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

When RS document Wikipedia's actions...

I'm not even sure this is the right venue, but when RS discuss Wikipedia's actions to deprecate a source, is it proper to use the RS to document the matter in the source's article here? I don't know of any PAG that forbids it.

Here is an example (not made by me) that was rejected at the New York Post article. Anyone reading our article would never know the New York Post is considered a bad source here:

In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus that the Post should not be used as a source, especially with regard to politics.[1]

I think the reasoning (on the talk page and edit summaries there) for rejecting that is daft and not aligned with our normal sourcing and inclusion policies. RS consider it a notable enough event to write about it, and it's certainly on-topic in that article. This is not about using Wikipedia as a source about itself. We all know that's a non-starter.

Reactions on other articles were totally different. Parallel situations at Breitbart News, Daily Mail, Fox News, and Anti-Defamation League were all handled properly. I think the same should be done at the New York Post article. Maybe we need a policy note about this type of thing,...if it doesn't exist already. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors: @Isi96, LeadPoisoning, Arcturus95, Objective3000, and TanRabbitry: -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I may be daft; but RS discussing Wikipedia deprecations belong on Criticism of Wikipedia if anywhere, not in articles about the deprecated sources. The latter sounds like Wikipedia dumping on the deprecated source. We are not trying to harm a poor source (and they are horrible sources). We just don't want to use it here. Besides, we don't use sources that are not RS -- and Wikipedia is not RS. But, this is not a hill I'm going to die on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? Obviously not. That's about a 100% misunderstanding of what's happening. See the examples where they did the right thing. This has nothing to do with criticism of Wikipedia. It has to do with the proper use of RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with User:Objective3000 that such material should not normally be included in articles about external sources. Ceteris paribus, where RS report that Wikipedia has deprecated a publication, the fact that Wikipedia has deprecated that publication should be included (if at all) in an article about Wikipedia, and not in an article about the publication that has been deprecated. Deprecation by Wikipedia is not evidence that a publication is unreliable, because Wikipedia is not reliable. If you want to say, or even insinuate, that a publication is unreliable, or even that it might be unreliable, you should find a better source than Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@James500: I'm not sure I understand you. You mention it would be better to mention it "in an article about Wikipedia". What article would that be? Please wikilink one that would be relevant. I don't see how the one mentioned by Objective3000 makes any sense (Criticism of Wikipedia). Where on earth would this be relevant there? Objective 3000 misunderstands this completely, and so do you ("Deprecation by Wikipedia is not evidence that a publication is unreliable, because Wikipedia is not reliable.")
This isn't about Wikipedia or using external mention to bolster our deprecation of a source. That's an internal matter, but external RS happen to notice it and write about it. To understand this, one should take this down about 50 notches and treat it like it was about any other source than Wikipedia. If a reliable source criticized the New York Post (which is what's happened), we would put that in the New York Post article. In this case it just happens to be Jewish Telegraphic Agency (or Haaretz) that mentions the criticism here, but that's all.
We should deal with the RS mention exactly as others have done in the other articles I mentioned. There are likely a dozen other articles about sources that Wikipedia has criticized or deprecated where the same has been done, where editors have followed our PAG for how we treat RS mentions of criticisms. Why should we suddenly violate normal practice for the New York Post? Any other source that is criticized by another notable source gets that criticism mentioned in its article. That's what PAG tell us to do. That's all I'm asking for. There is no legitimate reason to make an exception to our normal practice here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
No such article exists. Therefore, the line is inappropriate. Objective3000 is correct here. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes no sense at all. By doing what others have done in this situation myriad times here, by just following PAG, we have a RS that makes a statement about another source. That tells us which article here needs that information, which is obviously the New York Post article. Duh! Just do what we have always done, and don't make an exception for the Post as if it deserves protection from what RS say about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this isn't the right venue: this is whether a source is reliable, not what should be put in the article. If you have a reliable source it would be correct from the this noticeboard's point of view to include it, but whether it's really important enough it needs to be included is different. Personally (not trying to make this an RFC here, especially given its not the right venue), I feel like it probably shouldn't go in the lead given that article just references it to make a point, rather than commenting on the Post itself, but it could maybe go in a Criticism section. This should get discussed on the New York Post article itself, I think, or otherwise the Policy section of the Village Pump. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The sentence was included under the criticism section, not in the lead. Isi96 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
As I said in thread Evaluation of WP articles that discuss RSP determinations that sentence is false -- in 2024 RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was against a ban, was archived without formal close or effect on WP:RSP's "summary". But as I commented on the New York Post talk page, the falsehood is sourced (i.e. JTA said this is what happened in 2024), so it stays. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan:, you say "that sentence is false", but isn't that more or less what the WP:RSP page says? What's false about it?
Also, what does this have to do with the RfC? That was about "entertainment". This is about "politics". (I don't recall participating, so if there's something there, please point me to the right words.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
JTA says it happened earlier this year and the RfC that happened earlier this year was the one I linked to. Indeed JTA might have gotten their false idea from WP:RSP, or might have seen the RfC and misunderstood what it was about, so what? It's false. But I said on the talk page and I've said it here, it's sourced so it stays. Peter Gulutzan (talk)
  • This is a matter for WP:NPOVN because it's about whether Wikipedia deprecating a source is a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic of an article. I think it has to be examined case by case the same way we evaluate any other WP:ASPECT of any article. In some cases the answer would be yes (eg ADL, Daily Mail); in other cases, no (eg most RSN threads). It depends on how much coverage there is in RS about the specific deprecation as compared to total coverage of the topic. Levivich (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: thanks for the suggestion of a better venue. I think you're right. I started here by wondering about this question, and no one provided a more logical venue. Let's see how this plays out here and maybe later start over with fresh eyes at NPOVN. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It is hard to see this being WP:DUE: the New York Post is a major institution (of a kind) with a long and eventful history; the Wikipedia community deciding it's not reliable is an exceptionally minor point in that history. If there were lots of detailed analysis of this event in a spectrum of reliable sources, that would be one thing; what we have instead is a single sentence about it in an news article on a completely different topic. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Good point. TanRabbitry (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not about the history of the New York Post. This is about its very sad current status, which is so different from its noble origins. It's a rag now, akin to the National Enquirer. This is what happens to all things touched and owned by Rupert Murdoch. (The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are also owned by Murdoch, and see their fate.) Also, keep in mind this is a single sentence placed in the criticism section, not in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is about its very sad current status, which is so different from its noble origins That is to say, it’s about its history. It's a rag now, akin to the National Enquirer There are rags and then there are rags — when’s the last time you looked at the Enquirer? But anyhow none of this provides any reason to believe that this is WP:DUE, just that you have strong feelings on the subject. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: it's good that the Post is deprecated here, no one should use it as a source for anything, Murdoch has had a toxic effect on the news industry and consequently on much of USian politics; but that doesn't make "Wikipedia deprecated the Post" based on one line in an article about a different topic satisfy WP:DUE. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Only if it's not given undue weight (granted, the New York Post article currently is bloated and imbalanced with WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROSELINE and all-too-typical poor structure). I think Wikipedians have a tendency to overstate the importance of... Wikipedia. Per WP:PROPORTION and WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, just because a thing is mentioned in reliable sources doesn't mean it must be inserted into the main article. As an example, just because a reliable source states an episode of The Simpsons references George Washington, we don't need to put that fact into George Washington, although it may well be mentioned in an article about the cartoon episode. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not editors, and so will probably not be looking to use New York Post or any other source for any purpose on Wikipedia. Readers that do become editors can learn the inside baseball about at WP:RSN, WP:RSPS, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Animalparty: It was one sentence at the end of the New York Post#Content, coverage and criticism section. That's hardly undue weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Elia-Shalev, Asaf (June 18, 2024). "ADL Faces Wikipedia Ban Over Reliability Concerns on Israel, Antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Archived from the original on June 19, 2024. Retrieved June 20, 2024.

Re: Bunny (Beach Fossils album)

This G13 rehab candidate, which has doubled as the guinea pig for my new AFC queue, may need a little help re: this Instagram announcement post from the band's official account. Instagram isn't usually considered usable, but this instance might fall into the "acceptable" category. Before I move ahead soon, remind me if I'm right or wrong here. (Filing on behalf of original draft creator CWvN (talk · contribs); XPosted from WP:AFC/H.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:INSTAGRAM, The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) So it is a reliable source for the fact that the band announced the album. However, it adds zero notability, as it is not an independent source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Discogs as a source for images of albums/music CDs and ONLY those

Discogs is currently listed as an unreliable source on the list of perennial sources because it is a user-generated source. I'm not here to dispute that. However, Discogs is also a source for images of music CD covers/booklets or. I think it should be an acceptable source for those and only those. Here is my reasoning: while the scans could be manipulated, I do not believe there is any issue with such manipulation at Discogs. Furthermore, other sources that have scans of e.g. books are generally considered to be acceptable as far as I know e.g. I have not seen anyone proposing that using a book in the public domain that is hosted on the Internet Archive is unacceptable, even though anyone can upload there. Lastly, just like with content summaries of books, track lists in Wikipedia articles frequently don't cite any sources, as someone simply copying the track listing from the album booklet is considered appropriate. I find it absurd that using a scan from Discogs would be worse than using no source at all and relying on editors to copy information to Wikipedia accurately, especially for less common albums not owned by a lot of editors. I think Discogs should be considered to be an acceptable source for such scans and, I can't stress this enough, only and exclusively those. Not for any of the user-generated content. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  • User-submitted images have been accepted by Discogs, making your proposal harder to favor. Same for IMDB or any other user-generated databases and websites. Let's rather cite primary sources instead of Discogs or IMDB please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    I've addressed that above. Right now, if an editor cites a music album as a primary source, we just have to rely on them transfering the information properly. How is that better than presenting a scan of the album booklet? Cortador (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
For a start, it's less likely to be a breach of copyright. Album cover art and design is generally copyrighted (there's a reason most album cover images on Wikipedia are low-resolution). Factual information like a track listing may not be copyright, but should be more easily sourced from reliable sources. If an album has no reliable source for its track listing, then you must decide whether naming every song on an album in its article may be undue (or if even the album itself is notable at all). Daveosaurus (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Album articles generally have track listings with their length, contributing artists etc. I rarely see those sourced, independently from whether the album is notable. Cortador (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
They're sourced from the album cover/inserts themselves, where else are you going to source them from? Even a review of an album that is so in-depth as to go through the entire tracklisting still isn't going to mention every other useful piece of information from the primary source. Sometimes primary sources are all we have. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Then what's the issue with using a scan of the booklet? Cortador (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's a tricky one. Discogs is UGC - but in my experience as a record collector it's all but infallible, particularly for anything released in the UK or US. So I tend to go easy on Discogs links. As for the specific question of scans on Discogs, those are fine IMO. Has someone actually been coming down hard on these? If so we should get them in here - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
    Not from what I know, but Discogs is currently designated a generally unreliable source, so I think this is worth addressing. Cortador (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Getting an image for an upload for infobox identification can be done from anywhere. The source is not being used as a citation. Why is this even a question? If there is a dispute between two image choices for an infobox, then discuss which image is preferable on the article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Because this isn't about images for illustrative purposes, but about images as primary sources. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    Please give an example, with link to discussion, where this is a controversial issue. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't made the case that this is a "controversial" issue. Cortador (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
    Then this entire thread and discussion is completely pointless and should be closed and archived. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_443&oldid=1233742850"