Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 450Archive 451Archive 452Archive 453Archive 454Archive 455→Archive 458

Car brochures

Are car brochures and spec sheets published by the automaker themselves reliable sources, or are they primary sources and should generally be avoided? Note that they often tend to be some of the only information for options, trims and packages, especially if a car hasn't had a lot of press coverage. CutlassCiera 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources can still be used. Spec sheets and such would be reliable sources, as long as they are for facts not the interpretation of those facts. Also as it's the car manufacturer talking about their own products you may want to be careful with any exceptional claims, they may include promotional language that wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cutlass: I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is a big consideration here:

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.

If it's something subjective on a spectrum that manufacturers have a vested interest to exaggerate such as gas mileage, electric range, or top speed, the claim should probably be attributed to the manufacturer. If it's something straightforward and objective such as tire size or the number of seats for example, that's probably fine to use in wikivoice. Left guide (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Not even sure how you would cite a brochure. Perhaps another option is to link the instruction manual (for say a car model) on the further reading section. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
There are several big issues with brochures, at least in the U.S They sometimes show options and colors that weren't actually available, they aren't always forthcoming about what combinations of options or colors could be ordered, they are not conclusive evidence that an option or color didn't exist, and they may show dealer-installed equipment without being entirely forthcoming about it. I was heavily involved in the SCCA Solo community in the past, where it's mandatory for competitors in the Street (formerly Stock) classes to use a car with a combination of options available for purchase new from a dealer, i.e., if the carmaker always bundled the most powerful engine with the heavy power seats and T-tops, sorry, you gotta run the power seats and T-tops if you want the big engine. Over the years, this has led to some deep dives into what dealers could actually order, and these fact-finding expeditions have uncovered some notable instances where brochures were inaccurate—and keep in mind, these investigations tend to take place only if the subject vehicle is a potential "ringer" in an autocross, which is not true of the vast majority of new vehicles. Bottom line: I would explicitly cite any information from a brochure in the article text, not just in a footnote, and I would heavily disclaimer anything highly detailed, such as color or option combinations. Carguychris (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Status of the Burji people according to self-published book by Gollo Huka Liben

In his self-published book 'A Deeper Look into Booran Oromo Culture' Gollo Huka Liben according to a number of IP editors and the new user @Abel94B makes the claim that the Burji language is a variety of Boorana Oromo, and that the Burji people are not an independent ethnic group, but a clan and subsection of the Boorana Oromo. I so far twice reverted such edits with the remark that Gollo's book represents a fringe opinion in the face of contrary writings by Sasse, Amborn and Wedekind, plus the Ethnologue, which are all amply cited on the Burji language claim. But the editors so far always reinstated their claim, with many formal problems, and protesting that Gollo must be more acceptable than the cited sources, because he is a PhD from the area. I therefore see no other option than to bring this question here: Is Gollo's book a better source than the other sources so far cited on the page? LandLing 18:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

self-published sources are reliable if the author is a subject matter expert who has been previously published by other independent reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Having a PhD would not be enough, but if they have been published for their work it would point towards them being a reliable source. Abel94B do you know if they have published any other works? I could not find any.
As to inclusion of this and other opposing positions, they are a matter of NPOV not reliability, see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. Because something can be verified doesn't necessitate it's inclusion, rather anything include must be verifiable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This book discusses the relationship between the broader borana community and the Gadaa.this book is a reliable source.He is a known ethnologist in the Booran,Burji and Konso culture .I bet you never knew that a lot of booran oromos have their heritage from konsos .There is a reason why their called Konso Boru.Your whole sources are wrong.Youre talking about 83000 native speakers?I urge you to go there and look for the speakers.Furthermore the burji live in Marsabit a town in Kenya which was named after Marsa a burji person.You have so many informations that are not included or are wrong.You talked about amborn.What about the 1991 Ethiopian studies by Michigan University. There are to many misinformation on your page .The other book Gollo wrote is in 1996 called Booran Gumii Gaayyoo. You’re using sources which are incorrect and second of all do not have any substance. Why is Lake chamo mentioned but not Liban. Its mind blowing how ignorant someone can be . There is a reason why the burjis and konso rule by the gadaa.And even the burjis can use the booran prerogative in the community between boranas and burjis.Their is no mentioning where the burjis have their origin or the interactions with the other ones .The burji district in the Snnp is a political based construct which was never there in the DERG era,Haile Selassie era or Menelik era .
And even in the Menelik era most of those places belonged to the borana before it was annexed .
Before deleting facts try to verify it by first hand sources.This book takes it so seriously by naming every abba Gadaa for instance by the year in the boorana society.If you’re trying to say that a PhD has no value in Wikipedia.I would have a genuine question.How the hell could someone achieve to be a professor at a university communityand is a known ethnologists in the Borana/Burji/Konso/Gabra/Guji Abel94B (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is a place to ask for a second opinion about the reliability bog a source. The content of article should be discussed on the articles talk page and you just should make comments about other editors, particles negative comments.
Could you give some more details about "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo"? I can't find anything about it. Knowing who it was published by, or any other details would help.
The self-published work of someone with a PhD would be a reliable source if the it can be shown the have previously been published by other independent reliable sources. That way we look to other sources for judgement, rather than relying on the judgement of any particular editor.
Professors may have ideas that stray from the mainstream, so they are not immediately reliable just because they are a professor. Especially if other reliable sources disagree with them.
If think the other sources in the article are unreliable or being misused you should discuss it on the article talk page, remembering that assuming good faith and civil discussion are not option. Finally remember that what you know is not a valid source of information on Wikipedia, content must be verifiable to a reliable source and no editor is a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The book "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo" talks about the Gadaa system of the Borana Oromo, which is a traditional governance and social structure.
Your concern is valid but If I may ask .How can a foreign researcher know more about the Ethiopian especially so called rare ethnic groups in this region than a Professor at the same country and who lived in the same area.Evaluate the book and the data.Most of his work is specialized in this field especially in the Oromo culture .
he is a known expert .
I urge you first and foremost to check his credibility in his field than asses his works .
He is associated with the Addis Ababa University and and graduated his PhD in anthropology.
Just check his credentials . 196.191.61.194 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The book "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo" talks about the Gadaa system of the Borana Oromo, which is a traditional governance and social structure.
Your concern is valid but If I may ask .How can a foreign researcher know more about the Ethiopian especially so called rare ethnic groups in this region than a Professor at the same country and who lived in the same area.Evaluate the book and the data.Most of his work is specialized in this field especially in the Oromo culture .
he is a known expert .
I urge you first and foremost to check his credibility in his field than asses his works .
He is associated with the Addis Ababa University and and graduated his PhD in anthropology.
Just check his credentials . 196.191.61.194 (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't need to know what the work is about, I need to know who published it, when it was published etc.
What the ethnicity of a researcher is has absolutely no weight in whether they are reliable.
You saying he is a known expert is completely irrelevant, no-one knows who you are and you are not a reliable source. What we need is published sources that show he is an expert.
I'm trying to assess his work, you are giving nothing to do that assessment with. Simply being an associate of a university or having a PhD is not enough to be a reliable source when it comes to self-published works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Read the book first and not a glimpse of the back page.The book talks about the engagement between the different groups .And even talks about the history of the Burji and the separation .Why do you think that the American Research journal and Gollo are phrasing them both as cousins ?Read the whole 200+ pages before saying you have a clue .
He discusses all the topics with every Oromo and neighboring group 196.190.62.154 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Your discussing content, not reliability. And stop with the snide comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I do understand not being able to find academics in niche fields. For example, I can't find the current affiliation of Alexander Kellner, cited in the article, nor can I figure out where to find his book The Lazy Baboon (although maybe I need to be searching in German?) -- although he is coauthoring with Hermann Amborn at Munich, and writing mainstream stuff, so it's not really a problem.
I would suggest that if you want to pursue this further, you contact someone established in the field of East African linguistics, if they can provide something to attest to Liben's credentials or not, or to the general rigor of his publications or not. A librarian may be able to assist you in this. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It does not matter what the book discusses, what matters is whether it is self-published, was it published by a recognized expert, and if not it is to an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
He is a recognized Anthropologist.it is a verified source 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore he was a Professor at the Addis Ababa University teaching ethnology and anthropology especially the Oromo history in particularly the Booran/Konso/Burji/Gujii group . 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And I repeated twice he is an expert who’s living was teaching it at a University . 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding conformation of this, all I can find is "Former director Liben was the director of the DASSC South Ethiopia Unit and later coordinated the DASSC coordination office for the 6 Southern " no mention of any university post. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
His book is listed on the Stanford library
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?per_page=50&q=%22Boran+%28African+people%29%22&search_field=subject_terms
what are you guys talking about .
are you guys now saying that Stanford is not using reliable source .
and second you read the back page and not the whole book.
Many thesis of amborn are either not completely or wrong leading .
He is neither an expert in the diverse ethnology in Ethiopia
And he is contradicting himself with the Ethiopian studies in 1994 where if you read that if you look it from the scientific perspective that the burjis are not an ethnic group. 196.190.60.86 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Libraries are depositories of books, no more. Do you have a wP:coi? Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
What you say is irrelevant, we need proof, for someone who only seems to have one published work (not even any published papers). Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I found the self-description of this book on the Amazon webseite (see the picture of the backpage), and it does not strike me as an academic resource, and one that is not primarily concerned with Burji people, culture or language. I don't see how it can supercede the published evidence provided on the Burji language page. LandLing 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Which does not mention they were a Profesor, at any university, in any subject. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Go to the Stanford library and search it .are you now saying that Stanford is using unverified sources .
Funny how you found it on Amazon but didn’t do you’re homework looking for libraries in on of the world renowned universities.First of all he teached at the Jimma University and the Addis Ababa university .That was decades ago.You have to contact the universities to look up for the files manually 196.189.95.214 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A book being cataloged in a library means very little, even the Stanford University library. Hopefully, it is fairly clear what the difference is between this and, for instance, a professor at Stanford using the book in a syllabus, or the book being published by Stanford University Press. Remsense ‥ 论 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
One of the main dimensions we look at when considering whether a work of scholarship is reliable is whether it's been reviewed, referenced, or otherwise engaged with by other scholars working in the field. If no one's ever cited this book, or written a review of it, or done those things with any work by this author, that is a likely sign it is not a work of any consequence within the body of literature about a given subject, and probably shouldn't be cited in an encyclopedia article on said subject. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(For comparison, the Stanford library has over 3,000 items published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a predatory publisher notorious for its polite conflation with Cambridge University Press and scant-to-none editorial oversight. Remsense ‥ 论 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Zoom Earth

I recently reverted an editor who changed information on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, changing Beryl's MSLP from 934 to 935. No inline citation was present, however the summary did contain a reference to Zoom Earth. Apparently, Zoom Earth ([1]) is a live weather map, and checking their about page states they get their data from satellites including the GOES array, as well as local and national centers such as the National Hurricane Center. The figure for Beryl's 934 MSLP was from the NHC, but apparently on Zoom Earth never got to 934. I wouldn't think Zoom Earth is a reliable source, as it is nothing more than an aggregate of other sources, and the 935 MSLP figure was synthesized by the software if I'm not mistaken.

Zoom Earth is otherwise cited only once on Wikipedia, on Grandstaff Canyon. That citation is to satellite data which backs up the claim that a notable bridge is inside the canyon, which might be a bit of WP:SYNTH, but either way the satellite and map data is taken from GOES and OpenStreetMap.

What is the status of Zoom Earth in either context? I'd say it's not a good source as it's a mirror of other reliable or semi-reliable sources that should be cited instead. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case we should use the NHC value directly. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 14:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The labels come from OpenStreetMap, which is WP:UGC, so they're not reliable. So in the context of the Grandstaff Canyon it's not reliable.
In the other case I would agree with JoJo, they are aggregating other sources so just use the original source. It's sidesteps any errors produced by copy and aggregating the data. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Status of the Burji people according to self-published book by Gollo Huka Liben

In his self-published book 'A Deeper Look into Booran Oromo Culture' Gollo Huka Liben according to a number of IP editors and the new user @Abel94B makes the claim that the Burji language is a variety of Boorana Oromo, and that the Burji people are not an independent ethnic group, but a clan and subsection of the Boorana Oromo. I so far twice reverted such edits with the remark that Gollo's book represents a fringe opinion in the face of contrary writings by Sasse, Amborn and Wedekind, plus the Ethnologue, which are all amply cited on the Burji language claim. But the editors so far always reinstated their claim, with many formal problems, and protesting that Gollo must be more acceptable than the cited sources, because he is a PhD from the area. I therefore see no other option than to bring this question here: Is Gollo's book a better source than the other sources so far cited on the page? LandLing 18:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

self-published sources are reliable if the author is a subject matter expert who has been previously published by other independent reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Having a PhD would not be enough, but if they have been published for their work it would point towards them being a reliable source. Abel94B do you know if they have published any other works? I could not find any.
As to inclusion of this and other opposing positions, they are a matter of NPOV not reliability, see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. Because something can be verified doesn't necessitate it's inclusion, rather anything include must be verifiable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This book discusses the relationship between the broader borana community and the Gadaa.this book is a reliable source.He is a known ethnologist in the Booran,Burji and Konso culture .I bet you never knew that a lot of booran oromos have their heritage from konsos .There is a reason why their called Konso Boru.Your whole sources are wrong.Youre talking about 83000 native speakers?I urge you to go there and look for the speakers.Furthermore the burji live in Marsabit a town in Kenya which was named after Marsa a burji person.You have so many informations that are not included or are wrong.You talked about amborn.What about the 1991 Ethiopian studies by Michigan University. There are to many misinformation on your page .The other book Gollo wrote is in 1996 called Booran Gumii Gaayyoo. You’re using sources which are incorrect and second of all do not have any substance. Why is Lake chamo mentioned but not Liban. Its mind blowing how ignorant someone can be . There is a reason why the burjis and konso rule by the gadaa.And even the burjis can use the booran prerogative in the community between boranas and burjis.Their is no mentioning where the burjis have their origin or the interactions with the other ones .The burji district in the Snnp is a political based construct which was never there in the DERG era,Haile Selassie era or Menelik era .
And even in the Menelik era most of those places belonged to the borana before it was annexed .
Before deleting facts try to verify it by first hand sources.This book takes it so seriously by naming every abba Gadaa for instance by the year in the boorana society.If you’re trying to say that a PhD has no value in Wikipedia.I would have a genuine question.How the hell could someone achieve to be a professor at a university communityand is a known ethnologists in the Borana/Burji/Konso/Gabra/Guji Abel94B (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is a place to ask for a second opinion about the reliability bog a source. The content of article should be discussed on the articles talk page and you just should make comments about other editors, particles negative comments.
Could you give some more details about "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo"? I can't find anything about it. Knowing who it was published by, or any other details would help.
The self-published work of someone with a PhD would be a reliable source if the it can be shown the have previously been published by other independent reliable sources. That way we look to other sources for judgement, rather than relying on the judgement of any particular editor.
Professors may have ideas that stray from the mainstream, so they are not immediately reliable just because they are a professor. Especially if other reliable sources disagree with them.
If think the other sources in the article are unreliable or being misused you should discuss it on the article talk page, remembering that assuming good faith and civil discussion are not option. Finally remember that what you know is not a valid source of information on Wikipedia, content must be verifiable to a reliable source and no editor is a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The book "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo" talks about the Gadaa system of the Borana Oromo, which is a traditional governance and social structure.
Your concern is valid but If I may ask .How can a foreign researcher know more about the Ethiopian especially so called rare ethnic groups in this region than a Professor at the same country and who lived in the same area.Evaluate the book and the data.Most of his work is specialized in this field especially in the Oromo culture .
he is a known expert .
I urge you first and foremost to check his credibility in his field than asses his works .
He is associated with the Addis Ababa University and and graduated his PhD in anthropology.
Just check his credentials . 196.191.61.194 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The book "Booran Gumii Gaayyoo" talks about the Gadaa system of the Borana Oromo, which is a traditional governance and social structure.
Your concern is valid but If I may ask .How can a foreign researcher know more about the Ethiopian especially so called rare ethnic groups in this region than a Professor at the same country and who lived in the same area.Evaluate the book and the data.Most of his work is specialized in this field especially in the Oromo culture .
he is a known expert .
I urge you first and foremost to check his credibility in his field than asses his works .
He is associated with the Addis Ababa University and and graduated his PhD in anthropology.
Just check his credentials . 196.191.61.194 (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't need to know what the work is about, I need to know who published it, when it was published etc.
What the ethnicity of a researcher is has absolutely no weight in whether they are reliable.
You saying he is a known expert is completely irrelevant, no-one knows who you are and you are not a reliable source. What we need is published sources that show he is an expert.
I'm trying to assess his work, you are giving nothing to do that assessment with. Simply being an associate of a university or having a PhD is not enough to be a reliable source when it comes to self-published works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Read the book first and not a glimpse of the back page.The book talks about the engagement between the different groups .And even talks about the history of the Burji and the separation .Why do you think that the American Research journal and Gollo are phrasing them both as cousins ?Read the whole 200+ pages before saying you have a clue .
He discusses all the topics with every Oromo and neighboring group 196.190.62.154 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Your discussing content, not reliability. And stop with the snide comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I do understand not being able to find academics in niche fields. For example, I can't find the current affiliation of Alexander Kellner, cited in the article, nor can I figure out where to find his book The Lazy Baboon (although maybe I need to be searching in German?) -- although he is coauthoring with Hermann Amborn at Munich, and writing mainstream stuff, so it's not really a problem.
I would suggest that if you want to pursue this further, you contact someone established in the field of East African linguistics, if they can provide something to attest to Liben's credentials or not, or to the general rigor of his publications or not. A librarian may be able to assist you in this. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It does not matter what the book discusses, what matters is whether it is self-published, was it published by a recognized expert, and if not it is to an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
He is a recognized Anthropologist.it is a verified source 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore he was a Professor at the Addis Ababa University teaching ethnology and anthropology especially the Oromo history in particularly the Booran/Konso/Burji/Gujii group . 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And I repeated twice he is an expert who’s living was teaching it at a University . 196.190.62.30 (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding conformation of this, all I can find is "Former director Liben was the director of the DASSC South Ethiopia Unit and later coordinated the DASSC coordination office for the 6 Southern " no mention of any university post. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
His book is listed on the Stanford library
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?per_page=50&q=%22Boran+%28African+people%29%22&search_field=subject_terms
what are you guys talking about .
are you guys now saying that Stanford is not using reliable source .
and second you read the back page and not the whole book.
Many thesis of amborn are either not completely or wrong leading .
He is neither an expert in the diverse ethnology in Ethiopia
And he is contradicting himself with the Ethiopian studies in 1994 where if you read that if you look it from the scientific perspective that the burjis are not an ethnic group. 196.190.60.86 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Libraries are depositories of books, no more. Do you have a wP:coi? Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
What you say is irrelevant, we need proof, for someone who only seems to have one published work (not even any published papers). Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I found the self-description of this book on the Amazon webseite (see the picture of the backpage), and it does not strike me as an academic resource, and one that is not primarily concerned with Burji people, culture or language. I don't see how it can supercede the published evidence provided on the Burji language page. LandLing 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Which does not mention they were a Profesor, at any university, in any subject. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Go to the Stanford library and search it .are you now saying that Stanford is using unverified sources .
Funny how you found it on Amazon but didn’t do you’re homework looking for libraries in on of the world renowned universities.First of all he teached at the Jimma University and the Addis Ababa university .That was decades ago.You have to contact the universities to look up for the files manually 196.189.95.214 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A book being cataloged in a library means very little, even the Stanford University library. Hopefully, it is fairly clear what the difference is between this and, for instance, a professor at Stanford using the book in a syllabus, or the book being published by Stanford University Press. Remsense ‥ 论 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
One of the main dimensions we look at when considering whether a work of scholarship is reliable is whether it's been reviewed, referenced, or otherwise engaged with by other scholars working in the field. If no one's ever cited this book, or written a review of it, or done those things with any work by this author, that is a likely sign it is not a work of any consequence within the body of literature about a given subject, and probably shouldn't be cited in an encyclopedia article on said subject. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(For comparison, the Stanford library has over 3,000 items published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a predatory publisher notorious for its polite conflation with Cambridge University Press and scant-to-none editorial oversight. Remsense ‥ 论 20:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for Baalbek

Specifically this edit.[2] Sources are [3][4][5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes. Not familiar with voanews but Reuters is certainly reliable and Haaretz tends to be. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Reuters and Haaretz would be reliable for it being a strong hold. Foreign Policy has an article from a decade ago saying the same[6]. Neither Reuters or Haaretz mention militant, but it's from the Wikipedia article that says "political party and militant group". So militant group on its own could be changed to "militant and political group", but that's a content discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Voanews is Voice of America, which is generally reliable. John M Baker (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the sources are pretty clear on this. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Universe Guide

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to deprecate Universe Guide. If considered desirable, a request to blacklist can be made following the procedure described at WP:SPB. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of Universe Guide is:

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Background (Universe Guide)

Universe Guide is an amateur blog about astronomy that is cited on many pages about astronomical objects. This website has been discussed at this WT:ASTRO discussion, this WP:RSN discussion, and this WT:AST discussion, and there is general consensus that it is unreliable, and due to persistent usage, it has been suggested to be deprecated or blacklisted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Universe Guide)

By the way LaundryPizza, I'm sorry for not initiating the RfC myself. Just got problems a few days ago. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per above. I think over time we have to start to include more of this UGC, but this one seems to be poorly done. Maybe deprecate for now and come back and revisit in a few years if they improve. These things either improve over time or go away entirely. Lets take a wait and see attitude, and deprecate for now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, from a look at the source it’s clearly of extremely low quality and seems to just make stuff up. The site decided for us that brown dwarfs are actually definitely stars and calls them brown stars. It says there’s no evidence NGC 474 contains planets and that a wormhole would be required to visit it. We use that page as a source right now. 3df (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeking opinions on thepostrider.com

We have an article on history professor Allan Lichtman and a daughter article on his most notable work, The Keys to the White House. Both articles have been edited by the additions of citations to a website called thepostrider.com, specifically to this piece. As best I can tell, The Postrider is the sole product of two nonnotable people, who post on their own website and offer podcasts on several subjects. Its inclusion violates WP:SPS, especially when used in the WP:BLP context.

Further elaboration of my criticism, and the responses from the blog’s defenders, can be found at Talk:The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Unacceptable_source. That discussion has failed to produce consensus, so it would be helpful to get opinions from uninvolved editors. JamesMLane t c 01:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to JamesMLane for referring back to the discussion, which fleshes out some of the disagreement (I posted a little late today, so this was already posted) but am trying to do some more research on the journalistic independence and standards of the publication. For this piece, there is some valid reason to think it need not be cited for some things (though some of us feel it provides independent context that is useful), but should be cited in that it is being offered as part of the wider criticism of Lichtman's prediction system. It is not being offered for biographical reasons, but because it is often cited by critics of the 13 keys system, including on these articles in the New York Post, Newsweek, and Washington Times. The full discussion on the page also includes some relevant information concerning Lichtman's explicit targeting of this site and appeals to his supporters (and a user with a name matching that of his wife) to edit his pages to remove critical material. I'll continue to look into the qualifications and publishing standards of the site but we are looking forward to getting some additional input! Caraturane (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The pair are apparently legit political journalists, but not so universally long-term-well established that they can be expertsps; as founding and managing editors of the blog their own written piece is without oversight, and thus a straightforward WP:SPS, and not usable imo, especially in the context presumably to criticize this work.
Of course, the blog piece actually makes some good points that one might try to search around for, whether they are made elsewhere. In particular, it does eventually get around to citing a very good RS critical articles -- a [2016 NPR piece.
Additionally, one can very plainly note the editorial comments of whether he claims to predict the actual winner or the popular vote winner (because that matters more than anything to anyone who pays the slightest attention), and one can also note at the very end, if true, whether the 2016 election is in fact omitted in the book. Both of those facts are plain, relevant, and would be damning. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
yeah this. the bar for using SPS should remain high and wikipedia should wait for RS to publish criticism instead of relying on a blog post Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I want to pushback on the postrider and the article just being a "blog post". The article is extremely heavily sourced and reviewed, the publication in question has a wide span of other related content such as models and podcasts. They platformed and published a letter from Lichtman after they published their article. And their about page lists their journalistic standards. Reasons like this are why it's making an impact and has been getting some media coverage itself.
Now perhaps this isn't enough to establish reliability, perhaps not, but I think the tendency to call it a blog is overly reductive, these are not typical things for blogs. Apprentice57 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
As well as the other points raised their 'about us' promotes their election forecasts, caution should be used when using a potential rival in a WP:BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't pushback on the warning of caution itself, that's fair. But I do want to note that it's hard to get criticism/insight on Lichtman without running into another modeler. Nate Silver is also mentioned on the page extensively, and is one of the most famous modelers. Even someone like Julia Azari (also now mentioned) isn't a modeler but has collaborated with articles with those who are, like Nate Silver. Apprentice57 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
If another modeler has made comments in a reliable source, the best option is intext attribution. So make clear it's Nate Silver commenting rather than a fact in wikivoice, and question whether their opinion is due. Also remember that self-published sources can't be used for BLP details, so they can comment on the model but not the person. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a good point. I think this is in line with the compromise suggested below, which would seem to balance the interests within the rules. I think this is probably the best approach because the Postrider is not being offered for its publication of sources (we can use the sources themselves) but because of the role it played in the critique and commentary. It's not being offered as commentary about a biography or for biographical information, just about the 13 keys.
I do want to add that I have emailed the site's management to ask about their publication and editorial standards. I just asked today so it may take some time but I will post here when I have a response. Caraturane (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I think a compromise along the lines of:
  1. Use the sources found in The Postrider source for it's factual reporting (like SamuelRiv said), the NPR article, the October 2016 paper, etcetera (I can see why the piece itself is useful but maybe not stricly necessary).
  2. Use The Postrider source in the criticism section. They are among the most prolific "critics" and are often referenced for that work, like Caraturane said.
is workable? Tomcleontis (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
1. On the Talk page, I pointed out that the blog post included hyperlinks to reliable sources. To the extent that those sources support a particular assertion, we can include the assertion and cite it to the original source. That the source was also cited elsewhere (i.e., Postrider) is not a fact worth including.
2. The internet is full of people who are prolific. That a person is prolific isn't enough to show that that person should be quoted in Wikipedia. As an example, Michael Moore draws a lot of criticism from bloggers and other WP:SPS-type commentators, but the sources in Michael Moore#Criticism are only those from notable people and independently edited media like the Wall Street Journal. (Incidentally, I would incline to retitle the "Criticism" section to something like "Issues with applying the Keys". The current subsections would fit under that title, as would any discussion of the issue of predicting popular vote versus electoral vote, one of the points addressed by the Postrider. But that's a question for the article Talk page, unrelated to whether Postrider meets Wikipedia's standards. I mention it only to make clear that my objection to this one source isn't an attempt to scrub all criticism.) JamesMLane t c 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I think @Tomcleontis proposed compromise is a fair and balanced approach. Using the Postrider source in the criticism section as an established critic, seems like an effective way to ensure both accuracy and fair representation (the Newsweek article uses the Postrider critics to frame the overall criticism).
The suggested compromise avoids unnecessary redundancy by focusing on the direct use of reliable sources for factual assertions, while acknowledging the Postrider's (or the two authors: Lars Emerson and Michael Lovito) critique in the criticism section. This way, the article maintains both editorial quality and a comprehensive perspective. Caraturane (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
My objection to the current state of the articles is that we're using a WP:SPS, especially wrong in the context of a WP:BLP. The proposed "compromise" uses a WP:SPS in the context of a WP:BLP, so it would still be a violation of policy. JamesMLane t c 02:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's scare quotes thrown on compromise as it would be removing a citation from the source you object to in line with an objection you have.
But anyway: arguing in the alternative (we still have not thoroughly looked into whether the source has independent verification, a sticking point from the other talk thread that I haven't seen you address; I look forward to Caraturane's investigation on that): the proposition is to use the SPS only to enhance the criticism from noted critics/experts, which is given as an exception to SPS. Apprentice57 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
You write that "we still have not thoroughly looked into whether the source has independent verification, a sticking point from the other talk thread that I haven't seen you address; I look forward to Caraturane's investigation on that)...." I wish that people would comment in only one place, namely this one. I get sucked into responding on the article talk page and then the discussion is split. On the talk page I stated, "The burden is on whoever wants to insert or restore the material." This isn't just my personal opinion. I'm citing relevant policy from WP:BLP. If you consider this "lecturing" per one of your comments on the other page, my response is that this discussion needs more lecturing, i.e., more attention to actual Wikipedia policies.
The nature of the burden is established by another policy, WP:SPS: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content." If Caraturane receives an email from the Postrider guys, claiming to have a 23-member board of distinguished experts who independently review every word, I for one will be dubious.
Finally, you repeat your opinion that these guys are experts. As you know, I think they aren't. There's no point to our endlessly reiterating our views. There's already been too much bludgeoning in this dispute, by me and by others. JamesMLane t c 13:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
We've moved over to this thread at your request once you created this, so I don't understand the frustration. As per lecturing, I would distinguish between arguing based on the wikipedia policies and citing+restating the wikipedia policies without arguing why they apply. The latter is what I've taken issue with, and will continue to take issue with. Apprentice57 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
While a bit out of scope on the literal point of whether the source is acceptable in and of itself, I do think this would be acceptable and it does seem to sidestep the issue at hand. Apprentice57 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, just trying to give us an easy win here but that's easier said that done! I do not believe there is a BLP violation in including their work criticizing the 13 keys model, I understand that it is indirectly critiquing what Lichtman is notable for, but there's a gap to me between Lichtman and legitimate/notable criticism of the keys (they are genuinely among the most notable critics of the system, as the articles Caraturane linked to indicate). I am hoping that the compromise (use sources and then reference The Postrider in criticism section) can just take the temperature down and be a workable solution, but I'll also wait for Caraturane to get back to us with some more information. Tomcleontis (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: JamesMLane decided to unilaterally go ahead and remove the citations across both pages. I was hoping that the compromise many of us suggested: to rely on the citations to direct sources in most parts, but keep the citation to The Postrider source in the Criticism section would have let us put this aside and move on while adhering to policies. I am hopeful that getting more information from them about their editorial independence is helpful but I would like us to avoid making unilateral movements, especially when so many of us are suggesting good faith proposals that comply with Wikipedia rules and serve the best interests of the page. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
To charge that I acted “unilaterally”, in light of the discussion right here, is preposterous.
But, if you think I’ve acted improperly, you don’t need to confine yourself to your criticisms of me here and in the Talk page thread. You have recourse. Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee. It doesn’t adjudicate content disputes, but it does review charges of user misconduct (inappropriate unilateral action, bullying, undue lecturing, etc.). You might want to begin by familiarizing yourself with the dispute resolution policy. If you then conclude that arbitration, considered to be a last resort, is nevertheless in order here, a good place to start would be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. You can then go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Case request to see how to file the case against me.
I’m providing these links just for your convenience. I recommend against attempting to begin an arbitration, but it’s your call. JamesMLane t c 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Preposterous? It's literally the definition of unilaterally to act on something that others haven't agreed to. That you initiated a discussion two days ago and *then* acted unilaterally does not change that it's unilateral. This opinion seeking thread literally gained the light agreement (on the unacceptable source) from two users and the three of us who have been editing that page for much longer still remain opposed to it.
You are not automatically correct here because you are familiar with wikipedia policies and can link to meta pages. I really object to the way you've handled yourself in this whole matter.
I recommend we revert the changes while we wait for others to weigh in on Tomcleontis' changes and/or for Caraturane to hear back. Perhaps JamesMLane will end up being right as per the wikipedia policies, but there's no rush here to make changes while we are working through this all. Apprentice57 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?

Looking for comments on the reliability of this source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200526081806/https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/shen-yun-trump/ It is an article from LA Magazine written by Samuel Braslow titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". It was retracted by the magazine due to a defamation lawsuit as, according to this article on the case, it contained false claims.

It looks like there have been several discussions about whether to keep this source and the quotations attributed to it in several pages.

See the discussions here which have been going on for about a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shen_Yun#Retracted_LA_Mag_article and apparently the "centralized discussion" from a year ago here which didn't seem to end in consensus from what I could read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Li_Hongzhi#Braslow_piece_in_Los_Angeles_Magazine

In all cases though it seems to me the majority of editors involved in these discussions believe it should be removed, there seems to be no clear consensus from what I can tell, as there are other editors arguing that the source and the quotes should be kept.

My concern is that, from what I understand both of those pages are about living persons, and the quotations are contentious (based on the edit history of both pages and the discussions) and the source seems (at least to me and some other editors) to be a poor source given the reasons above.

Personally, I don't think retracted articles that have been subjects of lawsuits for containing false information constitute reliable sources, and I'm confused as to why some other editors insist on keeping it up. But I am a new editor, and perhaps there is some rule I'm not aware of. So I'd like to know what everyone else thinks, and if I'm wrong maybe I can learn something new about how wikipedia works. I don't want to misrepresent the other side of the argument, but from my understanding, the argument is that wikipedia is not censored or that legal threats shouldn't be rewarded so the article should stay.

For some context, below is the content included in the articles that uses the braslow article as a source:

The Shen Yun article says:

Los Angeles–based investigative reporter Samuel Braslow described Shen Yun's background in March 2020: "Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China's government in 1999 [...] Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group's wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism. In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong's ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li." Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report. Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.

The "Li Hongzhi" article where the "centralized discussion" was says:

According to a March 2020 report by Samuel Braslow published in Los Angeles Magazine:

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li. Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he "beat China all the time". In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders "believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party".

(Los Angeles Magazine retracted Braslow's article in September 2020 after Falun Gong filed a defamation lawsuit in May.) Blue nutcracker (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote: I think RFC generally refers to a very structured process, see WP:RFC. And in general, if you do start an RFC, it should only be after discussion on here has failed. And arguably, an RFC for a single magazine article for a single wikipedia dispute on this page is not the best place to start it. You may want to start it on the talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • In general, a retraction is still a retraction, and unless there is clear information that the article was true and that the Shen Yun/Epoch Times did truly shady stuff and/or overpowered with money, we shouldn't use the article.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Looking for LA Mag retraction, they have retracted other articles before for poor reporting practices as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
First of all, this editor is leaving out that our Epoch Times article in fact reports on the curious case of this retraction (Shen_Yun#History).
Second, just about all of the above quote can be cited to any number of other sources that are today readily available. It would just necessitate light modification. Media sources regarding Falun Gong and its extensions Shen Yun and the Epoch Times (among others) are very easy to find now.
Third, the fact that Falun Gong/Shen Yun went after Los Angeles Magazine for its reporting would seem notable to me. And I'm not alone: Here's for example a news report on it. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. If there is something whose sole source is this retracted article then it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Alaexis¿question? 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
If elements of the quote can be cited to other sources, that would probably be ideal. My initial impression is that it's a bit of a wall of text, and sources an additional step removed may aid in summarising the most pertinent elements. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Content shouldn't be solely sourced to a retracted article, and I don't think it's a good idea to be second guessing why an article was retracted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Woops, thanks Bluethricecreamman for sharing about the RFC procedure. I just saw several sections titled like that and thought it was simply a title others were using! To answer bloodofox point, if you can cite the above quotes to any number of other reliable sources readily available, then there seems to be no point in arguing in favor of using this retracted article as a source. But more importantly bloodofox, can you tell us why you think this retracted article from a magazine with apparently a reputation of poor reporting practices is a reliable source? Blue nutcracker (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I covered it all above. Other editors should be aware that Blue nutcracker is yet another WP:SPA focused on Falun Gong-aligned edits. The account's first edit was August 24 on the Shen Yun article ([9]) . :bloodofox: (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you stop the personal attacks and focus on the topic please? Blue nutcracker (talk)
The statement "WP:SPA focused on Falun Gong-aligned edits" is an objectively true statement. Other editors absolutely should be informed and aware that they are interacting with an account with these properties. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should be followed. The guideline tells us to examine the context. In this case, the context is that Los Angeles Magazine was accused of slander and they crumpled in the face of expensive court proceedings initiated by an aggressive, lawsuit-prone group: the Falun Gong. The magazine opted for a settlement which was cheaper and less trouble than defending their integrity. Afterward, the magazine erased all articles that they had published about Falun Gong, not just the 2020 piece by Braslow. For instance, they published a piece about Shen Yun in 2019 titled "Just How Big Is Shen Yun’s Marketing Budget?" This piece is now stricken from the magazine website, despite the fact that it was not challenged by Falun Gong as slander.
The freelance journalist Samuel Braslow is his own reliable source, cited on Wikipedia more than a dozen times. He performed the research, and he documented his findings in the article. His findings should stand because of context: everything he wrote about Falun Gong and Shen Yun is true and correct according to scholarly writings by Heather Kavan or James R. Lewis (both cited in the Falun Gong and Li Hongzhi articles), and similar investigative news pieces such as NBC News items "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times" from 2019, and "How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions" from 2023. The supposed "slander" written by Braslow is completely true. Nobody credible accused him of journalistic malpractice.
The facts of the slander case and magazine retraction made the news on its own. Local Los Angeles news outlet mynewsla.com wrote two pieces: "Epoch Times Files Slander Suit Against Los Angeles Magazine" and "Judge Orders Los Angeles Magazine to Remove Article from Website". This means that the lawsuit and retraction can be described on Wikipedia. Mynewsla.com described the supposed slander as including the accusation that Falun Gong members "had furtively pumped nearly $10 million in [Facebook] ads through a hidden network of fake accounts and pages", which fits quite well with what is described in NBC News's investigative piece from 2019. Context matters. The context here is that Braslow's work is legitimate, relevant, useful and objectively accurate. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland Why don't you tell us what you think about this issue? Do you believe this article is a reliable source? Why or why not? I'd be glad to hear your opinion. Binksternet when you say: "In this case, the context is that Los Angeles Magazine was accused of slander and they crumpled in the face of expensive court proceedings initiated by an aggressive, lawsuit-prone group: the Falun Gong. The magazine opted for a settlement which was cheaper and less trouble than defending their integrity." did you read this somewhere? It'd be great if you shared the source here so we could all take a look. If everything braslow wrote about is completely true according to the other sources you named, and they are reliable sources, why not use those other sources instead? I agree that the lawsuit and retraction are notable and can be mentioned in the article. But I am still not convinced that this article is a reliable source and we should be quoting from it in the manner we are doing in the article. Blue nutcracker (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
What I think about this issue is that the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" is far more important than a question about a source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. Other uninvolved editors in this noticeboard seem to have agreed so far that the source isn't reliable and shouldn't be used like it is in the article. As several of us have said repeatedly, if you have other reliable sources to support the content, just use those instead of this one. Would you, Binksternet and bloodofox be open to the following compromise: we can replace the above quotes with something like:
"Investigative journalist Samuel Braslow wrote an article titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties"[14]. Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report.[22] Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.[23][24]"
The above is essentially one new sentence, mentioning the braslow article, followed by what's already in the article, which I assume everyone agrees with, describing the lawsuit and retraction. This would address your concerns of not omitting mention of the article, it's lawsuit and its retraction, but doesn't quote from article or use it as a source. Can you tell us your thoughts on this? Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Braslow's investigation brought new information to the topic; he did not stop at summarizing the situation as previously published. We would be remiss not to cite facts from his article. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The LA Mag article contains glaring factual errors, such as saying that Epoch Times was founded by Li, but it was founded by John Tang [10]. Also there is no evidence that LA Mag retracted due to financial reasons.
Brawslow's quote as currently cited mostly concerns a living person. Even if we consider Braslow's piece as a self-published source after retraction by LA Mag, per WP:RS/SPS, we should Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, let alone the factual errors. Thomas Meng (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors should be aware that this is another WP:SPA that produces only Falun Gong-aligned edits in these spaces (the account's first substantial edit was in 2020 on the Falun Gong page, citing policy and stating that "associating Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is inappropriate"). This account has a long history of arguing for every Falun Gong-approved position one can imagine and will not make an edit that reads as remotely critical of the new religious movement. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Epoch Times was started by John Tang, certainly. But Tang was answering the needs of his messiah, Li Hongzhi. Braslow's assertion that Li started Epoch Times connects the dots between messiah and acolyte, with Braslow assuming that Li was the motive force, and Tang was the agent. Not an unlikely or far-fetched scenario.
It's obvious that LA Mag folded because the case was too much trouble and too much money. The case was settled before any of the facts were examined. It never went to jury trial. Note that Australian scholar Heather Kavan has described Falun Gong as extremely coercive, using street violence, personally targeted scare tactics, and engaging frequently in lawsuits. It's not unlikely that LA Mag publishers were subject to personal threats in addition to the lawsuit. They could have stood their ground, defending Braslow and the magazine's own integrity, and this path would have had a good chance of succeeding, because the article's facts are in line with previously published descriptions of Falun Gong behavior. But this path would have cost a lot of money.
Which living person was negatively affected by Braslow's article? It can't be Li Hongzhi, who has been described in similar terms by many other writers. And Braslow did not name any other Falun Gong adherents. Instead, Braslow described the Shen Yun organization and its Falun Gong DNA. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Since you brought it up: actually RSes overwhelmingly describe Falun Gong as a strictly peaceful spiritual practice, including the U.S. Congress and this Pulitzer-Prize-winning series of stories that illustrate how in the face of torture, forced school expulsion, etc. Falun Gong practitioners peacefully appealed for an end to the persecution by the CCP (see last article in series, Death Trap). Scholars similarly describe Falun Gong as peaceful, including David Ownby, Benjamin Penny, and Andrew Junker. There is not one single instance where Falun Gong practitioners resorted to violent means to counteract persecution.
Regarding Braslow: actually per WP:BLPSPS, it's not about whether a living person is affected negatively or not; rather, it's about Wikipedia's quality standard for sources about livign persons in general—it doens't allow self-published sources. Thomas Meng (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Note the account's insistence on Falun Gong-approved terms like "spiritual practice" and not what WP:RS overwhelmingly use: "new religious movement". Tread with caution regarding how this account presents or summarizes sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
You would appear to be using this noticeboard to advocate for Falun Gong, please keep your commentary contained to what is relevant to wikipedia and abstain from promoting or advocating for Falun Gong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of Trump but if a magazine retracts an article then we can't say it is a reliable source for the article. The reason does not matter. All that would matter is if another reliable source stood up for it in its place. So a fairly straightforward no would be my answer. NadVolum (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is that since the article got retracted, it’s not a “published” article anymore for Wikipedia’s purposes since it requires “reliable, published sources.” WP: RS.
I thus don’t know if it’s necessary to analyze the possible reasons behind the retraction. There could be many considerations like financial, reputation, or actual inaccuracies. Additionally, as reported by Mynewsla.com, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction enjoining the magazine from publishing the article. Defamation cases for public figures and entities usually require a higher threshold, such as actual malice. So if we were to get into all the reasons, we would have to analyze all possibilities and considerations, including why the magazine agreed to removing it even though they could recover litigation costs if they won. Thus my take is that absent a report by a reliable source stating the real reason for the retraction to be one unrelated to factual accuracy, we shouldn’t get into the context and should just treat it as an unpublished source. 23impartial (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem with that stance is that Wikipedia would be letting Falun Gong game the system to remove negative publicity. They should not be allowed to decide which sources must be suppressed. Braslow's investigation was legitimate and relevant to the narrative about Falun Gong. This is a case where we must push back against Falun Gong's manipulation, and accept the word of an honest career journalist. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting point @23impartial, I think Wikipedia:Published says archived material seems to be ok to use. So in principle if the article can be accessed from a web archived link it might be still considered published. But I don't know for sure if a retracted article actually counts as published or not. It would be an interesting question for the talk page of the Wikipedia:Published page. I might ask there at some point if time allows. But I did see Retraction in academic publishing which seems to indicate that, at least in the context of academic papers: "it may be necessary to remove an article from publication..when the article..is the subject of a court order". This seems to equate retracting with "unpublishing" but I could be wrong. Blue nutcracker (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
This article doesn't appear to have been the subject of a court order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that so far all uninvolved/uninterested editors seem to have unanimously agreed that the LA Magazine article is not a reliable source, do we have consensus at this point? Or do we need unanimous approval from all involved editors for a consensus? If there is no consensus yet, I am happy to continue the discussion to reach a consensus, but given that both pages seem to be about living persons, should we remove the contentious material while we continue our discussion? It seems to be in line with WP:BLPREMOVE. Also, looks like this discussion might be archived in a few days. To continue our discussion, should we continue it on the talk page as before, or can anybody suggest any other avenues we could use? Thank you everyone for your participation so far. Blue nutcracker (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of BLP is wrong (or at least as its expressed in this edit summary is [11]) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Do you think this LA Magazine article is a reliable source? and can you tell us why or why not? Looking forward to your input! Blue nutcracker (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be mocking and ignoring my input. I think the context is worth examining and examining your claims about the applicability of BLP is part of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Not at all, I assumed you posted here because you were interested in participating in the discussion and was inviting you to give us your take on it. Blue nutcracker (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I am participating and giving my take... You appear to be mocking and ignoring my contribution thus far. I think that you are overplaying the BLP angle, I also think that the concerns raised about FG effectively gaming the system are legitimate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
As you may have already noticed, it has been really hard to keep this thread on topic (The topic is: Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?), and it's starting to devolve into walls of texts littered with accusations, and I'm trying my best to hear everyone's opinions to see if we can have some sort of consensus or reach a compromise. So while I appreciate your contributions so far, how can I help count your contribution toward a consensus if you haven't provided it so far? I am just confused at this point. Thank you for providing your input so far, but if you don't have a particular answer to "Is this Retracted LA Magazine Article a reliable source?", I won't be able to continue this particular conversation we are having. Otherwise it will be very hard for any other editors in the noticeboard who may want to participate to catch up with the thread Blue nutcracker (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
None of this is off topic, FG apparently gaming the system is part of the topic. In that context I lean towards some sort of useful reliability. What is your opinion on whether or not FG is gaming our system? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The thing to do in this case is to cover everything in the article via secondary sources, using the tone and focus of those secondary sources (ie. if there are things they still treat as fact, we should treat them as fact; if there are things that they attribute, we should attribute.) The retracted article can still be cited as a courtesy link but probably shouldn't be relied on as the sole source for anything significant; however, conversely, the fact of its retraction should not be used as a rationale to remove anything from the article when other sources cover it. And in particular, if a secondary source, especially one written after the retraction, chooses to rely on the retracted article, they are still usable as long as they are not retracted. I think it is extremely unlikely that the key points lack secondary coverage at this point, so there should be no serious removals from the article, just minor rewordings and potentially attributions to reflect the new sources. The lawsuit has, realistically, produced a Streisand Effect and our article should reflect that in the sense that the massive number of sources covering the lawsuit inevitably mention the things that sparked it and we can and should cover those things via those sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Just don't use the retracted article and look for other sourcing. if enough folks are covering the retraction of the article, we could possibly include info about the retraction in a wikipedia section too without relying on the retracted article as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I would just ask Binksternet and Bloodofox to please provide all the sources they're aware of that repeat the claims so we can use them. In the absence of that, I can try to rewrite the paragraph in question citing the NBC articles provided by binksternet above. We can probably also move that paragraph into the Media Reception section as it seems a little odd to be in the History section in my view, but that's beside the point for this thread I suppose. Blue nutcracker (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hey, I am trying to rewrite the section above using the sources:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121
    and
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epoch-times-falun-gong-growth-rcna111373
    But they mainly seem to be about "Epoch Times", and mention, somewhat briefly, that there is some financial connection between Shen Yun and Epoch Times. But I don't see that Li founded Shen Yun there, and I am not entirely sure how to connect Li to Shen Yun and then bridge into the alien teachings in the braslow article. It does say that Shen Yun is an outreach effort of Falun Gong, I could include that, and maybe we could link to the Falun Gong wiki page? That should have more info for people who want to know more? I havent looked at the Falun Gong page so I can't comment yet on whether it has the controversial teachings or not. But it seems a safe bet for now?
    How about this to replace the contentious paragraph:
    -
    Brandy Zadrozny, a senior reporter for NBC and author of the articles: "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times" and "How the conspiracy-fueled Epoch Times went mainstream and made millions" says that "Shen Yun and Epoch Media Group make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong". The article "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties" written by los Angeles–based investigative reporter Samuel Braslow echoes similar claims. Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report.[22] Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.[23][24]"
    -
    The proposal above includes what we can support from Brandy Zadrozny's articles from braslow's article, and then a link to the Falun Gong wiki page for whoever wants to learn more about Falun Gong. And then also mentions braslow's article echoing similar claims which gives the statement more credibility, and also includes the lawsuit and retraction which I understand is important for everyone to be here. It doesn't quote from the article as if it were a reliable source, but is used to support zadrozny's claims, and at the same time includes braslow's article which I understand is important for some editors. This is a draft of course and would include all the links and references.
    We could also put it in the Media Reception section as it seems strange to be in the "History" section? Also the fact about the finances is actually already covered on the second paragraph of the introduction, so is this being needlessly repetitive?
    What does everyone think? Happy to keep refining this to include everyone's input and welcome alternate proposals to see how to include everyone's input somehow. Please take this in good faith, I don't see anybody making proposals, or trying to reach a compromise and I'm trying my best to make it happen. Blue nutcracker (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think the redaction shows that the article is unreliable. The article was redacted because of mounting legal pressure, not because LAM believed that it wasn't factual. There was a settlement i.e. no court of law actually determined whether any of the article content qualified as slander. Since we have articles reporting on the lawsuit, we should simply mention that in the article as well when the article is cited. Cortador (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of the Discussion so far

To make it easier for anybody who might still be interested in contributing to the discussion, and to aid in determining consensus, I will attempt to summarize the discussion so far. If you feel I have misrepresented your take, please feel free to clarify.

Editors from the Notice Board

From Bluethricecreamman, Alaexis, ActivelyDisinterested, NadVolum and 23impartial, it seems that the general sentiment is that the article is not a reliable source as it was retracted by the magazine.

Alpha3031 seems to believe the quotes are too long and more sources are necessary, but I am not sure if that means we should not use it as a source.

Editors from the Shen Yun Talk Page

Is a reliable source: From :bloodofox: and Binksternet, the general sentiment is that there appear to be other sources readily available that support the claims in the retracted article.

Binksternet has provided two articles from reporter Brandy Zadrozny of NBC News that appear to contain similar claims:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epoch-times-falun-gong-growth-rcna111373

Is not a reliable source: From Thomas Meng and I, the article is not a reliable source because it was retracted by the magazine as a result of a lawsuit for containing false information according to this article on the case and the fact that the article is no longer publicly available in LA Mag website.

Thomas Meng has provided some evidence that the article actually contains false information. To cite Thomas Meng: "The LA Mag article contains glaring factual errors, such as saying that Epoch Times was founded by Li, but it was founded by John Tang [12]"

Editors who's contribution is currently missing or unclear

From what I can tell: Sean.hoyland and Horse Eye's Back have yet to provide input on whether the article is a reliable source. I appreciate your interest in the thread so far and it would be helpful for us to have your input. I hope this summary makes it easier for you to see where you might fit in the discussion so far.

Suggested Compromises

So far I have suggested the following compromise, I quote:

we can replace the above quotes with something like:

"Investigative journalist Samuel Braslow wrote an article titled: "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties"[14]. Editor Chris Jennewein of MyNewsLA wrote that Los Angeles Magazine was sued for defamation in May 2020 by the Epoch Times, referring to Braslow's news report.[22] Los Angeles Magazine pulled the piece from their website in July, as ordered by federal judge George H. Wu, and published a retraction notice in the September 2020 issue of the magazine.[23][24]"

The above is essentially one new sentence, mentioning the braslow article, followed by what's already in the article, which I assume everyone agrees with, describing the lawsuit and retraction. This would address your concerns of not omitting mention of the article, it's lawsuit and its retraction, but doesn't quote from article or use it as a source.''

If you agree with this compromise, or if you have other ideas please let us know.

Where to go from here

Given that these threads get archived in 5 days and it's been almost 5 days, I would like to know:

Based on the above, do we have consensus on the article not being a reliable source?

If not, should we remove the contentious material while we continue the discussion as per WP:BLPREMOVE?

Also, once the thread gets archived, where should we continue the discussion? The Shen Yun talk page? The "centralized" discussion in the Li Hongzhi talk page? Or is there some other avenue we could use? Thank you everyone for your interest and continued participation so far. Blue nutcracker (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"appear to contain similar claims" — we really need a crackdown on these Falun Gong-aligned WP:SPAs. There are two unabashed examples right here. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but why should we mention Braslow's article in the articles on Li Hongzhi and Shen Yun? If the facts reported in this article are confirmed by other sources (like the NBC links above) then let's just report them citing NBC. Why do we need this discussion at all?
Braslow's article should be mentioned in other articles if it's notable by itself, that is, there are secondary sources that discuss it, but this is a different matter. Alaexis¿question? 09:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
We should cite Braslow because he connected more dots than previous work, and he updated the situation several years after previous work. None of what Braslow wrote is significantly out of line with previous publications, but he is valuable because he researched the topic further than previous publicatons. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of a specific claim that cannot be found elsewhere? Or point me to one if it has been provided already. Alaexis¿question? 19:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Claims that cannot be found elsewhere include that "Li founded Epoch Times", but it was John Tang who founded ET [13]. That is a factual error, among others.
Also, Brawslow's quote mentions Li 7 times. Even considering Brawlow's article to be self-published, per WP:RS/SPS, we Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. That's not about whether Li was negatively impacted by Braslow either; it's about Wikipedia's source quality standard about living people in general. We shouldn't quote Braslow on Li.Thomas Meng (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Li clearly controlls the Epoch Times [14], you appear to be splitting hairs to an extent which isn't due... Its clearly not a factual error but a difference in opinion, you think that Li controls the Epoch Times and that it was founded by followers of Li independent of him... They think that Li controls the Epoch Times and that it was founded by followers of Li not independent of him. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

mynewsla.com and parent company CalNews, Inc

mynewsla.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source, its part of CalNews, Inc which is a web scraping and republishing company... Not a media company. I can't see anything which suggests reliability, their About Us and Staff pages strongly suggest the opposite. The specific article which was brought here "Judge Orders Los Angeles Magazine to Remove Article from Website" appears to have been supplied by Falun Gong. Its also possible that CalNews is just a FG front... Their editorial line appears to be the same as the Epoch Times'[15] and FG/ET has a long history of using front organizations[16]. A sampling of the editorial line CalNews shares along with other people's stories "Jack Smith's story gets more unbelievable by the day. Still no Epstein list, still no Diddy list. It's little wonder no one trusts the federal government." "The @POTUS has been a vegetable for 3 1/2 years. The @washingtonpost once again gaslights America with this moronic lead story." "Make no mistake, Gilead Sciences (@GileadSciences) is using sub-Saharan Africans as guinea pigs to test their vaccine. No matter how many people they murder, they will make millions." "Violent Progressive Leftists have but one core value: Hate." "The people in Washington DC making these decisions really do hate Americans. They exist to destroy the country and ruin the lives of everyone here. There is no other viable explanation." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Definitely not a WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
agreed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Huh, yeah that site does look a little fishy, as if its not a serious news source. In fact, the articles about the case didn't even provide a link to any court documents. I also looked in the Epoch Times website and, maybe I didnt search hard enough, but I did not see a mention of the case. So I started wondering if the lawsuit even happened at all or if it even happened as reported. Managed to find the court documents after a while of searching. At least they got the Judge's name and the general details right. I can see the pdf of the dismissal and retraction order there, but looks like you have to purchase the settlement documents from the us gov. pacer system, so I don't know what the settlement was about in the end. They do provide for free the initial lawsuit filed by epoch times, and the dismissal by the judge though. FYI @Thomas Meng looks like they complained about more than who founded the epoch times. In fact, if I understand, that wasn't even their main complaint. Looks like the lawsuit was mainly based on braslow claiming that Facebook revealed epoch times pumped millions of dollars in ads through a hidden network of fake accounts, and that Facebook removed a bunch of accounts tied to epoch times for some deceptive behavior, and that epoch times claimed in the lawsuit that this is false and damages their brand. Well, that's more or less what I understood. You guys can take a look and tell me what you think. Blue nutcracker (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone, not sure how @Thomas Meng feels about this, but after thinking it through, now that we have the court documents and based on them can know what parts of braslow's article are contentious, I don't feel so much against using it as a source. If we're quoting something contentious from braslow article, we can just add the epoch times claim. I dont know if its necessary, but i will try to work on adding to the paragraphs in question the counterclaim from the epoch times (if any) and cite the pdf, and can put the proposed paragraph either here or in the Shen Yun talk page so you can tell us what you think. Would be nice to get your input on that.Blue nutcracker (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, it's my first time reading the lawsuit itself. Good to know that the complaint wasn't only on who founded ET but also included other claims Braslow made. I'm not against citing Braslow's claims not related to a living person. But for Braslow's quote that mentions Li 7 times: Wikipedia has a high standard for source quality on living persons. Per WP:RS/SPS, we should Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. If we cite this retracted source based on Braslow's own reliability, it is equivalent to citing a self-published source. Thomas Meng (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The Blazing Musket for sport BLPs

So, this specific source was brought up at an AfD I've nominated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett M. Johnson, along with a couple of other interviews and podcasts (not really sure why tbh), but this source seems to be used in a dozen or so other articles as well. It doesn't seem to support anything too critical, but I can't see any indication of an editorial review process or UBO. Is anyone familiar with this publication or the people who run it? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's use in Brett M. Johnson would be reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way, as it's an interview it's just Johnson talking about themself. In general If be cautious it's a substack site in disguise, and the about page doesn't seem to show any meaningful editorial practice[17]. I could be wrong as I can't find much information on it, and interviews are a bit of an exception as I said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Qobuz for music credits

I am reviewing Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song) for Good Article, and it uses Qobuz to source song credits. On the Qobuz website, I can see a link to "Improve album information" where users can submit requests for changes. I can't see any previous discussion here. What is the reliability for sourcing this information? Thanks in advance. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Being able to request changes is a good thing, as it shows they are open to corrections. It would only be a problem if you could create an account and chnage the details yourself (see WP:User generated content).
They are a commercial company, and this would fall under the area of what they do, so I would expect them to be reliable for these details. They also have a magazine which should probably be discussed separately if it's necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
As a music store, I expect they take the official credits from the label in the vast majority of cases and the "Improve album information" button is only there to correct glaring errors. Pinguinn 🐧 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Ground News?

In case you do not know, Ground News is a news aggregator that puts individual news stories on a political spectrum, based on how left- or right- or center leaning they believe the story is. Could this potentially be used when discussing the reliability of other sources? Or is it something like MBFC/NewsGuard and the like that without further context they should not be used? Awesome Aasim 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Ground News factuality score is an assessment of the reporting practices of a news publication. The score is based on the average rating of two rating systems: Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias Fact Check. (about page). So Ground News is about as usable as MBFC because they are MBFC (and WP:ADFONTES). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Just another MBFC or AdFM (just someone's opinion), and much more importantly political leaning has absolutely nothing to do with reliability.
There is no valid answer to "Who watches the Watchmen?" Who checks the biases and political leanings of MBFC, AdFM, Ground News, or similar sites? Anyone set to watch the Watchmen becomes a Watchman. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
+1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I wonder if it is possible that no possible combination of news rating systems can be used at all to discuss the reliability of sources. That or maybe all news content rating systems are inherently unreliable on their own, unless if they base their information from reliable sources such as scholarly journals and the like. However, if all the major news content rating systems claim that a source is reliable or not reliable, then it probably can be raised as an argument against using a source. Like for something like InfoWars, where NewsGuard, MBFC, and Ad Fontes Media all claim is unreliable, and Wikipedia has deprecated and blacklisted here. Awesome Aasim 16:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Not really, these sites use their own measures for judging sources while Wikipedia has it's own. So the fact they come to a particular judgement isn't really useful, editors should instead look to the relevant policies and guidelines.
That's not to say that the consensus here might not end up being the same as theirs, but that it might be reached based on different criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
And who wacthes the Wkipedians? It always makes me laugh that a revolving, nebulous panel of non-experts (us) collectively thinks we know better than professionals and journalists who devote their work (sometimes even getting paid!) to analyze and rank sources, while clearly partisan sources are accepted without a second's hesitation (although lip-service is paid to beware of "partisan sources"). I predict no end to the beard-stroking and silly gatekeeping. Amateurs, rise up! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Because that's how Wikipedia works. That reliable sources are required is made up, and how we judge them is made up. But those things are generally agreed upon by editors, so that's how it's done.
Paid professionals and journalists are no less biased than any editor, other than by being paid they have an additional area of bias. Also their views of a source tend to be very entrenched in their own socio-culture norms, at least Wikipedia editor have some diversity.
As to partisan sources you should read WP:RSBIAS, the "Beware 'partisan sources'!" point is not one of reliability but NPOV. As relying on those sources alone gives a lopsided presentation of details.
As to who watches the Wikipedians, other Wikipedians. It's not a real solution, as I said there isn't one, but again it is the way Wikipedia works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Isn’t their categorization of sources just AI-driven and occasionally hallucination-filled? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell they're still only using Ad Fontes and MBFC for categorisation, this AI thing is just for people who don't want to read all of the articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 22:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliablity of Myneta.info

Many Wikipedia articles on Indian politicians use this website as a source for information. The website is operated by ADR. Can I know if this is a reliable source for citing birth year, degree, and other details? GrabUp - Talk 05:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

ADR are a reputable organisation and would be considered a reliable source. The age, degree and some other details on Myneta are based on the written affidavits supplied by the candidates to the Election Commission of India[18]. It's therefore primary data and reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. I guess candidates could lie in their affidavits, but I'm sure the Indian government have processes in place for such instances and Myneta allows readers to highlight corrections (they can't edit the details directly).
Myneta also contains details of past criminal offences and financial details. I would be hesitant to use them for these details, criminal convictions should only be included if they are reported by other secondary sources and financial details would likely always be WP:UNDUE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree! Thanks:) GrabUp - Talk 07:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Arab Humanities Journal

I'm doing the GA review for Shadia Abu Ghazaleh, and came across this journal as one of the references there. Looking at its and its publisher's websites, I got the impression it may not be a serious journal, but there is a huge language and cultural gap here, so I thought I'd ask here in case someone can judge this better than me. I'll paste my original review comment below.

The article cites the Arab Humanities Journal, (al-Zaeem 2022) which I have some doubts about. Looking at the journal's website through Google Translate, the "International classification" section has a bunch of random logos like Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc. The only journal indexer I can glean from these is "International Scientific Indexing", a Web of Science impersonator. The publisher's website also doesn't arouse much confidence. On the FAQ page, about half the questions are about all manner of fees they charge, and they have this strange English "about us" page. Do you have any information on the reliability of this journal?

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Any journal that advertise fake impact factors and indexing services is shit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems to charge contributors a fee for publishing their work, so looks like a predatory journal. It does have apparent editors with academic affiliations. Definitely not high quality, but might be worth checking the reputation of specific contributors as well? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This is the author of this particular article. No current academic affiliation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Pornography addiction

Is this a review?

Privara, Michal; Bob, Petr (2023). "Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress". Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 211 (8). Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health): 641–646. doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001669. ISSN 1539-736X.

Can it be used to trump DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've left a notification at WT:MEDRS[19] to hopefully generate some feedback -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't have access to the source, so I didn't read it. But the link between dopamine and addiction is severely overrated. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My bad: it's online. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
E.g. the source states "According to current DSM-5, dependence on online pornography does not represent a separate syndrome, but as some researchers and clinicians suggest, it can be included as a part of a hypersexual disorder"—that was a failed prediction about DSM-5-TR. The authors do not seem to be aware it was published a year before their article was published. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That's a (narrative) review. No, I wouldn't say it can be used to trump DSM-5-TR, ICD-11, and the ASAM manual. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
About this article:
  • WP:MEDPRI: The article type is a narrative review (though PMID 37505898 doesn't have it tagged that way), so it's a secondary source.
  • WP:MEDSCI: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is okay. It's a middle-quintile journal – nothing special, but not so low as to be concerning.[20]
  • WP:MEDASSESS: Reviews, including narrative reviews, are a good type of source.
  • WP:MEDDATE: It is a recent publication. Although it was published recently, it has been cited positively by one other paper: PMID 39148923 (plus another paper by Privara and Bob): "Furthermore, research suggests that pornography can serve as a mechanism to alleviate excessive stress or regulate mood (Privara & Bob, 2023)...Alternatively, individuals might even consume pornography as a cathartic means to release accumulated tension, reduce excessive stress, or regulate mood (Privara & Bob, 2023; Rasmussen, 2016)."
  • WP:MEDINVITRO: It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.
  • WP:MEDINDY: No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.
  • WP:MEDBIAS: There are no obvious indicators of bias, though that's always at least theoretically possible in a narrative review.
The bottom line is: It's probably an acceptable source to use. The key WP:RSCONTEXT question is: What material would you use it to support? "Stress, anxiety, and depression increase porn consumption"?  "Some people feel bad about their own porn consumption"?  I'm having trouble understanding what, exactly, in this article is supposed to contradict in the other high-quality sources. Is it just "they used the phrase sexual addiction, therefore sexual addiction is a Real™ Thing"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I wanted to know if it passes WP:MEDRS and yours is a good answer. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Bahamas Department of Meteorology history

Neely, Wayne (28 April 2011). The Great Bahamas Hurricane of 1866: The Story of One of the Greatest and Deadliest Hurricanes to Ever Impact the Bahamas. iUniverse. pp. 91–92. ISBN 978-1-4620-1104-9. Retrieved 11 October 2024.

I just want to ask if this could be reliable for describing the history of the BDM despite being from a vanity press? Tavantius (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two ways it could be reliable even though it comes from a vanity press. The first would be if the author is a recognised expert in the field, see WP:EXPERTSPS. The second would be if even though it is from vanity press other reliable sources cite it as a source, see WP:USEBYOTHERS.
The author appears to have published many works on hurricanes, but all appear to be self-published[21]. So WP:EXPERTSPS isn't appropriate.
Their blurb on Amazon says they are a lecturer on hurricanes, and have worked as a meteorologist in the Bahamas for the last 29 years. I can find one book using him as a reference[22], a National Geographic article[23], a couple of Washington Post articles[24][25], as well as local articles. This is middling when it comes to WP:USEBYOTHERS, as there doesn't appear to be many academic sources citing them.
It's possible that they are well regarded in the narrow field of historical hurricane's effecting the Bahamas, the narrower the field the harder it can be for none experts to know. So I've asked if anyone from WikiProject Tropical cyclones has any ideas[26]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Personally as a member of WPTC, I can't say that I have heard of Wayne Neely, however, a google for Wayne Neely + Bahamas brings up his LinkedIn page as well as various other sources which show that he works for the Bahamas Meteorological Department. As a result, I would state that Wayne is reliable when it comes to the history of the Bahamas Department of Meteorology, however, I would suggest that it is used as a foundational source and that other sources are found to describe the history of the BDM.Jason Rees (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks for the info. Tavantius (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Channel NewsAsia

Channel NewsAsia, or CNA, is another major news outlet in Singapore. How should we consider its reliability?

If a few might find this familiar, that's because I took it from a similar discussion over The Straits Times. However, CNA might be more reliable than The Straits Times, given it's been promoted as a "pan-Asia" outlet, and isn't as afraid to give thinly-veiled criticisms of the Singapore government such as its recent analysis of POFMA (Singapore's fake news law).--ZKang123 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is this an RfC? Has this source been challenged before, have editors expressed legitimate concerns?
The only thing I can see is that it has a pro-government bias according to the criticism section of it's article, but that is not an issue of reliability. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems premature to have this discussion. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what the RFC is asking. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Are primatologists WP:RS on the question of "what is language?"

There's a discussion over at Great ape language between myself, @Monkeywire, and @Andrevan as to whether or not primatologists working on great ape language experiments can be considered reliable when they say nonhuman great apes have used language. There is a strong consensus within linguistics that language is uniquely human and the papers on ape linguistics have not been received well by relevant subject matter experts.

My belief is that since primatologists are writing outside their field, and making extraordinary claims that are widely rejected by subject matter experts, that the opinion of primatologists as to what is and isn't a language shouldn't be weighted equally (or even really considered much) against linguists, cognitive psychologists, and neurolinguists. It is not possible to find a mainstream source in these fields that accepts the results of the experiments to teach great apes, as far as I'm aware, and the idea that language has been demonstrated in apes is decidedly WP:FRINGE within the community of experts.

I think the extraordinary claims coupled with the wide and easy to demonstrate rejection, mixed with people publishing on questions outside their field or training in journals which lack referees and reviewers qualified for questions of language make this a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG situation and including the claims of success as anything other than rejected is WP:PROFRINGE.

Just a couple of comments on the consensus which, sadly, don't meet WP:RS/AC's lofty standards:

Origin of Language – Summary:
* A firm minimum time horizon for the emergence of language at 100,000 years ago.
* Overwhelming consensus (among linguists, at least) that language is a particular evolutionary development specific to humans, Homo sapiens.
The Marvel of Language: Knowns, Unknowns, and Maybes - Susan McKay
Within the field of psychology, most of the ambitious claims about chimpanzee language are a thing of the past. Nim's trainer Herbert Terrace, as mentioned, turned from enthusiast to whistle-blower. David Premack, Sarah's trainer, does not claim that what she acquired is comparable to human language; he uses the symbol system as a tool to do chimpanzee cognitive psychology
The Language Instinct - Steven Pinker

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

One way of dealing with this is to note what different disciplinary groups say. So, keep saying that linguists, cognitive psychologists, and neurolinguists think language is unique to humans, but also note that primatologists do say non-human great apes have used language. It's fine for different disciplinary groups to have different answers to the same question, and we can reflect that in our articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
but also note that primatologists do say non-human great apes have used language
It’s worth pointing out language is to an extent a concrete thing, like we can map language use in brain scans (one common criticism of ape language experiments is their refusal to test this, which would instantly quash doubt). It’s not exactly subject to field-specific interpretations and, even if it were, that’s not been an explicit argument made by primatologists (one specific small team excepting). I think a paper that argues that they’ve demonstrated language per a specific nonstandard definition is fine to mention, whereas anything making a blanket claim of language can’t be relied on. We can’t assume that primatologists are using a unique definition in the absence of statements to that effect, that’s… WP:SYNTH? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Overwhelming consensus is equivalent to saying that the vast majority of the relevant field holds that opinion, and therefore it meets WP:RS/AC. Requiring exact words is an overly literal interpretation; that said, if we wanted to apply it that way regardless, then we could simply cite the phrase "overwhelming consensus". If it wouldn't qualify as directly say[ing] that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view, then it also wouldn't count as a statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view (the first half of the same sentence), and RS/AC wouldn't apply at all.
For the specific issue, the key question is the nature of the body of research being analyzed. Biological expertise is certainly relevant to fields like linguistics; e.g. if someone does the neuroimaging studies that have been mentioned, then neuroscientists would be the relevant experts, and linguists would have no weight in that context. However, if the researchers' conclusions come from observation and interaction, using methods from the field of linguistics, doing the same type of experiments a linguist would do on a human (with the only contributions by primatology coming from specific adaptations to the context), then linguistics is the relevant field of expertise instead.
"What is language?" is too broad of a question to analyze on its own, since it can be addressed by research in multiple fields, so the answer will depend on the specific statement being discussed. As another example, given the "evolutionary development" framing in the above quote, evolutionary biologists may also be relevant (along with the article Origin of language). However, in this specific case, my impression is that primatology is not the relevant field of expertise for most possible article content on this topic (especially when compared to the other options available), meaning that the primatologists would have no weight, except perhaps to cite related statements in the article where their expertise is relevant. Sunrise (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Overwhelming consensus is equivalent to saying that the vast majority of the relevant field holds that opinion, and therefore it meets WP:RS/AC.
It was @SamuelRiv who disagreed with its inclusion or use as WP:RS/AC, stating
That's a conference speech, for one. Two, it's not a review, but a speech, without citations to articles. As you can see, the human definition of language is part of the premise, which is precisely the point.
(Note: it was still published in a peer-reviewed journal on the topic in question). WP:RS/AC sets a high bar, and here it's been met. I don't think it's reasonable to add further caveats to the sourcing requirements for WP:RS/AC, considering. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:RS/AC is unambiguous that the text Warren was trying to add is not permissible. It's not about parsing exact words. There is consensus among linguists and other researchers that great ape language experiments have not produced evidence of a true capacity for language. Unless a source cites said consensus RS/AC prohibits this. Andre🚐 20:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my statement applies to consensus on the point that language is a particular evolutionary development specific to humans. The "not produced evidence of a true capacity" quote isn't necessarily the same thing (e.g. there could be some evidence which the consensus views as insufficient or of poor quality). That said, for the purposes of the article, a version with the wording changed to follow the language of the source more strictly would probably serve the same purpose. Sunrise (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That's what I mean, thanks for clarifying. Andre🚐 00:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
No, as it is not their field of expertise, they are reliable for the claim (for example) primates have a firm of language, not for what is language. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"A form of language" would still have WP:ECREE issues, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Not as an attributed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
But an attributed WP:ECREE claim would need to be pretty immediately countered by an understanding of consensus per WP:UNDUE, no? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I think "what is language" is a definitional question without a right or wrong answer. Therefore, it could be both factually correct that primates are incapable of language according to the definition used by linguists, and that they are capable of language according to the definition used by biologists. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no argument being presented here, either by me, linguists, or primatologists (with one singular exception, who acknowledges he's against the grain), that a different definition is being used, though. I do understand that sometimes some fieds have a different definition of technical terms (as a cosmochemist I can definitely upset people with metal), but this isn't one of those cases.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The article for Language says: "Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary." Already, this is not a rigorous definition. What is structure? What is grammar? What is vocabulary? We can go down the rabbit hole by looking them up but even those terms are defined fuzzily. What I'm saying is, there's no agreed-upon set of specific properties that a communication system must satisfy in order to be considered a language. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
No ape communication study has ever claimed to have observed grammar, though. Not "they've proposed grammar and their definition of grammar was rejected", but rather nobody even among proponents has even argued that grammar has been observed, unless I'm quite mistaken. This is actually one of the big points here (sorry, not trying to WP:BLUDGEON, there's just a degree of technicality in here). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In fact, the Language article acknowledges this ambiguity by having a section titled "Distinctive features of human language" with a link to "Animal language". So IMO arguing over whether certain animals are capable of "language" is pointless. Even the most ardent primatologists will admit that there are substantial differences between human and non-human communication systems. So if we define "language" as "the system of communication used by humans" (or equivalently, defining it to cherry-pick the specific features that are known to be expressed only in humans), then the statement "only humans are capable of language" becomes a tautology. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how you're jumping to it being a tautology? Communication and language are distinct concepts, and
Even the most ardent primatologists will admit that there are substantial differences between human and non-human communication systems.
The claim here is specifically about apes using language as humans understand it when trained in sign language by researchers, not a distinct communication system. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"language as humans understand it" <- and there's the problem. At its core, the reason why humans have a word called "language" is to describe "a communication system similar to ours". The ape researchers perhaps have a lower bar for how similar a communication system needs to be to the ones used by humans to be considered a language. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Except, again, the claim is that these apes are using language as humans understand it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
But the content under question is not related to that. We have a very specific discussion at Great ape language, about a single line in the lede (as opposed to the many other edits you made that were correctly scoped on this matter). I don't know what this question on RSN has to do with any of that. Nobody is saying that a primatologist should define language generally (but more correctly there is no 'general definition' of language to begin with, since it is like most definitions scoped to the problem of interest). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
This does not appear to be a question about reliability but about due weight, editorial discretion, and perhaps how to present disagreements among scholars and sources. I recommend closing this discussion so it can be properly held in the article's Talk page where it belongs. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
There's definitely an WP:RS issue here considering WP:ECREE claims made outside a pertinent field exist in the literature. Should those claims be taken seriously, or does the fact that they're both WP:ECREE claims and published in a journal from an unrelated field (which, per the gigantic banner at the topi as I edit this: The reliability of a source depends on its context. and from there editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible) render us obligated to consider these sources as unreliable for the specific claims they make? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Now, I should probably disengage to not actually WP:BLUDGEON. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I've got to agree with ElKevbo on this - the discussion belongs on the talk page. And I'd have to add that primatologists doing research into language use in non-human primates are clearly qualified to discuss the matter, as a 'pertinent field'. In fact, I'd go further, and suggest that they are arguably the only ones qualified to do so, since nobody else has done similar research. If their definition of 'language' differs from that of linguistics etc, and we have sources that say so, we must of course state this, but we can't simply dismiss a whole field of academic research because other academics use words differently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
If their definition of 'language' differs from that of linguistics etc, and we have sources that say so, we must of course state this, but we can't simply dismiss a whole field of academic research because other academics use words differently.
Sincere question (and counter to my statement above, sorry): Where is everyone getting this idea that a distinct definition is being used? Is there something super ambiguous in the question I posted at WP:RSN that leads to that impression? The entire point of contention is that a different definition isn't being used, the claim is that apes are using language as humans understand language to be, directly to communicate with humans. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
It's because expert jargon in a technical field usually has a narrower definition than the common lay definition. Linguists construct rigorous definitions because that is what they are out to do. But that doesn't mean that when non-linguists use the word, they are using the more rigorous definition. You didn't answer my query on the article talk - is it no longer language if I speak to you in a sort of caveman pidgin with pointing and grunts? Andre🚐 22:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I would love a single source that there is a distinct technical definition being used in primatology. It would end this entire WP:RS question, because of course different fields use different terminology. I'll take the rest to the talk page to not gunk this up. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I suggest (as I suggest for every post I comment on in RSN) that you post the content you are interested in adding into a particular article, in its context. As it says at the top of RSN, evaluating RS depends on context.
The reason this is important here is that, as you allude to in your request, we are request RS/AC for the definition of language. A single paper on linguistics has no more value than a single paper on primatology or a single paper on everythingology. Academic consensus requires recent review articles, and as I've said in the subject discussion, animal language is one of the most well-published of the "single problems" in general linguistics -- there is no shortage of print to find.
And for reference to others here, there is an ongoing discussion about the misuse/overuse of WP:Fringe over at VPP. It seems that if User:Warrenmck is accurately describing a dispute between two academic disciplines (and peer-reviewed research within, whether or not one has much more claim to some universal legitimacy than another), then this cannot fit wp's definition fringe, and it probably does not even fit our definition of wp:fringe/alt (which is meant to exclude questionable and pseudoscience). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with all of that Andre🚐 01:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, and this isn’t the venue for it, I do legitimately think this is a WP:FRINGE issue in part. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 04:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Car brochures

Are car brochures and spec sheets published by the automaker themselves reliable sources, or are they primary sources and should generally be avoided? Note that they often tend to be some of the only information for options, trims and packages, especially if a car hasn't had a lot of press coverage. CutlassCiera 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources can still be used. Spec sheets and such would be reliable sources, as long as they are for facts not the interpretation of those facts. Also as it's the car manufacturer talking about their own products you may want to be careful with any exceptional claims, they may include promotional language that wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cutlass: I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is a big consideration here:

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.

If it's something subjective on a spectrum that manufacturers have a vested interest to exaggerate such as gas mileage, electric range, or top speed, the claim should probably be attributed to the manufacturer. If it's something straightforward and objective such as tire size or the number of seats for example, that's probably fine to use in wikivoice. Left guide (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Not even sure how you would cite a brochure. Perhaps another option is to link the instruction manual (for say a car model) on the further reading section. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
There are several big issues with brochures, at least in the U.S They sometimes show options and colors that weren't actually available, they aren't always forthcoming about what combinations of options or colors could be ordered, they are not conclusive evidence that an option or color didn't exist, and they may show dealer-installed equipment without being entirely forthcoming about it. I was heavily involved in the SCCA Solo community in the past, where it's mandatory for competitors in the Street (formerly Stock) classes to use a car with a combination of options available for purchase new from a dealer, i.e., if the carmaker always bundled the most powerful engine with the heavy power seats and T-tops, sorry, you gotta run the power seats and T-tops if you want the big engine. Over the years, this has led to some deep dives into what dealers could actually order, and these fact-finding expeditions have uncovered some notable instances where brochures were inaccurate—and keep in mind, these investigations tend to take place only if the subject vehicle is a potential "ringer" in an autocross, which is not true of the vast majority of new vehicles. Bottom line: I would explicitly cite any information from a brochure in the article text, not just in a footnote, and I would heavily disclaimer anything highly detailed, such as color or option combinations. Carguychris (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, those are RS. I agree with caveats mentioned by others that performance specs are dependent on conditions tested in, and they have a vested interest so the phrasing of descriptions may be promotional. I would not ding them on flaws in details of options since those might be changed by production afterwards and that seems a level of detail that WP or anywhere else should not go to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

Over at Talk:Israeli apartheid, a number of editors have characterised Human Rights Watch (who has stated that Israel has committed apartheid against Palestians in the West Bank [27]) as a biased, partisan activist source. In my own experience this characterisation (which is also promulgated by partisan pro-Israel organisations like NGO Monitor) is not accurate, and HRW is for the most part one of the more objective observers of events in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

From my reading of things, the problem does not seem to be with the HRW itself, but rather that the HRW said that the actions of Israel constitute apartheid in its report. Honestly, I don't believe that there is an actual issue with the HRW. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC) (Text amended at 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Assume you meant does NOT seem? In which case I agree, I would treat HRW more or less as we do Amnesty. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
...fudge. Yes, there is a missing not. Amending. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
They are a biased, partisan activist source. That's their job. So what? They are extremely biased against human rights abuses, have a very partisan position with respect to entities that abuse those rights, and activism is one of the tools they use to try to change things. They are a reliable source from Wikipedia's perspective, but usually require attribution. NGO Monitor on the other hand is an organization that employed deception by using one of their employees to infiltrate Wikipedia and make thousands of edits using multiple accounts. Much of the dogshit they walked over Wikipedia's carpets is probably still there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
answer is probably to attribute statements to Human Rights Watch and consider statements by HRW to generally be WP:DUE if they are doing significant coverage of an incident. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
As noone has supplied any specific context, and the talk page mentions HRW many times, the general answer would be the are reliable but as an activist group may need intext attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
HRW do excellent research and are highly reliable for facts. They are an advocacy group, so partisan, so if they make controversial or disputed claims of fact they should be attributed. Their opinions (e.g. their opinions about whether Israel practises apartheid) are often noteworthy, especially if reported by secondary sources, and should be attributed as all opinions are. I can't see what content the specific current dispute refers to, but there are no uses in the current version of the article that are at all problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested and BobFromBrockley: For the context, the issue at the article Israeli apartheid is that Human Rights Watch, a 'western' organization, issued a report saying that Israel is engaged in apartheid and how we worded what HRW said.. For a quote: "This article is written like apartheid is a fact in Israel but this is obviously contested. Why is Wikipedia the only mainstream source in the west that says this like a fact?" --Super Goku V (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
As others have said it is reliable but intext attribution should be used. I'm unsure how 'western' comes into this as Israel is generally considered part of the west/first world/global north/developed countries (deleted as appropriate), if there are sources from outside that group they could be worth including but WP:DUE is about NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand what's being argued over in the talk page. I think HRW is definitely not the best source on the ICJ's expert opinion, especially if other reliable sources, or legal scholars quoted in reliable sources, say that HRW misinterpreted the ICJ's text. HRW is a good source for specific facts about human rights infringements they've investigated, but better sources can be found for big claims about the legal consensus on "apartheid". BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Like others have said, they're usable with attribution. I would characterize them as high-quality as far as advocacy orgs go, but they're still an advocacy org. To be clear, I don't think that they're actually biased on the subject of Israel in the way people claim. And they do have a strong reputation. But very few NGOs or advocacy orgs are usable unattributed for statements of fact; their purpose, by their very nature, is to advocate for specific ends. At that point the question is more WP:DUE; aside from HRW's own reputation lending the things they say some weight, the uses in that article mostly seem to have significant secondary coverage (which raises the question of what exactly the objection is - which uses of it, specifically, do people object to?) --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

CNET and ZDNET are now under Ziff Davis ownership. Should they get a new chance or continue be considered too unreliable?

Ziff Davis completed its acquisition of CNET and ZDNET on October 1, 2024 as seen in https://investor.ziffdavis.com/news-events/news/news-details/2024/Ziff-Davis-Completes-One-Acquisition-in-Q3-2024/default.aspx . Do we need to revisit their downgrades to unreliable status or not? Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Has there been a change in its editorial content in such a brief period? APK hi :-) (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, hasn't this been the case for a while? ZD owned both of those, just maybe not 100% of the stake. Andre🚐 07:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Ziff Davis started owning both on October 1, 2024. Both were owned by Red Ventures before then. Ziff Davis did sell ZDNet several years ago, and just bought it back. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, ok, that's a long turn around, but CNET once owned ZDnet.[28][29] Anyway, I agree too soon to see if they will change. Andre🚐 07:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Wait and see, definitely. It is a possible reason why we might make that moment a cut-off point for some change to their status in the future, but Ziff Davis' ownership isn't so reputable as to instantly make a formerly disreputable source reputable all on its own. We should come back in a few months or so and see if coverage indicates changes that imply their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has returned. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The way I worded the WP:RFC at Red Ventures, ZDNet is now reliable and CNET is still unreliable because the unreliability only applied to websites controlled by Red Ventures for the period of time they were controlled by such. This is logically inconsistent since both were made WP:GUNREL for the same reason.
I would support revisiting the status of both of these tech sites without waiting.
Also, the main reason why both CNET and ZDNet were declared WP:GUNREL is because of Red Ventures' AI content generation engine. Now that they're no longer owned by Red Ventures, they should be considered WP:MREL as they don't have access to that resource. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd concur with Chess. Andre🚐 22:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I would still wait. Not enough time has passed for either site to gain a new reputation, and it is reputation that is important for reliability. For all we know, they could have replaced one AI content generator with another. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
That is a good point. I initially wanted to wait for a similar reason. But I concur with Chess inasmuch as if there is a cutoff for reliability to revert to MREL we're observing it now in real time. ZD and CNet were somewhat or even relatively reliable before, especially for generic info, back when they were a part of a traditional media company and not part of a VC firm. But given the wording of the new RFC, this is the "new event" that triggers a new RFC - something that has changed. So I agree that we don't have to wait if there's a critical mass of people who want to have a new RFC. On the other hand, maybe that RFC might not result in a changed result and if we wait until starting it, there will be more data to tip the scales. So maybe for those who think that CNet and ZD are now MREL, strategically waiting might be a better decision to attract the most informed consensus and potentially meaningfully update things if that is indeed merited. Andre🚐 23:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

AMCHA Initiative Reliability for determining List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Going off similar information as WP:RSN#StopAntisemitism, should AMCHA Initiative be considered reliable, especially when discussing inclusion in List of antisemitic incidents in the United States? @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically, it is more preferable to cite sources from not-look-dubious media outlets, but if it is not possible, then under exceptional circumstances, AMCHA Initiative’s sources shall be considered, subject to careful assessment. Steven1991 (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that's backwards. We shouldn't look at sources because they cover incidents we're looking for, we should include incidents because they're covered by reliable sources.
If the only one's reporting something are "not-look-dubious media outlets", then perhaps it's not WP:DUE for inclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that reports of incidents not showing up on “reliable” media outlets are not always unreliable.
The concept of “reliability” is vulnerable to manipulation by either side of any political issues being covered. There are no outlets absolutely “reliable” – even The New York Times and Washington Post had a history of it over various reasons, including editorial biases.
Moreover, thousands of crimes happen every month and no media outlets would report every single one of them. Yet, it would be incredibly unwise to assume that they never happened or are unworthy of being recorded in respective Wikipedia articles, which could constitute whitewashing given that the site is one of the most visited in the world and considered by tens of millions as somehow a credible source of information. Steven1991 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, we've discussed this already. Lack of inclusion ≠ assumption of nonexistence. We are not whitewashing anything here & we must have standards for inclusion & exclusion. You even described the source as a "not-look-dubious media outlet", so please, read WP:DUE & WP:NOTDB. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Lack of inclusion ≠ assumption of nonexistence.

It depends, subject to broader context, which is debatable.

You even described the source as a "not-look-dubious media outlet"

What I mean is that if an incident, of sufficient seriousness, happened and relevant reports are not found in legacy media but only less reputable news sources, then they shall be considered. This is fully aligned with Wikipedia’s editing guidelines and some editors mentioned it before.

read WP:DUE & WP:NOTDB

We cannot classify something as “undue” or “indiscriminate” simply because we don’t want, for whatever reasons, them to be recorded in particular Wikipedia articles. What one deems “undue” or “indiscriminate” is/are not necessarily so, nor are there guarantees that the judgement(s) of a few accounts (assuming that they are not sockpuppets) is/are fair. It may have gone beyond the scope, but again, it’s all subject to broader context and due discussions. Steven1991 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE means that the article should mention the fact and would be incomplete without that fact. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.WP:INDISCRIMINATE states To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia
Those are both valid concerns for removal of information from an article to improve its legibility and encyclopedic content. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Currently, the Jewish Chronicle, StopAntisemitism, and now AMCHA Initiative are up for discussion on this page. Do you have actual evidence of the AMCHA publishing false information? Or are we just running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't comment on Jewish Chronicle as that discussion started a bit ago, but StopAntisemitism & AMCHA Initiative are both here because we were cleaning up List of antisemitic incidents in the United States to better focus on notability rather then indiscriminate information. As they're both advocacy groups funded by the Milstein Family Foundation & StopAntisemitism was deemed a poor source earlier, I understand why AMCHA Initiative was brought here as well (though it doesn't appear the community has as much to say regarding them)
I would however appreciate it if you'd not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not casting aspersions. WP:RSP can be used to exclude certain sources from the entire wiki. If one side is discussed more than another, it can very quickly cause systemic bias across the entire wiki.
A good way to prevent this is to actively question whether the standards we're holding sources to are universally applied to both sides in a conflict area. In this case, I believe the standards AMCHA and StopAntisemitism are being held to are not equally applied to Palestinian sources in the topic area.
The standard Palestinian sources are held to is that WP:BIAS does not affect reliability. So a pro-Palestinian source like Electronic Intifada, Palestine Chronicle, or Mondoweiss can call for the death of Jews, say Zionism is inherently anti Palestinian, or that Israelis are genocidal maniacs that are indoctrinated into killing Palestinians, and still be reliable.
Meanwhile, StopAntisemitism, the ADL, and AMCHA are being held to a different standard. Because these groups regularly call out what they believe to be anti-Semitic behaviour by pro-Palestinians, they are deemed unreliable as advocacy groups.
The common claim is that these groups view all pro-Palestinian activism as anti-Semitic. Even if this was an accurate representation of AMCHA, the ADL, or StopAntisemitism, it's still a double standard because EI, PC, and Mondoweiss call Zionism inherently racist and that is not seen as false.
I'm challenging this double standard by asking for actual evidence of factual inaccuracies in AMCHA's reporting. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider any of those six sources you listed to have enough due weight for an article such as this for inclusion. We would want high quality news sources and preferably several of those before including them on such a list or it just becomes a massive bunch of unimportant and indiscriminate incidents. There needs to be some sort of consideration for exclusion and I would say if your sources of coverage only amount to Electronic Intifada, AMCHA, Palestine Chronicle, ADL, Mondoweiss, or StopAntisemitism, then you don't have proper weight for inclusion to begin with. SilverserenC 01:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
In this case, posting at RSN implies a wish to form a global consensus on the reliability of those sources for all of Wikipedia, instead of just that particular article. While those six sources may be equally treated at that one article, they are not equally treated wikiwide.
As an example, you brought up about StopAntisemitism that they are an advocacy group. They should only be used with attribution and very rarely on BLPs if its going to be about matters such as this. In contrast, Mondoweiss (which is a news site that focuses on publishing advocacy for one side) does not have this standard applied, with a close review striking the clause about it being unreliable for BLPs after an editor tried to remove it from BLPs.[30]
While you might end up saying that both Mondoweiss and StopAntisemitism likely aren't the best sources for BLPs, we'd need to discuss the first in tandem with the second if we want to ensure that both sides are being held to the same standard for the purposes of neutrality. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not extended confirmed, so I have not been involved in any of that, I can't even comment on most of what you wrote. It's obvious you're upset, but what you're talking about is unrelated to this conversation.
We are trying to raise the standards of the article in question due to the weight the topic holds. StopAntisemitism & AMCHA Initiative are both advocacy groups, not news organizations. The former of the two also regularly participates in doxing & harassment campaigns.
As for my remark regarding aspersions, your comment: "are we just running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them.", is quite clearly implying others are here with ill intent, of which I do not appreciate. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't aware that you weren't extended confirmed. That's a valid reason for not discussing other publications. I will concede that you are not running down the list of Jewish outlets to try to ban them.
While I respectfully disagree that what I'm talking about is unrelated, I won't bring it up with you again since it's unfair that you can't respond. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

StopAntisemitism

Currently the article List of antisemitic incidents in the United States cites StopAntisemitism for several incidents & describes it as a civil rights group. In actuality however, they are an advocacy group, self-described as "a grassroots watchdog organization". Discussion has been had on the talk page, involving @Steven1991, @Galdrack, & @Cdjp1. Cdjp1 recommended I take this here & of which I'll quote them here.

"if we have RS news sources reporting these incidents, we don’t really need StopAntisemitism as a source. This is supported by the fact that looking at their website, the incidents they report are all cited to news outlets, and they only provide a little opinion if anything novel to it. [...] considering that they engage in the antisemitic trope of conflating Jews/Judaism with Israel, this can bring some of the incidents into question, as well as their website overall."

Their usage consists of/is used to corroborate sources [15], [17], [19], [24], [25], [26], [27], [30], [31], [35], [36], [38], [44], [55], & [62]

I do not believe they are a reputable enough organization to be cited for this subject & may potentially risks the article's credibility, doubly so with their twitter's history of doxing & participation in harassment campaigns. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1.) I’d appreciate if a definition can be given for “reputable” in this context
2.) The hate crimes reported by the group are mostly supplemented with reliable news sources, some found within the reports on the group’s website itself, which do not compromise the authenticity to any extent, unless you can prove that the crimes have never occurred
3.) Despite the group’s presentation manner of some reported crimes being debatable, I find it difficult understanding what is meant by “doxxing” or “harassment”, when many of those exposed by the group to have committed hate crimes did so in public spaces. The only exception is if it involves anything private being publicised in contravention of U.S. federal laws
4.) Further to (3.), most of those hate crimes are reported by verifiable sources simultaneously. Are those sources, some of which are established media outlets, also engaging in “doxxing” or “harassment” ? It is understandable that there are real-life consequences for committing hate crimes. One cannot claim “doxxing” or “harassment” when they face repercussions for illegal actions, which are matters of public interest
5.) I object to such an exclusion as the group’s website does not appear to have been classified as an unreliable source in any respect on Wikipedia Steven1991 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I just revisited the group’s website and do not seem to be able to find instances of unauthorised publication of personal information as alleged. Steven1991 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
For everyone’s reference:
WP:RS

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Steven1991 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I've already linked the talk page where others can read the previous discussion, there's no need for you to copy all of your comments here. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I simply recapped them for convenience. Steven1991 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
They are an advocacy group. They should only be used with attribution and very rarely on BLPs if its going to be about matters such as this. If there are other, actually reliable sources covering the material, then those should be used instead. Not sure why anyone would be using this group over proper sources, unless it's for POV pushing reasons. SilverserenC 17:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Because some of the recorded incidents were not reported on legacy media. If less known news sites were cited as references, it would also raise concerns of credibility. So, citing reports from the group’s website is a compromise. Steven1991 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not a compromise. An advocacy group is not a reliable source for negative WP:BLP material. I would say it's a violation inherently of our policy to use it at all for that. And if the only coverage is on minor news sites, then WP:DUE comes into play. Again, especially on BLP related subject matter. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a negative POV-pushing source. SilverserenC 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I’d remove some of them from the article then. Steven1991 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Looking through the 3 most recent pages of incidents they have, every one links to an external news outlet. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Not that this goes to the core of the matter, but I have trouble thinking of a "civil rights group" that isn't an advocacy group; they advocate for civil rights (in whatever form they prefer.) So merely saying that they are an advocacy group does not mean they are not a civil rights group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
While that can be true, how is this group a civil rights group? They aren't advocating for rights for anyone that I can tell, but advocating for criminal arrests and civil action against defined people. Kind of the opposite of advocating for civil rights. SilverserenC 18:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did dozens of lawsuits against hate groups in America, but I have never heard complaints of them being “unreliable” or “not being” civil rights groups, so I don’t believe that is the issue. Steven1991 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Except that many of SPLC's legal cases are specifically about protecting or creating legal protections for minorities. Not just against hate groups. Has StopAntisemitism done anything of the sort that would be considered civil rights action? The issue otherwise with your argument would be claiming that all advocacy groups and pressure groups are civil rights groups, which very much is not the case. SilverserenC 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I see your point, but I am not the one classifying it as a civil rights group. On its Wikipedia article, it is classified as an “advocacy group focused on antisemitism” instead. Steven1991 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
“advocacy group focused on antisemitism” ≠ civil rights group. Also WP:NOTSOURCE. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I did not say that it was a civil rights group comparable to the ADL or SPLC. I would appreciate if you can point it out, then I may apologise for the mistake. Steven1991 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This train of conversation started with Nat Gertler discussing the classification of civil rights groups, to which Silver seren clarified.
You then replied "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) did dozens of lawsuits against hate groups in America, but I have never heard complaints of them being “unreliable” or “not being” civil rights groups", implying a comparison of SPLC to StopAntisemitism.
As such, I clarified the difference & why they shouldn't be compared in that way. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Arguably, WP:SPLC indicates we use WP:OPINION especially when indicating groups that are hate groups.
We cannot list every incident that a very partisan and biased group labels as antisemitic in a wikipedia article, especially if there is no other reliable coverage. See also WP:TOOMUCH Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You may want to look at their entry in the perennial sources list then. My hope, is that through discussion and consensus building here, we will have a similar result for StopAntisemitism, so as to help avoided repeated back-and-forths in the future. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I have already removed the ones which can be referenced by more preferable sources. Steven1991 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The major funder is the Milstein Foundation which also funds a number of other right-wing or "pro-Israel" groups such as Americans for Limited Government, Christians United for Israel, the Henry Jackson Society, the Jewish Republican Alliance, Judicial Watch, PragerU and the Heritage Foundation. They don't support the ADL or as far as I could tell any mainstream Jewish, centrist or progressive groups.[31]
There's a lot of misinformation spread by these groups.
I would therefore be suspect of anything StopAntisemitism said, based on their funding. TFD (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I would like to see credible evidence for it. Would you mind providing it? Steven1991 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Milstein Family Foundation lists it on their website. StopAntisemitism mentions it in two of their articles shaming people, hence the lack of a direct link. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a terrible source, it has no reputation for fact checking and its about us page doesn't even list any editorial review. Its twitter basically consists of doxxing protestors and calling on people to be fired. Should not be cited anywhere. Just looking at their last few posts on twitter, they say wildly untrue things like a keffiyeh, a symbol now associated with violence against Jews post 10/7. Just an absolutely garbage source. nableezy - 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Nableezy. Should not be used at all. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
wapo indicates they are primarily known for doxing and for suggesting any pro-palestinian action is inherently antisemitic. [32]
[33] suggests they engage in lawfare primarily against pro-Palestinian protestors.
It has called CAIR a terror affiliated org [34]
Their funding source is a pro-israel family foundation [35] so the bias is expected, though the extreme bias makes it extremely troubling. If anything is cited from this source, it must be attributed and weighed with whether it is WP:DUE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely garbage (as many of the organisations which are supported by Adam Milstein are.) Just look at their web-site on whom they call "anti-semite of the week" this year: Greta Thunberg, Bassem Youssef, just to mention two: basically anyone protesting the Gaza genocide. And they practise "Palestinian denialism": they call Mohamed Hadid "Jordanian" [36], as "Palestinians don't exist", so they make him "Jordanian" (which is his citizenship, not his nationality)(they could just as well have called him "American", as he has American citizenship, too) Huldra (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You said about Electronic Intifada that A problem with Wikipedia's reliable sources-criteria, is that they are absolute. IMO, how reliable a source is, is connected with how close its POV is to what it reports. And reporting their opinions, is different from reporting their actions. when voting for Option 2 there. [37] You also said about Mondoweiss that Off course it has a POV, like all other media focusing on Israel/Palestine, hence there will always be people with WP:IDONTLIKEIT-views. [38]
You're holding StopAntisemitism here to a different standard here. Why is Electronic Intifada, an organization that denies Israel's existence WP:MREL while StopAntisemitism is "absolutely garbage" for not describing Mohamed Hadid as Palestinian when our Wikipedia article doesn't either? Your claim here is that StopAntisemitism is wrong because it expresses certain opinions (criticism of Israel is antisemitic/denying Palestine is wrong), but you don't hold pro-Palestinian sources to that standard.
I'd like to see an explanation of your standard here. Given that there's an WP:ARCA thread [39] about whether or not editors express contradictory viewpoints in discussions depending on which side of the Israel-Palestine conflict those viewpoints benefit, it's valid to discuss whether or not WP:RSN is setting a contradictory standard depending on which side of the Israel-Palestine conflict a side supports. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no variable standard; my point was that Newspapers are more correct referring people they are close to, ie their "friends", than they are referring to the opinions of their "foes". Ie, if Arutz Sheva wrote that a settler spokesperson had said such and such, I would be pretty confident that the settler spokesperson actually had said such and such. However, they routinely ascribe opinions, and goals of say, the peace-movement, or Hamas, or Hizbollah, that I never have heard people from those organisations have voiced. However, StopAntisemitism writes only about its "foes", never about it's "friends", hence it is unreliable. If StopAntisemitism also had written about its "friends", then we would have another situation, more like Mondoweiss and EI. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
If people start citing electronic intifada to claim some person is a racist then you might have something other than a false equivalency. nableezy - 00:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
EI is currently cited in Maen Rashid Areikat to claim he supported Israeli ethnic cleansing.[40]
Do you feel EI is reliable enough to be cited with attribution to describe Areikat as supporting ethnic cleansing? If so, how is that different than StopAntisemitism being cited with attribution for calling someone an antisemite? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I would not use it there. nableezy - 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and just for the record, are you actually of the opinion that StopAntisemitism is a reliable source? nableezy - 02:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
StopAntisemitism should be used with attribution and other sources preferred. So, the greenish-yellow (vomit/nausea coloured) zone of sources that don't lie, but are opinionated enough not to give WikiVoice to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
And that’s based on what? nableezy - 07:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Most of the evidence here shows bias. StopAntisemitism pointing out that the keffiyeh is associated with violence against Jews is a subjective feeling that some people have. Symbols have different meanings to different people.
Mondoweiss says the Star of David is fair game to be treated as a hate symbol subject to ridicule because Israel associated it with Zionism.[41]
It's a double standard to say StopAntisemitism should not be cited anywhere because it associated the keffiyeh with hate when Mondoweiss associates the Star of David with hate and gets a pass.
The double standard needs to be actively considered because excluding one side's sources over another will create systemic bias in the Israel and Palestine topic area.
To me, the standard that should be applied is less important than the goal of applying it consistently. So, if my views on a source don't matter (as you've told me), yours shouldn't either. Treating this like Mondoweiss or EI would mean greenish-yellow. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It seems like you really want to post about Mondoweiss and Electronic Infitada, but you seem to be doing it in the wrong section on the page. You can start a new section at the top, if you haven't noticed. Parabolist (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I started both of the previous discussions on those sources, and Mondoweiss was WP:MREL because "bias doesn't imply unreliability". EI was WP:GUNREL but the commenter I'm replying to !voted otherwise.
My point is that the standard applied to Palestinian sources in this area is very different than the one applied to Jewish sources. I believe showing that a different standard exists is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If Palestinian sources have, as a general rule, weaker reliability requirements than Jewish sources, Wikipedia articles will have more Palestinian sources and become more biased towards the Palestinian perspective. This thread on StopAntisemitism is an appropriate place to point out that Jewish sources are being held to an unfair standard. Specifically, the claim that StopAntisemitism considers the keffiyeh to be a hate symbol and is therefore unreliable is not a standard I believe Nableezy would hold Mondoweiss to.
If you can't address the existence of the double standard or provide explanations as to why the disparate impact is OK, there's not much more for us to discuss. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Except you’re misrepresenting what Mondoweiss said. An opinion piece there said that the Star of David is a symbol of Israel, not a symbol of hate. That also was not the crux of my argument as to why this doxxing, harassment and intimidation site is unreliable. But cool to know you’re fine with such a source I guess. Also nice touch in calling them Jewish sources as though they were being critiqued for being Jewish. nableezy - 17:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
A subjective feeling, that’s an interesting why to phrase a completely made up thing. Got it. And where does Mondoweiss associate the Star of David with hate???? nableezy - 12:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
This is an advocacy group, and not a reputable one. References to it should be removed, and the content it supports should be removed if a better source can't be found. The one exception would be instances where the subject is StopAntisemitism and its opinion, but even then it would be better to use an independent source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this considered an SPS?

[42] Heritage et al is a blog run by Auckland Library employees. There was a thread on WP:NZWNB but I don't believe it adequately addressed whether it would be considered self-published or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Library would be a reliable publisher, so the blog wouldn't exactly be self-published. However it doesn't say who the authors of articles are, they are all by 'Auckland Libraries', so any claim they are by specific experts has to be viewed critically. They don't disclose any editorial controls, and I don't see any use by others.
Whether they are reliable hangs solely on them being published by Auckland Library, but Auckland Library are reliable. I would consider them marginally reliable. They mostly publish details of primary sources. I would avoid using them for WP:BLPs, or contentious statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm under the impression from what I can make out about the site that it is something done in an unofficial capacity, hence the third party host and lack of explained editorial process.
>However it doesn't say who the authors of articles are, they are all by 'Auckland Libraries'
It does at the bottom of some e.g. [43] and [44]. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I missed that, odd place to put the author details.
I'm pretty sure it's an official blog, for instance it's link to from their official site[45]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The description of it and no mention of an editor suggests to me it is a more informal thing, I could be wrong here I just fail to see any evidence of fact checking and moderation here. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

numetalagenda.com

Hosted on DigitalOcean, and a product of LG Media Network, I can't quite place http://numetalagenda.com on one side of the line or the other. Can somebody look it over for me? Does being in a listicle on "The Nu Metal Agenda" qualify as reliable sourcing for genre? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, could you give the details as it might help? Certainly Holiday Kirk appears to have some credibility in the area, but the site doesn't offer much in details about itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The qualification of "I Disappear" as a nu metal song is being sourced to a listicle, there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I dislike listicles as sources but at least this one isn't just a plain list, as it contains a write up on each entry. It's by Holiday Kirk, who is the subject of this Vice article[46], so it may have some credibility.
I've left notification at WikiProject Music asking if anyone knows more about the site[47]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll keep an eye, there, too! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold that against the website. It's pretty common, even among reliable sources, to over-apply genre in the era of its mainstream popularity. Every other heavy rock song would occasionally get called nu metal in the early 2000s. Same goes for every other rock song as grunge back in the 90s. Even beyond that, we shouldn't judge sources because we disagree with their assertions on subjective details anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You wouldn't hold... what... against the website? I'm not casting any aspersions; I'm here just asking if it's a reliable source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Could you expand on your point? I haven't seen anyone saying it's not reliable just because they don't agree with it. I don't see that there has been any personal statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Digital Ocean is a hosting company, not a website. It's no different than a website touting themselves as being hosted by GoDaddy or similar companies. LG Media's main site seems to be Lambgoat, which is salted as an article but has a rough consensus that it's acceptable for basic claims. It also contains The Needle Drop, which was found to be a subject-matter expert for the purpose of reviews, but not facts, and the discussion took place before it joined LG Media. Overall it seems like the properties of LG Media are being left to their own devices with no overarching editorial direction, so it really would depend on the site. Can I ask what claims are being sourced to this listicle? Pinguinn 🐧 21:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
It's just the genre of "I Disappear" that's being sourced to a listicle, there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Again, your personal disagreement with their assertion on a subjective matter like genre in itself is not enough to make a judgement call on this. You need better reasoning than that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
your personal disagreement with Being otherwise unaware, please explain to me what specific disagreement I have with the source. You need better reasoning than that. What reasoning? Better than what? I don't know what you're talking about, here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Based on your input here, and lacking any others here, or at the noticeboard previously mentioned, I've gone ahead and kept the source while adding a {{better source needed}} as well. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the last time this was discussed was in Archive 264 about 5 years ago, and I don't think there was very much of a clear consensus. There is some loose guidance in our current guidelines on what counts as a sponsored (and thus non-independent) review, for example, WP:PRODUCTREV considers reviews where the reviewed product is provided free as sponsored reviews but affiliate links, which are very common, doesn't seem to be mentioned on any guidelines that I could tell. This came up in a few recent and not-so-recent AfDs for me, so I thought it might be worthwhile to gauge the community sentiment on a few principles.

For example, I think in most cases for reputable sources, like the New York Times, or maybe Wired or The Verge, few people would consider it to affect reliability per se. On the other hand, I'd guess more would agree that there's a risk of such coverage being more indiscriminate, and be less useful in establishing notability or due weight, though I'd like to get an idea of how many here. There are also other interesting questions like whether it matters if the affiliate program is run by the company making the product or a major retailer like Amazon or Newegg instead, and more generally if the form of the links make any difference at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the best answer you can have for this is 'it depends', as it's so general. The issue isn't affiliate links, but how much those affiliate links effect editorial decisions. That's going to change between different publications and over time within the same publication.
The more reputable the publication the less it's likely to be an issue, as they usually have less reason to rely on affiliate links and more to loose by abusing them. Personally I wouldn't consider a source that indiscriminately reviews products to add to notability, but that's a point separate from reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

glbtq Encyclopedia Project

I've noticed that some information regarding Aztec's mythology has been removed in a recent edit of Homosexuality in Mexico

The source used to be an entry from glbtq.com; I want to add it back but first I need to know if it's a reliable source.

Thanks in advance. Ang720 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Provide the diff? And ping the editors involved? And did you BRD?
If the glbt encyclopedia is the same as it was however many years ago (which never cited sources), and even if it's tangentially referencing the paper I think it is (which I discussed on iirc Talk:Aztecs), then no on several fronts. But per the RSN header, you do have to provide even a modicum of a clue of what you are talking about. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I was refering to this edit: [48] made by @Antiquistik; specifically the first paragraph of The Mexicas, where Xochiquétzal and the mythical story were mentioned in the old version.
I wanted to know if the source (glbtq) is reliable before doing any edits (I don't want to add unreliable information back). Ang720 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Until iarchive is back online I can't evaluate, as the pages are dead. Specific, academic, up-to-date information is always preferable, so the deletion of even some of the books (including "Gleich und anders" which seems to be a generic source and worse, is not given a page number) would be appropriate on its surface. If you have a specific content dispute, did you take it up with User:Antiquistik? Did you notify the user about referring their edits to RSN? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
"Did you notify the user about referring their edits to RSN?" I didn't because my question was regarding the old version's sources' reliability (I don't have questions regarding the new ones), I was unsure if the first paragraph was accidentally removed, so I prefered to ask first if the source was reliable.
"If you have a specific content dispute, did you take it up with User:Antiquistik?"
I don't think I have a content dispute (sorry if it sounded like I did), but I will elaborate how I think the article could be improved in Antiquistik's talk page.
Thank you. Ang720 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the diff I don't see that the sources reliability has been questioned. Although this use was removed there are other uses of the same sources still used in the article, anf the editor who removed this use made no comment about it's reliability (unless I missed something).
It's important to remember that verification is required for all included content, but not all verifiable information needs to be included (verification doesn't guarantee inclusion). I suggest talking with the editor and asking why they removed the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Posting a source to RSP

Hi editors. I’m posting here to ask if someone will add Bloody Elbow to the RSP list for its content prior to March 2024 based on an RfC and two prior posts that found it to be generally unreliable. [49], [50], [51]. While not attracting wide participation, the RfC (which I started) and at least one of the two discussions meet the specific WP:RSPCRITERIA for minimum participation: For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. I may have a COI since I am a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, whose clients include One Championship, which was covered by Bloody Elbow. Bloody Elbow is cited as a source on the One Championship page, where it is used inappropriately as an unreliable blog. So even though the discussions on the merits are concluded, I think an independent editor should prepare and post the RSP summary. There is a distinction between the blog pre-March 2024, and the site under new owners since then, which needs to be part of the description. If other editors think the RSP needs to be handled differently, or think I should just do it, please discuss. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As you started all of these discussions for the sole purpose of adding the source to the RSP I would opposed this. Either way this is a discussion for WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m not opposed to putting this on Talk for PS. But it's just about one source, not changes to the policies of PS. So I think some might see it as not a matter for WT:RSP. Nonetheless, I’m going to withdraw this for the time being here and move it as you suggested. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Please consider this request withdrawn. I will come back and add the link to the new discussion. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Per @ActivelyDisinterested, the discussion has been moved here. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph RFC has been reclosed

The result and RSP update stand unchallenged, for the moment at least the matter is closed.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Anyone interested in the close can find it here, WP:AN#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues. I have also made a copy of it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444, so that a version remains in the RSN archives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that closure's wording (understandably) doesn't answer what ultimately became the core question, which is how (or whether) we reflect a no-consensus RFC outcome on a source that have an existing non-yellow entry on WP:RSP. Do we need a separate RFC to settle that procedural question? --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn’t we simply update RSP to reflect the “no consensus” determination? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious to me that yes, this is exactly what we would do. Not coming to an agreement about a source is the exact definition of "no consensus" and so the source's listing should reflect this new no-consensus reality. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I was going to open a section on WT:RSP about that point, but the RSP had already been updated. I suggest any discussion about how RSP is updated should happen there rather than here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Let's just have a separate RfC on that and defer the WP:RSP listing. Make it purple+a question mark. We can run that 30-day RfC faster than a slow-motion edit war and the inevitable third close review. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
And then we can have a fourth RFC to argue about the third RFC. Blueboar (talk) Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to exist at the first link. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, it was taken down. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • So, just to summarize: on 7th July I closed the original discussion to say that there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues; and I said that RSP should say there's no such consensus. And here we are, after enough word count to fill several novels, with the exact result I originally called, but other people's signatures on the closes.—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    It wasn't really your verdict of "no consensus" that was objected to, it was the language that you used during the close was that was why it was overturned. Sandstein's close has less content that could be considered objectionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Of course! It has no objectionable content because it's nothing but a statement of the vote count. I mean that without criticism of Sandstein; if I was closing a discussion that had been closed, reverted, unreverted, reviewed, overturned, re-closed, reverted, unreverted, re-reverted again, vacated, and then left unclosed for two months cos no-one would touch it, then I too would write an extremely short and unobjectionable closing summary.
    The practical outcome is exactly the same as if my close had been left untouched, and there's an opportunity for some of the people who participated in those reviews to do some thinking about that.—S Marshall T/C 08:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Basically what Hemiauchenia said, though I do understand the frustration. Though also it's probably worth noting that Sandstein didn't explicitly said what RSP should say, he just left the mechanics of RSP up for other people to argue about. Loki (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, but this time it seems we're going to have to have a whole discussion about if RSP should actually correctly report the close as no consensus or (bafflingly) say something different than what the close says. Parabolist (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Feedback on Sources for Mohiuddin Ahmed

OP has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

I am working on an article about Mohiuddin Ahmed, a diplomat and key figure in the Bangladesh Liberation War, and I would appreciate feedback on the reliability of some of the sources I’ve used. The article is currently in a deletion discussion, and I want to ensure I’m using strong, independent, and reliable sources. Below are some of the sources I’ve referenced:

- Mohiuddin Ahmed: That Spirit of Trafalgar Square

- Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80

Any feedback or suggestions for alternative reliable sources would be greatly appreciated.

J1477 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This COI user has been blocked for WP:FORUMSHOP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC on The South African

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The South African?

Survey (The South African)

  • Option 2 They appear to be a standard news organisation, although the issues highlighted raise concerns about their quality. I can't find any other issues being raised, although search for information on them is made difficult due to their name. I don't think one issue is enough to declare them generally unreliable or deprecate them, but it does show the source should be shown more scrutiny if it's used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (invited by the bot) Except in extreme cases, I'm against generalization (=overgeneralization) of any source. Which means "other considerations apply" is what nearly all should be. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Its news stories attributed to journalists seem largely reliable, or at least no worse than many other outlets we trust. However, we need to be aware of the possibility of wiki-mirroring in these articles. There also appears to be incipient AI use which may require further discussion if more examples become evident.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I think having sat on the fence, I should cast my !vote. Had it been an isolated incident, I would have agreed with the above for option 2. However, based upon the evidence that I found that it has happened again (even after I informed them of the plagiarism), that suggests that it would be better to consider it unreliable since they have continued to copy Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Seems like we don't have enough info beyond the clear plagiarism cases identified. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we also should be willing to revisit/do another RFC if there is more info released confirming issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
  • Option 2 I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. With a small regional interest online pub, I'm dubious this even needs a rating but would not exclude a reporter these days for including a look at Wikipedia nor for using AI research. I'd be more inclined to expect all sources do that at a minimum. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The South African)

  • There are multiple publications that have very similar names, so it's not easy to search for information on the source. Also there appears to be two very different periods in its history - from 2003–2015 it was a freesheet distributed in London, but since 2015 it has been an online news source focused on the South African market. The BBC[52] and Stanford Libraries[53] both have media guides about South African news media, neither of which mention the The South African. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I've left a notification of the RFC on the Project South Africa talk page[54]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Eric & Matthew Gilbert, PhD site at https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/

Is their website of any credibility for anything mountain/geology related, such as Mount Fury's lede. I've seen this WP:SPS used to support claims related to mountains. Eric has an h-index of 5, and being cited by peers in things like gas valve safety, but not on geology matter and I would for example not cite a geologist for mechanical engineering stuff. I don't think they clear the WP:EXPERTSPS hurdle. Graywalls (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Gilbertson's website should not be considered a reliable source as it is self published and not peer reviewed. If Gilbertson's findings are discussed in a reliable source elsewhere, they can be used in the body of an article using a secondary source as ref but should not point back to Country Highpoints and probably should not be used in the infobox or lede. While Gilbertson appears to be an engineer who is familiar with some surveying equipment, he is not publishing this work in peer reviewed academic journals. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
However, different fields have different standards and protocols. I would say anything self-published by the Gilbertsons brothers (including their books through pay-to-play published Authorhouse) should not be used. To be even considered appropriate for mountain/geology related, their work would need to be cited by scholars in geology related academic journals. Graywalls (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Have you even read into how Gilbertson does his surveys? Also, respected, accomplished surveyors like Larry Signani consider his work on Rainier to be sound. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with DJ Cane that since Gilbertson's surveys have had substantial secondary coverage by reliable sources, the his Rainier surveys should be taken seriously by Wikipedia and can be mentioned in the body and in a footnote on the official elevation. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough if the RS secondary source is cited. But not the primary. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
For Gilbertson's website/blog to come anything even remotely close to be usable as an authoritative source, he'd need to be an author that's repeatedly cited in scholarly work in the field of question. So, if Gilbertson's publications are regularly cited in things like GSA Bulletin, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Structural Geology and similar, then its possible that he's established cred as a subject area expert and his website could possibly be used as WP:EXPERTSPS. At this point, his website is the same as some random person's website. Graywalls (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The relevant guideline being argued in this case is WP:UseByOthers, if the site is cited in quality academic sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

ICOC-ICC Lawsuits

I see this source, here listed as a source for lawsuits on the Kip McKean article. Previously a Rolling Stone article was the source, which I since removed. I don't know who owns/made this website and would appreciate feedback on whether or not it counts as a reliable source for the information used. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

See wp:rollingstone on our perennial sources list -- it is generally reliable. I understand that you prefer want a better source for a lawsuit on a BLP. The website icoc-lawsuits appears to be just a plain list of lawsuit filing pdfs, and nothing more -- it is in effect an aggregator of wp:primary sources, which is even worse for this purpose. (Also, you would cite the lawsuit itself, not the aggregator -- don't be cute about citing primary sources when citing primary sources, for the sake of editor oversight.)
I would suggest restoring the Rolling Stone articles to start, and then evaluating those on their merits -- they seem pretty in-depth at a glance, so maybe see if there's been secondary coverage of the Rolling Stone articles themselves. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! The Rolling Stone article was not accepted on the ICOC page due to the sensitive nature of the content, so I removed it from Kip McKean article as it was used for the same reason.
I'm unaware of any other coverage of the Los Angeles Superior Court Cases outside of this. It seemed a bit odd for a source, so I wanted to check here before taking any action on it. XZealous (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
That article has been on my watchlist for a long time. I give feedback from time to time, but I likely got sick of arguing with people there. I can post my opinion again there, but a primary source in this manner in BLP is unacceptable no matter how you dress it up. EDIt: If Rolling Stone is not considered ideal per wp:rollingstonepolitics , then I guess just give it further scrutiny. Put a look at the RfC for instance and see if the closure notes and key dispute points actually apply in this case (at a glance most factors do not, but take a look yourself). Also like I said, if another RS cites it, it supports reliability and usability. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources in Symphony of Heaven and music articles in general

On surface, some of them have a masthead staff list with appearance of having editorial process and they blurr the lines between blog, zines, tabloid newspaper and a real magazine. Some are just members from bands/buddies on mashead. How do we go about evaluating these sources for WP:RS ?

  • Indie Vision Music
  • The Bearded Dragon's Metal
  • The Metal Resource
  • the Metal Onslaught
  • Encyclopedia Metallum
  • Beyond the Grave Music

@Chubbles:, perhaps you might have some input. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Music sources that have been discussed by WikiProject Albums are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
From experience it can be difficult judging sources in this area. With what may appear very low quality sources actually being cited regularly by academic sources for their knowledge and expertise. I would suggest bringing questions here if you can't find a satisfactory answer at the Albums or Music project first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

National Football Teams

I noticed this being used in a featured list, I was going to remove it because it is just some random person's website: [55] and is obviously not within the definition of a RS; however, this source is used on more than 8,000 pages [56] which leads me wondering what on earth to do about it.

It also used in BLPs for information beyond just soccer itself which is concerning. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

From the FAQ "Your criteria are dumb and you should include Catalonia, Jan Mayen and Puntland right away. Sorry, my site.", yes it looks like a blog, not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems just a person's pet project. No evidence of any reliabilty. Yes some of it will be right, but we don't know what. Not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 17:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I've found another one: [57]
I'm aware these are not reliable, I'm more wondering how to deal with it. The amount of pages citing National Football Teams has actually gone up whilst this thread has been here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Could potentially be deprecated or added to the spam blacklist if it's a massive issue. Get a few examples of a few of the most problematic uses, start an RFC, and if it it's successful it could be added like WP:HEALTHLINE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep, if it is being overused, and is just "some bloke on the internet" it may need depreciation, but at the very minimum any content sourced to it should, be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
As an example see the Universe Guide RFC about a similar issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I'll compile the worst examples (BLPs) and include them here in preparation. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
It is used in featured lists [58]
It is used in many BLPs, mostly for soccer statistics but also for some BLP info such as height, date of birth, and place of birth. [59] [60] [61]
There is even a template for it which allows and encourages one to cite it: Template:NFT player. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I would suggest judging by evidence of is it used elsewhere than WP as reliable, and what secondary sources say about it. Whether one can find some errors in apparently 8,000-plus uses would only show it as 0.01% incorrect which is not bad - and that it has 8,000 uses in WP indicates to me that it has substantial standing here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see no evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS with a cursory search for the site's address. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    How often a source is used on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's reliable. Wikipedia itself is used thousands of time as a reference, even though it is against policy to do so. Editors should look to how the source is used outside of Wikipedia when judging use by others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook for Geographical info

For example, for the highest point in Saudi Arabia, two editions have drastically different data.. Is this reliable for geography information? https://books.google.com/books?id=QbuKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT8063 2010 version Jabal Sawda 3,133m https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/saudi-arabia/ current version highest point: As Sarawat range, 3,000 m Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be? Is there some context or disagreement I'm missing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The disagreement is that 2010 version reports the highest point in Saudia Arabia as 3,133 and the current online version reports it as 3,000m and doesn't identify it as name. I've seen this for multiple locations. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok I understand, that's an annoyance. Looking at the 2023-2024 book version it gives the highest point as Jabal Shams at 3,004m[62]. I'm guessing the online version is a rounded number from that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Trying to dig deeper is a confusing mess of claims, but it looks like some re-measurement has happened (not that I can find any exact details of that happening). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453&oldid=1253165703"