Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431

Archive 425

←

Archive 429

Archive 430

Archive 431

Archive 432

Archive 433

→

Archive 435

Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician

What is the reliability of the aforementioned source? I find nothing in RSN, unless I'm not looking in the right place. I see nothing in Perennial Sources. The context is the possible inclusion of a mention of this article by this statistician in relevant articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

So I imagine there are two issues: Tablet's reliability and the author's. Coretheapple (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to be specific about the content that would be supported by information in this article. Specificity seems to help at this noticeboard. One obvious reason for specificity is because the conflict has been going on for over 5 months now (since 7 October 2023) and the scope of the analysis covers a 2 week window "From Oct. 26 until Nov. 10, 2023". Helpfully, there are also the Associated Press and John Hopkins investigations over more or less the same window. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure it's a reliability question, unless you believe that Tablet misrepresented his findings.

I think the relevant policy here is WP:DUE. The weight that this analysis should be given in our articles should depend on how much weight this analysis is given by RS.

The AP article mostly examines the procedures and doesn't perform statistical analysis. The Lancet article performs a statistical comparison of MoH and UNRWA data and finds "no evidence of inflated rates." The same DUE policy applies to those sources. Alaexis_¿question? 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the concerns about the cherrypicked initial data are indeed worrying. I stand by my response above - that we need to follow RS which will evaluate this study - but personally I trust the article a bit less now. Hopefully it'll be clarified one way or another. Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article and the author I would say it's a reasonable minority view. The source has the editorial oversight we expect from a reliable media site and the author certainly appears to have expert credentials. If this is the only source suggesting the MOH numbers may be misleading I would suggest giving it very little weight. However if other sources also claim the numbers are incorrect then I would be less inclined to leave this out. As a sticky RS question, yes, this looks to be reliable but that doesn't answer the question of weight. Springee (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Several editors have said the report is fringe. The idea that Hamas might want to exaggerate the Gaza death toll in a war they started hardly seems fringe. [1][2][3]. Treating the article as representing a minority view seems appropriate but out right dismissal as "fringe" is not appropriate in this case. Springee (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The claims that follow his analysis are

• The total civilian casualty count is likely to be extremely overstated.
• If Israel estimates [are] even reasonably accurate, then the ratio of noncombatant casualties to combatants is remarkably low.
• this is a remarkable and successful effort to prevent unnecessary loss of life while fighting an implacable enemy that protects itself with civilians.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Bibi is once again going around questioning the figures and claiming that 13,000 militants (no evidence for this, US says 6,000) are included in the figures (but they could as well be under the rubble and US says they are more likely an undercount). Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's bizarre. It's literally impossible for that number to be included in the ministry count unless one is counting women and/or children as well. The US state department called an undercount likely. (If not already obvious.) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The context is actually the talk page discussion here here where the intent appears to be to cast doubt on what nearly all reliable sources are saying. Lancet is a scholarly source and peer reviewed info, unlike the other, which is not peer reviewed and in a somewhat dubious and certainly biased source. Also what info is going to be cited, is there any reason why such a minority view of one should be cited at all? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We aren't censoring minority views. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If they are undue and/or fringe, we are. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a commentary on your "minority view" argument. Regarding "If they are undue and/or fringe", it's not proven. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That nearly all reliable sources disagree is a good indication that it is undue. See this discussion right here on this noticeboard (others elsewhere as well). Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What is undue? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the above linked convo and what I have already said, Recent article provides statistical analysis that calls into question the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry death tallies. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear what do you mean by "undue" and why should Tabletmag article be censored based on that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What is it you want to add to the article based on this source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like I'm gonna edit, but the article should not be censored because of some wrong argument. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The professor produced a fringe study in 2011 debunking the hockey stick graph in climate change A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?. And in 2020 argued I’m a statistician. Closing camp because of corona is a huge mistake, I can't say the argument there was bad just iffy. As well as Abraham Wyner - Penn should unequivocally adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, including all the bits in its examples about criticizing Israel being antisemitic. NadVolum (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A fringe? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep fringe. See [4]'Guided by Mark DeLaquil, one of Simberg’s attorneys, Wyner suggested that Mann and his hockey stick co-authors could have “cherry pick[ed]” data and used misleading statistical techniques to produce their desired outcome. “My opinion is that methods were manipulated” to understate uncertainty in Mann’s results, Wyner said. I think his 'Occasionally drawing smiles and laughs with self-deprecating jokes, Wyner described scientists’ process of selecting data and choosing which statistical techniques to employ as a “walk through a valley of forked paths,” suggesting to the jury that researchers could, if they chose, select a path that would yield the results they were seeking' might describe himself as far as the article being discussed here is concerned as it is so bad. NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Even from this journalist article it would be very far fetching to brand Wyner's work, cited by many, as "fringe". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

[5] gives the issue with the paper and some discussions and a rejoiner. My real reason for branding as fringe is that even with the various discussions in the journal which pointed out all sorts of problems with what they did he still had the gall to stand up in court and defend some climate change denier bloggers against Mann and said he had cherry-picked datas to support the hockey stick graph. NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Which article? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Fringe, highly unreliable. One of my professional hobbies is debunking of statistical BS. I'll only consider the first claim: that the number of daily deaths doesn't vary as widely as one would expect. His first bar chart shows a visually straight line (a standard trick, since plotting the individual days makes it look much more irregular and it strongly fails a statistical test for uniformity; I'll leave that aside as it isn't the main point.) Wyner says his data comes from OCHA and gives this table. Note how it is only for a short period. There was a truce immediately afterwards, which justifies the ending date, but the starting date of Oct 27 seems arbitrary, and my experience is that arbitrary choices in the data are the first place to look when fishing for problems.
  Turn to OCHA's actual data to see that the "total killed" numbers for the three previous days were much larger. To be explicit, including the three previous days would have changed the variance of the sample from 1785 to 25065, a factor of 14! Look after the truce to see even greater variation. Wyner not only fails to mention that the data as a whole shows a different picture, but misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present. In summary, this claim of Wyner was manufactured by cherry-picking a fraction of the data. Zero^talk 13:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ADDED: If you'd like to see what I meant about the trick of displaying cumulative data rather than the daily counts, see this post of Lior Pachter. Zero^talk 12:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, so in fact exactly the same trick used to manipulate climate data to produce charts over short periods that seem to contradict the longer trend. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose that the reason he started with October 26 (so that the first daily difference is October 27 vs October 26) because this is when the ground operation started.

  Still, it's certainly concerning that he doesn't explain why he decided to analyse this period and why he hasn't looked at post-truce casualty trends. Alaexis_¿question? 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but given that he relies so much on the numbers of women and children killed and inferences based on those, it is a bit puzzling that the window starts on Oct. 26 rather than Oct. 20. It suggests that his sampling strategy was not based on data availability, even though more data should strengthen his case if he is on the right track. It's all a bit odd. But perhaps we are missing the point. Perhaps the purpose of the article is not to figure something out, but to provide some comfort to readers so that they don't have to think about all those dead people. That might explain why it's in the Tablet rather than a more technical publication. Anyway, that's enough pointless speculation from me for now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Zero nails it, and the Lancet is considerably more reliable than the Tablet, so it would have considerably more weight to it. nableezy - 13:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's really bad, far worse than I thought! Perhaps the range was chosen by 'Salo Aizenberg who helped check and correct these numbers'! NadVolum (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's not obvious why they picked the "From Oct. 26 until Nov. 10, 2023" window for analysis. Their statement "From Oct. 26 until Nov. 10, 2023, the Gaza Health Ministry released daily casualty figures that include both a total number and a specific number of women and children." is not wrong, but their source, the ochaopt daily reports with the ministry's numbers, started including the number of women and children killed from 20 Oct 2023 [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Either way, no editors should be trying to support or undermine the MoH figures because that would be inconsistent with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If I saw a source that genuinely did undermine them then I'd certainly look around for a reliable source for it! I don't see how it would undermine any code of conduct. But this was just straight propaganda. NadVolum (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I meant this. section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, specifically the part that prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not okay. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You asked earlier I think it's probably better to be specific about the content that would be supported by information in this article. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

As is evident from the comments here, as this is essentially a continuation of the Talk page discussion, there are editors in the Talk page of Israel-Hamas war who want zero content from that article and zero content from Tablet. So it doesn't matter what "content" is involved. Editors want no content from the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Its cherry picked data, and the cherry picking has distorted the results so spectacularly I cant imagine a reason why somebody would pretend like it belongs. No, none of this should be included in an encyclopedia article, as it is both completely bogus and contradicted by considerably more reliable sources. But that is being based on the content, so please dont pretend like that it is about editors want zero content from Tablet. Though Tablet also isnt the best source either. nableezy - 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Tablet is used extensively. It is presumably fine in many circumstances. I see 2917 links to Tablet, almost all in mainspace. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Others noted that AJS [Association for Jewish Studies] is simply keeping pace with evolving opinions of Tablet, and of its approach to presenting even anti-democratic and hyper-nationalist views as simply one side of an argument." https://jewishcurrents.org/ajs_tablet Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but if you look through the titles of all the links used in Wikipedia there's some interesting stuff. An interview with Wallace Shawn. Who doesn't love Wallace Shawn? Articles about Ben Katchor, a unique genius, (I have everything he has ever drawn/written). Anyway, the set of articles is so diverse that general statements about the source are probably not very useful in practice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's lots of stuff Tablet would be a fine source for. This less so. nableezy - 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the context matters and in the current context, I am sceptical about the value of this source. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• NadVolum above provides reasonable evidence to doubt this statistician's reliability given past work on climate change in particular, while Zero above provides compelling evidence that the study's conclusion is cherry-picked. starship.paint (RUN) 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  NadVolum above provides reasonable evidence to doubt this statistician's reliability given past work on climate change in particular
  — User:Starship.paint 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, they just claimed "fringe", turned out to be unproven. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In 2011 it was well established. It was just about okay to say the evidence for the hockey stick was not good, people doing analysis and having it shot down doesn't automatically make them fringe. However he then went on to defend two climate change denial bloggers in a court case and alleged that Michael Manns statistics were cherry picked, see the National Enquirer case in Michael E. Mann#Defamation lawsuits. That definitely places hime on the climate change denial side. NadVolum (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's okay for researchers and their works to be correct or incorrect, or to be accepted now and be rejected later. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It is not our job to act as "experts" and determine if Wharton professors have their heads screwed on right. There seems to be an urgent, almost frantic desire to exclude this expert's view from the article. I am glad to see that Tablet itself is accepted as an RS source. Now let's make a quantum leap and realize that a Wharton professor who dares to differ with the Hamas casualty counts is not some kind of insane jughead who is unworthy of being quoted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

He's differing with the large number of sources that have said the counts are reliable. His view here is extreme minority and bordering on fringe, and his methods here are cherry picking to distort the data. nableezy - 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Says who? Who calls him fringe? You? Other Wikipedia editors? What source says he is fringe? What source says he is some kind of whack job? Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources dont need to call an extreme minority view an extreme minority view for it to be an extreme minority view. I dont believe I called him a whack job, so we can drop that strawman any time now. But he is presenting a view that other sources have debunked, and he is doing it with cherry picked data, ignoring data that blows his thesis up. As Zero wrote, he misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present. nableezy - 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Who says he used cherry-picked data? Some user named Zero? He is your source? Where did he publish that critique? Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You and other editors have pointed out that Tablet is a reliable source that is frequently used as a source on Wikipedia. But this guy, who you don't like, should not be used, he is to be shunned, treated like a conspiracy theorist, why? Because of whom? Says who? Other than you, that is? Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, you are arguing for the inclusion of material that is provably bullshit, and you are doing it without even attempting to refute that it is bullshit. nableezy - 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. So a group of Wikipedia editors believe that a Wharton professor, published in a publication that they concede is used copiously in Wikipedia, should not be used because in their opinion he is "provably bullshit." Who is doing the proving? Who has criticized his work as "bullshit"? You say he differs from stuff in other publications like Lancet. Have the authors of those articles criticized him? Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read any of the responses here? Ill re-post the proving it bullshit part for you:

the first claim: that the number of daily deaths doesn't vary as widely as one would expect. His first bar chart shows a visually straight line (a standard trick, since plotting the individual days makes it look much more irregular and it strongly fails a statistical test for uniformity; I'll leave that aside as it isn't the main point.) Wyner says his data comes from OCHA and gives this table. Note how it is only for a short period. There was a truce immediately afterwards, which justifies the ending date, but the starting date of Oct 27 seems arbitrary, and my experience is that arbitrary choices in the data are the first place to look when fishing for problems

Turn to OCHA's actual data to see that the "total killed" numbers for the three previous days were much larger. To be explicit, including the three previous days would have changed the variance of the sample from 1785 to 25065, a factor of 14! Look after the truce to see even greater variation. Wyner not only fails to mention that the data as a whole shows a different picture, but misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present. In summary, this claim of Wyner was manufactured by cherry-picking a fraction of the data.

Now you dont even attempt to respond to the fact that what he says does not exist does in fact exist, or the fact that by selecting these specific dates he gives a distorted view of the complete dataset. You just keep saying Wharton. Whatever, you asked a question and its been answered, you want to keep arguing go right ahead. nableezy - 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in original research by Wikipedia editors. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating your inability to respond to math. nableezy - 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. Am I mistaken? What reliable source published that? Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The numbers are from OCHA, simple calculations are not OR. Showing a source is wrong on a talk page or noticeboard is also not OR. nableezy - 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Nableezy#March 2024 - personal attacks ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

lol nableezy - 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Because a pointed opinion piece in a non-scholarly publication masquerading as statistical analysis is not just any ordinary opinion or material. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That you keep repeating phrases like ”Hamas casualty counts" (to refer to the Lancet-affirmed Gaza Health Ministry figures) does not really support the case that this discussion is truly about balance or encyclopedic value. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I found another source How Hamas Manipulates Gaza Fatality Numbers: Examining the Male Undercount and Other Problems | The Washington Institute analysing GHM numbers. Haven't had a good look at it yet. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Should probably look up WINEP before bringing an avowedly pro-Israel lobby organization as a source. nableezy - 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

At least WINEP is an outside source.The sources I'm seeing cited to exclude this Wharton prof's work are a group of Wikipedia editors. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A lobby with ties to the Israeli government is not an "outside source". You can keep up this charade but the source you want to use is cherrypicked bullshit that is directly contradicted by considerably more reliable sources. nableezy - 16:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that the Wharton professor is "contradicted." Who found his work to be faulty? Again, please don't respond by saying "Editor X,. Y and Z have analyzed his work, and doggone it, they find it is no good." I am looking for reliable sources, not the original research of Wikipedia editors. Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you refuse to read responses elsewhere, I guess Ill repeat it here. The Lancet, the WHO, various humanitarian agencies have all agreed the MOH numbers are accurate. nableezy - 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And their refutation of the Tablet article is where? Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a refutation of the claim that the numbers are inaccurate. I think you know that, but whatever. nableezy - 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

... and another Death tolls from Hamas-run health ministry are not trustworthy, former Reuters chief warns (telegraph.co.uk) - Mr Baker, who also reported from the Palestinian territories in 2006, said reports referring to “Palestinian officials” were “misleading”, because of Hamas’s grip over the health ministry.
“There was a time when the figures from the ministry could be relied upon. The doctors and administrators knew what they were doing.”
But following Hamas’s take-over, media organisations should be sure to refer to the health ministry as controlled by the terrorist group every time they mention its figures, he said.
European officials have also questioned the reliability of the figures published by the Hamas-controlled ministry.
One source told the Telegraph: “The numbers from Hamas cannot be trusted, although even one killed or injured child or innocent person is one too many.
“In the end it is not really about exact numbers but about the fact that undeniably innocent people are dying or being injured.” ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Y'all should make up your minds, are they overcounting or undercounting? And why is no one talking about all the bodies under the rubble? Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That is very old and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Israel has agreed the counts are roughly accurate, the US has since said they are likely an undercount. And a ton of sources have contradicted that claim by a former Reuters bureau chief. nableezy - 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is to counter your "extreme minority" argument. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesnt do that at all. The Lancet, the WHO, various humanitarian agencies have all agreed the MOH numbers are accurate. This has gone way past RSNs purpose though, if there is a dispute on weight that should be held at NPOVN or the article talk page. We previously had an RFC on how to attribute these numbers, if somebody wants to challenge that they are welcome to open a new RFC. nableezy - 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What they have not done is contradicted the article in question. It is a differing viewpoint, and all I see here are editors who are extremely anxious for it not to be used in the article. Yes, they have performed original research. According to them, they are experts in the field. Hell, they know more about stats than this Wharton professor published in a reliable source. I can't believe I have to say it, but no, we do not use Wikipedia editors as reliable sources of such weight and eminence that they can simply wave off sources they don't want to be used by branding them as "fringe" and "bullshit." Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They have explicitly said that the numbers are accurate. OR is about article content, not about determining what sources are misrepresenting the underlying data. Which you, again, completely ignore. Yes, we most certainly can perform basic calculations to see that what you are pushing to include is a lie. He wrote there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less, but there are indeed such days. The source you are pushing to use here is cherrypicking data to present a distorted summary of the dataset. I cannot believe I have to say it, but intentionally pushing in material that is provably false is not how an encyclopedia editor acts. nableezy - 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's right. I am not interested in "statistical analysis" by anonymous Wikipedia editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You think it is "statistical analysis" to look at the OCHA data and see what this person said does not exist does indeed exist? Ok, thats cool for you I guess, but nobody else has to stick their heads in the sand as well. nableezy - 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Like to raise an RfC to get other people on this noticeboard to agree with you then because I am definitely convinced by the evidence that the article is bullshit. And by the way as well as bodies under the rubble people writing about men missing should ask the Israelis exactly how many bodies of men they have taken back to Israel to stick in freezers or their cemeteries of numbers. We simply don't know how that affects the tallies of men killed. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:COUNTSORT – editors doing basic counting, which is all that is apparently required here to show that this article is bunk, is not "statistical analysis", or original research, or anything like that. It is what it is – just basic counting. And the follow through is just observing a naked contradiction. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If the Tablet article is as terrible as is being claimed here with such fervor, then I imagine there must be quite a body of criticism out there to cite. If there isn't, please stop repetitively quoting yourselves. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is quite a body of contrary evidence out there. Although I still don't know what anyone is trying to cite this source for (a requirement, btw, for posting here) nor can I see anything anyone would want to cite this source for, either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• As numerous people have explained to you, the author is a WP:FRINGE figure in the field of statistics, and the methodology he is applying here is specifically the same fringe methodology he applied elsewhere. "You have to provide something to debunk this specific thing a fringe figure has said!" is a common argument in fringe topics and isn't any more convincing here than it is anywhere else - fringe figures often repeat the same junk science over and over and rarely get an individual rebuttal every time. This is the principle behind WP:PARITY, after all. So if you want to include it, you ought to be trying to demonstrate secondary WP:RS coverage of it yourself - if your argument is that anything published in Tablet is automatically reliable and due, regardless of context, I'd have to disagree. Statistics is a rigorous scientific field and claims made in that context require WP:BESTSOURCES; a cultural magazine isn't a good source for claims about statistical inferences (as can be seen from the fact that they credulously published this nonsense by a fringe figure.) Beyond that the general principle of WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies - when you have exceptional claims that only appear in a single low-quality source, the conclusion isn't "nobody has debunked this, so it should be included", the conclusion is "given how shocking this is, the fact that it doesn't have higher-quality coverage means it's likely bunk and we can't include it." Given how shocking and WP:EXCEPTIONAL his claims are, if they are accurate, he'll probably get them published in a peer-reviewed journal sometime soon, and they'll get proper coverage from higher-quality secondary sources that can analyze the context and tell us if he's actually got something right this time; once that higher-quality or secondary coverage appears we could always revisit the question. But this source alone isn't enough to use for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. Much appreciated. If I ever encounter an article by Michael E. Mann I'll keep that in mind. The article in question is by Abraham Wyner,Professor of Statistics and Data Science at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oh you deleted "Michael E. Mann." [12]. How nice. Maybe you should have crossed it out. Anyway, I'm glad we cleared up that point. The article is not by Michael Mann but your opinion is the same. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's generally considered perfectly fine to edit your comment including deleting stuff without strikthrough provided not much time has passed and no one had replied. Both of these applied here, and indeed the total time of under 4 minutes [13] is likely on the low side for edits. It's unfortunate you happened to see the earlier version in the 4 minutes between initial posting and correction, but ultimately if you are hit with edit conflicts you need to either deal with them, or accept your comment might be outdated. And it makes sense that there was zero need for Aquillion to modify anything about their opinion since I think we can be sure they weren't meaning to refer to Michael E. Mann who is not a fringe figure. I don't know how that happened, but I guess either a brain fade when typing out the name, or maybe they initially referred to Abraham Wyner failed attempt to dispute Michael E. Mann's worked but then removed this and made a mistake when editing. If I say 'The history of the UK is full of terrible things. Look at their extreme institutionalisation of slavery to the extent that their constitution had a provision to count slaves as three-fifths of a person and ending it resulted in civil war. Look at how even after ending slavery they continued to treat people unequally based mostly on skin colour, including denying the vote and provisioning different facilities which were supposedly separate but equal, but were far from equal. Look at how they often meddle in other countries for their own benefit with great cost to these other countries' then later change that to the US, I don't need to reassess what I wrote since I was always thinking of the US as shown by most of what I said, the fact that the last part could also apply to the UK not withstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I'd be very careful about doing anything like that in an article. But yes there is no reason for us to act stupid in a talk page. NadVolum (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Upon further review I'm going to be neutral on the climate change issue, so I have struck part of the comment above. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• All else aside, it's clearly an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim about statistical inference which isn't suitable to be cited to a single non-academic study by a fringe figure, published in a magazine with no background on the topic whatsoever. Not usable for anything and shouldn't be cited anywhere. --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Director of Undergraduate Program in Statistics and Data Science at Wharton and he's a "fringe figure"? [14] Someone better tell Wharton. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why should they care? He hasn't made a major thing of it (if you disregard the $100,000 he got for that court case) and it is practically a requirement for Republicans. Besides he is tenured. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is possible for someone to hold fringe views and still be a professor, especially if they're not actually teaching their fringe views in class. But either way, I feel like your question has been answered exhaustively by many people - that piece is simply not usable. As I said above, its claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the piece itself is a WP:PRIMARY source for them; despite the shocking nature of his statistical claims, the author has so far declined to present them to peer-review or to otherwise publish them at a source actually qualified to evaluate them. If there's validity to them, and they're as significant as you seem to believe they are, they should eventually get substantial secondary coverage elsewhere, so you can just wait until that appears. But right now, one piece of junk data science inexplicably published in a culture magazine obviously isn't enough for something so shocking. Even if it were academically published, which is is not, WP:RS warns us to be cautious about single studies like this, which are often not borne out later on. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with others here that the claim made in this article appears to be WP:FRINGE (in the sense that its claims are not widely supported by reliable sources). I hardly think a single story in a magazine passes WP:EXCEPTIONAL that would warrant inclusion of a claim like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Very reliable and mainstream. Tablet is a reputable magazine, Abraham Wyner is tenured at an Ivy League university and his works are cited by thousands of others. An expert commenting on his own field, unlike editors here. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you know what the qualifications of other editors are? Anyway one can apply the duck test to the article, have a look for what Zero says above after 'Fringe, highly unreliable'. This noticboard is allowed to use some common sense in its assessments, in fact that's about its main purpose. NadVolum (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Wyner's 2011 hockey stick take-down attempt also encountered trouble on contact with scrutiny and practical data issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Tablet is definitely not mainstream either. nableezy - 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And we have WSJ article discussing and referring to Wyner's article: What’s Behind the Propaganda War Against Israel - WSJ . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

An opinion on the opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinion piece with a clear position. Calls it "intriguing" :) Got that right. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If there's one thing I don't trust about the WSJ, it is using their opinion articles for facts. starship.paint (RUN) 09:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Edelman

I'm currently trying to improve the page for Joseph Edelman and another editor reverted my edit saying it is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. This is a university website placing information on charity about all contributors, not just one person. I'm looking to verify if this source can be used or shall I search for more eligible source here? The text I want to add:

In 2015, Edelman donated $470,000 to UC San Diego for the Advancing College Mental Health (ACMH) pilot program, aimed at supporting undergraduates pursuing mental health professions.

. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What I am noting is that the recipient of a large donation is blatantly not a third-party source, and thus does not show inclusion is due. (The editor who inserted that has also been inserting other claims of donation to the page based on a WP:PRIMARY source, the Edelman Foundation's tax filings.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not even sure the page belongs in Wikipedia. I have a suspicion that its purpose is to promote supposed good works by this person, and make sure the world knows about them. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK, I improved the page per suggestion of the Wikipedia founder @Jimmy Wales following our conversation on his talk page. He suggested to expand the page, so let's invite him here as well. If the page is not notable and should be deleted, anyone is welcome to nominate it for deletion and reach the consensus among the editors. By the way, we are discussing a particular source on this Noticeboard, so why don't you take the issue of deletion somewhere else? I'm looking for help related to a particular source here. Llama Tierna (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nat Gertler has stated a clear objection; do you understand the objection. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

+972 magazine

At Weaponization of antisemitism, the opening sentence of the lead is:

The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the making of false charges of antisemitism for political purposes.

Is + 972Mag reliable in support of the sentence (cite 4)? The most recent substantive discussion of 972Mag was in 2015 here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If this was an RfC, 972 would be a 2 (probably). They have a significant left-wing bias and can be rather ‚anti-Israel‘, so I would recommend all the grains of salt and clearly attribute opinions, specifically on Judaism, Israel (and Israeli orgs) and Antisemitism.

That being said, they do decent reporting, including investigative, and do provide value, so many uses are acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this specific use case, I would probably refrain from using them, as they have some rather niche/fringe views, particularly in regards to the IHRA definition. FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is not being used in reference to IHRA and the cited quote does not mention IHRA either. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has gone far off topic, focus on the source itself. The Kip 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, but a disagreement with the most main-stream definition of antisemitism is less than ideal when discussing if antisemitism is weaponised; in addition, there are actual cases where IHRA and other definitions are genuinely being weaponised, but I’m not confident that 972 could recognise them due to their own highly polarised views. FortunateSons (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The IHRA is a political body, not an academic one. Calling its definition the most main-stream definition of antisemitism absent peer-reviewed backing is misleading. Our article on its Working definition of antisemitism only uses the word "mainstream" in the following context: mainstream academic and legal opinion was overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition. The source attached to that claim isn't ideal, but the overall content of the Criticism section is well-backed by peer-reviewed publications and is rather damning with respect to the IHRA definition. If anything, criticism of the IHRA definition is a sign of aligning with the dominant position in academic RS, not a sign of a marginal view. signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC) IHRA is broadly adopted by around 30 countries and is (at least partially) used by major organisations and companies. While there are competing definitions, IHRA is what is most commonly used in practice (to the best of my knowledge). Additionally, that article has a wide range of issues, but that is a problem for another day. FortunateSons (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Political decisions by political bodies are not scholarship and not what we base our articles on. nableezy - 15:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) No, but political decisions are a strong indication for being „the most main-stream definition of antisemitism“, no? FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC) No, it's not. Political bodies frequently make statements because they think that the message will win them votes, not because they think it's true or best. As an example, some years ago, one of the politically minded health groups put out a definition of Cancer survivor that included friends and family members. Why? It's popular with family members to say "When Grandma had cancer, we all had cancer together", and they wanted support from the voters whose loved ones had cancer. It wasn't because they thought that the cancer was spread across a whole family's worth of bodies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Here is an RS claiming it to be the most wide-spread: https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-728773 FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The Jerusalem Post, a paper with a consistent partisan slant, is a considerably lower quality source than scholarship, especially for something that is not news. And it is reporting on its adoption by political bodies, not what scholarship has to say about it. nableezy - 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I disagree on your assessment of JP, but that’s also simply not the question at hand. FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The question at hand is if 972 is reliable for this material, and despite you not liking their views they are. nableezy - 15:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The messages you are responding to are about a specific, only tangentially related claim about which definition is most main stream, which is IHRA. FortunateSons (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Again, mainstream here does not mean adopted by political bodies, when academic sources are largely critical of something it is not "most mainstream". You can keep trying to make it so that your preferred views are the ones on which everything is judged, but that isnt how it works. nableezy - 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you here; while I believe that some of the other definitions definitely have merit, IHRA is simply the most broadly adopted one. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The political bodies that have adopted that definition absolutely are not "most people", and there is no evidence that most people have accepted the IHRA definition. nableezy - 16:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC) So which definition do you think has broader or comparable acceptance? FortunateSons (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Let's stay on topic @FortunateSons, @Nableezy. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) If I had intended to say academic consensus, I would have gone with that, but I haven’t (for good reason, as there is no consensus for any version.) FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Good thing this is an educational project. Where we care more about an academic viewpoint over a political one. Im going to stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles. nableezy - 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC) That's true, but I wouldn't use the word mainstream to describe academic consensus. The mainstream belief is that ghosts exist. The academic consensus is that they don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Here is a second (more left-wing) source, which refers to IHRA as „A leading definition of antisemitism“ (in the headline and critically). FortunateSons (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC) WP:HEADLINES and "a leading" is not "the most mainstream". This isnt Talk:Working definition of antisemitism. nableezy - 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Nobody is forcing you to engage with my response to another users comment. I’m just giving them the opportunity to engage with their criticism of my point, and responding to them and not you to allow you to stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles. FortunateSons (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This does appear to be a diversion from the topic at hand, so enough already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Solid source, attribution at most. nableezy - 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• A good source, a fair amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS without qualification in peer-reviewed literature: Journal of Genocide Research, California Western International Law Journal, Harvard Law Review (this was just the first page of Scholar results for "972 mag" -972mag.org, and ignoring a few MA theses that also popped up). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Use by others is a good way to measure reliability. Seeing these citations in peer-reviewed academic periodicals, I'm optimistic about this magazine's reliability. At this time, I support a WP:GREL assessment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. 972's anti-Israel slant means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism. Better sources should be used. Zanahary (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal beef. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel", you dont get to say that only Zionist sources are allowed here. nableezy - 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Nableezy, I never said that. Dial back please. Zanahary (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC) You said that because of a supposed anti-Israel slant it should not be used in these topics. That is, again, precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel". And, again, you dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used. NPOV does not mean censoring viewpoints one does not like, and reliability has nothing to do with bias. Even if the completely unsupported notion that this source is biased was true. nableezy - 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) You dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used I never said this. Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, you just said the obverse, that supposed "anti-Israel" sources may not be used. nableezy - 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I'll let the remaining misunderstanding sit, since it looks like you're done accusing me of "demanding" that "only Zionist sources are allowed here". To any editors reading this thread who would like some clarity on my view: I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed. Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This is not an "opinion editorial", it is by Mairav Zonszein, somebody who has written at Just Security, Jewish Currents, The Nation, Haaretz, New York Review of Books, Time, and I can keep going. 972 is a professional news and analysis site run by professional journalists and editors, and no it does not have "an anti-Israel bias", an assertion made with 0 supporting evidence. nableezy - 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The piece's authorship has no bearing on whether or not it is an op-ed. You should go hassle FortunateSons for asserting exactly what I said without links to back his view up. Or you could AGF, explain your view, and ask for substantiation of views that aren't yours. I'm out of patience for your weird, unprovoked aggression, though. Zanahary (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Responding to bogus assertions made without evidence and showing they are bogus and lack evidence is not weird, unprovoked aggression, and claiming bias has anything to do with reliability shows a failure to understand WP:RS at its most basic level. nableezy - 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC) You didn’t show anything to be bogus. You pointed out that I hadn’t backed up my evaluation of the source. A source’s bias does pertain to how it ought to be used. But if you so strongly disagree, you’re sure of your interpretation of my comments, and you have competence concerns, go ahead and raise them. Zanahary (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Let's stay on topic @Zanahary, @Nableezy. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will grant to nableezy that even if saying that a periodical being critical of the state of Israel means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism isn't the exact same as saying only Zionist sources are allowed, it's very close to saying that. If editors avoid sources that criticize the state of Israel, doesn't that end up with the remaining 'usable' sources being those which are not critical of the state of Israel—those which either implicitly are uncritical of or which explicitly favor elements of Zionism. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Clarified above: "I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed."

  I also didn't say "sources that criticize the state of Israel"—that's every good source—I said that +972 has an anti-Israel bias. Zanahary (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Zanahary - Could you please briefly and concisely explain why you've stated that 972 has an anti-Israel slant or bias that affects its reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  The site's short "About" section says that it specifically "spotlights the people and communities working to oppose occupation and apartheid", which are charges pertinent to Israel and shows that it is openly a source with an agenda to criticize particular aspects of Israel's policies (as opposed to thorough coverage of the Israel-Palestine region, with no stated aim to "spotlight" any one opposition cause). In 2021, the outlet published an editorial criticizing the labeling of Hamas as a terrorist group. I don't even think 972 would deny that they have a bias, considering their stated advocacy aims in their mission statement. Thus, I think that statements of fact in this article should be sourced to better outlets (and also, not to opinion pieces like this one in question). Zanahary (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  These supposed biases you've pointed out here (is "opposing occupation and apartheid" anti-Israel bias?) have no bearing whatsoever on the factual reliability of the publication. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I've stated several times, my comment pertains to the use of a 972 opinion piece as a source for a statement of facts/the definition of a term or concept. I've explained my position on that matter clearly. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds to me like you have conflated "Israel itself" with "a set of policies", as if anyone opposing the current policies is automatically opposing the country itself. However, perhaps they see their view as so pro-Israel that they want their country to be free of apartheid and occupation.

  Imagine someone saying that a source is "opposing racism" and that means they have "an anti-American bias", because there is so much racism in America's history and societal structure. Another person would say "Of course they oppose racism. Americans believe that All men are created equal. Opposing racism is a pro-American position." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that analogy applies here. It’s more like if an outlet that only writes about Israel and Palestine said that they’re committed to opposing a culture of martyrdom and religious repression of women’s rights. It’s not ambiguous which of the two nations they make it their mission to criticize. Zanahary (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing's comment demonstrates that "opposing occupation and apartheid" can be labelled as either anti-Israel or pro-Israel depending on who is doing the labelling. It's not a useful way to talk about sources in the context of reliability. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  And I think it would be clear that an opinion piece published by that outlet would not be an appropriate source to define and establish a phenomenon of bad-faith rhetorical charges of Islamophobia or racism or anything similar. Zanahary (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing in the piece to indicate it is opinion. nableezy - 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone curious to see if this is an opinion piece or a piece of news should go ahead and read it. Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's analysis (not opinion) by a resident editor, so higher than news. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the article gives the meaning of the title phrase as a way of defining the article topic. The question of source bias would matter if there was any other definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" out there, in which case we would need to present the alternatives or change the title. But there isn't. Even if the consensus was that this phenomenon doesn't exist, it wouldn't make a difference as we have plenty of articles on non-existent phenomena. Here we have an article on the topic that usefully provides the definition. Some of the article consists of opinion about the phenomenon, and we can consider whether those opinions should be attributed if they are cited in the article body. But for the definition itself, which is all that the lead sentence requires, it is a perfectly fine source. Zero^talk 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bias of the magazine aside, while the piece reads a bit like an op-ed I don’t see why it’s unusable as a source here. Would probably shy away from its reporting on the conflict, though. The Kip 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• 972 is mostly opinions and carries the voices of the Israeli extreme left. It is a very small website, with little editorial oversight, and doesn't have a favourable reputation. Occasionally it hosts experts who belong to the same extreme left groups who post worthy content that is quoted by others, but other than that it is mostly garbage. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Mostly garbage"? Really?

  Also can I ask how you came upon this discussion?

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually it is not small and has a large editorial board of experienced journalists. It has a bad reputation among the extreme right, but so do most reliable sources. Zero^talk 08:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  A range of sources are actually needed for balance, so if you're saying that it represents a portion of Israeli society that is otherwise marginalised, that's a great thing and a point in its favour. Not sure what "extreme left" means, but I assume it isn't militant communist. If we are talking Israeli politics, and we just mean to the extreme left of the extreme right, well then that just gets you back to the center, so presumably they're just ordinary chaps that oppose occupation, apartheid, genocide etc., i.e. normal positions that anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum in most countries would get behind. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's article +972 Magazine in the section on Reception has "The same year, Israel's right-wing NGO Monitor accused +972 of being antisemitic for applying the apartheid analogy regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians", which I think is a pretty straightforward example of what weaponizing antisemitism as described in the magazine's article is about! The author is well respected journalist and can be considered an expert in the field. I can see no problem with use for the definition though other parts of the article would need attribution. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  For interest, that was added by an NGO Monitor employee here, and given that 21% of the edits to that page are by dishonest people that are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion etc. the article may not exactly be a high quality source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't agreeing with NGO Monitor! Perhaps they have also been at Self-hating Jew which seems to be used quite often against Jews who criticize an action of the Israeli gvernment - but that isn't mentioned in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• The reliability is not the problem here. I'm 100% sure that no one's words have been misrepresented in the article. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV: whether this particular view is sufficiently widespread to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not clear that the views in source even factor into the page at this point. The source is simply used as one of four for a very generic, straightforward and common sense definition. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  The implicit POV is that this is a notable phenomenon. Zanahary (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Bring it to the NPOV noticeboard, this is RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  The source's POV is pertinent to their reliability for specific subject areas. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Really not how NPOV works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Can’t argue with that! Zanahary (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  After that is done, it can join the referral to NOR noticeboard here, which also went nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• They're a solid outlet, and they've become surprisingly well-established when it comes to WP:UBO. I've seen them cited by French newspapers of record like Le Monde (mainstream) and Liberation (centre-left). And in The Guardian (which also publishes some of their reporters). Same with WaPo and NPR in the US. There was good praise in usually-conservative magazine Tablet here, which covers all the key points we'd care about, from the previous professional journalistic experience of their contributors, to the quality of their journalism: the magazine’s reported pieces—roughly half of its content—adhere to sound journalistic practices of news gathering and unbiased reporting (for the opinion pieces, go ahead and attribute them, as per usual). That TabletMag piece also includes an anecdote of +972 delivering an in-depth investigation that contradicted a report by a mainstream outlet, and +972's reporting then getting endorsed by the rest of Israeli media. But I'm just scratching the surface here. Become familiar with them and you'll see they provide a lot of substantive high-quality original reporting. Solidly GUNREL generally-reliable territory. DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) edited 11:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  You've said GUNREL but presumably meant GREL. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Right - tired. DFlhb (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's a very solid source in general imho, generally reliable. This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons. Essentially, in this instance it's an opinion piece in a reliable source being used as a primary source for the existence of an opinion, in an article about an opinion, which suggests to me the article is never going to be a good article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think if the article were rewritten to emphasize the best source of Waxman et al rather than a scan of opinion pieces for a common charge, it would be much improved. Zanahary (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  What has that to do with the topic here? Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons.

  responding to this. Zanahary (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Both at the wrong board, then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good source, serious reporting and referenced in many other works by Reliable Sources (as enumerated above).  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Using Decider / Decider.com for interviews and reviews

I know Decider is owned by the New York Post, which is unreliable. The website also seems tabloid-y. However, I'm planning to use these two sources for my article: an interview and a review. Both are authored by established journalists (the about pages for the authors on Decider sucks, but with a quick Google search you can see their portfolio). I just want to make sure before using these sources that they are okay. Spinixster (chat!) 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've started a request for comment at #RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (and Decider) to find an answer to this question. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

zvukibukvy.ru

Can anyone figure out who publishes this site. Kelly The Angel (talk · contribs) added it and I replaced it, but I am not fully happy with the replacement as well. (The author only gives her first name so it seems blogish.) zvukibukvy.ru has no ads, but the contact page allows sending messages to the "editors". So how do they pay these editors? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

[15], [16]

Hello @Richard-of-Earth. How do you feel about these links being used as sources? Kelly The Angel (Talk to me) 07:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Howdy @Kelly The Angel:. The first, reverso.net, is AI-generated that obscures the true source. The second, academic.ru, seems usable as it cites it sources. I found this and have added it to the article. That should cover it. I still am interested in who is behind zvukibukvy.ru. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear, there is zero information about the owners on the website. There are many published dictionaries of Russian slang, and academic.ru helpfully references them, so I'd prefer to use that source. Alaexis_¿question? 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

naval-encyclopedia.com

This source appears to be a self published site - about page here, and as an editor is insisting in removal of any reliable sources tags (i.e. [17], I've brought the source here to review whether or not it is a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's not reliable and I don't see this as a close call. It's self-published and the owner makes no claim to be an expert (WP:SPS). Some articles (like the linked one) have good references, but many don't, and some point back at Wikipedia, creating a potential WP:CIRC problem. If an article on an unreliable self-published site uses good sources, then cite those sources. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your assessment is on-point, its not a reliable source. Note sister sites tanks-encyclopedia.com, truck-encyclopedia.com, and plane-encyclopedia.com. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Is donsmaps.com a reliable source for Las Caldas cave?

Source[18]. I'm also concerned that the 3rd source, [19] goes to 3 papers none of them with that name. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable. The homepage of Don's Maps states: "I live in New South Wales, Australia, and I am a retired high school mathematics/science teacher. The Donsmaps site is totally independent of any other influence. I work on it for my own pleasure, and finance it myself." It's a neat site, but it is self-published by a non-expert and not usable for factual claims in the Las Caldas cave article. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

Are Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publications (e.g., Mormon Studies Review, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies) reliable sources for statements in Wikivoice? Are their publications in WP:PARITY with publications by academic publishers (like Routledge, T&F, etc.)?

FARMS publications are currently used in, e.g. Mormonism, Book of Mormon, origin of the Book of Mormon, among others, either for statements in Wikivoice or in parity with other sources (in the sense of, "some say X, others say Y," with a FARMS publication being the Y).

I could not find FARMS discussed directly in the archives, but there were prior related discussions that mentioned its publications last month and in 2018. I have previously asked about religious-affiliated publishers in 2022, and the consensus in that discussion (my reading) is that a publisher is not unreliable merely because it has a religious affiliation. This question, though, is asking about a specific publisher and not about religious publishers or apologetics publishers in general.

My opinion: FARMS is Mormon apologetics, and to quote the Wikipedia article about them, "While allowing some degree of academic freedom to its scholars, FARMS was committed to the conclusion that LDS scriptures are authentic, historical texts written by prophets of God." For this reason, I think its publications should not be used for statements in Wikivoice, and should not be in WP:PARITY with traditional mainstream academic publications (like those published by Routledge, T&F, etc.).

I've advertised this on the talk pages of the three articles linked above, at WT:LDS, and at an ongoing related discussion at WP:FTN. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Levivich (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Routledge publishes anybody and everybody — I might as well be inclined to say yes (i.e. it is good to have university presses as yardstick). In any case, Mormon Studies Review is currently published by the University of Illinois Press — with no connection to FARMS — and is far from a Mormon-apolegetic journal; at the same time, it undeniably used to be one even a decade ago but had many gems of articles. In contrast, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is probably guttable; there was a huge fracas when UoIP semi-acquired it and from the looks of it, had (has?) a terrible reputation. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The University of Illinois Press maintains a connection with the Maxwell Institute which FARMS was absorbed into in 2013. I don't believe that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies was "semi-acquired" by UoIP, it appears to be "published on behalf of" the Maxwell Institute which is a commercial relationship (that would mean that the Maxwell Institute is paying the UoIP to publish it and UoIP is adding no academic or professional endorsement to the content). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that Mormon Studies Review — as of today — has no link with FARMS/Maxwell Institute; can you provide evidence to the contrary? As to JBMS, I am unsure; all I recall is that many were up in arms against whatever agreement UoIP was entering into (with FARMS/Maxwell) for this journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Funding for publishing JBMS appears to come from the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies which is a constituent body of the Maxwell Institute [20]. If UoIP has a link then whatever UoIP publishes does as well. I'm not saying its a major one, but its not no link or no connection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note that for much of the period in question FARMS is just part of the Maxwell Institute (which doesn't appear to be any more reliable it must be said). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• In general I would say unreliable, but as TrangaBellam has pointed out there are exceptions, for example I would say that Mormon Studies Review post 2020 or so is a pretty mainstream reliable source but by then any connection to FARMS/Maxwell is tangential. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is not a reliable source either when self published or when published on Maxwell's behalf by another press. I share TangaBellam's desire to get in a cheap shot at Routledge but in general I would say no, they are not on parity with publications by academic publishers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable and undue. Recent editions of MSR are excluded. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unreliable: FARMS, like FAIR and BYU's Maxwell Institute, is an LDS apologetics mill, and is unreliable for neutral, scholarly articles, and has a strong conflict of interest (WP:COI). It's staffed and funded by people (if not the church itself) extremely defensive of an institution (the LDS Church) with a long history of suppressing factual publications about its history (e.g. September Six). It's not interested in true scholarship so much as trying to make a controversial organization look good. I wish this were not the case but here we are. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unreliable: I think it is ok to use for a specific viewpoint within the LDS church, but absolutely not for archeological information or in Wikivoice. I wanted to point out that WP:LDS/RS includes a list of sources related to the Latter Day Saint movement. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should be added to this list. Epachamo (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for mentioning LDS/RS. I see Journal of the Book of Mormon Studies is listed as green, as a UIP publication, no mention of FARMS. That should probably be updated with the result of this discussion as well. Levivich (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable and not independent of subject They seem to be closely affiliated with the LDS Church. While I haven’t closely examined their articles, it seems to be an organ of theologically grounded conformism rather than serious independent scholarship. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject specific reliable sources

Dear RSN experts:

In part 382 of the current wikisaga that started earlier this week, I have been considering this page of reliable sources curated by a WikiProject. I am a little worried that this is forming something like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but I'm also sensitive to the fact that this more general page may be overloaded and so separating discussions to WikiProjects may be appropriate. Here, it seems a lot of the consensus formed among what I judge to be to small a cadre of editors, but maybe that can be fixed with RfCs and the like. Or, maybe this could be incorporated wholesale (if you all agree) into WP:RSPS. Or maybe we send it to deletion? I don't know, I'm just hoping to get some guidance for those who may know about this sort of thing better than I, because WikiProject-specific guidelines like this are a new one for me. Whaddya think?

jps (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the page you are referring to [21]. It of interest to that particular WikiProject. Edits by its members still need to conform to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. I think there are bigger fish to fry, such as the state of a number of LDS articles. Personally, I don't see the need to worry about this. Also, I think WikiProject guidelines are not so uncommon. Check out WikiProject Books guidance for writing non-fiction book articles here. There is general guidance for WikiProject Book members here. There is guidance for members at WikiProject Physics here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

During recent extensive discussions with a few LDS project members, I think the page you are referring to was mentioned once. I don't see this being used to preempt Wikipedia site-wide policies and guidelines. No one is pointing to this page as some kind of authority. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

One more example: WikiProject Medicine also has guidance for members/editors: here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I was pointed to it a few times by more than one person as though it represented authoritative consensus. My concern is not with "guidance". My concern is strictly about there being an entirely separate page of sources with claims that the reliability had been determined, but it seems the discussion did not happen here. jps (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Another example is WP:KO/RS, mentioned in a section above. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A WikiProject source list like that only represents "consensus" among a niche group of editors who are interested and involved enough in a certain topic to join said WikiProject. In this particular case, it is quite possible (even likely) that most of the editors who built that list and participated in the pertinent WikiProject discussions are personally members of that religious movement, which would create a systemic bias. So take it with a grain of salt, and feel free to raise any sources here that have an assessment you question or disagree with, to gain broader community input. Left guide (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we reassess all those sources? Like, I'm not sure about any of them. The Association for Mormon Letters being listed as "reliable" is pretty concerning given the current arbcom case and discussions about that specific organization being embroiled in a COI scandal at AN/I. jps (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Summoned from jps's post on the wikiproject. Seven of the sources listed there have links to archived discussions at this noticeboard, so I doubt those represent a local consensus, and rehashing here might not be the best use of time. I see that the obviously problematic sources (apologetic, self-published, and primary sources with questionable accuracy) are marked red. Sources that may not be completely independent are marked yellow with "additional considerations" like "should only be used to demonstrate an official viewpoint of the LDS Church". Those notes seem reasonable to me. The green ones mostly look reasonable too. Deseret News is apparently the most controversial and has been discussed here 4 times. The notes in the description say, "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable, however, it is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church, so it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed.". Based on the "description" notes alone, I might switch Journal of Book of Mormon Studies to yellow ("additional considerations") due to the additional considerations listed there. It might be a good idea to discuss Association for Mormon Letters because of the Arbcom case, but it would be unfortunate if that discussion became a drama outlet for pent up frustration with wiki-politics or whatever. ~Awilley (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In theory, providing a list of subject-specific RSes is one of the most helpful things a WikiProject can do. In theory. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• In general I find WikiProject subject-specific source lists to be helpful, they come with some downsides but those downsides are I think largely reflective of the downsides of WikiProjects in general (NPOV, OWN, fan club, etc) rather than limited to these lists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Perhaps we should link back from WP:RSPS then so that people know about these other lists? WP:KO/RS is way more extensive than even the one I brought. jps (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a partial list at WP:RSP § Topic-specific pages, which can certainly be expanded, and the category Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources. These topic-specific lists are useful for indexing source discussions for sources that do not meet WP:RSPCRITERIA and source discussions that take place outside of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like many of the sources there either have never been discussed, or that no such discussions are linked…

RSP itself, after all, is just a summary of hundreds to thousands of previous discussions and RfCs, mostly here at RSN.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

March 14

Can anyone verify if this [22] source is reliable? And may I use it for citing? A user has recently removed the citations for using this source by saying that "the author is not even a historian" [23][24] although according to the back of the cover of the book, at "About the author" section, it states that he's a historian. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't find evidence that Venkatesh Rangan is or isn't a historian. That said, the book is published via Notion Press, an Indian self-publishing company, which calls the credibility of the book into question. Cortador (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the book is published by Subbu Publications [25], and can anyone (who has more expertise in verifying Indian books) give his conclusions here? That is whether I can use it for citing in Wikipedia pages? Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd trust any "myth-busting book" unless it's widely cited by reputable historians. Seems like a WP:REDFLAG if the publisher needs to say it.... Woodroar (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A publisher publishing [26] isn’t a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am still perplexed because here in the first paragraph it mentions : [27]

Venkatesh is a senior finance professional working in Mumbai with a deep and passionate interest in Indian history. Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.

And here : [28]

About the Author
Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.

Also here : [29]

About the author (2022)
Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.

Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

All of those author bios were provided by the author or publisher. Self-publishers like Notion Press often use a bio provided by the author or write something favorable and flattering. In either case, we can't use it. To prove the author's credentials, we need to see what reliable, secondary/independent sources say about Venkatesh Rangan. Unfortunately, I looked and couldn't find much at all—which suggests that he isn't a source we should cite on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why I wasn't pinged (or even asked to elaborate before posting this here), considering I am the said user who removed it. Venkatesh is a senior finance professional, not even a historian. What he is doing is essentially a hobby, he has no credentials. This is like me writing a book and others citing it. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am still perplexed because in that paragraph itself it mentions : [30]

Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.

And here : [31]

About the Author
Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.

Also here : [32]

Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.

Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jonharojjashi, please stop posting the same or similar messages. This is your third time posting what is effectively the same comment. Woodroar (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of a rule as such, and I don't remember posting the same or similar reply 3 times. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Venkatesh could read all the books in the world, still does not change that he is not WP:RS per the comments that have been presented to you. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi, Venkatesh Rangan praising his own work is not a reliable source. And that is what you have been repeatedly quoting. You can't use his writings as sources on Wikipedia. I hope that's finally clear now. Bishonen | tålk 21:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC).

Where do the RfC options come from? Who decided these were the official four? They're bad

Every time there's an RfC on here, the person opening it presents four options, which are invariably these:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

This seems extremely sub-optimal to me. First of all, they're all stupid: the first one is "always good" and the others are "always bad". We can quibble over definitions, but the fact of the matter is that one of these is literally shaded green and the rest are shaded yellow or red or black. There are countless talk page discussions and noticeboard threads about people removing sources for the reason of them being one of the bad colors, and some even do it with scripts, all the better for not having to bother with evaluating them individually.

Most importantly, there's no option that preserves the original status of the source: we are forced to either declare it good or declare it bad. There's no option given for "editors are expected to use their heads and evaluate whether source is reliable when they are citing it", which is bizarre, because this is the default for every source in existence. We don't operate on a whitelist basis! We expect editors who write content to be capable of looking into a publisher and seeing whether it is credible. This is how the sourcing guidelines work: unless somebody opens a RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard, apparently, then it's assigned a color and you aren't allowed to do this.

Some might argue that this is the same as "Option 2", but this is clearly not true; in innumerable discussions where people suggest "Option 2"ing a website, they are suggesting to "downgrade" it from Option 1. Everyone has seen discussions on talk pages where somebody says that a source is yellow and we should try to use a green one instead.

Why are these the four options? Can't we just have an Option 5: follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines? jp×g🗯️ 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the main problem is with this interpretation: "the others are "always bad"". To me, it is clear that Option 2 is not "always bad", and it is more informative than "follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines", since it tells you that there has been a discussion about this particular source, so you are not completely left to your own devices when it comes to figuring out reliability (see WP:MREL).

With that said, I have also been noticing that at least some editors claim sources that are not always good are always bad by default. But I would argue that this is mostly their fault, not the system's. So overall, I would prioritize helping editors who are willing to make an effort to understand why it's marked marginally reliable, rather than prioritizing preventing invalid arguments from those who are not willing. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the time, people don't get into disputes over anodyne things that could be sourced to any WP:MREL source - they get into disputes over stuff that's controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, often WP:BLP-sensitive, and so on. Those tend to be things that require higher-quality sourcing, which means that if someone wants to use a MREL source for them they often need to at least give an explanation. MREL sources are used all over Wikipedia without objections; but the specific things that come up in disputes tend to overlap with the situations where they are less than ideal. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but it could also be because those particular WP:MREL sources are always about a controversial topic. The concrete example I've experienced is medical journals that focus on controversial medical areas, such as functional foods. In these cases, I think pretty much all uses of the sources could attract controversy, but that still doesn't mean they are always unreliable, or even that their usage requires special handling, apart from the general applicable guidelines (such as WP:MEDRS for my example). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The four options seem fine to me. If editors are taking an overly reductive approach to interpreting the categories, that’s a behaviour we should discourage. A generally reliable/unreliable source could be unreliable/reliable in a specific context. Another thing we sometimes see is editors trying to bless an opinion as a fact because it is stated in a green source, notably when trying to apply WP:LABELs to subjects. “My green source called him a poopyhead so we need to call him a poopyhead in the first sentence!” Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• We're always supposed to follow sourcing guidelines, so option 5 amounts to "do nothing." And people do sometimes take that position, but it's mostly only reasonable to take when a source hasn't been discussed much (often RFCs here are objected to as premature.) I'd say that if we were going to have a fifth option, it'd probably just be "premature" for that reason, ie. there's no evidence there's actual disputes over the source that an RFC is needed to resolve. Once significant numbers of disputes start coming up, though, I don't think "just follow the guidelines" is useful, because that by definition means that editors can't agree on what the guidelines mean in that case. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Option 1. We should either yellow-list ("caution"), red-list ("don't use in an article"), or black-list ("don't even link to it anywhere") a source, or else do nothing. "Too bad to use" is OK to say, but "generally reliable" is something we should not be declaring about any source. All sources make mistakes, and if we want to rank sources we should do so categorically (like WP:TIERS) not individually. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Generally reliable" should account for the fact that all sources make occasional mistakes. We're not saying "totally reliable". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Even with these four options, there can be made fair exceptions to them, though that would require consensus on the talk page. A source that we list as always good means we should start with that presumption, but if a given article from it is very inconsistent with other sources, then we can say that particular instance is not good. We also can say a source is good in one area but bad in another, or establish periods where it may be good, or establish certain authors may only be good from a source, etc. It's really not four options, but four options with many a la carte variations. — Masem (t) 22:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it generally reliable, as in "usually"? --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 generally means that the sources have good reliability and are usable. It does not mean they are unreliable at all or that they should not be used. Even "generally reliable" sources have additional considerations depending on the context of their usage. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. "Generally" does not mean "always", and "additional considerations apply" obviously doesn't mean "always bad". BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems OP misunderstood what those options actually stand for. Only option 4 is an "always bad" option, and it doesn't apply to all that many sources. Cortador (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is completely untrue that an "Option 2"ed source is equivalent in standing to a source which has no RfC consensus; what I am saying is that we should not have a process which regardless of its outcome is guaranteed to change our official standing on a source.

I am quite aware of "what the options actually stand for". What I'm saying (and indeed, what I wrote two paragraphs to explain in detail in the original post) is that a source being "yellow" -- in actual practice -- means in almost every instance that people will argue for it to be removed when it is used. Typically, in the English language, when something is "downgraded" this means that it has been lowered, or made worse. There are widely-used and officially-recommended scripts that highlight sources according to their color in the RSP table, in which yellow is explicitly denoted as inferior to green (to say nothing of the universally used green-yellow-red color scale).

There should not be a process where, no matter what people say or what their opinions are or what the policy is, anybody who opens a proceeding permanently changes the status of a source across the project; there should be a status quo option in the RfC. jp×g🗯️ 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

While status quo on a source is not always going to be option 2, from the POV of an individual editor it will always fit into one of the options, and so I don't think a "status quo" option makes sense. The whole point of having an RFC is that people disagree about the reliability of the source.

For some sources, status quo is fine: if the New York Times weren't on WP:RSP it would still obviously be a green-level source. But the fact that a source is being brought up for an RFC proves that there is some disagreement about it, so in practice a status quo option in RFCs here would be the same as a no consensus close. There's no other process where we explicitly let people advocate for no consensus and IMO for good reason. Loki (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems untrue? AllMusic, for example, is listed at yellow, and I would wager it's one of the most cited of any source on Wikipedia. Mach61 00:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it varies widely depending on the source and the article it's used for. A yellow-at-RSP will generally be removed on that grounds from a contentious topic article, whereas something like AllMusic might still be widely used with attribution in articles about songs. Salon.com is another example of a widely-used yellow-at-RSP, and I think it's because it's used in pop culture and entertainment articles, but it'll usually get removed from contentious topic articles. (Disclosure: I remove yellow-at-RSP sources from contentious topic articles.) Levivich (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• The original post makes some very good points. When I was a new editor, I wanted such a list. Then as a more experienced editor, I immediately had serious concerns about the categorical judgment about the quality of a publication. Even the best publications like the NYT have items posted of different reliability based on the expertise of the writer(s) and their political or ideological biases. An article originally published in the NYT, could find its way to the AP and to Fox News. That article republished by Fox News does not make it unreliable. I doubt most new (or younger) editors understand this.

Now I have mixed feelings, because when I want to add material to an article, the list helps me figure out which sources are more likely to pass muster. Going through the reliable sources archives to see what people had said about the source in the past is a lot of work and often not that helpful.

Where I strongly agree with JPxG is about these points:

(1) I am quite troubled by scripts that go around deleting sources from articles.

(2) I am even more troubled by blacklists where it is impossible to use a source at all, ever. I do not believe WP:RS has ever justified that, until it showed up in 2020.

(3) I agree with JPxG's description of how if you use a source that does not have the "green light", editors are likely to do exactly what JPxG said: They will try to use it as "proof" that your source is not great, that the content is WP:UNDUE, you should find something better, and any number of ways to try to undermine the use of that source in that article--simply because it didn't have the "green light". Even if they are wrong and *should* instead follow the RS guidelines, it can create an undue burden on the editor trying to say, "No. It's not that simple"--especially if multiple editors misunderstand the limits of the perennial source assessments.

Last, one big problem with the list is that it reinforces the U.S. State Department propaganda that is distributed and echoed throughout U.S. media and media of NATO and other allies. The U.S. and Western media has long been vulnerable to State Department propaganda--as described by Noam Chomsky's propaganda model--yet, the U.S. media seems to only notice the propaganda problem in other countries' reporting, as if it couldn't possibly happen here in "the land of the free" with the 1st Amendment protections. One need only look at coverage of the lead up to 2003 war in Iraq as evidence of media's echoing of Bush's propaganda in favor of the war[33][34] and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs at the U.S.

If the U.S. State Department identifies a source as a "foreign agent" or propaganda, the U.S. media--including "green-lighted" NYT and Guardian--parrots that position. Then Wikipedia editors can point to the NYT's claim that the foreign publication is unreliable propaganda, and Wikipedia will blacklist it. These are exactly the kind of sources that would have been critical of the Iraq war and are likely to be censored here by the blacklists. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the OP's question "Why are these the four options?": They were accepted as header advice in RfC: Header text in 2019. I objected to the closer (Eggishorn) but gave up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The situationality of reliability is a great point, and it's about more than just individual reporters. The fact that a masters' thesis isn't at all usable for media and drama interpretation, but a rushed, insignificant capsule review in Rolling Stone is, is sheer lunacy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

La Teja (Costa Rican newspaper)

I was planning to write an article where one of the main sources would be from lateja.cr. I see that it is used sometimes as a resource for Costa Rican subjects. Can anyone more experienced than me in what constitutes as an RS weigh in? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

La Teja is a national newspaper and seems to be part of other useful sources [35]. What are you planning on using this source for? Ramos1990 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I was planning to write about a sort of micronation that was formed in the 90s. The source is this: [36] @Ramos1990 Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with La Teja. You can also supplement with academic sources if you want. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Jakarta Post (pre-2019)

Is the Jakarta Post (pre-2019) generally reliable for Indonesia-related articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

https://thejakartapost.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sjh (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there an actual editorial dispute on Wikipedia over its reliability? - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No. sjh (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the WP-article, my default assumption is "Probably as good as any (Indonesian) newspaper, context matters." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. jp×g🗯️ 19:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Question @SarahJH07: Why do you specify pre-2019? What happened in 2019 to change things? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • During the early 2020s, the Jakarta Post will delete tons of articles from the 1990s to late 2000s so they might not be accessible unless archived. sjh (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is lifehacker reliable for podcasts

I've cited LifeHacker (lifehacker.com) fairly often when writing articles about podcasts (i.e. CrossBread, Imaginary Advice and Earth Break). I recently started using WP:UPSD and noticed that it flags the source as generally unreliable, which made me want to investigate further. The source isn't listed at RSP yet, however, it looks like it's been discussed a few times here at RSN (i.e. in 2011, 2012, 2020, and 2021). It seems like most of the previous discusses weren't impressed with the source. The website appears to have been aquired by Ziff Davis about a year ago now and has a list of staff and editorial policies (including a corrections policy). The site seems decent to me, but maybe I'm missing something? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM)

The U.S. Agency for Global Media is a U.S. government agency that runs the U.S. external service (Voice of America) and the surrogate services (RFE/RL, Radio y Television Marti, Alhurra), etc. Prior to 2017, these broadcasters were collectively controlled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a semi-independent board. After 2017, the board was abolished and they all now answer to a unitary appointee of the President of the United States (serving as his/her pleasure) and are 100-percent funded by the U.S. Government.
As a reminder:

• An external service reports on the sponsor nation from the sponsor nation's perspective (e.g. the BBC World Service uses British presenters to broadcast information about the UK to other nations).
• A surrogate service reports on a target nation using presenters from the target nation and is designed to act as a "surrogate" for the perceived absence of certain perspective in the target nation's own media (e.g. Russia's RT uses British and American presenters to broadcast information to the UK and USA largely about the UK and USA).

Questions:

1. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS pre-2017?
2. Is the U.S. external service (Voice of America) RS post-2017?
3. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS pre-2017?
4. Are the U.S. surrogate services RS post-2017?

Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I think all four are non-RS but I'm interested in feedback from the community.
  Issues with the functional independence of Alhurra has been lightly touched on in our article on the subject, and we could probably have an entire article just about it. And most of these controversies are pre-2017. Until 1971, RFE/RL was secretly controlled by the CIA [37] - this only stopped after an expose revealed that fact. The ITU and others (e.g. [38], [39]) have said the broadcasts of Radio y Television Marti are designed more to foment subversion in Cuba than disseminate news, and even the U.S.' own audit agency (the GAO) has said it engages in "propaganda". There's a parade of individual examples of serious issues associated with its reporting that are too numerous to mention (e.g. [40]). The U.S. State Department famously ordered VOA to spike an interview with Mullah Omar [41], etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Chetsford: Since Radio Free Asia (RSP entry) and Voice of America (RSP entry) have both had their reliability examined in previous requests for comment in March 2021 and in September 2021, respectively, would you like to make this discussion an RfC? — Newslinger talk 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that may be premature at this point and am mostly trying to get an informal sense as to whether it might be appropriate to treat all of the USAGM brands (either pre or post-2017) as a single evaluative unit for a future RfC. But maybe I'm unnecessarily elongating the process. What do you think? Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think your approach is reasonable and I like how your framing of the questions forces editors to consider aspects of these broadcasters that may be overlooked with a broader "Is X reliable?" question. Personally, I believe these four questions would make an excellent RfC statement (though I'd rephrase them to replace "RS" with something clearer), with the remainder of the text in your 03:11, 17 March 2024 edit positioned underneath. Editors who want to offer separate evaluations for each broadcaster can do so in their responses and the RfC closer should be able to summarize the consensus for each broadcaster separately.

  If the only thing holding you back from launching the RfC is uncertainty on the phrasing, I'd wait for a couple more comments to confirm that the phrasing is appropriate, then I'd move straight to the RfC. The 2021 Voice of America RfC had high participation, so a new RfC would be needed to overturn its results. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Newslinger - that makes total sense. My reticence in treating each of these one-by-one is that they're essentially just different logos on a single organization (not unlike Taco Bell and KFC being two different menus of Yum Brands versus two different companies) with a single controlling mind and editorial staff who seamlessly float between the various brands; ergo I find it hard to believe we might say "X is reliable, while Y is unreliable". In any case, I'll plan to follow your advice and reformat this as an RfC after a few more comments. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Have something changed since 2021 that merits a new evaluation? Or are you merely interested in learning whether the community is prepared to extend the same reasoning that applied to Radio Free Asia/Voice of America in 2021 to more brands under the Agency for Global Media umbrella? But which would those be, in that case? (= please list everything you folded up under "etc") CapnZapp (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that nothing suggests BBC's World Service, which you list above, is considered anything but reliable, despite its UK perspective. (Just checked WP:RS/P and BBC has only one entry and it is green) That is, just the fact alone that Voice of America is a state-sponsored "external service" does not exclude it from being reliable. Of course, many state-sponsored services are thinly veiled propaganda machines that we do not consider reliable, but we don't do that simply because they are "external services". CapnZapp (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt the BBC World Service is a RS, and I've used it frequently as such myself. And, I agree, the mere fact that a media outlet is state sponsored does not make it unreliable. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask if this external/surrogate terminology is widely used? I am embarrassed to say I'm not familiar with it. Do you believe the distinction is important in determining reliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Newslinger, BobFromBrockley and CapnZapp: Based on the feedback I've received from you all, I've drafted what I intend to introduce as an RfC here [42]. Specifically, I've narrowed it to exclude Voice of America. I'd appreciate further feedback, if you're interested in providing any. Chetsford (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Are qualified bias sources reliable?

TamilNet and NESOHR, which have been accepted as qualified pro-rebel sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources have been used as the sole source for many alleged attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan government in an extensive list. I am not challenging the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation classification of the TamilNet and the NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), however asking here if these WP:BIAS/WP:QS can be used as sole source for serious allegations against the Sri Lankan Government? Cossde (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You had said earlier that you will respect the admin's verdict on the vetting of qualified sources in the SL reconciliation project, which can be used with explicit attribution (which they have been). But now you are reopening the same discussions that have already been done to death here and and at the project. You are again re-challenging the admin's verdicts. The above sources were not regarded as questionable sources (WP:QS), but qualified sources. You are conflating two different things (again), even after being told this before: [43]. Oz346 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, my use of the WP:QS tag here was in reference to the apparent conflict of interest these sources have in this article as WP:QS states Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest . As I said before I not challenging SLR classification of the TamilNet and NESOHR as qualified source (pro-rebel), in fact I am basing my argument here on its review and classification. Per NPOV Bias in source states A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. . In which case is it correct to add controversial content with TamilNet or NESOHR as the sole source. In any case both TamilNet and the NESOHR appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources in these cases as well, which questions this practice of using these two sources in this article. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde Qualified sources are subclass of reliable sources as the admin Sebastian explained in this old discussion. The project you linked to states: "Qualified source: A source that may be reliable in certain contexts, but always needs to be used with a qualification (also called “attribution”) such as “pro-rebel”, “state owned” or the name itself." Therefore, they can be used with explicit attribution. Please read the old discussion where a consensus already exists before opening new discussions about the same topics.--- Petextrodon (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Daily Sabah reliable sources?

It was previously discussed but it need 1 more discussion as explained here [[44]]. Daily Sabah is claimed a propaganda outlet for the Turkish ruling AK Party [[45]], spreading fake news [[46]], https://web.archive.org/web/20190408115630/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/19/the-u-s-tried-to-kill-erdogan-says-editor-in-chief-of-turkish-daily/ and atacking other journalists [[47]]. Is Daily Sabah a reliable sources for Wikipedia? Shadow4dark (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah. Do you mean "need 1 more discussion so I can put it on WP:RSP"? I have to say, starting discussions for that purpose doesn't strike me as a necessarily good idea, and I think it goes against the spirit of WP:RSPCRITERIA. Adding stuff to WP:RSP is not a goal in itself, let it grow "naturally".

That said, per previous discussion I don't think it should be used for anything important. I just used it in Yine Bir Gülnihâl, seemed ok-ish to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes but a sources that claims that Turkish President Erdogan will be killed by U.S should be never used on Wikipedia. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per [48], that view is largely in effect, WP:RSP-mention or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Open wiki citation problem

I recently spotted and had to remove a concerning amount of contents that cite self-published sources, particularly Namuwiki, a South Korea-based wiki platform. This is an open wiki that allows anonymous editors and has little-to-no moderation (no requirement for reliable sources, for starters), which should disqualify it under WP:SPS, yet there were over 100 articles that cited it. Most of them were Korea-related topics, but some others were not, including this numerous citations found in List of paratrooper forces and the one for Elsa (Frozen), a good article.

Namuwiki is already listed as "Considered unreliable" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources, but considering how this has spreaded over different parts of Wikipedia, it should be on the radar. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Liveuamap

https://liveuamap.com aggregates social media posts and plots them on a map. It originated during the 2014 events in Ukraine and thereafter became especially well-known for its aggregation of social media content regarding the Syrian civil war, which it used to create a detailed, constantly-updating map of wartime factional control over the country (https://syria.liveuamap.com). You can learn more about this website at the Wikipedia entry for Liveuamap.

I managed to locate two previous RSN discussions involving Liveuamap. An April 2022 discussion recognized that the website is an aggregator which is only as reliable as its own sources. Editors also came to the conclusion that this edit, which cited Liveuamap to determine the control status of a town in Ukraine, violated WP:RS, in part because Liveuamap was itself citing a Telegram Messenger post for that particular piece of information.

While not the main topic of discussion, Liveuamap was mentioned in passing in an April 2017 discussion, where it one editor argued that it was not RS. Another editor mentioned its value as one of the few websites hosting a full, frequently-updated map of the Syrian civil war, but did not try to make the case that it was RS.

The infoboxes of Wikipedia articles on military conflicts often contain maps created by editors on Wikimedia Commons. The question I am posing here relates to a discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war#Infobox map, which has led to a suggestion that the geographic data (i.e. front lines and zones of factional control) from Liveuamap's Syrian map be copied onto a user-generated map on Wikimedia Commons and then used in the Wikipedia article's infobox; the previous map was derived from a Twitter account, and the file was determined unsuitable for Wikipedia by consensus. A supporter of this idea argues that Liveuamap ought to be considered RS when used to draw maps that appear on Wikipedia, due to the fact that Liveuamap has itself been used as a source by reliable news organizations like Al Jazeera and others including BBC and CNN, though I am not personally aware of the latter two having cited it.

Is the geographic data on Liveuamap reliable enough to derive maps that will appear on Wikipedia from it? Thank you for your time. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to use them, that’s for sure. Are you willing to elaborate on their “editorial” process? That part on their wiki page is short and potentially out of date. FortunateSons (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think they have an editorial process. It’s user-generated content, often from anonymous social media posters, being given geolocation metadata. It’s only as reliable as the tweets it aggregates. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

LiveUAmap is nice, but it's often out of date, the information is frequently vague, and the locations are frequently a bit odd. Not necessarily wrong, just odd. I wouldn't consider them a source suitable for wikipedia use. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider liveuamap.com to be unreliable when citing content on Wikipedia. With an exception being made for it when used to cite ongoing conflict maps, in which case it should be reliable. Liveuamap is the only source that maps several conflicts, such as the Syrian civil war and Yemeni civil war with great detail to the extent that which side controls each village. Most news outlets, such as Al Jazeera, have cited liveuamap in the past in when showing maps of the Ukraine war and Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Tasnim News Agency - revisiting its reliability

• tasnimnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is it worth revisiting the reliability of the Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in light of the recent article referenced in the latest WP:SIGNPOST about a related state-backed propaganda and disinformation operation? Amigao (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.

That said, considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be extremely wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think WP:GUNREL is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to WP:PRESSTV. The Kip 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. The Kip 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

2404:3100:1886:ACC4:1:0:743C:5D62 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

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.

---

What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was referenced in a recent WP:SIGNPOST issue in relation a recent Townhall.com opinion piece concerning systematic "disinformation and state propaganda" efforts on Wikipedia. Past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4). - Amigao (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• tasnimnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Survey

• Option 4: per nomination and arguments given by the user "The Kip" in the section above the RfC. "Tasnim News Agency" has been described by various sources as an "IRGC-controlled" outlet that disseminates "state propaganda and conspiracy theories" on behalf of Iranian political fronts affiliated with the IRGC. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per nom and arguments above. State mouthpiece that has published disinformation. Possible reliable source for Iranian gov statements and similar so preference for GUNREL over deprecate, but as more official press agencies exist for those hard to see any loss in deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 -- it's a state disinformation and propaganda outlet, that is occasionally valuable as a self-published primary source about the Iranian government's own actions but typically even then there's a better source. Per the WP:PRESSTV consensus, this should probably be deprecated. It's basically the exact same scenario. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the consensus from WP:PRESSTV, this isn’t far off from being the same source. The Kip 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 as said above, this is a medium for spreading IRI propaganda. JM (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. There are clear instances of misinformation, see the example below about the Medici being Jewish and founding the worldwide usury system ([[49]]). This source is used a lot and while some uses might be okay (Ilam_province#cite_ref-76), a lot of them have to do with various controversial topics (for example Gun politics in the United States) and it's quite likely that their agenda and biases would affect their reporting. Alaexis_¿question? 09:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5 follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines -- although I have seen one or two examples of conspiracy theories on a Tasmin site (e.g. [50]), these appear to be cherry-picked by these two sources for their inflammatory material. However, on careful examination of typical individual articles at Tasmin News Agency (English), as I have done below, I did not see typical reporting that is beyond the pale.
  

The typical political articles (e.g. [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]) are fairly similar to U.S. and Western news, except from an Iranian-focused anti-Western political perspective, rather than the "Iran, the 'under-developed', Axis of evil, who must be sanctioned, who is dangerously close to having the nuclear weapons like we have"-perspective. Although the articles typically lack authors, the bulk of those I reviewed provided sources of the claims they were reporting on. The U.S. and U.K. mainstream media rely on Tasmin for their source of the Iran government opinion (e.g. [56]--a source used by Wikipedia at Iran and U.K. oil tanker seizures), so they clearly believe it is reliable for claims by the government. Why when there is a conflict between Western powers and Iran must the information coming from Iran be filtered through the biases of Western-media, when it is available directly from Iran--the source of the opinion?

As opined I here, I have concerns about RfCs like these designed to blacklist any "state-funded" media that gives an opinion that challenges or differs from the U.S. State Department agenda. And, of course, the state department is happy to try to censor media in Iraq that disagree with them, by focusing only on their worst behavior: [57],[58],[59]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 5 sounds correct to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

This outlet has been mentioned only briefly in the article. Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim, and provide other examples, if you have them? Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - Amigao (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao: The Anti-Defamation League is an advocacy organization. Although, I do understand this RfC which was closed and given the "green-light" at WP:RSP, from my reading of the responses, most editors appropriately said it should be attributed, especially with regard to issues regarding claiming a person or entity is antisemitic. A blog whose title includes "Iran Regime Makes Jews its Bogeyman" and first section is titled "Accusing Jews of Sorcery" does not ring of objective reporting.

Regardless of just how reliable that opinion of what the Iran Regime is doing and their assessment of the Tasnim new articles mentioned in it (which are certainly worth looking at to see if the assessment they are as bad as the article says they are), the question Alaexis asked above, which I also have is: "Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim?" [emphasis added.] Wikipedia is not mentioned in the article at all from my search of the term. I would like to see if any of those outrageous claims lasted for more than a few minutes before being deleted. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I somehow missed the response, thanks to @Amigao.

@David Tornheim, as to relying on ADL, we can sidestep their report and look at the original articles. This one, assuming that Google translate is correct, claims that the Medici were Jewish and devised the current worldwide usury system. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I agree that article in Arabic is serious work of conspiracy. I tried--without success--to find the same article in English (or anything similarly outlandish) at tasnimnew.com/en, with this search or Tasnim News archive search. I reviewed numerous English articles from the site, and I found nothing so outrageous. That one seems to be an outlier. Have you looked at a covid search of the site?

These are some of the articles I came across: [60], [61], [62], this one focuses only on everything negative they could come up with to say about the (U.S.-made) Pfizer vaccine--contrasting sharply with U.S. reporting that tended to focus only on the benefits, [63], [64], [65], [66]. It didn’t seem to be any more or less scientific, objective, or a-political than U.S. mainstream media [67], [68], BBC [69] or an article like this from Iran International. Compare the articles you see in all these mainstream media with those you find on Google scholar: [70], [71], [72]. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Combating Terrorism Center referenced a selection of Tasnim's Covid disinformation here and Polygraph.info referenced Tasnim's false claim that there is a linkage between the Ukrainian military and ISIS. - Amigao (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that any good propaganda mostly contains truth - it wouldn't have worked otherwise.

The problem with "follow the guidelines" approach is that there are bound to be editors who think that "Jews invented Covid" is a valid viewpoint which needs to be added to Wikipedia, and then everyone would have to spend their time arguing with them.

Designating a source as unreliable shifts the responsibility on the editor who uses this source: they need to convince others that it's a perfectly good source for the length of tunnels in Ilam or for the politics of gun ownership in the US (it's used in both articles now). Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest moving this RfC to the same section as the initial live discussion above, as it seems silly to split the conversation? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Kip 06:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The RfC mentions an opinion piece on the Townhall website which referenced Tasnim. I did not find the TownHall article very persuasive. It only mentions Tasnim once, where it says it was used to add "false information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran". However, the Townhall article does not say what false information was added and does not provide a link to the claimed addition so that the claim can be verified. The article is poor in other ways. It makes a number of claims, including about Wikipedia editors and admins, without providing a way of verifying the claims. Two of the writer's claims can be checked by looking at the Wikipedia articles to which he refers. The writer says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Barakat Foundation," details about its connection to the powerful Iranian institution known as the Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order were deleted". The Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order is mentioned eight times on the Barakat Foundation page. The writer also says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Mahsa Amini protests," a Guardian article was used to falsely claim that demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," when the article actually reported on pro-government rallies as a response to the protests". Afaict, we have used The Guardian article correctly in the Mahsa Amini protests article, including its claim that pro-government protesters shouted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 19 February 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.

Encyclopedia of Communication and Information

Hello, I wanted to ask whether the following source fulfills the requirements of reliable sources:

Ruben, Brent D. (2001). "Models Of Communication". Encyclopedia of Communication and Information. Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-02-865386-0.

For the publisher, see Macmillan Reference. For the author, see Brent David Ruben. The article is also available online at [73]. An IP insists that this source is unreliable and keeps removing it from the GA article Models of communication. This is being discussed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump and thanks for taking a look. The source was used to support how the term models of communication is defined. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What specific text is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim removed was Models of communication ... try to provide a simple explanation of the process by highlighting its most basic characteristics and components. As simplified pictures, they only present the aspects that, according to the model's designer, are most central to communcation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Well yes, that's what the source says, closely paraphrased. And given how non-controversial it is, simply explaining what a 'model' is, I can't see how anyone could suggest it isn't reliable. Whether it is actually appropriate to begin the section it is being cited for with such a generalised definition is another question, but not one for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. Do you think it is too closely paraphrased as per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE? This can often be a challenge with definitions since one has to be very careful with one's choice of words. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the argument you’re having is fundamentally about source reliability; I suggest WP:3O instead. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There are various arguments involved in the discussion, including WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:UNCIVIL, and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I used the notice board here to address this one since addressing all of them at once is probably not feasible. I'll see how this develops and I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu

Article: Battle of Michni

Are Bobby Singh Bansal's Remnants of the Sikh Empire and this book published by Autar Singh Sandhu in 1935 reliable?

Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, a title seemingly conferred upon him through his interests as opposed to any educational background or training. His current profession is a city councillor in the UK and he used to be a business student prior to undertaking several projects related to history and film making. Both of his books published thus far are technically self published, his earliest book: The Lions Firanghis: Europeans at the Court of Lahore was published by Coronet House and his other book, Remnants of the Sikh Empire, was published by Hay House. There does not appear to be any in depth scholarly reviews of his work.

Autar Singh Sandhu, as far as I can tell as there is a dearth of any information available about him, published a book about Hari Singh Nalwa in 1935-[74]. That seems to be the only book he authored.

A user is insisting both sources are reliable; at first erroneously claiming Autar Singh Sandhu published a book on the same subject in 1987-[75] and then on the basis that both Bobby Singh Bansal and Autar Singh Sandhu appear in some reliable secondary sources as a citation, though I don't think that counts for much as books often cite a large corpus and not every citation within them is reliable; many primary sources are used as citations as well but we cannot use them as standalone sources in Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents

This is about [76]. My own take is that sources are bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Certainly not enough to affirm the historicity of the pericope. The French source is usable enough, but really only says "this is in the New Testament." The Veracity source scans as a devotional blog to me, with none of the indicia of reliability I would want in a source. That said, my knowledge is obviously incomplete. I will say I am not sure I love the descriptor "myth" here, but I would certainly object to any wording implying that the massacre is somehow historical fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait what. If something's in a painting it's not a myth!? This changes everything. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The First 'source' cited isn't a source at all. Not for anything relevant anyway. Definitely not for whether the 'massacre' actually happened, since it says nothing on that question. The second at least expresses an opinion on the matter, but since it appears to be the opinion of a 'Computer Network Engineer', clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. Both sources are useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Christian Chronicle on the International Churches of Christ

Could I have input on whether The Christian Chronicle would be considered reliable and independent for claims about the International Churches of Christ? This has come up at Talk:International Churches of Christ#WP:RECENT. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

From their website "An international newspaper for Churches of Christ". Does anything more need to be said about independence? TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

According to our article on the ICOC, it and the Churches of Christ split from one another in 1993, and it's the latter that the paper has an association with. However, both the fact that the two groups have a common origin and the fact that the paper is associated with a "rival" (for want of a better word) raise concerns about its objectivity. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Then there's their about page which suggest they have absolutely no editorial policy at all. I don't know how this could be considered reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I right that this is about a tiff between two different religious groups, ICOC and a separate organization called COC? And CC is published by COC (not by ICOC)? In that case it seems like it would be appropriate for noncontroversial statements about COC, but little else. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So the issue at hand is a quote where the churches of Christ (a 1-2million member church group) at a meeting held I believe at their main university apologised for using the word “cult” in their description of the breakaway group the ICOC. Would that newspaper be a reliable source for that statement? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiLeaks on its own article

More eyes needed for a question raised at Talk:WikiLeaks, about citing WikiLeaks on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is discussed elsewhere (RfC suggests can be acceptable), and for content about WikiLeaks itself (RfC does not cover). It thus revolves around two questions:

1. Can WikiLeaks document pages be cited on the WikiLeaks article as a primary source where the document is used by reliable secondary sources?

2. Can WikiLeaks be cited for information about itself e.g. "On [date] WikiLeaks said it published X document"?

Cambial — foliar❧ 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, this was basically the consensus of the last RfC, so I see no problems with that. Of course, it *may* be cited, if this adds value to the the article and doesn't violate other policies.

Regarding the second question, this seems to satisfy the WP:ABOUTSELF creiteria, so I don't see problems from the reliability standpoint, but it may not be DUE if no other sources reported on this. Alaexis_¿question? 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked yesterday about going to a Noticeboard. I thought we would agree on the question and board first. Of course you ignored that question again and went here without agreeing on what to ask or how. You didnt even post notification of this

When you said it revolves around two questions, this misrepresents some of the issues.

1. Cambial says that WikiLeaks writing about itself is not self-published. It obviously is

2. Cambial also insisted that WikiLeaks alone is more than sufficient, and removed CN tags about it to restore citations only to WikiLeaks.

3. Cambial did not ask about one of the central issues - whether or not WikiLeaks saying documents are from a third party involves claims about third parties.

4. There are lots of RSes that have the same information. Linking to WikiLeaks adds nothing and Cambial wont say why it is useful, but I asked many times

5 The instances are not WikiLeaks said it published X document and it was never suggested changing it to that. They use wikivoice Softlem (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned nothing about whether it’s self-published above - editors are smart enough to make their own judgement about what are the relevant factors and I’m not going to try to browbeat them with your opinion in an informal question. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On 1) I'd say Wikileaks can be used in the Wikileaks article as a primary source about something discussed in a reliable secondary source.

On 2) I'd say Wikileaks can be used as a source about itself in things that are obvious from the first visible part of the home page or as a primary source when a secondary source discusses something. Everything said by Wikileaks should be attributed. We cannot point directly to hacked files an we should try to avoid linking any pages that have a link to hacked files.

On more eyes. The discussions are long with so many green quotes .... NadVolum (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT and Academic Journals

Given some recent discussions in online spaces such as Reddit and Twitter regarding the use of ChatGPT in academic journals, I think it's worth discussing here. Searching terms such as "I am an AI language model" -chatgpt -llm and "As of my last knowledge update" -chatgpt -llm in Google Scholar bring up concerns. Some research also indicates that peer reviewers are increasingly using LLMs to review work (see Liang et al., 2024). Some journals seem more prone to these issues (e.g., I noticed Radiology Case Reports has had multiple articles with LLM phrasing), but I'm not sure what the best practice looks like moving forward. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not give those journals the same treatment as other websites caught using AI? Reliability of CNET and Kotaku were both downgraded due to their undisclosed use of AI. Formerly credible journals can go trashy. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of media attention to academic journals, but examples like above and whatever this is is a clear giveaway of its quality. ♠ Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said above, I think the best process here is to bring up specific problems (including unreviewed AI-generated content) with specific journals, and if the evidence is convincing, and deprecate them. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that Google Scholar includes a lot of stuff that is... not scholarly, and some stuff that is not even attempting to portray itself as scholarly and is definitely not an WP:RS by any other standard. That much isn't new - you can't just rely on something as a source because it appears there. And even some actual journals aren't reliable when you look closer. If you need a quick at-a-glance measure, citation counts can tell you something - it's very noticeable that none of the papers in that search have ever been cited by anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming a bigger issue as time goes on. AI can assist academic journals such as for detecting plagiarism, but I do think that AI content, if used by a journal, may still end up going though editorial oversight, which is what WP:RS does require. I know that some peer reviewed articles have been generated manually (without AI) to test if journals catch the nonsense and even then they have passed peer review... Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of stunts like that. Academic publishing has never relied on the idea that every single thing that gets published is the perfect unvarnished truth; the field as a whole leans towards publishing everything somewhere, it just won't get into reputable journals. That's why it's important to look at where something was published and whether it has been cited by anyone else, rather than just whether it has been published in a journal-shaped object. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You know how we are thankful when some obvious troll opens up a disruptive ANI report, because it helps us spot and exclude the troll? Well, it's the same thing when journals publish articles with the phrase "I am an AI language model" in it. Be thankful, as it helps us spot and exclude the unreliable journal. I do not believe this is a problem in real scholarship, but I do think it's going to be a great way to differentiate between real scholarship and pseudoscholarship in Google Scholar search results. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviews from unreliable sources

In the process of cleaning up references to trash-tier sources that have been found generally unreliable in a broad general RFC, I've been removing reviews of material that are published in such GUNREL sources - on the basis that unreliable sources are prima facie WP:UNDUE, and generally don't meet the bar of being required in order to present an WP:NPOV of the topic.

Some have objected to this on my talk page - though they (repeatedly) didn't want to bring the sourcing discussion to WP:RSN for discussion. So I am.

The question for a given case is: Would it be a violation of NPOV not to include particular opinion statements sourced from a non-RS? Would the particular statements meet the high bar for author-sourced opinions per WP:RSOPINION to be WP:DUE? I didn't find many that IMO would reach that bar, but of course that's a matter for per-article discussion.

In almost all cases there are plenty of reviews in solid RSes, that clearly meet RSOPINION because they are in an RS - and where there aren't, it's arguable we shouldn't need to go to non-RSes for coverage. Non-RS reviews don't count for notability, for example.

Some posited that being a solid RS wouldn't be required for a review source. I must admit I don't buy this one.

A previous discussion of reviews in deprecated sources wasn't keen to make a carveout for them. The main issue was that the source was not reliable, so was unlikely to be an RSOPINION - that RSOPINION requires an RS. There's more chance for a merely GUNREL source meeting the RSOPINION bar - but it's prima facie unreliable so not DUE.

Something presented as RSOPINION in a GUNREL source requires that the author's opinion itself is notable. This gets fraught when a reviewer is slightly notable and has written in RSes previously or after, but the example at hand is in a GUNREL source.

The general opinion of RSN on notable persons' opinions that they've chosen to present in an unreliable source and not a reliable one has not been positive, any more than them presenting a blog post would automatically count as an RS or an expert SPS for RSOPINION. Individual cases may pass. (There's a Max Hastings cite from the deprecated Daily Mail on St Paul's Survives that's so far been kept on the basis of tremendous expertise, for example.)

Review statements on BLPs should be considered as a separate matter. If it's not from a solid RS, it cannot be used to make any statement about a living person. That sounds extremely broad because WP:BLP is broad. This is set out very clearly in RSOPINION as well. We will generally have quite sufficient reviews from solid RSes, thus providing an RSOPINION that complies with WP:BLP.

Broadly speaking: do we have the policy justification for a carve-out of RS sourcing rules for review opinions from GUNREL sources?

It would indeed be a carveout in cases where there had been a reliability RFC, meaning the carveout would require another RFC, I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable isn't a policy designation, it's a guideline. The question is if the source is reliable for the specific use. This really should be answered on a case by case basis and blanket/blind removals should be discouraged. Springee (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This presumes blanket/blind removals, which you haven't shown is happening here. What particular edits would you defend? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You asked a generalized question. I gave a generalized reply. Springee (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Some reviews are there for a reason, no matter which source it came from and you removing them makes it less encyclopedic and literally takes away to what critics say about any films that has those sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't in any way address the policy issues or sourcing policies detailed above. Do you have a response to the points raised? The case where this would require an RFC-level carveout from an existing RFC needs addressing, for example - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable sources are presumed to be unreliable and should normally not be used unless there is specific consensus that an article (or group of articles) published by these sources is reliable or otherwise usable. WP:RSOPINION lowers the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally reliable sources; it does not elevate the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally unreliable sources and cannot be used as a method to enable generally unreliable sources to circumvent sourcing requirements. Opinion pieces from sources identified as unreliable are subject to WP:ABOUTSELF just like any other articles published in sources identified as unreliable, and the use of WP:ABOUTSELF is further restricted by WP:DUE.

Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Newslinger talk 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion that David Gerard pointed to, which (using Gerard-like words) wasn't keen to give David Gerard a licence to destroy what many other editors had put in, my comment was: Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. See also the November 2019 thread Opinions in the Daily Mail and the February 2020 thread Daily Mail TV reviews. And David Gerard's mention of "policy" is misleading -- WP:NPOV would only be relevant if the source was in fact not reliable in the situation we're talking about, WP:RSP is essay class, RfC on WP:RSN is about misinterpreting a guideline, the actual real "policy" is WP:NOTCENSORED, if we followed it we would be requiring David Gerard to self-revert all the unjustified changes and apologize to the editors whose work he reverted without the courtesy to notify them. Here's a recent example: in the BLP of Philip Klein, AuthorAuthor had in 2020 added a cite to Washington Free Beacon, David Gerard in 2024 reverted -- and by destroying the statement made it seem that an accusation against Philip Klein had not been refuted. (An IP fixed it around the time that Philip Klein noticed the situation.) (Last I checked there was no RfC that conclusively supported the claim that Free Beacon was GU anyway.) Yet another objection: the topic heading here "Reviews from unreliable sources" is a WP:TALKHEADPOV violation, it's still allowed to think that a review in X is a reliable source for what a reviewer on X thinks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid justification for violating the WP:V policy or a valid method for overriding WP:RS. Listings on WP:RSP, including WP:FREEBEACON, are sourced from discussions on this noticeboard and represent community consensus (a policy). If you take issue with the entry for the Washington Free Beacon (RSP entry), you are welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment about the reliability of that source on this noticeboard, or start a discussion at WT:RSP to suggest a revision to that entry. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And David Gerard is welcome to start a new RFC on the reliability of the New York Post. But alas, here we are with this discursive and disruptive nonsense. Οἶδα (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly ongoing disagreement about the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage, so I've gone ahead and started the RfC at #RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Updated RfC link — Newslinger talk 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Newslinger brings up "community" but 5-10 discussers are not the same as about 47 million registered users. Newslinger brings up "WP:V" but the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist. Newslinger says that WP:NOTCENSORED does not override WP:RS, but WP:POLCON says "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." A little higher up on WP:POLICIES everybody except Newslinger can I hope see that essay-class pages are even lower, so opening discussion on something as worthless as WP:RSP would a fortiori be worthless itself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As the verifiability policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." You are always welcome to start a new discussion or request for comment on this board if you disagree with the past consensus on this noticeboard that the Washington Free Beacon is a questionable source. Obviously, even the most popular discussions on Wikipedia noticeboards do not have millions of participants because the number of active editors who participate in project space discussion is much lower; the fact that there are less than a million editors in these discussions does not invalidate their comments on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It invalidates your claim that this happy few represents the "community", as I said. As for your again bringing up WP:V: I've already explained "the point about these opinions is that anyone who can click can see that they exist". For yet another e.g. here's the latest movie review on New York Post: ‘Irish Wish’ review: Lindsay Lohan’s latest is a St. Patrick’s Day massacre . Now, I claim that page really is verifiably on the site nypost.com and the page verifiably contain a bunch of words in English. Which of these claims do you refuse to accept? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

As the first sentence of WP:V states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." That the source is published is not sufficient to establish verifiability. I see that you've already participated in the RfC below, which will clarify whether the New York Post is reliable for entertainment reviews like the one you linked. — Newslinger talk 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need your bad RfC to see it's reliable in this context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Overreach to remove all of these citations. As per WP:NYPOST NYP is problematic on NY politics and NYPD in particular; these are movie opinions. I don't edit movie pages and I do not read New York Post <shudder>, but Kyle Smith (critic) is a perfectly reputable critic and these mass deletion campaigns are hurting Wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain WP:NOTCENSORED. GUNREL has carve-outs precisely for situations such as this. When did Wikipedia go from being an attempt at building an encyclopedia to an effort at dismantling an encyclopedia?  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post has been found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting vis-à-vis stories like the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. But now David Gerard is waging an inane crusade to remove basic review criticism. Because apparently an established film critic's opinions on The Lorax soundtrack is not trustworthy and must be removed. Because apparently we are concerned about the factual basis of these subjective evaluations. Or that they are somehow given undue weight. And every single instance should be sought out and summarily removed. And we must believe this is an important task that is worth any of our time and improves the encylopedia. David "raised a lot points" here I guess to confuse people into concern. The RFC was clear enough. We do not need a carveout. Οἶδα (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "New York Post" should only be used for film reviews and nothing more. I think David Gerard's actions are unfounded due to the fact that he has removed reviews on the film articles that came from New York Post, which makes thing less encyclopedic and David Gerard is removing based on his one-sided belief on the reliability of the sourcing of the New York Post, nothing more. That source may be questionable, but it doesn't mean removing reviews from it on film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please don't do that per Peter Gulutzan, Mr.choppers, Springee and probably some other similar arguments that have and are likely to be posted about what I believe are mass deletions of content and/or removal of sources based on the result of what I believe is a single WP:RfC at WP:RS/N. The use of these RfCs to justify this kind of editing are troubling to say the least. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with David Tornheim et al. Context matters on usage of sources and RFC results on sources are guidelines, not policy, set by votes of very few editors usually. Mass deletions have to have stronger justification. Especially if they still considered reliable by other sources under WP:USEBYOTHERS. Wikieditor assessments are limited since most editors are not experts. RFC results are not policy or law on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• While of course context matters, the entire point of the RFCs is to set a default - a baseline which people ought to take into consideration when determining whether to use a particular source or not. If people think that there are case-by-case arguments for using opinions from RSes, they need to actually present those arguments on a case by case basis; if no argument has been presented then it's reasonable for anyone to remove it (as a way of challenging it) and it shouldn't be restored until a rationale has been given and a consensus reached on it. I certainly don't think that WP:RSOPINION alone is a blanket explanation for using an unreliable source (otherwise, we could use anything as a source with in-line citations, which is certainly not current policy or practice.) The identity and expertise of the author are what matters there, especially in situations where it's an opinion published in an unreliable source - the question for RSOPINION is always "is this the opinion of someone whose opinion matters?" If the author is just a talking head or the like, and the source where they're publishing it is unreliable, obviously we can't use it just based on that. Basically, some people above are characterizing this as a blanket removal (which it is not) - but really, we need to look at it from the other side; some editors are mistakenly asserting that any opinion published anywhere, in any format, no matter where it was published and no matter whose opinion it is, is automatically usable as a source. That isn't the case; we can decide on a case-by-case basis, but if someone added an opinion by a non-expert published in a non-RS into an article with no explanation, it's fair to challenge that and remove it until / unless a rationale has been given and a consensus for inclusion has been demonstrated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I generally agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, New York Post Entertainment has both reviews of film/TV shows and coverage of celebrities. The RfC doesn't look like something inspired by comments on David Gerard's talk page or on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Vaush, opinion sources

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.

---

The following sources are considered unreliable, but I don't think we should consider a source unreliable just because we don't like the platform. There is not a single "reliable source" that writes about this issue, because it is getting silenced by the media.

We should consider the sources on an individual basis. Please, don't reject them just because. Please, take your time to read through them. Most of them also have their own references and sources.

Sources:

1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
2. article on thepostmillennial.com
3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com)
4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
6. article on eviemagazine.com
7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com

I still have some faith in society. I still believe there are people that don't want this issue to be silenced and forced under the rug. Matthias197 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the matter is severe and deals with a living person is reason for us to be extra scrupulous about sourcing. I don't recognize every source here, but a few of them are immediately and clearly not sources that we would ever consider acceptable for this sort of material -- an open wiki, a self-published blog, a subreddit.... they all fly in the face of our rules on sourcing material about living persons from self-published sources. I'm not sure who is supposed to be silencing this, but it is in the nature of Wikipedia to follow reliable sources, not to lead them based on unreliable ones. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my statement: the topic is severe. The matter appears to be just an unpopular opinion, and assumptions that people wish to assert based on that. Thinking something could be legal is not the same as condoning something, much less engaging in it. (A friend and I once planned to take the "yes" side on a "should the Nazis have been allowed to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois" debate, but any attempt to cast us a pro-Nazi rather than taking the ACLU side of free speech would've been confronted with the fact that we were both folks that the Nazis would've gleefully killed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not. And do you really think there's some worldwide media conspiracy to cover for this youtuber? Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be a clear violation of BLP, you need to wait for an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think we can source a child pornography accusation to anything less than a gold-plated RS, you may need to review WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting conundrum sometimes. A person's existence and basic activities are covered in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but then some social media outrage-of-the-moment fails to gain coverage by that same media, as it is just not as important as the fans and foes think it is. So to the outside non-Wikipedian, it looks like we're "censoring," when of course nothing of the sort is happening. Matthias197, consider the possibility that this just doesn't matter.

I'd also like to take the liberty of toning town the section title, as putting a person's name and "CP" side-by-side is a bit overboard. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(coming from Talk:Vaush) Posting this here in case anyone comes across Evie Magazine (eviemagazine.com) in the future and wanted to check the archives. I went back today to their homepage and saw an article titled "What Is A Woman?" (archive), by the same author of the one linked above, which proudly misgenders a trans man and uses the phrase "gender ideology" unironically. The further it goes the less sane it becomes. Wholly not reliable if they cannot accept the widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The articles do indeed get weirder the deeper you go. Some light reading on the publication: [77], [78]. We should not be using this in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning publications which really are rooted in pop culture, similar to what Evie seems to be as a right leaning women’s publication. Simply pointing to the fact that those two don’t like Evie specifically for its political leaning is irrelevant. The basis of a valid source is NOT if it appeals to a certain side or not. Making arguments like this goes again WP:NPV Friedbyrd (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

lol, Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories. That's the sort of thing that tends to lead to deprecation. It's extremely clear that Evie is an unreliable source at the very least - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories"

Looking into it, the posted Vice article links to another Vice article which is complaining about various Evie opinion pieces which I went to. They have articles about Covid, but I couldnt find any "Covid conspiracy theories." The ones referenced in the Vice article were ones about the mortality rate of children from covid and the safety of getting the vaccine as a pregnant woman, but both of these were based on information from the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine.

As I pointed out, both Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning pop culture focused publications whos main gripe with Evie is that it is a right leaning pop culture publication, of course they arent going to like them and they are hardly authoritative sources themselves. Simply saying that you or a writer at the Rolling Stone dont like them is NOT a valid argument not to use them as a source. Wikipedia is not a partisan site. However, I would certainly say that we shouldnt use Evie as a source for issues like Covid of course, but when it comes to culture issues, in this case, their article on the internet streamer Vaush promoting child pornography and his disgusting history with that stuff, its very reliable. The article itself includes video clips of Vaush saying these things directly so theres really no excuse to not include this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If you seriously think Evie is a sufficient source to make child pornography accusations in Wikipedia, then I must strongly urge you not to attempt to edit BLPs on Wikipedia on competence grounds - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be some sort of counter argument? Because you arent even making a point. Again, the Evie article includes video footage of Vaush outright saying these disgusting things so its not an accusation, its literally his own words and this is a question of how to include that information in the article. I think its also important to remember that Vaush is a fringe e-celebrity, so this means that no serious publication like CBS or NBC is going to cover this stuff, only more lower level pop-culture publications will and pointing out that these lean right politically is not at all a reason not to use them as a source.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial if you familiarised yourself with Wikipedias policies before further engaging this discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar which is why I pointing out that there is no real reason not to include Evies article as a source. I would suggest others take this advice themselves and read through the BLP guidelines. Feel free to point out specifically what policy you think Im misinterpreting and why though because comments like this are not at all productive.

Friedbyrd (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty detailed about the high requirements for sources, let’s start there. FortunateSons (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what BLP is. What specific part of that policy do you feel would be violated by including information about his own words regarding CP?

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

“Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Evie is disputed as an RS at best, and clearly not a high-quality source.

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Therefore, even if there was RS coverage, inclusion in the article would not be guaranteed

”The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The article on Vaush already uses “not high quality” level sources such as Daily Beast and his own YouTube videos as sources, so the argument that this is the issue is blatantly false. And per BLPSELFPUB this is allowed concerning subjects publishing their own viewpoint. It is beyond debate and is an objective fact that Vaush has said some pretty disgusting things concerning child pornography, things like the Evie article simply add additional context to this. Like I already pointed out, Vaush is a fringe internet celebrity so legit publications are not going to care enough about him to cover his views on CP. This is evident by the Vaush article relaying heavily on publications like Daily Beast and Kotaku.

The main contention mentioned is that Post Millennial and Evie are right leaning, which isn’t a valid excuse not to use them.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources that are "not high quality" including self-published sources can sometimes be used in a BLP, mostly for routine details like events the subject attends, when a person was born, where they live, and other things like that which nobody would reasonably challenge. Contentious or controversial claims, positive or negative, must be sourced to only high quality sources. I can't think of any claim more controversial than support for child pornography. The highest quality sources are required for that, and it is non-negotiable. If there are other poor/marginal sources used to support contentious claims in the Vaush article, they should be removed too.

I agree that Vaush is a "fringe internet celebrity" that doesn't have much coverage in those types of sources. When we have a choice between complete coverage of a living person based on questionable sources or incomplete coverage with good sources, then we must choose the incomplete coverage. I know how bad it can feel when we have information we can't share on Wikipedia, but that's the balance that we've struck in the interest of protecting real living people from harm. Maintaining that balance is a constant process but it is very important. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that the subject himself has made several videos clearly and publicly expressing his viewpoint, and is by definition the only authority on his viewpoint, how can we not treat his own statements as reliably sourced? We're not talking about leaked private conversations, this is his own expressed position. 120.29.2.50 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for something like this FortunateSons (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“Not for something like this” what guideline is this based on? You’re allowed to use sources like YouTube when it comes to a person making claims certain claims about themselves like their personal life or their own personal viewpoints. The wiki articles currently already does this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE we would have to fully include his narrative and only his narrative, which would provide minimal value and is not in accordance with policy FortunateSons (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well including his view that child pornography should be legal as a fact of its own would at least be consistent with the rest of the article.

Friedbyrd (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no love for many of the things that Vaush believes in (which I believe is quite clear based on my own editing history), but his stated belief is that child slavery and child pornography should be illegal, which he has repeatedly clarified and which really isn’t controversial .

There are other views on can credibly criticise Vaush which he has not clarified or denounced (but which aren’t supported by RS either), but at this point, I would recommend you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (pun intended). FortunateSons (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex" are you referring to, because there is no consensus. Conservatives insist that gender and gender are the same thing. Only liberals think otherwise. Matthias197 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Fascinating. Everyone has to be a 'conservative' or a 'liberal', and has to conform in every way to this, over every topic. No room for anyone to be anything in between, or to be undecided. Talk about enforcing roles on those who'd rather decide for themselves what opinions they'd like to hold... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted this in the other talk thread on the Vaush page, but again, you not liking a certain article from this publication is hardly a real justification not to use it as a source.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

These are all horrific violations of BLP and not remotely reliable as sources, absolutely not. The Kip 02:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Source 1 and Source 3 are unreliable by default as they are open wikis. Source 4 (the subject's own YouTube channel) may be usable in some contexts, but including it without any secondary sources is probably undue weight. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per RS and BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Big fat nope The holy policies and guidelines, especially the BLP ones, do not support including this without some serious reliable sourcing.

Also, the only reason I know who this guy is is that I have a close relative who’s going through a phase.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Nope I don't think enabling coverage of the antics of some idiot is a good reason to change the reliable sources policy. NadVolum (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the assessment, but let’s avoid referring to BLP as “some idiot”. FortunateSons (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, it's just my opinion of the whole blogsphere and youtubers and twitch streamers and suchlike. I'm sure it's all very entertaining but it's just not my thing. NadVolum (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  That’s definitely fair, the objection is on grounds of civility, not taste :) FortunateSons (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Suggest putting Vaush up to AfD instead Seriously he's just a guy who says opinions on livestreams. How is it encyclopedic to talk about him? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm actually being somewhat serious here. If we took off all the random YouTube videos and event promotion websites from the source list on that page we'd be left with a stub principally consisting of passing mentions of him saying opinions about other, worse, Youtubers. That's it. Vaush is of questionable notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting point. If most of these sources are not reliable for a BLP article in the first place, then the article largely being sourced on them should mean that he wouldnt even warrent an article in the first place. If not that, then largely reducing the content of the article.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  A cursory reading of the citations strongly implies that he meets the requirements for notability, and Wikipedia:Aboutself does allow for inclusion of at least an overwhelming majority of the claims. That being said, I would recommend that you don’t edit the article based on my assessment that you may have an a hard time doing so neutrally. FortunateSons (talk) 19:52, 22 March 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.

defence-blog.com

Should we revisit the defence-blog.com reliability? There was a discussion in the past, please see here. Their website has grown since; the about page clearly states who they are [79]; the content is written in a professional manner. My observation over the time (as I follow various defense related news) is that their publications are generally accurate. Thoughts? -- Mindaur (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would generally be very hesitant to use them. If we wanted to use them (they probably don’t meet the requirements for experts (or can you show that they do?), so as a news source, we would at minimum need:

1. More details on when and how they are Wikipedia:USEDBYOTHERS, particularly by RS, governments and (if applicable) academics institutions.

2. Elaboration on their editorial content: do they have independent editors, how are stories chosen, etc.

3. A clear distinction between them and a Wikipedia:Selfpub.

If you can get at least 2 (better 3), it might be worth a in-depth discussion, otherwise we would probably consistently apply the policies detailed in the last discussion and not use it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think they still have a number of issues, as far as I can tell while the quantity of work has increased it doesn't much seem like the quality has. It still looks like churnalism (not sure the related COPYVIVO concerns are done either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with FortunateSons and Horse Eye's Back. I'm inclined to say they're not WP:RS. First, they are definitively not RS for matters related to the foreign and security policy of Ukraine as the site's controlling mind, Dylan Malyasov, was decorated by Ukraine just last year for activities "as a journalist". Given that the editorial staff of the site is just three in number with him sitting at its apex, this suggests an absence of WP:INDEPENDENT editorial thought. Outside of that issue, however, I don't see them widely cited by sources we've already established as RS. When I search Google News for the phrases "according to Defence Blog" and "Defence Blog reports" I get a small smattering of hits to Business Insider and The National Interest. Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Caucasian Races-- claim of obsolesence

I want to challenge the inclusion of 'obsolete' in the article. The Caucasian races page claims that the topic is either obsolete or a duplicate of the White Americans page. I raised the objection that Caucasian is a race label in Singapore, citing the Census Glossary https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/cop2020/sr1/glossary.ashx and submitted a link to a pubmed (US medical research database) showing around 5,000 recent scientific articles using the word Caucasian https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28Caucasian%29+NOT+%28white%29+NOT+%28European%29+NOT+%28American%29&filter=years.1974-2024&sort=pubdate Is this sufficient evidence to overcome a book that says it is an obsolete term? For example one article states: " Subgroup analysis suggested a remarkable role for this SNP as a risk factor in the Caucasian ethnicity and the chronic subtype. Conclusion: TNFα 308G/A polymorphism can be an ITP susceptibility factor in the Caucasian population and the chronic subtype." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38368694/ This references a conversation here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caucasian_race#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_March_2024 Mrdthree (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mrdthree. This isn't a matter for RSN. I have left you a message at the article's talk page.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Bamboo Works

Is Bamboo Works trustworthy? Can it be cited? Changeworld1984 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not extensively used but for future reference. The website mostly reports on china and chinese businesses. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context.

That being said, their partner with us page mentions "opportunities for sponsored content, article-writing services and a wide range of promotions", which suggests that they are not a reliable, independent source. Woodroar (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yicai Global

I couldn't find any discussions on this news organisation. It is cited in 151 times.

Exerpt from Shanghai Media Group

In October 2020, the United States Department of State designated Yicai Global as a foreign mission of the Chinese government.

Can this website be trusted? In non geopolitical cases? Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context.

Their about page lists no editors and has no editorial policy. It also says "Yicai Global captures daily Chinese A-shares stock and futures market dynamics by Writing Master, a self-designed AI writing system." Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Since it is state run media, how much can information be trusted? Changeworld1984 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, which specific source? What claims? Reliability depends entirely on context. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Source

Hello friends, I am writing a very detailed and in-depth article over “People’s Publishing House (India) (PPH)”.

I will quote many sources, including famous authors, newspapers, journals and others. But for a two line part of my intro, I need to quote the interview of the Manager of PPH Connaught Place Showroom. I took this audio based interview in the early days of March 2024.

i know, self published work is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. But I need to quote the part of his interview where he is saying that they used to distribute books on Mobile Distribution Vans in many parts of India.

The interview is in Hindi, and I published it on YouTube. I can also upload the audio file on commons, which can later be embed on the Wikipedia page of PPH. Kindly note that Mr. Rishav Kumar, the Manager of PPH Connaught Place is working at the store since 1972, he is a legend and expert on this subject. I just don’t know how to use this audio interview for Wikipedia.

Please suggest whether to quote Manager of PPH from this interview or not? Pallav.journo (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

——- Have a look at the clip of that interview that I uploaded on Commons Rishav Kumar, PPH Manager, interview.

Please reply.

- Pallav.journo (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• For those who are curious, the draft article is here. Unsurprisingly, it has a generally promotional tone that is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. (The subject could be notable, though.) In my opinion, no, there is no way that an interview that you yourself conducted and posted on YouTube is going to meet WP:RS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, how to change the tone? I am not associated with PPH anyway, apart from purchasing their books over many years.

  I am spending hell lot of resources and time, in researching this article, and instead of being sympathetic you have outrightly rejected my work. This person Rishav Kumar is telling me that “he used to sell books on a Bus, in 1970’s to 1990’s”. It is recorded on audio, he is an expert on this subject, as you can see there are other newspaper articles on the web about him and his Connaught Place showroom. Anyway I just need one line from this audio, that “PPH used to sell books on a Bus to this place and that Place”, that’s all.

  I think Wikipedia should be place where every one can expand human knowledge in a “constructive way”. There is no article on this great publisher on Wikipedia, it is a pity because the history of this publisher is associated with the history of modern India, and so many great names of Indian Literature were once associated with it.

  One small question, why your IP is showing up, and not name?

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  The answer to your last question is that I do not have a Wikipedia account — see Wikipedia:IP users. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have cleaned the draft up a bit. A lot of work is left to make it upto standards. Is your interview in a written form, if so then it can be added. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for helping me. The interview is recorded via an audio recorder. I have uploaded a clip of it on commons, with English Subtitles. The file on commons can be listened via this link

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you can upload transcript on any website even on your personal blog, it would be fine but it is the norm not to accept video and audio as a source. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Though I don't see much harm in using it for a small claim. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I will upload, full translated transcript of it on my blog (www.DatelineDelhi.com). I will then cite it on the article.

  Still so much work to do. You will see the final version will be so much detailed, will contain so much information. Thanks.

  -Pallav.journo (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with Changeworld1984: putting the text of the interview on your blog does not transform it into a usable source. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait, no, it's probably not fine. @Pallav.journo, in most cases, interviews should be published by reliable, secondary sources. Anything that you put on your blog is considered self-published, and cannot involve claims about third parties (like Rishav Kumar). @Changeworld1984, with all due respect, you're a relatively new user and only started posting on RSN today, to ask questions about other sources. You should not be giving advice about source reliability. Woodroar (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, woodroar. Actually here Rishav Kumar who has been associated with the store for more than 50 years is telling that he distributed books on a van. So please suggest, should I omit that two lines from my article, or else can I leave them there without citation. Or is there a way to include this audio interview (which is highly reliable since it is recorded, even legal institutions rely upon recorded audio). I was reading, Wikipedia is of opinion, that Self Published Sources can be used if the “interviewed person is an expert on subject matter”. I am a professional Journalist myself, and in our trade “Recorded Bites” are good to go.

-Pallav.journo (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, you are the source here. Anything originating from you or your blog is self-published, and cannot be used for claims about third parties—only for claims about yourself. If Rishav Kumar writes about his experiences on his own social media or blog, then you could potentially cite that, with any limitations outlined at WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. An interview about third parties is really only useable when published by a reliable, secondary/independent source, with an established editorial structure, a reputable publisher, etc. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove Rishav Kumar’s interview, citation and that two lines portion from this article because no secondary source exists. -Pallav.journo (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

JSTOR journal articles

Hello,

I just want to check if all secondary source content held on JSTOR is deemed to be reliable and if there are any exceptions to this. I don't have a particular context for this query although my particular area of interest is in history if that helps narrow it down. Rather I have seen editors (including senior ones) in the past remove journal articles published on JSTOR as 'unreliable".

I just wanted to know what the communities consensus on this is? JSTOR for their part maintains that the majority of articles they hold would be peer-reviewed and those that aren't would still be held to a scholarly standard: https://support.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/115011338628-Searching-are-JSTOR-Articles-Peer-Reviewed

I do use JSTOR articles a lot when referencing, especially journal articles published since the 1950's. What is the community consensus on this? Ixudi (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question isn't answerable. JSTOR has thousands of journals and millions of articles; JSTOR is more akin to a library than anything else. Academic sources tend to be good sources, but the question of whether a source is usable for an article is context-specific. Specific examples of a source published on JSTOR that was removed for unreliability would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

One example of a removal would be demonstrated by this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1180133706

This is the journal article that was removed: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44141239 To me, the source seemed fine. It is published by the Indian History Congress which again seems like a legitimate body of historians, This is just a single example that comes to mind. There were a few others I came across done by various editors so I am not singling anyone out. Ixudi (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mackensen. Things you find in JSTOR tend to be RS, just like things you find on YouTube tend not to be. But in both cases, that's painting with a broad brush and you really need to examine the individual source to make a determination. RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Many journals on JSTOR go back well over a century, & will not be RS for that alone. In some subject areas, nothing much from from the 1950s should be used now. In others it may be ok. Eg, in archaeology, excavation reports are normally just done once, & that's it. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed on sources on Indian history. One key thing with that source in particular is that it's a paper presented at a conference that's been collected in a proceeding. Such works have typically undergone far less peer review than other academic papers and often represent an early stage in a scholar's work. That makes them less reliable than other sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Mackensen (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• JSTOR is a host, not a publisher. We sometimes use it as the link to where people can read the paper in question, but it is not itself the source of a paper's notability - that comes from the specific journal that published it, which may or may not be a WP:RS. Since the amount of time editors have to review sources and publishers is finite, we sometimes need to take shortcuts, and as a very very rough shortcut, the fact that something is hosted on JSTOR or was published by something that looks at a glance like a peer-reviewed journal is a good sign; if it's being cited for something uncontroversial, unexceptional, and not BLP-sensitive, that may be enough provided you have a good-faith belief the journal is reliable and nobody challenges it. But ultimately, if it comes down to looking closely at whether a source is reliable, you'd have to look into the actual journal and authors; the best that being on JSTOR can tell you is "well, this source might be a good academic one, so it's worth investigating it further if you're looking for a high-quality source." --Aquillion (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability for Teen.com?

So, I nominated Ariana Grande for Good Article status, and the review brought up that Teen.com was used in the article. I could not find anything other than the fact that it is under Defy Media. Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Afaict by this [80] that site doesn't exist anymore, I don't think seventeen.com is a successor. Per the aboutself on the bottom of the linked page, it's not something I'd use in a BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)