Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Hello, I would like to find out if the website https://www.kino-teatr.ru/ is considered a reliable source? As well as https://www.allocine.fr/, Thank you

RfC: Politico update?

Due to the complexity related to

WP:RSP listing of Politico similar to Fox News and Newsweek

?

Below are a few proposals:

Proposal 1: Create a note of a potential bias with current listing
Proposal 2: Create a listing similar to the
WP:MREL
Politico (Israel-Palestine topics)
Proposal 3: Create a listing similar to the
WP:MREL
Politico (2021–present)

Thanks for any support or comments ahead of time!--WMrapids (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Politico)

Comment: Opening an RfC as recent changes could pose potential issues for

WP:RSP

listing.
Knowing how controversial WP:PIA articles are, I do not even participate in them. However, the recent acquisition of Politico by Axel Springer SE has raised concerns about the company's journalistic objectivity. Haaretz has said that a "pro-Israel policy" now exists at Politico while FAIR wrote that pro-Israel advocacy was introduced and its parent company has "No semblance of objectivity".
Currently, I made an edit recognizing this new distinction of a possible pro-Israel bias.--WMrapids (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are concerns about possible bias rather than reporting on actual biased material, so I think it's too early to add such clarifications. FAIR, being a media bias watchdog, criticise everyone which does not mean we should add their every comment to the WP:RSP. As an example, should we say that the NYT is biased towards billionaires based on this? Alaexis_¿question? 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
free market economics "are like a constitution, they apply to every employee of our company" and that workers who do not comply "should not work for Axel Springer, very clearly".--WMrapids (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Worth noting that Haaretz's source, the WSJ, phrases it in a slightly more nuanced manner, as "support for ... Israel's right to exist", rather than "support for Israel", with the former appearing to be much more limited than the latter. On the EU and free market economics, though two match, although the WSJ phrases the later as "support for ... a free-market economy". BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are RS stating that politico is biased in one field, then it should be mentioned at "perennial sources". Cinadon36 07:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
generally reliable, has described Politico as "pro-Israel", which is why it is currently mentioned. Are you agreeing with proposal 1?--WMrapids (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes @WMrapids: I am for proposal 1. Apologies for not making that clear in my previous comment. Cinadon36 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz itself marked as biased regarding the conflict Shrike (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz source references an interview in the Wall Street Journal, where Springer CEO stated that he expects "Politico staffers to adhere to Axel Springer-wide guiding principles include support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy, among others." If we are to consider them biased on any one of these topics on this basis then we must consider them biased on all - but I don't believe that this is sufficient evidence for doing so. I would also note that FAIR (1 2) was a controversial source a decade ago; I don't know if things have changed since then? BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PIA), with this decision being based on descriptions from reliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bad RfC. What is your brief and neutral statement? Make the case for the change in the discussion, not in the same section that you're introducing the RfC question. This should be procedurally closed if the RfC prompt isn't cleaned up. —
talk) 08:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I would think the discussion should also ask whether a note should be added to the RSP entry, rather than starting with a note added and asking if we should go further - particularly as the note says "recognized as", rather than the softer terminology used in the RFC statement of "possible". BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
Mhawk10:, not too familiar with RfCs and this was my best attempt of bringing up the issue at hand while trying to remain neutral, but I can move the details to this discussion section.--WMrapids (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

News Sources should not be used by encyclopedias I'm going to keep harping on this but I don't think news sources, like Politico, are relevant to an encyclopedia project. As such, on the basis of it being a news source, I'd recommend against its use on Wikipedia. Period. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC as above. RfC isn't for general discussion. As for not using news sources, that makes no sense to me. A large number of our articles are of necessity heavily based on news sources. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: This is not just for general discussion, this is about changing a WP:RSP listing that was already determined through a previous RfC. --WMrapids (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RECENTISM to be treated as encyclopedic in scope. I am sure you will recall this is far from the first time I've decried the use of newsmedia to bulk up Wikipedia's vain attempts to be a news aggregator. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Elaborate on how it is
WP:BIASED but otherwise wait and see. While the current version says a "small number" of editors consider it biased, this obviously changes that and we ought to discuss it and elaborate a bit on, more specifically, the ways that the new policy biases it - it seems hard to interpret an outright policy setting rigid ideological expectations any other way. But beyond a note about potential bias, that alone isn't enough to affect a source's reliability. We should come back later once there has been time for secondary sources to discuss the actual impact that this policy had on the accuracy of their reporting before we do anything beyond elaborating on their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Aquillion: Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that you support Option 1? And did you mean "reliability" instead of "notability"?--WMrapids (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, reliability. And the current version already notes bias concerns, but I suppose I'd say 'option 1 in terms of expanding that note, since clearly this makes the bias concerns more significant; it just needs a few additional words per [1] mentioning that they have potential bias stemming from a controversial statement of guiding principles that requires support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy. It's important to note that the ideological requirements to work at Politico under the new management go beyond just stuff about Israel. I'd also note that while some people say we should wait and see to even note the bias, we do have coverage indicating that the policy changes introduce bias - we need to wait and see for more information about their reliability, definitely, but when a source openly declares their bias and says that people who don't share those views shouldn't work there, there isn't really anything left to debate or to wait and see on. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC As per others. Also "Israel right to exist" is shared by every respectable newspaper on the right and on the left so I don't see any real bias issues --Shrike (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC. Provide a statement that describes the situation in as neutral tone as is possible. This isn't optional, it's part of the RfC process. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @
WP:RSP listings; an example of this would be the the WP:RSP listing for the Anti-Defamation League ("Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all").--WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I would want to see an overall landscape of how different sources view Politico, not just the negative criticism. That is one way I think it could be improved if it were reopened. At this point, I agree it is A) likely premature and B) not likely to achieve a lasting consensus on this issue. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the premise of "Israel right to exist" is not sign of any bias as it supported by almost by everyone Shrike (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is premature at this point and I believe it should be closed. If actual problems arise in the future we can revisit the issue then.
Calidum 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be clear, while I can understand waiting and seeing in terms of reliability (which is more about their long-term reputation), when it comes to
WP:BIASED in those areas. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I suppose it will come down to the question of whether these positions are "extraordinary" and indicate bias. Their full "Principles and Values" as of October 2021 are as follows:
We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe.

We support the Jewish people and the right of existence of the State of Israel.

We advocate the transatlantic alliance between the United States of America and Europe.

We uphold the principles of a free market economy and its social responsibility.

We reject political and religious extremism and all forms of racism and sexual discrimination.

To me, none of these come across as "extraordinary", and many of them align with editorial guidelines issued by other organizations, such as the BBC on racism; it comes close in a few areas ("united Europe" and "transatlantic alliance"), but even there I don't feel the principles themselves cross the line, and so I would want to see the implications of that in practice before we rule on whether it is biased in such areas. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems unusual to me to have an explicit editorial line like that at the level of the parent company, it is not really all that much different from a newspaper stating its editorial line outright. The Guardian describes its parent as a safeguard to its “liberal values”, for example, while the opinion pages of the WSJ are run under the banner of support for “democratic self-government and the freedom of individuals to make their own economic choices.” If Politico’s news content is shifted in after its acquisition by Axel Springer; then there might be ample concerns about
talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Yes, we usually want RfC's to have more specific bullet points than this, but stepping back from the procedural nitty-gritty, I'd say it's pretty clear that we should note the owner's stated intent to push an ideological line.
talk) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Do they plan to do this mainly through opinion pieces, or will this affect news coverage? If it is the former, then is it really unlike the British
talk) 23:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose This is a misunderstanding of the policy in question and the discussion it has triggered: Axel Springer, as a German publisher founded in the immediate aftermath of the war, adopted these principles and values to signal a clear break with Nazi ideology and to align itself with center-right politics during the cold war, supporting NATO and transatlanticism in contrast to ideas of the time to triangulate between the US and the Soviet Union.

The actual statements (see above) are vague, and you won't find a single mainstream US journalist who would disagree with them. "Democracy dies in Darkness", the Washington Post prints in its masthead every weekday. Should we note that the paper has an obvious pro-democracy (or anti-darkness) bias? That the issue has come up is mostly due to Springer's inability to find a good way of denying claims that they are abandoning those principles. When they say they "expect" staff follow these principles, it is meant as a descriptive argument supporting the decision not to make them sign the document in writing. And they want to avoid the latter because the whole act is a pompous anachronism that only barely works for their German employees, where they can point at tradition to legitimize it. --K. Oblique 12:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have the same concern about South China Morning Post, because it belongs to Alibaba Group, which is increasingly coming under to state control. But it's too early to call the reliability of its reporting into question. LondonIP (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Politico is major media source with a track record as a responsible reputable Reliable Source. Absent evidence of any actual problem, the fact that a reputable reliable major media source does not espouse the destruction of a country hardly renders its factual-reporting or opinion outside the ordinary expected range of Reliable Source coverage. I suspect that exactly no one at Politico opposes the existence of Canada. If some reporter actively opposed the existence of Canada, and that actively manifested in their work product, I would not consider it particularly shocking if that employer were to reevaluate whether their work-product was suitable for continued employment. Alsee (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't know how I missed this discussion earlier, but there are at least a couple of things that I need to point out, since I haven't seen someone mention them above.
FAIR is itself biased.

WP:RSN
.

Even if Haaretz were to be interpreted as completely unbiased, Israel's right to exist
, which is different from a policy mandating biased reporting.

∴ We shouldn't accept mud-slinging, sensationalism, and scaremongering on behalf of various media outlets as an excuse to effectively delegitimize a useful source. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It won't take long to figure out if there is a bias. "Right to exist" is a leading indicator. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India
is not that pro-government as mentioned ?

There are many articles printed and created by TOI which are not pro-government., as:
Manipur woman's Ujjwala gas connection 'taken away' for joining Congress rally
Why BJP’s choice of Karnataka CM is being questioned
Is India staring at stagflation?
Hindutva will push Covid failures to background in UP polls
BJP arm-twisted Sirsa to join party, feared arrest: Sukhbir Singh Badal
Hypernationalists hyperventing over comedy riffs on India do great disservice to the country
Why campaign against 'halal' meat reeks of bigotry
The arrest of two HW News journalists for ‘instigating communal tensions’ is among a series of steps the police has taken, along with slapping UAPA, to crack down on people who wrote about the unrest
How to win foes and get reforms through? Learn from past PMs
The lawyer-activist spent three years in jail without trial
The way India’s ‘pro-poor’ democracy works empowers middle strata of society at the expense of those who are at the bottom of the heap.
Ex-armyman Mohammad Latif — who was given a bravery award in 2005 for killing a militant with his bare hands — wants justice for his son, Amir Magray, who was killed in an encounter in Hyderpora last week
A morality tale starring MSP and you
They have dedicated cartoon series printed on their newspapers which mocks all parties, politicians, celebrities, situations.
https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1465871969614581761
https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1464425829425815555
https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1463698407772491785
https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1461524450352922626
I have read the past discussions linked at
WP:TOI
.
Times Of India tries to cover almost every state, and not all of their work is done by their best journalists. There are some articles, news which appear only in TOI, so it might seem they publish non-notable news. But when they give coverage to some crime in a small unknown village, some interview by some local MLA, new upcoming actor, regional film producer, they are trying to cover maximum areas.
Those who have some experience reading TOI, they know which are reliable and which are not that important articles.
The articles where the name of the journalist is present and mentioned TNN are always created properly with verification.
Some of their sub-sections are not that reliable. Like regional non-Bollywood entertainment sections of Assamese, Odiya, Bengali, Punjabi, regional TV gossips, city sections like Agra, Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, and many other small cities. Even in these cases, all can't be termed as non-RS, as if the article is detailed along with the name of the journalist or interviewer being mentioned.
However, if it's related to serious crime, then they don't copy-paste from vernacular media but do their own investigation. TOI is not responsible for police', the witness' and victim's family statements, if they are found wrong due to fake complaints, wrong arrests by police. Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

citogenesis concern. That said, at present it can still be used, though largely for uncontentious information, I would not recommend it for things like serious crimes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

A couple of months ago I found a story in TOI that seemed to exaggerate the number of attendees at an anti-Pakistan protest in Toronto. TOI claim "over a thousand", whereas local Canadian media reported "dozens". See diffs and more explanation here.VR _talk 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All are human end of the day: Here is an example, might help to draw parallel and give some food for good thought if wished. The Edit dif @ the article Forced marriage#United States it is attributed to one news reporter Nancie L Katz of New York Daily News.

The earlier sentence in the article said "..Estimates are that hundreds of Pakistani girls in New York have been flown out of the New York City area to Pakistan to undergo forced marriages;.."

In the above mentioned edit dif it has been updated by User:Vice regent (VR)"..According to Nancie L Katz, thousands of Pakistani girls have been flown out of the New York City area to Pakistan to undergo forced marriages;..", with edit summary "...source says "thousands" not "hundreds"..".

The same reporter has used word "thousands of" like a phrase in earlier paragraph. Where crowds can not be counted any reporter gets opportunity to be subjective and guesstimate. Even on best of publications editorial boards too would have limitations. I have one academic study which accuses many prominent news publications of US and UK of bias to whom Wikipedians routinely consider reliable.

In case of forced marriages of Pakistani girls in U.S. some one had applied own mind and rationalised figure from thousands to hundreds. Do we have a problem of labeling in black and white like, Biblical inerrancy read inerrancy of so and so and errancy of so and so. Try to establish errancy on some sources for ever, and absolve some sources for ever. Because we (Wikipedians) believe in 'application of mind by Wikipedians' as 'encyclopedist' to the least. Such Wikipedia rules itself have got status of Biblical inerrancy.

Just simple good faith and application of mind without religious and political agendas can address the issues but some how..less said the better.

Anyways IDK, how much this discussion platform has been succeeding in developing wise tools catering to core encyclopedic objectives and how much succeeding in indirect blanket censorships.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone start a new RFC, only on TOI Plus, not TOI? TOI Plus articles should be considered reliable. I want to start RFC, but don't know the process. Knight Skywalker (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Only on TOI Plus. This RFC is not on TOI. TOI + only

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Media, the arts, and architecture
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I have seen that TOI Plus has better language, work, editing than regular
WP:TOI articles. Since their websites are the same, a separate RFC should be done only for TOI + articles. Knight Skywalker (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose redeeming TOI. I will allow TOIPlus however; checked a few of their articles from Google Cache and they appear to be better than their usual rubbish. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Reliability of protothema

How should protothema.gr be classified?

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Currently, protothema.gr is being used 201 times through en.WP [2] Cinadon36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (protothema)

Close/withdraw. RSP-itis again. This noticeboard is for discussing reliability in context, and these RfCs should only be for "perennial" sources. If there are specific content questions, then just raise them.
talk) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, I didn't know @
Alexbrn:, what is the the relevant venue? I asked at "Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" but I was told it was not the appropriate page. Cinadon36 09:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
At the top of this page it says "be sure to include the following information, if available ...". You haven't done that. If there are
talk) 09:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't met any dispute regarding protothema.gr in en.WP, I removed it from various articles, I didn't get any reverts or other issues. As I see it, this is the best available noticeboard to discuss the issue and notify other editors to use it rarely.Cinadon 36 10:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
Alexbrn: after having a second thought, I suppose withdrawing the proposal makes sense. The trajectory of my line of thought, would end having multiple unnecessary fights on this noticeboard, for no practical reason. (as if we do not have already).Cinadon 36 06:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with
Alexbrn. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion (protothema)

I am re-posting what I have posted earlier in this noticeboard, but got not replies.[3]
Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP [4] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.

A report for European Commission, posted by prof Anna Triandafyllidou (see also here) is devastating for ProtoThema. You can download the report from here

Media Bias Fact Check has a small essay on protothema.gr that supports the above view. [5]

Fact checking site Ellinika hoaxes has 188 entries on protothema.gr. [6] Ellinika Hoaxes is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on
WP:IFCN's signatories list

Another report (on greek media coverage of covid pandemic) shows the inadequate verifiability of protothema articles (see page 9 and esp page 14 use of links [7])

Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [8])
Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the indication "Generally unreliable" Cinadon36 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed all of the material you present, I am unable to get a grip on what they do wrong. The report from Triandafyllidou doesn't demonstrate a lack of fact checking and accuracy. Specifically, it is only about immigration, and while it makes it clear the paper is biased, and does not " reflect migration related diversity and promote migrant integration," that's not relevant. Media Bias Fact Check is terrible and I have not reviewed it, because it is worthless. I cannot read greek - if there is a specific hoax they are accused of hoaxing, that would be relevant data. Reviewing pages 6 and 14 of that subreport, the mentions of Protothema include them not taking the Coronavirus seriously... In January of 2020, and that they used... hyperlinks in Feb of 2020. Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, MBFC is not a reliable or well-respected fact-checking service in the journalism world. Legitimate journalism organizations don't think too highly of it, and we should not either. See
WP:MBFC. --Jayron 32 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jayron32: exclude MBFC, other citations indicate poor fact checking, and there is no indication pointing that it is reliable or accurate. @Hipocrite: regarding fact checking, Triandafillidou marks the site as "medium". It relies on official reports and does not regularly cross check data. Is that enough for WP? I think not. Moreover, rest of the report shows that professionalism is lacking. Anyway, fact checking site ellinika hoaxes has many entries on protothema.gr. There are 188 articles/hoaxes regarding protothema.gr. Report on Covid pandemic, I think it could be ok not taken seriously back in very early 2020, but misinforming on vaccines indicates lack of accuracy. Cinadon36 08:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked twice now, I am not seeing any actual claim of fake news. Could well be an issue but unless OP can provide specific links to specific instances, not really sure there is anything actionable here. Slywriter (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter: I thought I provided a link but I now see it does not really works, so here:

it was reported that 1 million ppl in Gr has been vaccinated, but it was not true

photos of horses during a fire in Greece, they were photos from California and Australia (but it was not stated in the article)

four foods that can exterminate SARS-Cov-2, but the study was not even conducted in guinea pigs

illegal immigrants take down a Greek flag, but in reality, they were French students visiting the island

11 month old baby dies of marijuana overdose, but that was not the case, even though there was a temporal relationship.

Talibans decapitated female volleyball athlete member of the national team but she was not decapitated, and she was not a member of the national team

There are ~261 fake news spotted at Ellinikahoaxes. Should I post more? Cinadon36 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For at least one of those, volleyball, a look at the live page of the website shows they corrected the record and stated were mistaken [[9]]. Corrections are a good thing, so I am not sure they merit such drastic action as being deemed unreliable. A second look, vaccinations, shows the live article does not contain the one million vaccinated language [[10]]. Honestly, I find the source of these concerns, Elinnikahoaxes, to be a troubling as their claims seem to be snapshots that do not reflect if corrections are made. Slywriter (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the death of the volleyball player Mahjabin Hakimi, notice that protothema does not admit that it published an article containing fault facts. Yes, Ellinikahoaxes uses snapshot to prove the validity of their claim. I do not think that they shouldn't be doing so.. The overall argument is that protothema.gr does not fact check the claims/facts it publishes. Ellinikahoaxes has many examples, and Triantafillidou makes a similar case. I think the case for considering protothema as unreliable, stands strong. Cinadon36 22:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it does, twice. Once in the body saying previous reports of beheading were wrong and italicized text at the bottom that says "this article has been corrected...". Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt say "previous reports". It says "Ενώ αρχικά είχε μεταδοθεί ότι αποκεφαλίστηκε, αυτό δεν ισχύει." meaning "While it was initially announced that she was beheaded, that is wrong" It doesn't clarify by whom it was initially announced. Last line is "Το άρθρο έχει διορθωθεί σύμφωνα με τι πολιτικές του Facebook" meaning "the article has been corrected according to Facebook policies". Doesn't clarify which article. And what Facebook has to do with it? Strange wording. Nowhere does it says "our article was wrong" Cinadon36 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a different approach, can you point to an article on wikipedia where the site is being used to support a false statement? Slywriter (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed that part; I tend to believe that it is irrelevant. Anyway, I remember once that I read somewhere in WP, that during a confrontation of Greek and Turkish navy, the greek islanders sang a psalm to God, and that forced the Turkish ship to flee. I checked the source (protothema) and it was there! Hilarious.[[11] (See paragraph/section under the title "Έτρεψαν τους Τούρκους σε φυγή με ...ψαλμούς" translating-->"They made the Turks run away using...psalms") Also, look here[12], in 2018, protothema copies el.WP (diff of inserting the text in 2011). So, since we have reliable evidence that there is a fact checking problem, why shouldnt we proceed to classify protothema as unreliable? Cinadon36 07:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

Source: Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert, eds. (1995), India: A Country Study (PDF), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, p. 571
Statement in source: "There was some opposition to this move within the cabinet by those who did not agree with referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN. The UN mediation process brought the war to a close on January 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war."
Discussion:
Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#6000 casualties figure

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit
Summary: This is a highly partisan topic and is subject to DS. The talk page discussion started by questioning Pakistani casualties quoted as 6,000 killed, citing Globalsecurity.org and a figure of 1,500 killed. There is no consensus as to the reliability of that source but it actually cites India: A Country Study (the subject of this post). The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was initially fought by proxy until the ultimate engagement of both national militaries. It is unclear from the other sources cited precisely what they are reporting as casualties (ie national military casualties v total combatant casualties). The other sources are not great, in that they are largely Indian in origin. The subject edit would add the 1,500 figure to both sides. However, the reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) has since been questioned, citing
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
.
Question: Is the subject source (India: A Country Study) sufficiently reliable to support the edit made to the infobox in respect to casualties.
Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I have no ties to either country.[reply]

Comments (India: A Country Study)

Not a reliable source for the purpose.
That being said, what is the end-game? A majority of men employed by Pakistan were irregulars supplied with arms-stashes and money; who had recorded those casualties? There is a reason why even semi-official histories (see Shuja Nawaz et al) skips mentioning casualty-counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The time of the event is around late 1940's. This makes it very difficult to gather enough information on the casualty figures. Wikipedia was earlier quoting an indian figure which seems to have no official source and was not reliable enough. The 1,500 casualty figure estimate is the most neutral source on the internet neutral source at page 571 and is quoted by global security.org ^[1]. It is also cited in some university work. No concensus can even be reached on global security.org not being suitable for being quoted. It has been cited in over 25,000 articles and also by Reuters and new york times as well as Washington Post which are considered reliable sources^[2] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar^[3]. It is only logical to quote both the 1,500 and 6000 figures as an estimate. Going by what TrangaBellam, that would mean removal of all the casualty section as this argument will even apply for the 6000 figure, which also it not a sure shot reliable source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.^[4]

So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The India country Study states 1500 Indian soldiers died, so it's off by 397 from the Indian History of the War. However, it's unclear whether it includes the J&K/AJK/GB/Chitral forces for either side and if it does, it would indeed be off by a wide margin. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some confusion of terminology. Casualty is killed+wounded. It's apples and oranges to compare 1,500 killed with over 3,000 casualty. -- GreenC 03:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source doesn't rule out that the 1,500 figure is wrong. The 6000 Pakistani casualty figure and 3000 indian casualty figure still turns out to be an indian claim. The 1,500 comes out to be a seperate estimate of casualties, not related with ^[5]}}. No official pakistani casualty figures were released and thus the source cannot be ruled out. Your source only suggests thats the indian killed figure be changed to 1,500-3000 and Pakistani be kept at 1,500-6000. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question that is being discussed is whether it is reliable for the purpose. I gave evidence that proves that it is not. The best you can do is to quote it verbatim in the body. It is nor reasonable to split it up into pieces and format it in whatever way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of including a neutral perspective I agree with using it. Currently, the article cites Indian figures. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with including it, as a range. The source is widely cited by other reliable sources as noted by Truthwins018. Furthermore reliable sources are not required to cite their sources to be reliable. A research division within the Library of Congress is not faultless, I doubt any numbers are definitive, but it would require more than Wiki editors disagreeing with the numbers to exclude it from the article, particularly when given as a range. -- GreenC 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Global security.org figures". Globalsecurity.org.

ISSN 0362-4331
. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

^ Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

Unreliable for the purpose. The source which is India: A Country Study is clearly not widely cited. The assertion that it is, is based on a different website called globalsecurity.org quoting it. The website globalsecurity.org which looks like a group blog, is the one being used as a source for an opinion in one NYT article and produces 25k+ results on google scholar (every result after the 8th is from the website itself). This is very marginal use in RS, not to mention its use is irrelevant to the actual query here. Searching for India: A Country Study itself produces similarly barebone results. The subject of the source is an overall profile of India and is not specific to the military history of the Kashmir Conflict. The topic area needs specialist academic sources, especially for things like casualty estimates. On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wide citation of global security.org has already been mentioned by SpicyBiryani on the talk page of 1947-1948 indo-pak war.The founder of the website is John Pike. John Pike is one of the worlds leading expert on defence in the world and more can be read about him in the sources cited^[1]^[2].Global security also has a reputed range of staff with wide experience in the field of defence^[3].Global security has been cited in Reuters ^[4] by an article worked upon by Reuters Staff. It has been cited in CNN ^[5]. It has been cited in Washington Post here, here ,here. It has been cited by NYT [13], [14]. Some of the book citations are:
Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.

Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.

Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf ^[6]

All the book citations may be viewed here. It has been cited in numerous books on National Security. [15]

As for the subject issue, The book does concentrate on one of the participants of the war. The killed figures are given in a seperate National Security section. We till date are not equipped with accurate figures of the casualties from the war. An indian version of figures are available. A neutral version is established from this source. It is only wise to continue with an estimated range of casualty figures which gives all the figures Truthwins018 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see merit in the arguments of those who esteem the source unreliable for the purpose for which it is being used on the main page. There is hardly any correlation between the reliability of a source and the magnitude of hits it gets on a search engine. The tangible criteria are enumerated and enunciated at
WP:RSCONTEXT is applied. Kerberous (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ "GlobalSecurity.org - John E. Pike". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ "John Pike". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ "GlobalSecurity.org - Staff Directory". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ "Factbox: Key facts on China-Taiwan relations ahead of Taiwan vote". Reuters. 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

^ CNN, Madison Park. "North Korea boasts about rocket testings". CNN. Retrieved 2022-01-06. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

ISBN 978-0-313-34612-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
)

It definetely fulfils on the criteria of
WP:OR is irrelevant in the present criteria. The source directly cites the material and its under a seperate section of Natural security. Vaious citations of globalsecurity.org does increase its reliability especially by already considered reliable sources and none of the discussion was aimed at " magnitude of hits"Truthwins018 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

David Price writing in Counterpunch in Edward Said

Counterpunch was deprecated in this RFC, a decision that is being discussed up above in #De-deprecate_CounterPunch. But at Edward Said, David Price is used in writing in about his finding FBI surveillance of Said. Price is the author Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists published by Duke University Press, and he is professor of anthropology and sociology at Saint Martin's University and author of a number of peer-reviewed journal articles (see his ResearchGate profile for examples). This specific Counterpunch article is also cited in academic journals, for example this article in Third World Quarterly published by Taylor & Francis discusses Price's findings at length (page 753). The citation has been removed and then tagged as unreliable. Is this article by David Price, an established expert published on specifically the topic of the US government surveillance of academics, writing in Counterpunch a reliable source for his finding the FBI surveilled Edward Said in the article Edward Said? I would like to avoid the wider discussion on deprecation being right or wrong here, and focus on if this source is reliable in this context? nableezy - 21:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discuss the deprecation of this particular source (in general I think we err on the side of deprecation too much) but I'd like to note that you can use other sources for this claim, for example The Nation, which is green now: [16]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Price's findings are covered in the Nation as well, which references his Counterpunch article (where it says "David Price is a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University in Washington State. As anyone glancing through his excellent book Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists will know, Price is expert at getting secret government documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Last year, on behalf of the newsletter CounterPunch (which I co-edit), Price requested the FBI’s file on Said."). Just like the Third World Quarterly article. My question is if Price's article itself is a reliable source for Price's findings. nableezy - 21:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The appropriateness of his CounterPunch piece can't be seriously contested (except as an inference from the deprecation designation, i.e. by ignoring the fact that he fits the best criteria advised by
WP:RS). We need the deprecation review context to avoid the time-consuming bother of repeatedly coming here to justify the inclusion of fine scholarly sources because some editors are taking deprecation as holy writ and Price is merely one recent victim of that holy war of blanket good riddancy.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

No, instead use the source that Alaexis provided. It seems to be an example of depreciation working in practice, where information that does not belong on the encylopedia is kept out, while information that does can be found elsewhere; if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We literally have Generally Reliable sources for the specific claim. There is absolutely no necessity to add a deprecated source to an article to achieve full NPOV coverage. You don't want to accept the broad general consensus to deprecate, but you don't get to enforce your personal lack of acceptance - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is obscene. Generally unreliable or even deprecated does not mean blacklisted and to be removed on sight. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself for removing a source cited in a number of peer-reviewed works. nableezy - 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, presume that the source is bad, and overcoming that is not achieved by revert-warring and personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if you had even pretended to read this section you would see evidence to overcome that presumption. You are removing things you are not even looking at, and you should be stopped. nableezy - 22:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That you put a claimed justification is insufficient to overcome the presumption. Also, you're literally declaring an intent to be an edit warrior here - is that what you meant to do? - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what? Where did I declare any such intent? And did you even pretend to read any of the sources you just removed? Or are you going to ignore our policies, which require that each source use be examined in context. nableezy - 22:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently the only way to cite works published by scholars is to de-deprecate Counterpunch, and because we now have an editor in David Gerard going on an editing rampage removing unquestionably solid sources, I will start an RFC to that effect. nableezy - 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a rampage that is disturbing because it is taking place while the de-deprecation review is current and not closed. No need to complicate this by opening a third venue. The gravamen of this spate of reverts while we are reviewing this, preempting the review conclusions, should be noted in the section above on de-deprecation.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. The source is deprecated. As has been pointed out already, you'd need to rerun the RFC to reverse it - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPS says exactly the opposite. nableezy - 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

If it was "unquestionable", multiple editors wouldn't be questioning it - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is there any response to David Price writing in Counterpunch being a reliable source here? Who has questioned that? nableezy - 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have already admitted in this section we already have an RS for the claim that isn't Counterpunch. You don't need Counterpunch at all for this. You're just attempting to get a deprecated source in even when it's redundant - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am attempting to use the actual source here. David Price is the person who uncovered the FBI surveillance of Said. He is an expert on the topic of the US surveilling academic activists. Why would he not be cited by us when he is cited in peer-reviewed journal articles? nableezy - 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we have editors in the other discussion saying it's OK (including myself) and up there and down here saying it's not. We can't go on like that. The deprecation "policy" needs an add.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deprecation guideline already disallows the indiscriminate removal, despite the bluster of David when he says No, that's not how it works. The source is deprecated. It actually is how it works,
WP:DEPS requires each use be examined, not indiscriminately removed. nableezy - 22:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
As I already pointed out to you at
WP:ANI - your fourth thread on literally the same dispute - DEPS is an information page, listing the results of deprecation RFCs. It specifically disclaims being even a guideline, let alone a policy. It cannot require anything whatsoever. You're citing the explanatory text for an information listing as if it's hard policy. It is not - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

ANI is about your editing, not about any one source. Kindly dont muddy the waters here. nableezy - 22:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nableezy has brought this particular sourcing question to a fourth thread on WP:ANI - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I brought your indiscriminate removal of sources, including ABOUTSELF links and sources not Counterpunch but removed because you are editing in a careless manner, to ANI. Please do not muddy the waters. Your user conduct is discussed on ANI, not any source. nableezy - 23:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not understanding this here, or is there a reason why you can't simply use the secondary citations? Counterpunch's reliability is irrelevant when citing a reliable secondary source describing or summarizing something published in Counterpunch (with the obvious caveat that that means you can only base the article on what is said in that secondary source.) In fact, that's the usual way we cover significant things that are written or which occur in unreliable publications. Whether or not you can cite it via SPS, it doesn't matter, because SPS is a weak way of citing things - if a better / non-SPS source exists for the same statement, removing the weaker source is obvious irrespective of whether the weaker source would otherwise meet the threshold for usability. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it is a weak source here, it is specifically cited in other reliable sources, and
WP:UBO would seem to say that if this specific article is treated as reliable by other reliable sources, then it is also reliable. I actually think this is a much better citation than The Nation, Cockburn is just relaying what the actual expert reported. We should cite the most authoritative source, and here it is Price. Also, the sources that cover it do so by covering Price uncovering the information from his FOI request and his writing about it in CP. The incident has weight, per its coverage in multiple sources, and the source is an established expert on this specific topic. Not even just generally anthropology and the relationship with the government and academics, but specifically on the US government surveillance of activist academics. Why wouldn't we actually cite him? nableezy - 04:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
A SPS is a weak source by definition - that's why
WP:DUE weight of the primary source receiving secondary coverage in a reputable source, while covering (and therefore reinforcing) the reputation and significance of the primary source in a way that lets us directly discuss it as part of an in-line citation without risk of synthesis. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree that a SPS by an established expert is a weak source. The use cautiously is in relation to SPS sources as a whole, including by non-experts. But what it says is Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. They may be considered reliable, not weakly reliable, not so-so. When somebody has a history of academic expertise in a specific topic, and I dont see anybody disputing that Price is that in this specific topic, then they are the source. They are reliable. And it would honestly be silly to have in our article that David Price, writing for Counterpunch, uncovered the FBI surveillance program of Said and not cite that article. If people want to argue that SPS should not be used in general they can make that argument, but that isnt what our policy says. nableezy - 04:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the situation, there are reliable secondary sources that point directly to Price's articles in Counterpunch. In most cases, when a RS goes "According to an article published in (other RS)" we should always follow the source and use the original ("other RS") article. In a case where we have a weak or non-RS as that "other RS", it is reasonable to include both the original article alongside the referring RS to provide both the original context and evidence that a reliable source trusts that work as well for this purpose. This is not always required, particularly if the original source is a clearly no-go as an acceptable source, but in this case, a Price article on Counterpunch is not going to be that critical an issue. --Masem (t) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

RFC: Counterpunch

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp
|username}}.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Wikipedia proposals
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should articles published in
WP:SPS
?
Notified: [[
centralized discussion]]. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from CENT on 24 December.Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes - In the above example we have an author of scholarship focused specifically on the topic of the US government surveillance of academics is writing about that topic, and whose column is covered in peer-reviewed journal articles (see cites here or this). Nobody is challenging that Counterpunch also publishes things that are not suitable as a reliable source. It however also does publish the work of numerous academic experts, and that work is being indiscriminately removed from our articles. If David Price wrote this on his geocities page it would be usable per
WP:SPS. There is no reason to treat the work of an established academic expert as being less reliable due to it being on Counterpunch as opposed to it being on their personal blog. Nobody is arguing that Counterpunch articles by non-experts should be cited here. But here, we have a very real example of actual scholarship being removed from our articles. And that should be reversed. nableezy - 22:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Further comment. It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that usable sources are covered by existing allowances here, but where such allowances are explicitly allowed to claim that an ABOUTSELF source cannot be used because if you absolutely need a deprecated source, you don't have a source. This specific case, and many others like it, involves an actual expert source, with pristine credentials, published on this specific topic in peer-reviewed works or books published by academic presses. Users are expunging sources that are themselves treated as reliable by peer-reviewed works. This article is cited by a journal article in Third World Quarterly, it is covered in The Nation. Countless other Counterpunch articles written by noted experts in their field are likewise cited. But because other articles are not written by experts that makes these scholars somehow less reliable? The fact that the only answer to why should David Price or Sara Roy or Neve Gordon or Dean Baker not be cited in Counterpunch is "because Counterpunch is deprecated" is both circular and illogical, and this board should reject this blatant appeal to emotion and association fallacy. There are crap articles on Counterpunch? Cool, dont cite those. But this is the work of an established scholar, cited by other reliable sources, and it should be able to be cited here. It is silly that people are saying that Patrick Cockburn writing in the Nation about an article in the magazine he edited is usable to relay the contents of the material in the article itself, but the article, oh dear no cant have that. nableezy - 02:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The
WP:UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I tried that, however editors are using the deprecation decision (his own in fact), to claim that any usage is disallowed. I was initially trying to address one single source, one that is unquestionably reliable (written by a subject matter expert,
WP:DEPS says, that is that each individual source should be examined to see if it overcomes the presumption of unreliability, and saw that people are wholsale expunging sources like David Price ([17]), Sara Roy ([18]), Gabriel Kolko ([19]) Robert Fisk ([20]) and other expert sources and not antisemitic conspiracy theories and 9/11 truther articles as was reputed to be what CP was actually used around here for that they may well have said maybe deprecation is a bit much here. nableezy - 03:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

*No It's impossible to de-deprecate specific articles, deprecation applies to the medium the articles appear in. And Counterpunch as medium has already been deprecated for lack of editorial control and for pushing fringe articles. If the author is an established expert, it should be incredibly easy to find other actually reliable sources for the same claime. --~~Mvbaron (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)~~ EDIT: struck because the RFC question changed. --Mvbaron (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might I add that this is a duplicate discussion to this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#De-deprecate_CounterPunch Whay are we discussing this here as well? Why are we discussing this on four different location? This looks more and more like forumshopping. --Mvbaron (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because only a new RFC can overturn the old? The closer specifically said that a new RFC is required. So here is that RFC. nableezy - 23:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I think in that case you should probably rephrase this RFC to something like "Should the deprecation of Counterpunch be overturned" because right now it's a bit confusing. Mvbaron (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~No. The RFC question is bad, and should be written as "Should articles published in CounterPunch be considered~~
~~The Nation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply
]
Sure, can change that. But I am only challenging the usage of established experts. Not non-experts. nableezy - 23:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but since
WP:SPS only allows experts to be used, you still wouldn't be challenging the usage of non-experts. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I will change it with a note now. nableezy - 23:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the moment. I've considered this further, the question is still problematic; we shouldn't be decided whether CounterPunch should be "treated" like a SPS, we should be deciding if it is a self-published source. This isn't as clear as it may appear; it does have an editorial process that will affect content, but so does Medium, and there is an open question about how much control this process has over the published works, per the assertions of some editors. If it can be established that their editorial process consists of little more than accepting or rejecting works as is (no direct control), and that their method of choosing which works to publish does not encourage creators to alter their work to increase their chances of being accepted (no indirect control), then I believe it would be appropriate to classify it as a self-published source. However, this has yet to be established, and as they have editors there is the presumption of an editorial process that establishes sufficient control to prevent it from being a self-published source, and so for the moment, until evidence and arguments can be provided that it is a self-published source, my position remains no. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous RFC on deprecation of counterpunch can be found here: [21] --Mvbaron (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archive link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#RfC: CounterPunch BilledMammal (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes If the same article was published on Medium or Blogspot, it would be fine to cite. In this particular example, the suggestion that CounterPunch is unreliable, but it's fine to cite a piece by an editor of CounterPunch (Alexander Cockburn) that is basically a shorter introduction to Said's article that directly advertises the full article because it's in the Nation instead is kinda absurd. Anyone writing an academic work would cite the actual article instead of a summary. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the question was edited to be less about a specific example, to clarify, I have not seen any example where the publication have significantly twisted or edited articles submitted to them, so I would treat them as more or less as self-published articles speaking for the author, and not the publication as a whole. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - superfluous with previous RFC, where this editor asked this question specifically. Covered by existing allowances, in the remarkably few cases where it's allowed - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - to the new question: Counterpunch has editorial staff (see here: [22]) and their guideline to submission speaks about editorial control: What are the guidelines for submitting an article to CounterPunch? ... We don’t pay for web contributions, nor do the editors guarantee any response to submissions. I don't see how this is compatible with
WP:SPS. Counterpunch has been deprecated in the previous RFC because of bad editorial judgements and a track record of published falsehoods. --Mvbaron (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak yes. As long as there is no evidence of misrepresenting experts' opinions, I think that it's reliable. As ~~with other SPS,~~ always DUE applies. The editor who wishes to add something from CP should be able to demonstrate that it's DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 06:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been noted below that CP is not really a SPS since they have some editorial policy and decide what to publish. I struck through the reference to SPS, otherwise my opinion is unchanged. Alaexis_¿question? 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We should base our use of sources on the evidence for their reliability. Nobody has provided any evidence that CounterPunch mangles the articles written by its authors, or in fact has any involvement in the text of its articles other than deciding which articles to publish. So there is no reason to suspect that what is published is not the opinion of the author. When that author is an acknowledged area expert, the situation is almost the same as a publication on the author's blog. Indeed, it is no different to an op-ed by the expert in a mainstream newspaper. (The claim that mainstream newspapers "fact-check" op-eds is a wiki-myth.) In summary, whether we can cite an article in CounterPunch should depend only on the expertise of the author in the relevant field. Zero^talk 08:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No and Bad RfC. The problem with CounterPunch is not that there is no editorial review (editors indeed do select the pieces that they want to publish before they appear on the website), but that the editorial review is awful. The publication is deliberate in pushing ideas from the fringes without doing much at all in the vein of fact-checking. Unless the author is on the editorial staff, it isn’t really self-published. We should stop trying to wikilawyer around deprecation here; if
talk) 12:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Drop the fatuous Daily Mail analogy. It's sand in the eyes, for a dozen reasons, most of which concern the fact that major scholars in their respective fields regularly express themselves on CounterPunch's site. Alexander Cockburn who set it up and ran it until his death, was a distinguished journalist with an excellent mainstream presence in major newspapers, not a tabloid hack.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people had responded, and both had asked me to change the question. And it has not been substantially changed. nableezy - 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am at a loss to understand the zealotry here. An opinion by a recognized expert anywhere (not just in Counterpunch, Countercurrents say, which is similar, is also SPS as a practical matter) shouldn't be dissed, only because of where they decided to publish it. If anyone wish to contest some material, they can do that, starting at the article talk page as usual, but no indiscriminate removals.Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but an article published in a magazine with editorial control is per definition not self-published (not even "as a practical matter"). BUT such pieces by experts are all fine for use with attribution. The unique situation here is just that in a previous RFC counterpunch has been deprecated. If it weren't deprecated, we could just cite Price and all the experts normally (with attribution). Mvbaron (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per link I gave (2008!) "Countercurrents should be treated as an SPS, and we should follow the CounterPunch/FPM method of looking at the author's expertise for guidance." Deprecation should not have the effect of source deletion for an expert.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, that's just the opinion of one random editor from a 2008 post... But like I said, normally expert opinions are fine to cite with attribution - but no one really knows what our policy is for deprecated sources + an expert piece. Mvbaron (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is currently being decided by one editor removing every expert view and ABOUTSELF link to CP on the basis of it being deprecated. If you are of the view that expert opinions from CP may be cited then perhaps you should rethink your oppose !vote, because the effect of deprecation, as enforced by the admin who is somehow uninvolved yet edit-warring to remove ABOUTSELF links and expert opinions and voting in this RFC, is that those expert views are being expunged indiscriminately. nableezy - 18:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yeah nableezy, it really is an interesting problem... I believe that the Price piece is prima facie reliable (it's even cited in the book that I just added to the Said article). But I also believe that CP is correctly deprecated. Our deprecation policy doesn't really say anything about this. I might need to change my vote, but for now I believe deprecation trumps expert pieces - simply because it should be easy to find the expert opinion elsewhere. Mvbaron (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, as I commented in the De-deprecate CounterPunch section above, I would like to clarify that and hopefully this RFC will do so (by a consensus of random editors:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per Nableezy and Zero. Very few editors here cite Counterpunch regularly. They do so after evaluating the quality of the article referred to, and the stature among their colleagues and peers. We cannot afford to impoverish our sourcing by a blanket veto that would deprive Wikipedia of work written by several scores of eminent scholars and journalists who fail to see the problems some wikipedians worry over and who choose to use that venue. As Selfstudier says, the intelligent solution is to leave challenges to the relevant talk pages, case by case (and the cases are few and far between). Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few editors here cite Counterpunch regularly is not a very convincing argument that the source is reliable… isn’t this a sign that editors generally have a low confidence in the publication? —
talk) 23:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No, it's a sign that editors are discerning and only cite what is written by established experts published academically in their field. Still hoping anybody can answer how this is not a RS. nableezy - 23:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very few editors here cite Counterpunch regularly. And yet, even after an alleged "rampage" of removals, we have over 1,000 pages citing it. Literally the first one I looked at was an unattributed quotation from a piece by Diana Barahona, whose only other internet presence is on the Nazi website Voltaire Net, accusing Reporters Without Borders of being disinformation agents without any evidence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here read
WP:DEPS? The answer is yes and we don't need an RfC to demonstrate that. Disruptive indiscriminate removals should be addressed at ANI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Doesnt seem to be working, as those disruptive indiscriminate removals are ongoing despite attempting to address them at ANI. With the closing admin of the last RFC declaring WP:DEPS is not even a guideline and that even ABOUTSELF links are to be removed indiscriminately. nableezy - 18:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read DEPS, but it doesn't say anything about self-publishing and it also doesn't say that we can use deprecated sources for anything else than ABOUTSELF (unless in a local consensus ofc). But maybe I missed it? Can you point me to these two points? Mvbaron (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just says V applies as usual. So round in circles.(I do think we are making too much of a meal out of "editorial control" here, the Mail is one thing, Cp quite another.Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements. Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable., from the lead of
WP:DEPS, and Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability, and that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses. Establishing new types of acceptable use requires a demonstration that the source is uniquely reliable in those particular circumstances compared to other possible uses of the source.Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other., from the section "What deprecation is and isn't" pretty clearly establishes how deprecated sources may or may not be used. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

No - This has been discussed before. A SPS indicates that the author simply clicks a button and their article automatically gets posted. At CP, people submit their articles to the editorial staff. The staff don't indiscriminately post every articles that they receive. They actively choose articles that fit CP's ideological agenda--conspiracism, genocide denial, antisemitism, etc. (check the previous RfC for more examples and links). In other words, people go to CP to get published (FYI - CounterPunch even publishes books). Hence, this source not only fails
WP:FRINGE apply too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

CP's ideological agenda--conspiracism, genocide denial, antisemitism, etc

Thanks. That gives the game away. Such a vapidly inane recalcitrantly contrafactual claim hardly needs rebuttal, though it should figure in any new edition of a work by the CounterPunch founders and editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, their edited volume The Politics of Anti-Semitism as one more of the endless instances of the abuse of anti-Semitic accusations in order to silence critical dissent. As for what Cockburn who ruled the roost there for most of the period your 'data' is hacked from, he wrote The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts, where conspiracy mongers are dissected and mocked. Genocide denial was its 'ideological agenda'? Odd that its Jewish writers never noticed, and mourned the passing of the greatest historian of the Holocaust on CounterPunch. This is real sleaze smearing, a simpleton's approach to analysis, and should be ignored.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it only "gives the game away" that they read the extensive sourcing for that claim in the previous RFC. If you can rebut it, you should, because at present it's well-backed - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure. We must pay attention to others, as they ignore our comments. No one troubled to answer my detailed remarks in the RfC point by point. I'd be quite happy to pull his patchwork case apart if some effort was made to answer the point above, regarding the contrafactual fatuousness of their generalization, which only tells me Swag googled the odd piece of crap out of over 60,000 articles and came up with his short list. It is contrafactual to use the terms he used when offspring of holocaust victims or camp survivors cannot see what his skimpy screed insinuated, since they publish there. It is profoundly obscene for an anonymous wiki editor to assert that specialist Jewish scholars of that Holocaust background cannot see what our singular Wikipedian caught, just as none of the several hundred writers or scholars broadly identified as of the left contributing to it are aware, that according to a 2015 blog of far greater pretensions to comprehensive analysis ( Cited by BobfromBrockley above), that they are all being 'suckerpunched' into supporting the radical far right which is, conspiracy again, the hidden agenda apparently of Cockburn and co. Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gives the game away" is right on the money.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swag’s swag re Counterpunch was a shabby
Potemkin Village
charade of googled diffs which, if checked, collapses its compiler's agenda. It was so poorly shaped that I never troubled to reply. I thought it wasn't worth the effort and that most editors could see through it. Nope.In the earlier RfC many voters were influenced by Swag's evidence. Over 2 decades, extrapolating from figures given Jeffrey St.Clair in 2015, CounterPunch has published over 70,000 articles. Swag's case consisted of the following skerricks and tidbits:

(1) Jovan Byford, a Uk psychologist who has written on conspiracy theories says so.
Actually not only does CounterPunch feature many articles debunking conspiracy theories, but has hosted an article citing Byford’s work on the topic

As Jovan Byford notes in a https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230349216worthy and comprehensive study of the phenomenon: ‘conspiracy theorists, by definition, deal with imperfect evidence: they are concerned with matters that are inherently secret and which the most powerful forces in the world are working hard to suppress. Conspiracy theories can, therefore, never offer incontrovertible proof’. Tony McKenna Anatomy of a Conspiracy Theory CounterPunch 27 September 2019

If you actually trouble yourself to check Jovan Byford, Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction, Springer 2011 978-0-230-27279-8 p.148 he writes

It is therefore enough to glance at any contemporary conspiracy theory purporting to explain 9/11, the origins of HIV and AIDS, the New World Order, or the machinations of ‘the Lo0bby’, to realise that post-modern tongue-in-cheek playfulness and the ‘self-reflexive’ ironic tones are few and far between. On the contrary, the ideological single-mindedness of the conspiracy tradition, whether expounded on Russia Today, in yet another best-seller from Jim Marrs or on the pages of CounterPunch remains firmly entrenched in the realm where tales of clashes between civilisations, the implementation of truth, and battles between moral extremes are elaborated without even the smallest dose of post-modern irony.’

That is not an argument buttressed by any evidence. It is a throw-away line, which fails to address the consistent dismissal of conspiracy theories in CounterPunch’s record, cites no evidence from the mag and essentially redefines conspiracy as rigid viewpoints lacking post-modernist irony. Really? Most political statements about one’s party’s adversaries are conspiratorial by that definition. Useless as tits on a bull.

(2) A Stanford researcher (Jonah G. Willihnganz) included CounterPunch on a list of prominent conspiracy sites Conspiracy Theory PWR 1 Fall Quarter 2008

Swag didn’t read his own link. Counterpunch is included in a short list, of hundreds, if not thousands, of websites, blogs, and newsgroups that promote, discuss, debunk, lament, praise, and vilify conspiracy theories.
In short another owngoal.

(3)It has published occasional articles down to 2015 by
(a)Israel Shamir. True. He’s totally unreliable for anything, even his own life. Most of his 20 odd contributions are on Russia.

(b) 9/11 truther Paul Craig Roberts. This research paper frames Roberts, whose articles on CounterPunch have from memory been focused on a conservative right-wing opposition to US trade policies, in the following way:

Leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, along with activist organizations such as the antiwar movement, have generally gone out of their way to distance themselves from the Truth Movement (Bratich, 2008; Fenster, 2008). More frequently than not, they deride Truthers as conspiracy theorists whose ideas only serve to divide the left and distract their adherents from real and pressing problems of social injustice stemming from the country’s major political and economic institutions and policies. However, there is at least some sympathy for Truthers on the left. Recently, for example, the well-known leftwing newsletter Counterpunch strayed from its traditional policy by allowing one of its most popular contributors. Stephen M. E. Marmura, Likely and Unlikely Stories: Conspiracy Theories in an Age of Propaganda International Journal of Communication 8 (2014), 2377-2395 p.2388

The author clearly states that hosting Roberts’s article (Early doubts: The 11th anniversary of 9/11 on CounterPunch strayed from its traditional line, and from the known views of its editor A Cockburn.

(c)Wayne Madsen. Per Sonny Bunch March of the Conspiracy Theorists CBS News 26 September 2005. The CounterPunch article it mentions by Madsen appeared in CounterPunch on 1 November 2002, Exposing Karl Rove. It is a long list of incidents where Rove is reported as using disinformation and dirty tricks in numerous election campaigns to destroy honorable people. Not a conspiracy, politics.

(d) Mark Crispin Miller mentioned at Gabe Stutman NYU Professor Uses Tenure to Advance 9/11 Hoax Theory in The Observer 26 July 2017 as a person interviewed for CounterPunch radio, Miller attacks the loose use of ‘conspiracy theory’ to brand dissenting opinions. New York University hasn’t fired him for teaching a class to be wary of the mainstream 9/11 narrative. Why should CounterPunch be deprecated for allowing a venue for him? That’s what libertarians do, host even contrarian ideas they disagree with. Cockburn and his friend Louis Proyect attacked Miller’s 9/Trutherism belief om an article which also is critical of leftists who defend Assad.

(4) John Feffer, Stephen Zunes Sharp Attack Unwarranted 27 June 2008 refers among many other sources, to an article by George Ciccariello-Maher, Einstein Turns in His Grave. Counterpunch 16 April 2008 which (a) argues that Gene Sharp‘s Albert Einstein Institute is partially funded by the US State Department and (b) reproduces Gene Sharp’s response to the critique, asking also Cockburn and St. Clair to publish corrections and retract those statements. Feffer and Zunes don’t tell you that. They simply say it is outrageous that CounterPunch should have published a piece which raised concerns about that institute’s independence. Ciccariello-Maher‘s evidence strikes me as flimsy, but he has his sources. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, both at times contributors to CounterPunch, have of course defended Sharp’s integrity. That is how open democratic discourse functions – nothing argued is suppressed, but vigorously debated.

(5) Nonsense claims documented in the, wait for it,
Algemeiner
25 July 2012.

(5) The Algemeiner!
Readers of the Algemeiner are familiar with the fact that any criticism of Israel is ‘antisemitic’. It’s trash, written by a hack whose ire was roused by an article in the Guardian praising the progressive journalism of Alexander Cockburn and his family. No, the hack argues, they are (yawn) enablers of antisemitism. It cites 10 cases many without damning links, re Gilad Atzmon, Alison Weir (the so-called blood libel accusation is based on this article in Counterpunch, which lists numerous Israeli mainstream sources on the issue of unlawful organ use;

The article asserts Counterpunch made a cause célèbre of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, No citation given where this occurred on Counterpunch. All I can find is this which examinees problems with his judicial record.
Alexander Cockburn’s Support Their Troops? 15 July 2007 is spun there for instance as an example of him acting as a cheerleader for 'mass-murdering Islamic Terrorists in Iraq'. Read the fucking article. The insinuation is crap, faked news etc.etc.etc.

Swag's proof therefore is just montage and sham, whose persuasiveness relies on editors not reading up and checking the supposed evidence, and the evidental skerricks are used to deprecate Counterpunch as antisemitic, genocidal, holocaust denying website. There are in all those diffs two to three possible cases of execrable judgement, in a record of 70,000. No doubt there are many more but the above doesn't prove it. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a highly personalised attack (see
GlobalResearch, and he is frequently a guest on the podcasts, radio shows and video channels of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Max Keiser and 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett.^[3] His own website publishes the work of Israel Shamir and Diana Johnstone.^[3] In other words, not one exceptional article, but a large part of the publication's content, is authored by someone who writes almost exclusively for deprecated websites. While there may be an argument for some case by case use of CP, we should clearly proceed with the presumption of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

No and Bad RFC
WP:DEPS is quite clear there only small set of allowed uses of such sources. The reason why source was depreciated is exactly that to not discuss it every time if we should use it or not. We shouldn't as consensus in the last RFC has decided --Shrike (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
For the nth time, Shrike, the word is spelt 'deprecated', if you are paying attention. Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think we should fully dump all of CounterPunch's dollar reserves _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pr User:RoseCherry64; (I am frankly at a loss why anyone should vote no here; do you believe Counterpunch falcifies David Price?) Huldra (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, and keep deprecated – Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d makes the point that as CP has an editorial board, so cannot be regarded as "self-published" any more than the Daily Mail can for its columnist's articles. Given the people that they do publish — for example, Grover "Stalin literally did nothing wrong" Furr — I'm comfortable with the deprecation consensus from a couple of months ago. Sceptre (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last time Grover Furr was published in Counterpunch was March 2017, i.e. almost 5 years ago. More importantly, Counterpunch has also published articles by scholars in which they exposed and debunked Furr's work. Ijon Tichy (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
E.g.Louis Proyect What Caused the Holodomor? CounterPunch 24 March 2017. What's going on here displays the worst vices of the googler who fishes for damning clickbait torn of all context. Swag's 'evidence', apparently so persuasive to speedreaders who didn't distrust the mustering of specious diffs, if you check it, collapses. We are drowning in a superficiality that clogs all logical and evidential clarity. (Even more context Proyect, who died a few months ago, was a personal friend of both Cockburn and St. Clair, who hosted his columns while often mocking his Trotskyism)Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sceptre, you and some others make the same mistaken reading of the question. Nobody is claiming that articles in CP are self-published. Of course they are not; CP is the publisher. The question is whether those articles should be "treated as WP:SPS", which is different. Zero^talk 11:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that those editors recognize that, and their response is to point out that they are not self-published, with all that is implied from that. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "should we treat this as a self-published source?" question is, fundamentally, trying to lawyer out an exemption from deprecation by people who opposed its deprecation in the first place. CounterPunch is a rag, and I would question the sense of anyone choosing to publish on their website; hell, if Isaac Newton rose from the grave and published "2+2=4" on the site, I'd ask for a second opinion. Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hah:) Well, it may end up being RFC'd again, that's true. Afaics, the objection seems to be more the way the old cites are being removed rather than an inability to cite new material, I have never cited CP myself although there seems on inspection to be quite a number of apparently unwise people publishing stuff there. It is not entirely clear to me that experts (which are also "sources") need an exemption any more than they need one for a "merely" unreliable source. Apart from that, there appears to be no evidence that CP edits the material of those experts that do publish in it? So it being published there is practically no different than if it were actually self published on a blog, say.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "editorial policy" thing is bothering me a bit: Every submission to our website is checked for accuracy, libel, copyright and style before it is posted. Any posted article that is subsequently found to contain factual inaccuracies, potentially libellous material or material that violates copyright is either amended or removed as soon as we become aware of this. For editorial style, we follow the Economist Style Guide. is obviously an editorial policy but it seems to be that just deciding what will and won't publish is not an "editorial policy" worthy of the name.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wouldn't have put it like that (SPS imposes limits on how a source can be used), but am in favour of de-deprecating articles by established experts published on the site. --Andreas JN 466 13:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC can't even do that. We'd need a close challenge or an unambiguous RFC that asks the deprecation challenge again. Mvbaron (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this RFC can't do that, if there is a consensus for it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC doesn't ask the question ("de-deprecate articles by established experts published on the site"). So it can't decide it, right? Mvbaron (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as SPS amounts to the same thing imo but even if that wasn't the case, it doesn't prevent a separate/additional consensus although most often done as a "sub RFC". A slightly awkward thing here is all the pieces are kind of related to each other, SPS, expert opinion, effect of deprecation, V, RS and so on.Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC did ask that, until you objected to the question. nableezy - 16:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I don't think this is at odds with the previous discussion on the source, which correctly decided that articles are not reliable/significant due to publication. The closing summary read Most, if not all, respondents concur that the site is unreliable, more akin to a blogging platform than a news site. It is agreed by all respondents that they do, however, assert some editorial discretion in who blogs there. I think this suffices as an argument that CounterPunch articles are as reliable as the author is, just like with blogs. For an expert author, that makes it (sometimes) usable. I've not seen any claims that the website inserts conspiracy theories or otherwise tampers with submissions it receives, just selectively publishes some of them. Fundamentally, we have a very real example of actual scholarship being removed from our articles. And that should be reversed, to quote nableezy at the top of the discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a blog post would somehow qualify as
talk) 20:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
a blog post would somehow qualify as WP:SCHOLARSHIP? That's what SPS is, essentially. You and some others are way too hung up on the publisher rather than the author Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy#Wikipedia over-focuses on publisher instead of author reputability Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The site doesn’t really meet the definition of a
WP:SPS, and I don’t see any particular benefit to the encyclopedia in creating a blanket exception here. There’s room to debate on a case-by-case basis whether a particular author’s credentials warrant allowing a citation to CounterPunch. Brendan N. Moody 12:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Except people are not allowing case-by-case examinations of a particular author's credentials on the basis of it being deprecated. Thats the entire problem here. Treating it as a SPS would allow for that examination, nothing more. nableezy - 15:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So is your point that this is not actually a self-published source, but that it should be treated as such? —
talk) 04:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I think that has been fairly consistently my position here. My point is reliability of an article on CP should depend on the author. Like in the parent section of this RFC, where an obviously reliable source is being essentially shut down on the basis of deprecation. If we accept self-published sources by experts, the only part that should matter on an expert publishing on CP is if CP faithfully reproduced their words. And there is zero evidence that they have ever doctored a column in any way. Where we would accept an author writing on his or her blog, there is no substantive reason to not accept them writing on CP. nableezy - 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not follow the guideline in the
talk) 16:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I tried that up above. People are shutting down discussion of the individual source in appropriate context on the basis of it being deprecated. Like I wrote above in the de-deprecate section, Im actually totally fine with CP being considered default unreliable so long as an examination of an individual column's reliability is conducted where needed to see if it can overcome that presumption of unreliability. Seriously, look at the parent section. The article in question is repeatedly cited as authoritative and factual in other reliable sources. The author is a noted expert on that specific topic. But it, and other literal world class scholarly experts on the topic they are writing on, are being expunged on the basis of CP being deprecated. You have people here saying deprectaed is fine because individual articles can be examined as needed, but the editors in article space disallowing any individual article to be examined. Do you think this piece is not a reliable source solely due to it being published in CP? Because that is what is being enforced here. nableezy - 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy you never tried opening an RFC at Talk:Edward Said about whether to include Price's piece... Mvbaron (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just opened an RSN thread on it in the parent section above here instead. nableezy - 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. CP is not self published. It has editors, and editorial policies. It occasionally re-published material published elsewhere, eg on blogs, but largely publishes exclusively. It occasionally publishes experts (often material they can’t get published elsewhere because fringe or because it fails other publications’ editorial standards) but it is not a site for experts to self-publish; expert contributions go through its editorial process. If the question is, “should deprecated sources be acceptable for use under the same exceptional conditions when SPSs are considered acceptable”, then that’s a very different question which should be raised at the correct forum. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely untrue that often material they can’t get published elsewhere because fringe or because it fails other publications’ editorial standards, based on nothing at all but an editors imagination. The source under discussion up above is published on CP because the scholar wanted to publish it on CP, and the fact that the paper is cited as factual and authoritative over and over again belies the meme that CP articles are fringe or fail some other standard. It is a mantra that has been repeated without evidence, and pertinent evidence has been provided to refute it, but yet it continues to be repeated without change or evidence. nableezy - 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a different question, that is the question - "be treated as WP:SPS". This also seems as good a forum as any. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be the correct forum, afaics, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Can we decide what the heck "deprecation" means, or alternately, use a different word? is a relevant discussion just closed at ANI with a closing note that here or village pump is a better venue for it. Is it necessary to transfer it here or is the link sufficient? Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As part of that discussion, a draft RFC for discussion was created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deprecated_and_unreliable_sources, if anyone wants to run with that.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just highlighting an example of "when several people say emphatically that documentation isn't clear and/or doesn't match with practice (including practice about what actions we are/aren't willing to stop), maybe it's not useful to say 'it's totally clear and it's your fault if you can't see that'". In practice, deprecated sources are simply removed the overwhelming majority of the time. We've built a structure for deprecation that saves those who want to remove a source the hassle of making the same arguments over and over, giving a lot of weight automatically to the "remove" position. The idea that deprecation doesn't actually change how we evaluate sources is not rooted in wikireality. Maybe it shouldn't, but of course it does. The whole point of these RfCs is to consolidate arguments. Because the position of removing a deprecated source is so strong by default (as it should be), any exceptions need to be carefully spelled out in the documentation. Vague wording will automatically lead to the strictest interpretation given the nature of deprecation. Presently, the "acceptable uses" section is meaningful only insofar as it carves out possible exceptions for material an author or publication write about themselves. The language of that section is inadequate for carving out any other possible exception (such as for experts writing about their area of expertise in a lousy publication). If other exceptions are desirable, it should be changed to be more explicit, even if heavily qualified. ....but an RfC about a single source isn't the way to do that. No to this, because CounterPunch is not particularly unique in this matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
an RfC about a single source isn't the way to do that. Is the RFC mentioned above the way to do that? This one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tbh, I would say that an RFC at, say, Talk:Edward Said about whether to include Price writing in CP is the way to do it. Generalizing: If the source is deprecated but there are good arguments to include a piece by an expert somewhere anyways, then use local consensus at a specific article talk page (if needed per RFC). Mvbaron (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tried that, and got this answer. We cant pretend that these exceptions that the people saying are not impacted by deprecation are in fact not impacted by deprecation when others are using deprecation to disallow those exceptions. nableezy - 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, an automated process would work better, I'm sure. In principle, that which is to be removed is first flagged and the flag signifies autoremoval in some time period unless a specified something is done to prevent it. This in general terms per the draft RFC not about Price issue specifically which is merely symptomatic of the general problem(s). Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Ultimately, I don't see any other way to answer the specific question that is actually being posed. The idea (as paraphrased above) that it is not actually a self-published source, but that it should be treated as such is a bizarre pretzel of logic that ignores the plain meaning of all the terms involved. Rather than
talk) 17:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Citing tweets by experts in order to dismiss a scholarly article in a peer reviewed journal is OK by you, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does a dispute over the history of Babylonian mathematics have to do with the question of whether articles published in CounterPunch should be treated as self-published sources? If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy, at least pick something relevant.
talk) 22:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I never mentioned any dispute. What I was referring to was your OK'ing of tweets from experts to dismiss a paper in a journal. Presumably if Price had tweeted his opinion instead of publishing it in CP you would have been OK with that as well?Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not answering the question. If Price had written something somewhere other than CounterPunch, how would that make CounterPunch a self-published source? It's completely tangential to the question that the RfC actually asked.
talk) 22:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody is saying CounterPunch is a self-published source. The question is should it be treated as though it were, where reliability of any one piece rests on the reliability of the author. nableezy - 23:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to ascertain how you would have treated Price's expert opinion if he had tweeted it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a matter of
talk) 22:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I never said it did. That's the question in this RFC? "treat as SPS". What I conclude from your reply is that is strictly because the expert opinion is in CP that you say no, a bizarre pretzel of logic. We all know that already though, that's the point of having the RFC, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(
talk) 22:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No gotcha, just trying to understand your position which is is basically "agree with current ~~policy~~ practice", right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my position is in line with current practice, yes.
talk) 23:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Just to be completely clear about where I (and some others) are coming from, if the outcome here should be no then it is likely that we would then proceed (subsequently or in parallel) to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources and/or another CP RFC, given the level of opposition that has been expressed up to now, I think the matter will not easily go away.Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just make a close challenge - nobody has done that even. Mvbaron (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Nableezy that there is little to be gained doing that, it needs a new one but before we do that I think we need to have an in between step that clarifies all that has occurred up until now because as a number of persons have pointed out, there is a lot of confusion around this. Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of those arguing for yes here seems to be that CP is not an SPS but should be treated like one because it occasionally publishes experts and their expert status trumps any problems with the publisher. If this is the case, then reliability would only be determined on the basis of authors and not publishers (any publisher could potentially publish the experts; many deprecated ones actually do). This effectively means our entire history of determining the reliability of sources via consensus should now be ignored because only the expertise of the author is relevant. That’s actually a pretty extreme position, a massive policy change. Or am I missing something? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be that CP is not an SPS but should be treated like one Not quite, the articles by experts are to be treated as SPS, not that CP is to be treated as SPS. Also, article, author as well as publisher are all "sources" per V.Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All this reminds me of months misspent in early youth teasing out theological positions in medieval philosophy (on the ontological arguments for the existence of God from St Anselm onwards). I.e. we have two policies and editors are trying to assess the relative weight of various traditions about the implications drawn about
WP:SPI with regard to an anomaly that has arisen: editors differ about which reading of either policy might put paid to the anomaly (i.e. excellent scholarly and professional work of encyclopedic values does appear in a formally deprecated source). Well, as with theology, you can argue till the cows come home, since the assumptions of two or more positions are dogmatically fixed, and partisans only apply logic to finesse their respective takes. Fortunately the rise of scientific method buried all that argufying by stating that the premises themselves were provisional, evidence trumps doctrine, and logic (and commonsense) should determine how we evaluate a crux. The policies we have are not perfect, they often vie in tension, and occasionally require emendment. If an anomaly in the impacts of interpretation emerges - we are throwing obviously good material out by a provisional consensus that might simply signify the aleatory outcome of random aggregations of editors who note this discussion - then we should drop the 'theology' (policy interpretations) and look at the quality our process has recently deemed suspect on 'principle'. That is the modern, scientific, commonsensical, empirical approach to problem solving. And that is the kind of thing most of this section is systematically and fussily ignoring. If over 3 score of top academics and professional investigate journalists choose CounterPunch as a venue, unaware that anomymous editors on Wikipedia rebuff it as an 'anti-Semitic, conspiracy-mongering, holocaust-denying, hate-pushing genocide-promoting' (all ballistically absurd charges in my view), then what deliberation is necessary to allow those articles to be cited here. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

haha your comparison is quite apt! We need more policy exegesis! :D But, let's be honest, Price at al only chose CP because they knew they couldn't or didn't want to publish such less rigorous and more blog-y pieces in an actual academic journal. Let's not pretend a column in CP is anything like a peer-reviewed article, top academic or not. --Mvbaron (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is pretending that, I think Nishidani is saying the expert opinion is frequently better and I agree with him. Because it's an opinion, we attribute rather than saying it in Wikivoice and honor is thereby satisfied. It's not an accident that more and more sources are blurring the line between fact and opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nonsense, he published there because he is on record as believing in the site, see here. nableezy - 21:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No and as already mentioned this RFC has no justification. There is reason for
WP:DEPS and the reason is to avoid time and again pushing trashy sources back. There are plenty of reliable, neutral sources that covers all this topic's. Hatemongering, conspiracy theorists are not the standards of Wikipedia.Tritomex (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody is proposing to use hatemongering conspiracy theorists. Maybe dont make things like that up. nableezy - 21:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Israel Shamir a well known Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist and an outlet, like this one [25] that publishes his views is worthless and trashy.Tritomex (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is anybody citing Israel Shamir? Again, nobody is proposing that hatemongering conspiracy theorists be cited. nableezy - 23:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said that an outlet that by publishing promotes the views of a racist bigot and Holocaust denier, like Israel Shamir, or whatever his real name is, lost all credentials to be used as reliable source at any field, not just on subject related to Arab_Israeli conflict. Tritomex (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure no-one is seriously disputing that CP (the "publisher") is unreliable. That's not the question. Imagine that CP articles were treated as SPS and someone tried to cite that guy, how far you think they would get? Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The next question raised has also obvious awnser. Articles published in CounterPunch are not self-published sources and cant be tranformed or declared as such for any purpose.Tritomex (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the RFC asks "...be treated as WP:SPS?" Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPunch did not 'promote' Shamir's views. It published them, mainly on Russia, occasionally down to 2015. If interviewing or publishing the views of people accused of racism indicted newspapers that do so, most Israeli papers would have trouble reporting on a considerable number of Knesset members. Arutz Sheva is not deprecated, and it hosts racists like Baruch Marzel. The POV war consists in huffing and puffing about CP because it is highly receptive to criticism of Israel , and quietly editing stuff culled from that racist rag, or from Israel Hayom and a dozen other newspapers with even less credibility than CP, or never making an issue of that double standard. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per comments made above, and we need more recognition here that the original RSN discussion was brigaded by sockpuppets. @David Gerard, BilledMammal, and Sceptre: you each made comments above referencing the outcome of the previous RfC from September. I had a look at that today – in the three months since that RfC, six of the “deprecate” voters (one quarter of them) were outed as socks. That is an extraordinary number to be outed in such a short space of time. It is reasonable to assume that not all the involved socks in the brigade have been outed yet. So we might be talking between a third and a half of all “deprecate” voters in that RfC representing a sock brigade, plus the halo effect from their talking points being repeated as a group. Without them that RfC would have been closed as no consensus. Discouraging sockpuppetry requires ensuring their “work” has no permanence. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested clarification of a related matter; as things stand I believe the consensus is still strong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References (Counterpunch)

^ "Washington Murdered Privacy at Home and Abroad, by". 25 March 2010. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23.

^ Marmura, Stephen (2014). "Likely and Unlikely Stories: Conspiracy Theories in an Age of Propaganda". International Journal of Communication. 8: 2388. Archived from the original on 2018-05-03. Retrieved 2019-01-20.

^ ^a ^b ^c Holland, Adam (April 1, 2014). "Paul Craig Roberts: Truther as Patriot". The Interpreter. Archived from the original on January 20, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

^ "VDARE". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2021-07-14.

^ Cite error: The named reference Anti-Defamation League 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

RFC on apa.az use for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Wikipedia proposals
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is www.apa.az website a reliable source for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh related articles? --Armatura (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Examples from its publications:

Armenia's crimes condemned in Los Angeles-VIDEO

Armenia continues “mine terror”-ANALYSIS

Reasons and purposes of Armenian provocations on border-ANALYSIS

International media and journalists in crosshairs of Armenian terrorism - ANALYSIS

Illegal visit of German MPs to Khankendi: Armenia is committed to the ideology of fascism - ANALYSIS

Why Armenia, in a difficult situation, is resorting to provocation? - ANALYSIS

Finally, apa.az is happy to present
what happened in Khojali as Khojali genocide (no wide international consensus for this term) without quote marks and yet it is so-called “Armenian genocide” in quote marks
for widely recognised genocide that only Azerbaijan and Turkey deny.

The reason why apa.az got scrutinised is
this talk page discussion. --Armatura (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion:

Comment. I am not familiar with the topic area, but the impression I got from the three examples I read is of consistently strong bias and propaganda and poor journalism. I am not sure I would consider anything published by this site as reliable on this topic, unless supported by another completely independent source from another country not involved in the conflict. They also appear to be badly translated, or written by someone with a poor command of English, which could be part of the problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not used by RS and Eurasianet writes that they get instructions what to write directly from the Azerbaijani government. Alaexis_¿question? 06:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No - Based on the language that the website uses, I think it's pretty safe to say that it shouldn't be considered RS. The extreme bias, COI and advocacy just speaks for itself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on context. In general, Azerbaijani and Armenian sources cannot be trusted on Nagorno-Karabakh related issues, as both are engaged in propaganda due to the conflict between the two countries. But if this news agency reports simple facts as, for example, inauguration of a railway station, or construction of a school, or a visit of a country official or his public statement, I see no reason why it should not be trusted. Grandmaster 13:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree regarding simple facts about Azerbaijan. The RfC question is however about its reporting on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Alaexis_¿question? 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In general, "news analysis" pieces are just opinion pieces with a different label thrown on them. Using these sorts of pieces are subject to
talk) 16:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I haven't had the time to look into this source yet, but I would note the last two examples look to be APA quoting the Azerbaijani President, and so don't speak to the reliability of the source. I will say though that the Eurasianet article suggests there are significant problems with using the APA group, as well as Trend News Agency, Axar, and Sas. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source of study calling a "phase IIa trial" and my notes and texts there: "quackery nonsense"

Hi.
At https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multiple_sclerosis&oldid=1062131102#Alternative_treatments:_some_news_(2014)_about_incense_and_more I did note to an alternative treatment with incense.
This "Talk" (title) now is removed into "history", the link here.
´Justifying´: "quackery nonsense" and ONLY "phase IIa trial".
Told here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visionhelp#December_2021

Quote: "The results of the study have been published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (DOI: 10.1136 / jnnp-2017-317101) since December 16, 2017.".
from https://www-uksh-de.translate.goog/Service/Presse/Presseinformationen/2017/Hilft+Weihrauch+bei+fr%C3%BCher+Multipler+Sklerose_-p-62549.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
Best Regards, Visionhelp (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a study of 38 people (with no control group!), a primary source, not the systematic review of multiple studies envisioned by
MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah. Many thanks,
MrOllie
. I understand, so far.
It is from 2017. It is about ´Alternative treatments´ possible, which will be from interesst for affected people.
I did not write into the article, just as note in "Talk".
There should be newer developments possible.
More I did not want to do as work: just this note.
Does this justify to remove into the deep going hard to find history the entire note in the "Talk" section, please ? Thank You very much.
Visionhelp (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The study you link isn't even remotely acceptable, per the relevant Wikipedia content guidelines. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have deleted the discussion that you created on the talk page. However, it would be extremely unlikely to result in consensus to include this text in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even in the news article that you linked, the authors say that more research is needed to evaluate this potential therapy. Using this poor quality study alone is insufficient to add the information that you proposed. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on citing Patheos

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Request for comment on citing Patheos
– Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Religion and philosophy
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Can Patheos be cited on Wikipedia? Who decides which columnists on Patheos may be cited? (This topic was last visited in 2015.) RoyLeban (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Patheos)

Background: Editor Hammersoft has argued here that Hemant Mehta, one of the top 6 columnists on Patheos, cannot be cited on Wikipedia. In the same talk page, editor Cullen328 has asserted (incorrectly) that Mehta is "affiliated with a Satanic group" and is trying to "promote a contrived controversy". I believe that Mehta is a well-written, independent columnist who writes well (and fairly neutrally) on a variety of topics. I would guess that the fact that this topic concerns religion accounts for the strong disagreements.

This query shows that Patheos is cited 911 times on Wikipedia. I'm going to hazard a guess that the vast majority of those references are to columnists that are not in the top 6. So where is the line and who gets to decide? The guidance given here, last updated in 2015, has two problems. 1) It is very vague — vague enough that an editor can exclude references to a respected, independent columnist, citing this policy; and 2) IMO, "cited together with a source that is more reliable" is an unreasonable standard — a reference is either reliable or it is not (and note: it was not hard to find articles whose only citation is to Patheos).

I believe the guidance from 6 years ago should be revisited, updated, and clarified. RoyLeban (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an RS, so should not really be used. It is a blog, so it maybe that its use is to cite the views of an expert, who is Hemant Mehta?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that anything has changed about Patheos in the past 6 years that would affect how we treat it. AFAICT, it's still a collection of blogs with little editorial oversight i.e. which are basically self published so it's not a reliable secondary source in general. When it comes to the specific individual blogs they should be treated like any
WP:ABOUTSELF applies. For other situations, they can only be used where the author is a subject matter expert. I don't know what the OP means by "top 6" but I guess either this is view count or number of articles published. But it's sort of moot since both cases are largely irrelevant in determining whether someone is a subject matter expert. I'm guessing the number of authors on Patheos is large enough and changes enough that it's not useful for us to analyse every single author there. But to give specific examples, I'm not sure if Hemant Mehta can really be considered a subject matter expert of anything going by a quick read of their article. However Daniel C. Peterson is potentially a subject matter expert on some aspects of Islam and the Arabic language, but possibly not on anything related to the LDS. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ahh, no I do not see any indication they are an acknowledged expert on Satanism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC Patheos is a blog hosting service and as such there can be no flat answer to the RfC question. Each individual blog on Patheos requires individual reliability evaluation. We cannot say ahead of time that any Patheos blog is acceptable or unacceptable. The second RfC question isn't really even a question, it's a complaint. The stricto sensu answer is obvious: the community of editors that chooses to comment on a particular article's talk page decides. The obvious displeasure of the OP that their source was not accepted at Talk:Peace Cross makes it clear they wish the "who decides" was "not who commented there". Unfortunately, that is exactly who decides on any article talk page. Neither question is answerable through a blanket RfC on the site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Patheos (not Pantheos) hosts some content such as religious documents and peer reviewed articles that may be acceptable to use as references with caution. But these days, it is best known for hosting about 450 blogs on various religious topics plus atheism. The blog in question is written by Hemant Mehta, a blogger, podcaster and atheist activist whose academic background is in math education. There is no evidence that he has expertise in the naming of National Trust for Historic Preservation sites or interpretation of Supreme Court decisions. The specific blog post in question was published two weeks before the alleged renaming and is based almost entirely on a press release issued by the Satanic Temple and statements by its leader, Lucien Greaves. Accordingly, it is the furthest thing from an independent, reliable source and basing a "Naming controversy" section on this plus the primary statement from the Satanists is entirely inappropriate. There is no controversy. There is only a non-notable publicity stunt. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should focus on asking about the specific citation to Pathos being used, because the answer for Pathos as a whole is going to be that as a blogging platform it is a
WP:RSOPINION source due to that lack of expertise, but it's definitely a no as a SPS. (Worse, it was being used to cite something as fact in the article voice! Again, we couldn't use it like that even via valid RSOPINION source, let alone a blog.) Can't you find any more reliable sources covering the ruling? --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to concur with Nil Einne: "I see no evidence that anything has changed about Patheos in the past 6 years that would affect how we treat it. AFAICT, it's still a collection of blogs with little editorial oversight i.e. which are basically self published so it's not a reliable secondary source in general. When it comes to the specific individual blogs they should be treated like any self published source."
Also concur with Eggishorn: "Patheos is a blog hosting service and as such there can be no flat answer to the RfC question. Each individual blog on Patheos requires individual reliability evaluation" – and in the context of self-published source treatment with the
WP:RSSELF limitations. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know what Patheos was 6 years ago, but today it is not "a blog". "Patheos is a non-denominational, non-partisan online media company providing information and commentary from various religious and nonreligious perspectives." (from Patheos). That page says that Patheos has both columnists and bloggers, and lists Hemant Mehta as a "prominent contributor" and you can read more about Mehta on Wikipedia itself. One commenter made the false assertion that Mehta was affiliated with The Satanic Temple, when he clearly is not. So, if any columnist on Patheos is a reasonable reference, I would put Mehta toward the top of the list. Yes, others may disagree. But the current situation is that one editor can state their opinion that Mehta is not reliable and my opinion that he is both reliable and independent gets ignored. I posted this about Patheos because Hammersoft was making the argument that Patheos, pretty much as a whole, was not reliable. The 911 other references to Patheos indicate that the current situation is problematic. I'm not making that up. And apparently, the issue keeps arising. We can ignore what is an actual problem here, or we can do something about it. If as some suggest, reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, then the guidance here should be updated to indicate that and a page should be created indicating which Patheos columnists are considered reliable. I would suggest that Mehta along with most others mentioned in the Wikipedia article should be considered reliable by default. Medium presents a similar problem, and there are more than 7,000 citations to it on Wikipedia. Extra note: Cullen328 states Mehta's article was written before the naming event. That is true with the initial version of the article, but is clear that it was updated after the event. RoyLeban (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that Patheos is "a blog" but rather that it is a website that hosts about 450 separate blogs. Zero evidence has been presented that the work written by Hemant Mehta is subject to any professional editorial control or fact checking, so it is a blog that some people want to call a "column". And the blog post or "column" in question was largely based on a press release by the Satanist group and an official statement by its founder. Accordingly, it is not an independent reliable source and it would not make any difference if this "column" was published in a widely respected newspaper or magazine. It is utterly inadequate for the purpose of stating in Wikipedia's voice that there is any sort of actual "controversy" about the name of this monument. If there actually was a controversy instead of a two bit publicity stunt, then genuinely reliable independent sources with professional editorial control would have discussed it in detail and called it a controversy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the current situation is that one editor can state their opinion that Mehta is not reliable and my opinion that he is both reliable and independent gets ignored. Yet again, @
WP:FORUMSHOPPING extensively to attempt to gain agreement the ones in question qualify. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Whether it is one editor or ten on one side or the other, the point is that it is arbitrary and inconsistent. It just took me five seconds to find citations to articles by Hemant Mehta on these pages: Flying Spaghetti Monster, Skepticon, Sally Kern. Wikipedia says there are 54 pages with his name on them, including the page about him; I don't know how many are citations. What makes those ok and not this one? I'm not ignoring the actual discussion. I'm pointing out hypocrisy. What makes this article different from the other articles? Who decides that Mehta isn't reliable and, if he's not reliable, why are those other citations allowed? If nothing from Patheos is allowed, should we do something about the other 900 citations? And even if I'm wrong and articles about The Satanic Temple by Mehta aren't allowed while other articles by him are allowed, as well as other citations to Patheos, then Wikipedia still deserves a clearer guideline. The current one allows people to justify arbitrary decisions.

You can disagree with me, but I honestly don't see how you disagree with the desire for greater clarity.

And please note: the word "controversy" was mine, and not Mehta's, and it was a mistake. I used it to try to be NPOV and it was wrong. RoyLeban (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to think that Wikipedia has some sort of central authority that determines that Mehta is universally a reliable source that is "allowed" and that an editor who objects to Mehta's blog being cited this way in this article is somehow obligated to search for and evaluate every other use of Mehta in this encyclopedia. That is not how things work in an encyclopedia of 6,430,000 articles. The fact of the matter is that your behavior, by trying to push this inappropriate content into this article, has attracted heightened scrutiny of this particular article and your increasingly disruptive
I didn't hear that behavior. There is plenty of time to take care of those other articles if Mehta has been cited inappropriately there. But right now, we are discussing one article and the poor quality source that one editor (you) is bound and determined to jam into that article, despite the fact that not a single other experienced editor thinks that it is acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I came back because I didn't want people to think my previous comment was uncivil. I gave the final example I did because it's impossible to not think of that as a possible explanation. I certainly hear that other people don't think this citation is acceptable. What I haven't heard is why, at least not in any way that holds water. Cullen328 above says it is "poor quality" as if it is a fact. It's not. It's an opinion. Maybe even a majority opinion. But why? How is this article by Mehta different from the others? Why have people reached that conclusion here but not in other places? The answer is "because" and that's a bad thing.

Is the problem everything on Patheos, just Hemant Mehta, or just this one article by Patheos? That's a reasonable question and the answer seems to be the last one. And, if that's the case, then we have a big problem.

On a side note, I am not being disruptive. I haven't engaged in disruptive editing. I am simply asking the same questions over and over again and not getting an actual answer. I am going through appropriate channels, as suggested by others, and I am trying to get clarification. It saddens me that anybody would think no clarification is needed, that the problem is not the naked emperor, but the little boy who says the emperor has no clothes. RoyLeban (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would make a difference is academics or RS off this website using him as a go-to expert for facts. Or to have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, or to hold a high-level academic post in a respected academic institution. In other words, not just a blogger.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an accepted argument as well as the fact that we don't have a universal reviewing process, so just because Patheos or the specific author is used a few dozen times on WP elsewhere doesn't make it right. --Masem (t) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

On a side note, I am not being disruptive. I haven't engaged in disruptive editing., Um. Yes, @
Disruptive Editing behavioral guideline. I could go on and if you continue being disruptive I might. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Like Aquillion wrote, it would be more useful to know the specific context for each instance. There may be cases where a particular article may be useful, especially in cases like
WP:BLOG applies. I've personally found Patheos to host interesting material but also a lot of inaccurate information (including about the doctrines of religious groups). —Paleo Neonate – 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Patheos appears to be WP:RSOPINION. As an outsider, it seems like this discussion (how to talk about and source the potential claims of the Satanic Temple to a monument after a first amendment ruling) has kinda gone a little too deep. Surely, if this has happened, there are other sources? Chris vLS (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Blog host for SPS content. Contributors can put up blog posts themselves. Mehta's posts are just blog posts by him, and should be treated accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treat as
WP:SPS. In the case of Hemant Mehta, I'd argue that Mehta should be considered a subject-matter expert on the topic of religion, given that his work has been published by reliable, independent publications as required under WP:SPS. feminist (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

RfC:The World News (twnews.co.uk)

There's consensus that it's user-generated and so not reliable, and that an RfC isn't really needed for fairly clear-cut cases like this. Therefore, I'm closing this early (Wikipedia:Snowball clause). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User generated news site, seems to be quite new, and has so far only been used a handful of times. Mostly local news in the UK at the moment like complaints about roadworks, dogs up for adoption and such. However there are obvious issues that anyone can just "create" a reliable source there. The Adrian Câciu (a Romanian politician) article is one BLP article that uses it as a source. This might be a bit of a premature rfc, and one with a forgone conclusion but I think that it's better to deal with it explicitly now than wait until it becomes a problem later.
Is it:

Generally reliable for factual reporting

Unclear or additional considerations apply

Generally unreliable for factual reporting (and therefore ruled out for BLP articles)

Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

I hope I've done this correctly, {{ping}} me if I've messed up. 🙂
(T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 05:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Its user-generated content, little more than a blog. not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly not reliable per
WP:USERGENERATED. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Is Rotoscopers reliable

There are no past discussions on this website so that is why I’m asking and it seems to be used a lot.

Source: Rotoscopers

Article: Woody (Toy Story), Chris Diamantopoulos, List of Pixar films, Paul King (director), Tom and Jerry, Mickey Mouse, Elsa (Frozen), Big Hero 6 (film), and a lot more.

Content: Animation news, information, reviews, and interviews.

Please ping me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no one checking this? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an unremarkable amateur/fan news site with no
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I checked a dozen staff/contributor bios and didn't see anything about education or experience in journalism or related fields. They are cited a few hundred times by other media, but mostly by sites with poor or no reputation. Their editor-in-chief is cited only 3 times in Google news, by Cartoon Brew, Hypable, and Funtop. That's not great. They also accept user submissions, which is an instant fail in my book. Woodroar (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Woodroar: Thanks for the response. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Military Sources on U.S. Military Topics

Question about reliable sources that stems from this discussion, but more broadly potentially affects military articles in general. Perhaps specific guidance on this already exists, so if you can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
Are all articles published by the military automatically unreliable sources on a military subject, and if not, when would they be considered reliable?
For example:
Would a source by military journalists (who are generally school trained in journalist standards) qualify as reliable sources if there is a degree of separation to the topic, for example, if they are from a base newspaper reporting about a tenant unit (i.e., the journalists are not in the unit they are reporting on)?
A Department of Navy journal with content about the Air Force, or vice versa? There is a good case to say these two services are distinct, and have differences in their cultures, and they consist of unrelated people with the navy having no vested interest in many topics about the air force, with the exception of working together on the battlefield.
A military journal with peer reviewed articles?
A military student who writes at a Department of Defense school and that school has a civilian accreditation and largely professional civilian academic faculty?
It seems if we say ALL military sources on ALL military subjects are not independent under ANY circumstance is limiting and does not actually follow the guidelines for independent sources. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most military documentation aren't journalistic nor scholarly, but there certainly are some examples like
WP:TRUTH. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think anybody is claiming "ALL military sources on ALL military subjects is not independent under ANY circumstance", but at the same time it's unlikely anybody here is going to be able to supply you with a clearcut rule. A 2020 publication by a military history professor of the
Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)? Getting iffy and needs more analysis of the publication venue, e.g. whether and in-house publication series or an established peer-reviewed journal with an independent editorial board but technically published by CGSC. -Ljleppan (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, I'm glad to hear that military sources are not summarily discounted, although there might be more scrutiny about their use. I hope that opinion is truly shared. Would you mind please commenting more about situations where one service is covering topics about another, and when that degree of separation would make them independent with respect to being considered a reliable source? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "although there might be more scrutiny about their use", not any more than with any other source. There's nothing special about "military" here, except maybe how large the organization is. We wouldn't take at face value everything that Microsoft has to say about an Apple product, never mind their own product, either. Nor would we have blind trust at a history of a university written by that university's own history professor. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, the reliability will vary based on the material. What is key is that military sources about the military are not independent sources that can be used to justify notability and a few other factors related to that. If reliable, they can fill in gaps left open by non-military coverage, but they shouldn't be the only sources present in a standalone article about the military. --Masem (t) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. So I understand correctly, at no time should a military source be used to determine notability of military topics because they are not independent? This is true even in situations where one service is covering topics about another? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ljleppan Can you comment on my statement above...would you say this is accurate? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason the various relevant guidelines are somewhat vague. I suspect that looking for a bright line rule that would apply to every situation is not going to be fruitful. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there,
Please ping me! 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, so I better understand, can you please give me some examples of where you would see a U.S. military source being used to determine notability of U.S. military topic? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on what time era we're talking about. Notable modern events will be reported elsewhere to indicate notability. Civil war or pre-industrial newspapers might be harder to find but exist. US military reports on enemies' weapon capabilities are wildly inconsistent in reliability and so might not be reliable enough to indicate notability of internal affairs either.
Please ping me! 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! @User:ljleppan, can you please provide any possible examples? Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any specific examples that would apply here. The Wikipedia community at large seems to have a consensus that military personnel are subject to the
subject-specific notability guideline (even the essay-level WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated). I'm having a very hard time identifying a hypothetical scenario wherein a military personnel subject would reach WP:GNG notability in such a manner that that notability could not be attributed to independent reliable sources. The only hypotheticals I can come up with on the spot are contrived to the point of being useless and involve things like a non-independent source indicating notability per ANYBIO#1, rather than being related to the GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think another thing to take into account is how recent the events they're reporting on are. As far as I know US submarine crews in WWII over-reported the damage inflicted, and the Navy later on adjusted down the numbers after review. I'm sure similar things happen in other contexts where the reliability increases somewhat over time.
Please ping me! 12:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Anyone who has watched (I cant remember its exact name) the official DOD documentry on the siege of Khe Sanh (made at the time of the siege) will also know that they often do not look all that well balanced in hindsite.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, and another related to time is many classified documents do not become available for many years in the future, making analysis of primary documents difficult for recent events. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in the Full Metal Jacket film, the reports from Stars and Stripes weren't 'completely' devoid of bias... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better reading non fiction such as Born on the 4th of July or Dispatches.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only bright line I would say exists is attribution, but military sources are often usable especially in
WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

Would columns at
WP:QS? Updated to match discussion, see below BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The standard definition of columns and columnists would suggest that they are, and while the editorial policy doesn't discuss columns specifically, it does state that "The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective", which suggests a general lack of editorial control that would extend to columns.
Further, if they are would Susan Gerbic (column) be considered a subject matter expert for scientific skepticism and associated topics?
This is in relation to this ongoing discussion at COIN, and is of relevance to a number of articles, including BLP's. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gerbic definitely has a long history of writing on the topic, but from my readings of her work I'd say she is an expert on scientific skeptic conferences and organizations in Europe and US, but not the movement as a whole. As far as I know she has no academic background on the subject (a professional photographer) and all her work is published in publications with what seems like lax editorial oversight, so I'd probably categorize her in the same way I'd do Joan Didion or Hunter S. Thompson (and other New Journalists). However, I don't think Gerbic is an expert on pseudoscience so I wouldn't use her as a source there.
Please ping me! 10:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not
talk) 11:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please ping me! 11:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This except in maybe some cases when an editor publishes their own work without review, if that happens is the point where things get unclear in my opinion; most columns don't have a review process like most content (although it appears that the review process at SI is generally weak), and I think that Santacruz makes a good point about treating at least the columns as a questionable source, and possibly the entire publications due to the lack of meaningful editorial oversight - I note a lot is written by actual experts, and should remain usable.

Separately, I am wondering now if
WP:NEWSBLOGS would apply to the online columns? It doesn't help us with the offline columns, but the definition appears to fit, and it does allow us to use the professionals who write such columns. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Looking at their last four articles, for example:
an opinion piece

what seems like a historic analysis from a reputable expert

a movie review

an entertainment video

Just thought I'd link them here in case it's useful to the discussion (hopefully the list doesn't mess with the indent formatting of the thread).
Please ping me! 11:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It's essentially an opinion column from one of their authors. As the submission guidelines state, the authors are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective, which shows a lack of editorial control. Perfectly acceptable for the opinions of the columnist, unacceptable for BLPs. Also, looking at the tone of the latest column, it shows even more-so that it should not be used in a BLP. Thomas John Flanagan, better known as the Manhattan Medium, the Seatbelt Psychic guy, drag queen Lady Vera Parker, and a grief vampire...[26] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual example of use on WP to consider?
talk) 11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Many; from the COIN thread, Suzane Northrop (1) and Thomas John Flanagan (1 2). The second are also referenced to the NYT's and the Las Vegas Review Journal, but as far as I can tell neither state Gerbal's position in their own voice, so the fact that we are doing so comes entirely from Gerbal's column. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think her sting operations should be cited, especially not in the leads of BLPs. The publication does not fact check them at all nor is she an expert in the subject.
Please ping me! 12:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The Skeptical Inquirer is not self-published, no. Which does not make op-eds the same as a journalistic piece.
b} 13:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

No it is not an SPS, it also does not seem to be well known for making stuff up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical Inquirer is def not a SPS. Contributors (approved in advance due to their expertise) submit articles which are worked on by editors either for the printed magazine or for the website. Additionally, if necessary due to content, their legal staff does a content review to approve the article. Rp2006 (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an SPS. If it's an opinion column, treat it accordingly; if it's another type of column, bring evidence of its quality (or lack thereof), preferably in the context of use on Wikipedia, and we can evaluate it that way. As for Gerbic, I don't see a reason why she wouldn't be considered a reliable source on the skepticism movement (trying to distinguish between authority on "skepticism conferences" and skepticism more broadly is, frankly, bizarre). That doesn't mean that she knows everything about every science, obviously, but the skepticism movement is as much a sociological, political, rhetorical, organizational, etc. subject as science subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by not an expert on the movement is that as far as I know she doesn't do much analysis of the movement in a historical sense. She doesn't break it down or try to see, for example, how it is connected to other movements (e.g. radical atheism through its overlap with speakers such as
Please ping me! 14:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"as far as I know" or
wp:or, how do you know what she does, have you ever met her (let alone examined all of the work she has ever done)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you? However, it seems the best way to address this question would be for editors who are aware of her conducting such analysis to provide examples for us to consider. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of her work on skepticism are either conference reports, personal stories and wiki-related analysis, or interviews. What I mean by analysis would be closer to "Insider Baseball" by Joan Didion or the type of monograph you'd see in academia.
Please ping me! 15:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And stuff like this [[27]], seems fairlery in-depth to me (but it does nmentiuon an accidental sting).Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure dispelling the notion that mediums have powers is indicative of expertise. Hell, anyone could do that. Additionally, the publication does not fact-check anything related to the sting (from what I understand, based on their editing policy) so I wouldn't even call the sting reliable. Again, my point was her not being in-depth about the skepticism movement and the subject of the article is a drag queen medium, not a skeptic. It's also not in-depth as much as just terribly long. There's a difference between sharp, detailed analysis and just adding more and more volunteers to an "operation".
Please ping me! 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is in depth enough to show she did research, and a lot mrope than just interviews and reports on conferancies. It is as in depth as most news paper reports of an incident. Nor does she have to be an experts, as that would only apply if this was an SPS, its not. As to "her not being in-depth about the skepticism movement", as she is not reporting on them, why would she need to be?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this whole tangent is unnecessary. If she's an expert or not, or on what, doesn't matter. Generally, we shouldn't be allowing someone with a platform with no editorial oversight for columns, where the authors are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective to perform a sting operation and then have huge, undue amounts of negative content added to a BLP based on it. If
Captain Picard had a column in Space Captains Bimonthly Journal of Space Captains and ran a sting on some other captain saying that the other captain was looking at Spacebook pages for aliens in contravention of the Prime Directive, we wouldn't include that either. If a secondary source, say Wolf-359 Times, does a story, and provides secondary coverage, then we can look into including information as it shows that it has widespread coverage, and has some editorial oversight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
On this I note that the New York Times when they reported on one of her stings did not back her conclusions with their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in depth enough to show she did research, and a lot mrope than just interviews and reports on conferancies. [Please ping me! 15:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

As far as I can ascertain, the thing Gerbic is recognized for within the skeptical community is not the study of that community, or its conferences and organizations. She is recognized for her activism investigating and reporting on those she terms "grief vampires." And of course for her work with GSoW. Those two things earned her recognition, and earned her non-profit a grant from James Randi. Rp2006 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me! 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
For once we agree. Gerbic is not an expert on the psychology involved in either the people who claim to speak for the dead, nor of those fooled into believing it. She has not claimed to be. (I doubt there is such an "expert" on Earth, as this certainly has not been scientifically studied.)

However, learning about HOW the cons work and how people are deceived, and educating the public to reduce the number of people harmed, IS what she is a recognized expert at (by the skeptical community as well as the media). And that is what she writes about primarily. As for your claim "dispelling the idea that mediums have powers is not a hard thing to do." Really? Then why do upwards of 40% of Americans (and likely other humans) still believe it? Why do countless people lose their life savings to these con-artists? Are you aware of this? Do you care? We do. Rp2006 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many people believe in many things for irrational, emotional reasons. If humans were perfectly rational beings, things like
Please ping me! 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
So are you retracting your claim that "dispelling the idea that mediums have powers is not a hard thing to do."? You clearly said that to imply there are no experts in this field, and indeed no expertise is needed because (I guess) you think anyone can do it. This is the Dunning–Kruger effect on full display. In realty, it takes a level of "expertise" gained via much experience to successfully unmask these con-artists, and to get results worthy of coverage by the NYT. In fact, I see no one else at all doing this now besides Gerbic. That is why James Randi (who used to debunk paranormal claims) awarded her a grant from the JREF before his passing. It contributes to why she was elected fellow at CSI. It is why she has been covered and consulted by media as prestigious as the NYT here and here in the rare instances they cover this topic at all. Rp2006 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you or someone else please share the exact way she is characterized in the articles? NYT is paywalled to me. I disagree by the way, it's not hard to prove a medium is a scam as long as you have the time for it.
Please ping me! 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Priceless. It's not hard to be a pilot for a commercial airline, or an astrophysicist, or an MD, as long as you have the time for it. Rp2006 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her work is covered, but her claims are not endorsed, while she is described as a "psychic skeptic". It wouldn't seem to endorse the claim that she is an expert in this field, just that she is a prominent sceptic of it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't see any reason to characterize her as an expert on mediums if the only RS describing her work on the topic does not characterize her as such.
Please ping me! 22:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

If you're not familiar with the history of debunking mediums and spiritualists (and how difficult it could and can be), I would highly recommend reading about it. Any competent biography of Houdini is a good place to start, but in keeping with the Skeptic movement theme I'll recommend "Houdini, His Life and Art" by James Randi. -
MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I find it precious that she just admitted that she has not read the articles in the NYT but has a strong opinion on them. Also that she does not know how to get around a paywall, that's beginning GSoW training BTW. One more thing that I should mention - when the New York Times reaches out to someone for comment on an article they are writing about a psychic, and you are the lone person asked to do so. That means that the NYT thinks of that person as an expert. When they write a full article about you in the NYT Magazine, even more so. That is considered a very big deal ACS. Belittling the work I have done over the years as "easy" and something you could do is insulting, not only to me, but to the few other experts on the subject. If you are not up on the topic, then I suggest you refrain from commenting. You do know who James Randi is, right? Sgerbic (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally acting in good faith and asking someone to provide the quotes in the article that support you as an expert. Strong opinions weakly held means that if I am shown proof my opinion is wrong I am quick to admit so, but until then I maintain my positions resolutely. I am just asking for one or two sentences, and the attacks on my character or the lack of assuming good faith on my part in this discussion are both unnecessary to resolving the topic of this RSN thread. I apologize if you feel offended that I think the methodology you use is simplistic. However, that is my opinion and I shouldn't need to shy away my thoughts on your reliability just because you happen to be reading. It is your choice to read discussions regarding your expertise. If you cannot handle professional assessments without feeling personally offended I suggest you do not participate in these threads. Hope you enjoy the weekend.
Please ping me! 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I think a more pertinent question would be are columns written about stings that the author ran considered a primary source for the sting? If there is no secondary sourcing about the sting, should we be inserting it into an article, especially a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a better objection, but it's more about undue than RS (assuming we are talking about stings, and not (for example) investigations).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slatersteven that the question might not be usually discussed in this noticeboard but I'll still give my two cents. I'd say the columns on the stings are primary sources. As there are no secondary sources and they are published in a magazine that does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the information they should absolutely not be mentioned in a BLP or anywhere in articles.
Please ping me! 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

relative to something mentioned above, we have never accepted the fact that a newspaper, even the NYT, asks someone to comment on something indicates their notability; it doesn't necessarily indicate they're a RS either, since a journalist normally uses a range of familiar sources. If anything, it indicates that the newspaper is not taking responsibility for what the source is quoted as saying. (I intend this as general, not the specific situation here) DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC) �[reply]

Just as a note, in the latest issue of SI they describe a breaching experiment conducted on Wikipedia [28], where the author created a fake article and left it up for 13 years, with meatpuppetry to try to retain it after it was nominated for AfD. I'm not sure to what extent it is relevant, but breaching experiments sit in an ethical gray area which tends to raise concerns. I worry about publications which uncritically publish these sorts of articles, and concerns have been raised in the past when this has happened elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: is the full text of that piece available anywhere? That sort of behaviour is concerning on a wider level than whether or not SI is a reliable source or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AFC. The hoax article was created by User:Kevin, who was not aware of the hoax. It was nominated for deletion in August 2019. According to the author, "An appeal to my Fortean and skeptical colleagues then resulted in some edits to the page. In my first intervention in the article for several years, I argued that it should be kept, because I managed to find an article that bizarrely mentioned in passing Victorian accounts of the monster (Robinson 2017)." [29]. They were usuccessful and it was deleted. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It might be relevant to see who edited that page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only edit in the AfD that fits the description was this one. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the article itself, in reference to this "An appeal to my Fortean and skeptical colleagues then resulted in some edits to the page" - although I think this edit is more likely, as it seems unlikely to be User:Dream Focus. BilledMammal (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The only significant edits to the article after it was nominated for AfD were by an IP. In regard to the AfD vote, I find DreamFocus to be unlikely, but the problem is that the author is claiming to have added a reference to "Robertson 2017", which is the reference given by DreamFocus in their edit. The reference given by Tullimonstrum isn't by the same author. I guess if it isn't DreamFocus - which I hope it isn't - then the author is lying about the edit, which speaks to the reliability of the source. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, particularly about the reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this.
Please ping me! 08:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eachy I scratched out what I said before and voted to redirect it to another article, so it clearly not me. That was back in 2019. Only one editor still said Keep in that discussion and they edit these types of pages a lot. Special:Contributions/Tullimonstrum. Anyway, you'd have to be able to view the deleted article to see who added what sources to it, and who just quoted those in the AFD, or found them on their own by clicking the AFD search options. Dream Focus 05:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this at https://twitter.com/CharlesPaxton4 Dec 29, 2021 Create a false fact on Wikipedia with no support. Then someone uses that fact beyond Wikipedia. Then that usage can be used to justify the Wikipedia article. People can now point to Eachy articles to justify the existence of a Wikipedia article about the Eachy.

And his post before that was: Dec 29, 2021 Replying to @CharlesPaxton4 My article lasted just over 13 years on Wikipedia, and successfully, as you can see above created a monster tradition. See also.

So this guy made a fake article. Dream Focus 05:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I'm really glad to hear you say that it wasn't you. However, the author states that they were the one who provided the Robertson 2017 source in the AfD, which was only used by you in your keep argument. Just to be clear, you are saying that the author of the SI article falsely claimed to have made the edit you made? If so, that suggests a significant problem with SI's reliability if it is publishing false statements about editors here. - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Eachy" shows the article is at https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Eachy and it says Bassenthwaite Lake as the location. Search for that location and its name and you get plenty to sort through. [30] Since the AFD was years ago I assume I just searched through that. I linked to the official Facebook page for the area it is reported in, as well as a reference to The National Cryptid Society and quoted them mentioning it as the "The Beast of Bassenthwaite Lake". Not sure how these seems even remotely suspicious to you. Whoever put the article over on the fandom didn't do the most recent version. If I was trying to save the information I would've done a full history export to it as I have done for a large number of articles to various wikias/fandoms over the years. Dream Focus 06:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: All good. I'm not worried about how you found the source. I'm concerned that SI is making false statements about editors, such as claiming that the author made an edit that they didn't make, because it was made by you instead. If you are not the author of the article, which I assume is what you are saying, then the article has not been sufficiently verified by the editor, and that makes me suspicious of the source and suggests that it is unreliable, which was the main thrust of the discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting really lost in this thread, personally. Could someone please reply with the questions that are being asked in this thread about Skeptical Inquirer?
Please ping me! 11:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Attractions Magazine

Is Attractions Magazine reliable? I think it could be. I don’t see them promoting parks by trying to sell their tickets or anything like that but I could have missed that. Also I couldn’t find anything where people that are not staff members can contribute to it. All of its content is related to theme parks and stuff to do with theme parks. It is in articles like Marvel Comics, Cheetah Hunt, Woody (Toy Story), Sisu (Raya and the Last Dragon), Jon Favreau, and others. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For amusement park related content, it is generally considered reliable and is often cited in amusement park articles. The publication appears in Google News results and is frequently mentioned by other reliable publications. Two examples of that I just came across include this one from The Hill and this one from Orange County Register. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RSP?― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Kaleeb18: Probably not at this time. That list is meant for sources that are "subject of repeated community discussion". Searching the archives, this thread is the only one so far that I see. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: Oh Gotcha. That makes sense since I’m the only person who has brought it up. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mig-21 shooting down an f-14

Is this [[31]] an RS for the claim?
It has also been suggested this is an RS because it is based on (note not by) Tom Cooper's research, who or what is Tom Cooper?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit [[32]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the Home button on the linked page, you are taken to [33], which has a "Contributor login." Looks like a user-generated site to me. - Donald Albury 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like RS to me either. As for who 'Tom Cooper' is, I'd guess he's the author of this: [34]. If the claim is from his book, it needs to be properly cited to that first, so we can than look at what it actually says, and then decide whether it qualifies as RS.

Incidentally, the wording in the disputed edit, "managed to shoot down", is somewhat
weasely. If it happened, it needs to be stated as a simple fact, rather than implying that there was something extraordinary about it while saying nothing about the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I certainly wouldn't trust data compiled from some randos on a forum. As for Tom Cooper, the Amazon bio for one of his books isn't reassuring. He's prolific but doesn't have any background in history. That book was published by Helion and Company, which has been discussed at RSN because they, for example, publish books by former Nazis who believe in Atlantis. Osprey Publishing has also discussed at RSN previously. Osprey's reputation seems better, although they also publish Nazi admirers. Woodroar (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it was a blog.17:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Theme Park Junkies

A defunct website, Theme Park Junkies, is being cited by an IP editor who just wholesale reverted my cleanup efforts at Black Hole (roller coaster). The particular page being sourced is here, and aside from obvious spelling/grammar issues, there are links on the page to submit your own reviews and write your own articles. This appears to have been a glorified forum of sorts from back in the day and completely unreliable, but would appreciate a second opinion in the matter considering this is being challenged at Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster)#Lack of proper sourcing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UploadVR

To be clear, UploadVR is not a reliable source in the Video Game Category. Rzzor (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last discussion from 2020 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 23 shows support as a reliable source. --Masem (t) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Civilizations of Central Asia: RS?

Articles:
Trakhan dynasty, Patola Shahis

Could someone confirm if the following work can be considered RS (content deleted here)? More specifically the article by Ahmad Hasan Dani here is being challenged and Dani is claimed to be "non RS" here [35]. Thank you for your help! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several editions:

History of Civilizations of Central Asia. UNESCO. 1 January 1998.
ISBN 978-92-3-103467-1
.

Dani, A. H.; Staff, UNESCO; Asimov, M. S.; Litvinsky, B. A.; Zhang, Guang-da; Samghabadi, R. Shabani; Bosworth, C. E. (1 January 1994). History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations, 700 B. C. to A. UNESCO.
ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5
.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan; Masson, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
ISBN 978-81-208-1407-3
.

Comment: Dani starts the section with According to the traditional history which is a way of saying that the entire history is recorded from Humza lores, popular memory etc. collected in the 20th century. [Check the footnoted source for details.] Dani's most detailed narrative on the subject can be located at "History of Northern Areas (1991)", where he repeatedly says that nothing in his history of Gilgit can be corroborated with evidence (inscriptions/coins/literature etc.) but hypothesizes about a couple of events from our knowledge of history governing surrounding polities. To reconstruct the history, Dani had used two vernacular sources from 20th century (! - one of whom had used the local mosque-cleric as the primary source; also consult 1 on contexts of production) and he was frank enough to concede at the start that they are extremely faulty, contradictory and hagiographic with dates that made little sense.
So, no: Dani is not a RS for this particular subject or rather, the particular line. It was a misrepresentation of Dani. At best, we can say that Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis.[Add a foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.] TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why not a single scholar of repute has worked on medieval history of Gilgit except Dani, making it an island among neighboring territories with extremely well-documented histories or why no historian/archaeologist bothers to discuss the aftermath of Patola Shahis. That is because, there are no primary sources to work upon. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly not state this as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and it seems pretty clear that "traditional history" is more "according to tradition", not "traditional history" as opposed to - what, "alternative history"? Danni is not saying this is actual history. Doug Weller talk 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure,
Trakhan dynasty, which would last until the 19th century. [Ref: Dani]—was a misrepresentation and at best, we can write something like Dani notes Gilgit tradition to mention of a Trakhan Dynasty to have replaced the Patola Shahis, who would rule continually till the 19th century.[A foot-note about the lack of historical evidence etc.] Right? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the book should be regarded as an RS. TrangaBellam, you seem to be using Dani to discredit Dani! If Dani is indeed the only historian to work on the area, then we need to rely on ... Dani. You should not just have removed the content in the way you did. A slight reword may be in order, which should be discussed at article talk. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the book is a RS in itself is obvious but specific reliability depends on context.

Dani is indeed the only historian to work on the area, then we need to rely on ... Dani - No. Dani was for a long time (iirc, till late 80s) assigned with Pakistan Govt.'s project(s) to map a history of its geographical territories without invoking India in any possible manner and much of his scholarship reflects such a goal. [I am sure that you can find multiple sources to these effects.] Why does every historian skip the history of the region after Patola Shahis except adding a vague line about probable Turk invasions?

That I am depending on Dani himself to discredit his own historiography is not the gotcha you seem to make of it and I have also linked other sources which are critical of his sources. I have also proposed my rewrite of the line; Dani is (re)iterating Gilgit traditions of their history and impressing otherwise upon a reader is ahistorical. You seriously believe that a dynasty was ruling for over 1000 years in C. Asia?

RS alone does not govern inclusion of content; it operates in tandem with DUE etc. I do not know why the OP opened a RSN thread without even attempting a discussion at t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... I certainly discussed at Talk:Trakhan dynasty first. I just came here to verify your claim that the Dani source was "not RS" [36] [37]. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the book is now agreed to be an RS - that you say is "obvious" - it was not a good idea to remove content and a ref to it with the edit summary "rm; use HISTRS". Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've agreed to the rewording. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
- The current content is quite different than what stood there, previously. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

The Dispatch – Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media
What are the implications of the CCP exercising increased control over Chinese media on Wikipedia coverage of Chinese topics? Does it contribute to increased systemic bias against topics local to China, and if so, how can we mitigate this? feminist (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. It will increase problems with using Chinese sources because those Chinese sources will have an increased Systemic bias. And there is no way to mitigate this, we cannot weaken our sourcing rules to allow outright propaganda sources to be used for statements of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can mitigate it by not using sources that are under the grip of Xi Jinping. We do this to some degree, but nowhere near enough. See
WP:SCMP. The South China Morning Post was once a terrific source, but Hong Kong's freedom is rapidly coming to an end. See Jimmy Lai
.

There is also the problem of academic "research" that is under Xi's thumb. In that area, we haven't done anything. We should. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a strong systemic bias in Chinese-related topics, in the opposite direction from what you're suggesting. Ruling out Chinese sources will only make that systemic bias even worse.

Ruling out high-quality sources like Caixin, which is an excellent finance and investigative journalism outlet, would leave Wikipedia in a worse position. Caixin's reporting on China is often of a much higher quality than that of major Western outlets, and Western outlets often rely on Caixin for basic reporting. The same goes for SCMP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see Caixin has been gagged.[38] Being excellent is apparently not allowed. As a general matter, I agree that sources that have been banned by Beijing have a better chance of being reliable. Apple Daily is another example. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked does not indicate that there's any problem with Caixin's reporting. In fact, it says that Caixin has reported critically on issues inside China.

If we go along with what you're proposing and ban all Chinese sources, we'll lose Caixin's excellent, well informed reporting. We'll end up relying heavily on outlets that often have less informed coverage, and which have their own strong biases.

See, for example, Bloomberg's irresponsible reporting back in March 2020 on conspiracy theories about vastly inflated death tolls in China. Bloomberg took an accurate, non-sensationalist report from Caixin, mixed it with conspiracy theories from Chinese social media, and uncritically presented crazy death tolls. And it's not just Bloomberg that did this. A bunch of outlets did it too: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Scientific research into both excess mortality and seroprevalence ([44] [45]) in China has debunked these conspiracy theories. Why did these outlandish conspiracy theories get such wide play in the media in the first place? Because they played to the biases that these outlets have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of domestic Chinese topics are mundane, which Chinese state media is still reliable for. The topics where CCP have a reason for misinformation are generally already widely covered by Western sources so we would already typically be using them instead. Jumpytoo Talk 04:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, —Paleo Neonate – 23:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The South China Morning Post is no better than the rest of Chinese propaganda media outlets and is arguably more sinister because it is tailored to a broader, more international audience. The recent decision by their *newsroom* chief to publish a bizarre video comparing press freedom in China/HK — i.e. the lack thereof — to the Assange case says a lot about the decline of HK media in general and this newspaper in particular. Normchou ^💬 01:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking of a section in Mariners Church, with claims that LA Review of Books is not OK as a source

This is an article about a church in my area. I met someone who was a member, and I was motivated to improve the quality of the article, which had been somewhat of a booster piece, and make it more NPOV. I wrote a section titled "Service to the community," with what seems to me like totally vanilla material about the church's activities. The section can be seen in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariners_Church&oldid=1063068773#Service_to_the_community I provided two sources for the description of the activities. One of the sources was the LA Review of Books, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-the-pandemic-radicalized-evangelicals/ . User Avatar317 has complained, without any explanation, that there is something wrong with the LA Review of Books, has repeatedly blanked the entire section, and did not participate in discussion on the article's talk page until we had gone through several cycles of reverts. Once I finally got them to participate on the talk page, they said, "Wikipedia is not the place for alternative facts or misinformation.," which strikes me as totally bizarre, since the section is well sourced and doesn't promote conspiracy theories or anything of the sort. They have provided links to general policies, but nothing in those policies suggests that there is anything wrong with the LA Review of Books as a source. As far as I can tell, it's a perfectly legitimate journalistic outlet with no particular ideological bias. I think it would be helpful if we could get an independent read on the situation.--Fashionslide (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well one issue might be, it's not a review of a book, that raises for me some alarm bells. Is this (in effect) a blog post?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe it as a piece incorporating some opinion and some journalistic techniques that was published in a high-quality, serious literary journal. The author of the piece did normal journalistic research, going around and interviewing sources. The author contacted various people in two white evangelical megachurches. The article is full of quotes from those people. The author quotes a church spokeswoman and gives his own summary of the church's actions during the pandemic, contrasting them with the actions of a different church, of which he expresses strong disapproval.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is an essay, so was it subjected to any editorial oversight?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me that it was subject to editorial oversight. The author is Jim Hinch. He is identified on the article's page as "a senier editor at Guideposts magazine" and an "LARB contributor." The LARB is not just some social media page or blog where Hinch can post random musings. Clicking around on the web site shows that he's a frequent contributor on religion and politics.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even when it comes to its book reviews, a book review (like all reviews) should generally be treated as
WP:ABOUTSELF reference is a passing mention in an opinion essay, then it seems like it might be undue to give it an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

High quality journalism in an outlet with good editorial oversight. Writer is a literary journalist who seems to specialise in California and Evangelical Christianity. Possibly biased on latter topic, but not unreliable. His work here [46] and here [47] Fine to use, but attribute opinions and balance with other RSs if available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LARB is absolutely a reliable publication that has editorial oversight and fact checking -- the current copy/fact checking chief on the masthead is Cord Brooks. The name of the publication is somewhat misleading, as while it does publish reviews it also publishes more general editorial pieces, and its "reviews" are generally more substantially reported and researched than a generic capsule review would be. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are student newspapers considered independent RS when assessing notability of fellow students at the same university?

My presumption was that they were covered under the reasoning "organizations/companies are not independent of their membership". In my opinion this is regardless of whether the newspaper is/calls itself "independent" of the university, since that applies to editorial and/or funding independence but not independence from the interests of the university nor from its student body. This seems consistent with community consensus alleged by DGG in this AfD close, and by Bearcat in numerous AfD comments, but has there been a more formal discussion anywhere? JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:RSSM BilledMammal (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, I didn't think to search "student media" in wikipedia space, just "student newspapers". However, the section is mainly on whether student media is reliable; the part on whether it can be used for notability doesn't cite a prior discussion. Was it also covered in the cited reliability discussions? Or is it just considered a clear extension of the instructions at WP:INDY? JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it's fine to sparingly use student media, so long as
WP:GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, to source a few stray facts that you really can't find anything better for; for instance, a student media outlet might sometimes be the only source you can find for the matter of where a notable person actually attended school. But you're correct that they aren't viewed as independent sources when it comes to topics relating to the university or college they serve, and they definitely aren't enough to bring the GNG all by themselves if a topic has no non-trivial coverage in general market media — for instance, the president of a university's or college's student government or a collegiate athlete is not going to clinch inclusion in an international encyclopedia just because they can show some coverage in their school's student newspaper, and student media isn't necessarily enough in and of itself to justify a standalone article about every individual building on campus, if there's no coverage in conventional commercial media to supplement it with.
We treat student media as acceptable for sourcing additional facts after notability has already been fulfilled by stronger sources, but not contributing anything toward the initial question of whether a topic has cleared the notability bar in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd use them very sparingly. I wouldn't use them to connote notability - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SInce I was mentioned, I think Bearcat and David Gerard see it the same way I do. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that coverage in student newspapers does nothing toward establishing notability of students at the same university where they are published, because those newspapers are inherently focused toward coverage of their own university, and internal matters at the school (including its students) would not necessarily be of note to the rest of the world. In addition, I would also be reluctant to use a student newspaper as a reliable source for anything controversial. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no for fellow students. For alumni they can be used sparingly. If a student is so exceptional that they become notable before graduation, it will surely be covered in other sources. --SVTCobra 05:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rerun Counterpunch RFC?

Looks like there was a shitload of socking on the Counterpunch deprecation RFC.
On my talk page, there's suggestions of reviewing the RFC close. When Shibbolethink closed it, and I supported their close, it seemed pretty straightforward.
One thing that CP fans are questioning is a lot of non-ECP users. That isn't actually a rule for RSN discussions ... but personally I think it might be a damn good idea. I'm straining to find a reason for completely fresh users to be diving into deprecation discussions.
It's last thing Saturday night in the UK so I'm not going to dive in right now. But I thought it would be good to open for discussion.
(I still think myself, and especially from going through cites to it and looking how it's used, that CP is a trash source that's bad for Wikipedia and I'd support deprecating it again - I'm not doing this in the hope of un-deprecating it. But the discussion needs to be robust, not white-anted by sockpuppets.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the discussion should either be vacated entirely or re-closed as no-consensus (at least as far as deprecation, I think there is clear consensus that CP does not confer reliability on to a source), as I do not think any reading of the RFC absent the socks and non-EC accounts can justifiably be called a consensus for deprecation. I dont particularly see the need for a new RFC unless some user wants to start one, and any user should feel free to do so. But the current state is in my view untenable, as I do not think one can claim that the discussion reflects a consensus to deprecate. nableezy - 01:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rfc was closed early maybe lets strike the sock votes and let it run its courseShrike (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People have been tiptoeing around this for too long; all else aside, we have multiple other discussions above, and it's clear from them that it's at least possible that the clear-cut consensus the RFC closure implied may not be present anymore, especially given the heavy socking. Either way, there's obviously enough reasons to hold another RFC, so let's just do it already - it doesn't make sense to hold constant discussions over whether to hold an RFC, since these discussions consume all the energy an RFC would, without any actual possibility of settling the underlying dispute. (I'm of the opinion that RFCs with heavy socking should generally be rerun, for the same reasons we have
WP:BANREVERT - it is extremely important to convince banned users that they cannot accomplish anything by socking.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd suggest the other Counterpunch RFC that's active on this page be closed off first, and any other ongoing discussions on CP. This issue has also been plagued by rampant forum shopping, as if starting as many fires as possible will convince other editors of the rightness of a position rather than just annoying everyone with apparent
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I very much object to the claims of forum-shopping or battlegrounding as though raising your user conduct at ANI is somehow forum-shopping, and I think that your various statements and actions (eg It's really not a good source and I'm now more confident it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, not less., as someone who thinks CP is trash, as well as voting in the above RFC) demonstrate a distinct lack of uninvolvement on the topic of CP in particular and deprecation in general. You can either be the person closing an RFC on the source or you can be the person arguing that it is trash, but you cannot be both, though given your particular view on what deprecation means I would argue you shouldnt be coming near a deprecation RFC close at all. Maybe dont speak for "everyone", several admins found your actions to be objectionable, you just ignored them. nableezy - 13:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were forum shopping well before then, and I'm very far from the only one to have noted it, even on this page right now - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is one editor with all of 1362 edits who has claimed this looks like forumshopping for opening an RFC after you demanded an RFC be opened. Your edit-warring, careless and otherwise poor editing is what was raised at ANI, which is the appropriate forum for that. You actually have played judge, jury, and executioner on CP, closing the RFC, voting in the follow up, prejudicing the re-consideration with your strongly held views, and edit-warring to remove it. I dont even care at this point, given the basis for deprecation is a discussion that clearly does not contain a consensus for deprecation, will you kindly reverse the close and if you or anybody else wants to start an RFC to deprecate CP they can do that? But as it stands, by your own admission, the RFC is tainted and as such it cannot be relied upon for well basically your last 1500 edits in the mainspace. nableezy - 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it is at the very least debatable whether there exists a policy basis for deprecation as it is understood by DG.Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed David. That readiness to re-examine this troublesome issue is a palmary example of fine administrative judgment. I'm undecided as to whether to hold another RfC or re-open the old one. I think I counted 33+ editors there, and, as Nableezy documented on your page, 6 were socks, and 3 were, per some rule, not supposed to weigh in, and another dubious. I.e. of 33+ editors a third turn out to be inappropriate presences. To what degree the original RfC's legitimate voters's assessments were influenced or persuaded by the socks numbers or arguments cannot be determined, but, from experience, when editors read a discussion to decide which way to cast their ballot, an impressive array of 'deprecate' votes in sequence can affect the outcome of their weighing in.

I have zero knowledge of these kinds of questions, so I leave it to more experienced editors to decide what to do. Personally I find little in CounterPunch that strikes me as of encyclopedic worth generally. The bruited 'anti-Semitic, genocide-advocating, Holocaust-denying, conspiracy-mongering spin' strikes me as a travesty of what Cockburn and St.Clair, the editors, were/are doing in allowing space for opinions from all quarters on their webzine.

The core fact remains that a significant number of respected professionals in their fields - political science, history, economics, etc - have published in that venue, and it would be damaging to eviscerate whatever they write as encyclopedically unusable simply because we don't like the lowbrow company they appear to keep. In (the) light of this, whatever we do should allow a margin for inclusion of material on the basis of strict criteria about the writer's competence in their field. If some reconsideration is opened up, it would be helpful to restrict the focus to CP, and not distract it with discussions about tabloids like the Daily Mail (which I've never read (and only know of because a few scholars once entertained me (1992) at a conference with anecdotes about the ridiculous eye-catching headlines it ran).

Ps. I think 'trash' is too harsh. When normatively we have to consider all viewpoints per
WP:DUE, a site with a fair number of topshelf journalists and scholars who just happen to be critical of systemic bias in mainstream reportage, has its uses. In the areas I work, the 'mainstream' is not impeccable: indeed it is often partisan or silent on issues that, elsewhere (esp. scholarship) are minutely studied. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That is the point really, all the CP bashing is not germane and a distraction from the central issue, the main thing that editors have been looking for is access to expert opinions (and not just at CP, come to that). Given the 11-11 (numerical position) on the Price rfc and the comments at the discussion intending to develop some sort of formal guideline for deprecated sources, it is clear it is not an open and shut case no matter how much some might try to portray it as such. To be clear, if to get that access, I have to ask for dedeprecation, I will do that, whereas if I had that, I would happily go along with deprecation so the two matters are connected, like or not. The recently closed ANI finished "...no consensus for any action to be taken here except to clarify, as a community, how to handle deprecated sources...". Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's limited point rerunning the RfC if the opponents of whatever the outcome happens to be consider their side to be done in by socks on the other side. If we rerun the RfC, we need to decide in advance how to deal with (i) socks and (ii) editors trying to give the impression, whether out of good faith worries or otherwise, that the !vote is seriously stacked against them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors noting that the vote was seriously stacked were not complaining that it was stacked 'against them' but against Counterpunch as an occasional source. All of those who were against the deprecation whose editing I am familiar with were not endorsing CP, and mostly said it should not be given a free pass as RS.To the contrary. There was common ground on this. It was simply a matter of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not ridding articles of important professional contributions that do exist, even if not abundantly, in CP. Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous discussion may be reasonably considered irretrievably white-anted by the socking, which is why I think we should run it afresh. Once the other discussions on basically the same issue reach a conclusion - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, can you change the RSP entry and remove CP from the list of deprecated sources? nableezy - 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there were (IIRC, at this point - the total keeps increasing) five now-confirmed socks who !voted in the RFC, all with the same position. That much is not speculation or just something that editors "consider". Five confirmed socks is just too many and is enough to reasonably conclude that the RFC was being deliberately targeted. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6, 5 Icewhiz, 1 NoCal100, and 4 non-EC accounts (one of which I think is IW for that matter). nableezy - 21:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name the 6, as I can only see 3 (see list below - who have I wrongly identified as not a sock?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its listed at the top of the RFC, but Free1Soul (not tagged but blocked here), 11Fox11, Nyx86, Droid I am, and Hippeus are Icewhiz and Inf-in MD is NoCal100, both banned users active primarily in EC topics. Would bet dollars to donuts at least one of the non-EC users is likewise Icewhiz. nableezy - 19:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nocal is slacking iff he only have one sock in that vote, :/ Huldra (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ECP issue, I believe the argument is that given the massive number of Icewhiz socks, and given his area of focus, it is reasonable to presume that at least some of the non-ECP commenters were drawn to the RFC because of Counterpunch's position as one of the most prominent journals critical of the current Israeli government, which would be a topic under ECP restrictions. Of course, that sort of argument can get dicey - under that interpretation, any RFC on a prominent source with well-known views could fall under a massive host of DS restrictions - but the sudden flood of socks shows why it's also something we'd want to be cautious about, since the precise reasons why we have ECP protections in a topic are also a reason to be concerned about the possibility of people turning a tangentially-connected RFC into a chance to use throwaways, socks, meatpuppets, etc. to weigh in on the main topic by proxy. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this by Only in death sums it up well. nableezy - 21:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A few editors above have mentioned the "massive" number of socks skewing the discussion. I see a well-attended RfC with a small number of socks, none of whom contributed more than a line or two of discussion, and a small number of non-ECRs, none of whom contributed more than a line or two of discussion, and a two-thirds majority for deprecation even removing those. Contributors in chronological order, all ECR unless noted otherwise, are as follows. (I've put the !vote in brackets, and bolded those who made substantive contributions to discussion (i.e. potentially swayed subsequent !votes):
Mikehawk10 (4), Crossroads (4), Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (4), Burrobert (2?), Shrike (4), sock puppet Inf-in MD (4), Generalrelative (4), Szmenderowiecki (?), NoonIcarus (4), GretLomborg (4), me (3+), My very best wishes (3+/4), sock puppet 11Fox11 (4), nableezy (2), Horse Eye's Back (4), Grayfell (4), Georgethedragonslayer (4), Neutrality (4), Huldra (2), Alaexis (4), Nishidani (2), Rosguill (2), NSH001 (2), BilledMammal (4), [possilikely sock] Free1Soul (4), NorthBySouthBaranof (4), Davide King (2), [sock] Nyx86 (4), non-ECR Estnot (4), Qiushufang (2), RFZYNSPY (4), Crystalfile (4), non-ECR Kathy262 (4), Amigao (4), non-ECR AllOtherNamesWereTaken (4), blocked user Droid I am (4), Zero (2), Selfstudier (2), sock puppet Hippeus (4). So, a total of 39 participants, of whom only 3 (I think) were non-ECR. Almost all the !votes were for 2 or 4. In aggregating them, I've combined my 3+ with the 4s, as I argued for more than just normal general unreliability. If the closer looked at all of the !votes, they'd have seen a ratio of 28-10 for 3+/4; removing socks and blocked, it drops to 2422-10 which remains a very strong steer. Even if you then remove the non-ECR, it's still 2119-10. And that's before you look at whether people are making policy-based arguments or simply !voting. What am I missing? On the issue of non-ECRs, the recently closed request for clarification on this seemed to say (unless I'm misunderstanding) that the ECR requirement would not apply to a project-wide discussion like this unless we were only discussing use for a ECR topic are In short or a source that mainly covers such a topic area (clearly defined by L235 in that clarification), and CounterPunch is obviously used across topic areas (the use that sparked the RfC was extradition law in the Alex Saab article). In short, I don't see a case for re-opening. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC) (Note: there may be current ECR users who weren't then, but I don't think that makes a difference given this wasn't in an ECR-only topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)) [UPDATE: Have amended as per Nableezy's list above and italicised all socks for clarity. The tl;dr summary is that no socks contributed substantially to the conversation and removing them all still gives a 22-10 balance for deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC))[reply
]

A, no it is not 22-10, given two of the votes you claim as deprecate (including your own?) are for generally unreliable, not deprecate, and b. it was 27 originally including those 2 votes, and c. that does not include the 4 non-EC accounts, two of which are very obviously I/P editors, another one seems like an Icewhiz sock, and if you believe in the idea that an editor with 7 edits in some 4 years magically shows up to an RSN deprecation vote to vote and then vanishes once more was not drawn to the discussion through
underhanded off-site methods makes me want to offer for sale a bridge in Brooklyn to you. nableezy - 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I argued for 3+ and My Very Best Wishes !voted for 3+/4. I have counted these with the 4 because I argued that normal general unreliability might be too week for a website that publishes anti-vaccine disinformation and extreme antisemitic conspiracy theories, and I think that my listing of the evidence for this might have had more of an impact on the consensus for 4 than the one-sentence comments of the socks. I'll stop quibbling about arithmetic now, but however you cut it the ratio is in the 2:1 ballpark. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is 15-17 to 10-12. nableezy - 16:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming a project wide consensus to deprecate on the basis of 15-17 qualified deprecate !votes vs 10-12 do not deprecate votes is a stretch (and there are 6 socks, so far, and 4 non-EC, all option 4), and regardless of whether it is a an EC-only topic or not, the non-EC users were also users focused on the Arab-Israeli topic area, see for example the contributions of Crystalfile, whose first edit in six months, and last since, was that CounterPunch RFC. And excepting 6 edits in March hadnt made an edit in nearly 3 years. I cant honestly believe that anybody thinks that is a good faith contribution to a discussion somebody just happened across. nableezy - 15:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think nableezy is correct in that there’s too many abnormalities in that discussion to call it a true consensus of the community. The same applies to the Jewish Chronicle discussion I closed, although some of that discussion could be salvaged since really only one issue was under dispute. Suggest re-running the RfC to figure out what the consensus actually is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there needs to be some minimum participation requirement for discussions that have such a wide impact. Seriously, the FrontPageMag RFC had 7 editors. 7 editors is enough to make a project-wide consensus that a source may never be used? Or here 15 editors can determine a project-wide consensus? Seems insane to me, regardless if I agree (FPM) or disagree (CP) with that decision. nableezy - 15:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Active users, all users, active users on the article in question, active users here? What would be the criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I dont know, but it concerns me how a handful of users can have such a huge impact across the encyclopedia. I think the shift from RSN being used to evaluate a given source in a given context to one where sources are being voted on in toto and one group of partisan editors can sway an entire topic area to be something that needs to be seriously examined. Daily Mail was an exceptional circumstance, and now every other section on this board is a deprecation RFC. nableezy - 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except no decision here is ever permanent, you introduce "qualified majority voting" and they are. Depreciation is there for one reason, a source is raised so often and found wanting it is easier to just not really allow its use. The issue is thus one of "can we trust this source", not because it makes mistakes, but because it tells outright lies. Now maybe we are going to far, I think we have not gone far enough.

As I have said before we should ban all news media use until (at least) 6 months after an event. Even then we should only use news media for attributed statements, and not statements of fact. As even the best make mistakes and are biased (or at least accused of bias). If not just an outright ban on new reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is permanent is besides the point, that 7 editors can decide a source may not be used anywhere on Wikipedia is insane to me. Even if it last a week. nableezy - 16:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the counter to that would be it would be equally insane if one editor could demand a source should be used. Or that just because someone is on holiday or ill their concerns are not heard, so shoos we also wait a month before any close (is that long enough)? There has to be a way to arrive at decisions, that can't be "filibustered" (to not use the term quite accurately) by demanding that only if X (an unspecific amount so far) of users say it. Of course, this is not a perfect system, but I am unsure that creating one where it will be all but impossible to keep out take news sites will be better.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But who said one user can demand a source be used? nableezy - 16:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a hammer, everything suddenly looks like a nail. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do it all the time here, indeed (not to be fair ONE user) is that not what this is about, demanding to use a source? And yes (In effect) saying you need to have a minimum number of people saying not RS means one person can say "yes RS". Hell they do not even have to stick their head above the parapet, just do not say anything and it's a yes vote. Indeed that (for me) is the bigger issue, making "no opinion" in effect be support (of course the same is true in reverse, but then it's also not a rule (other than the concept of consensus (as in everyone who cares thinks this).Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30/500 is a great idea for RSN/P RFCs (and DRV and MR and most noticeboards and a lot of other places). This is an area where experience is sort of a prerequisite to being able to form an intelligent opinion (about whether a source meets policy). Let's do that first, then re-run RFCs if someone thinks it'll lead to a different/better result. While we're at it, let's have these "general reliability" RFCs run on another page that's ECP, and advertised here, which will also help our watchlists. Levivich 00:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CP is largely an ARBPIA issue (just look at the majority of edits that resulted), so 30/500 is already a requirement for an RfC on CP deprecation. Per the ARBPIA General Sanctions, we don't have a choice in the matter. Zero^talk 11:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how CP is largely an ARBPIA issue? The proximate use of it that led to the RfC was in
Wikipedia talk:RFAR: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic).) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
CP indeed typically reports information within the ARBPIA area. It is more wide-ranging than that, for sure, but the ARBPIA General Sanctions apply to related content not just articles in the topic area. You can also look at the list of which CP citations have been removed so far and quite a lot of them were ARBPIA-related. Zero^talk 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a new RfC, having looked at the previous one, it does look irreparably undermined by sockpuppetry. It is also hard to argue that a ECP prohibition in the PIA topic area (broadly construed) per the clarification at ARCA wouldn't apply here. In any case considering the closer's comments, the close doesn't stand anymore unless I've misunderstood something (courtesy ping
WP:RSP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you very much, if somebody wants to open an RFC feel free. nableezy - 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, is that really how it works? There was no consensus here to vacate the close. Shouldn’t another RFC be run first? Also you pinged the wrong David Gerard Mvbaron (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of socking that has now been confirmed, I'm honestly surprised that this discussion wasn't taken down from RSP sooner. ECP for deprecation discussions as a general rule also seems like an excellent idea, even new editors attempting to participate in good faith are unlikely to have a sufficiently strong understanding of sourcing policies to participate effectively in deprecation discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the basis for deprecation is invalid then the source is not deprecated, yes that is how it works. nableezy - 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I object to undoing the RFC without re-running the RFC (and undid Tayi's changes). I am in favor of re-running the RFC. But to simply undo the RFC, and make it un-deprecated (or whatever), is to ignore the !votes of all the non-socks who participated. Because if you remove the socks and the consensus is still unreliable/deprecated/whatever, then the RSP listing wouldn't change. Whereas putting it back to before the RFC isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of current consensus, socking notwithstanding. So if we're going to challenge RFCs due to socking, we need to re-run the RFCs, not just "undo" them. If someone wants to suggest undoing the RFC without re-running it, at the very least, ping everybody who participated (who is in good standing) and see if they agree. Levivich 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecation requires a consensus. The basis for the deprecation no longer demonstrates a community consensus. The closer of the original RFC agreed that the RFC cannot be said to represent a consensus. You can still have a new RFC, but in the meantime there is no consensus for deprecation and as such CP cannot be called deprecated. nableezy - 17:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as such I undid your change. nableezy - 17:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, there is no consensus of the community for deprecation of that source due the tremendous sock puppet activity. Absolutely not. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the If someone wants to suggest undoing the RFC without re-running it, at the very least is a strawman, nobody is against a new RFC. But you cannot shift the burden here, in which a consensus is said to exist already when no such consensus exists, and you cannot maintain the result when the basis for that result is invalid. You cant demand a consensus to overturn a decision what does not have a consensus to begin with. It is an abuse of process, and it should not be allowed. nableezy - 17:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really dude? "Demand"? "Abuse of process"? If you're gonna go with that rhetoric, you go it alone. Levivich 17:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, demanding an RFC to overturn an invalid RFC is an abuse of process. Im not going to be less than honest with you, you should know that by now. nableezy - 18:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this all seems so weird to me. You (nableeze) have written thousands and thousands of words, opened countless threads (I would even say bludgeoned this very thread here) only to immediately re-introduce Counterpunch refs into articles - all the while this discussion is not even closed properly. You could have saved so much time with just filing a closechallenge weeks ago and probably get the same result, and not waste so much time. The deprecation RFC wasn't even formally taken back. Mvbaron (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weeks ago we did not know that 6 of the editors were sockpuppets of banned users. The closer of the original RFC says, up above, I reinserted links after the deprecation was removed. Ive actually opened two sections about CounterPunch, one here and one at ANI, if you think 2 is uncountable then sorry? And Im going to continue doing so. It seems that, yet again, a sock of a banned editor is involving themselves in that dispute. Shocking development. nableezy - 18:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion doesn't reverse the existing RFC, much as Counterpunch advocates might want it to. Even as an RFC closer, I can't just declare that it doesn't stand any more. This discussion is to work out what to do. We'd need an RFC of equal weight to reverse it, not just advocates jumping the gun - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, as per
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This is the abuse of process I was talking about, you say that the RFC that established this consensus is invalid, but you are still relying on that consensus and requiring a new consensus to overturn it. That is backwards, if the basis is gone the consensus is with it. You need to establish the consensus to deprecate, not reverse that burden to de-deprecate. nableezy - 18:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Erm, no, the close challenge would have to be successful first. Then it would likely be rerun. Literally this happened with deprecation of the Daily Wire. It stands until it doesn't stand, even I can't just declare it dead - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as the closing editor, are saying that the discussion was not robust and instead white-anted by sockpuppets, wouldn't it stand to reason that you are no longer endorsing the close and that the consensus is unclear? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an RFC on the ECP proposal, below - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Should_deprecation_RFCs_be_open_to_all_users_or_restricted? - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thats why I went to you first. If you, the closer, agrees the RFC is no longer valid, you can vacate your close. See where it says Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review: if significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it. If you are now saying that you do not think the RFC is invalid and as such will not vacate it then fine, Ill proceed with the other CLOSECHALLENGE steps. But you already have said that, so I cannot understand why you are both claiming the RFC is invalid and the RFC's so called consensus still holds. I have no problem re-running the RFC, I do have a problem with maintaining the results of an invalid one as the status quo. nableezy - 18:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been on Wikipedia since 2008, you should fully understand the weight of convention here - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can say it is not valid and in the next breath say it is no matter how heavy the convention is.19:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd meant to vacate my close, I'd have said I was vacating my close. I didn't say that, because I didn't mean to vacate my close, so I'm not vacating my close. I thought it would be a much better idea to put the matter up for discussion first. I think a rerun would be appropriate, but e.g. other editors think it should just stand as is and not be rerun. I considered it a good idea to see what other editors thought before taking a drastic action. Either way, a non-RFC discussion doesn't vacate an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do, I just quoted the policy here. And I also understand how overturning a consensus requires a new consensus, but here there is no such consensus. By your own admission, the RFC does not represent a community consensus. How are you claiming it still does by restoring it to
WP:DEPS? You need a consensus for deprecation, and you admit the RFC that claims that consensus is invalid. What is the consensus for deprecation then? But fine, I can proceed with asking the wide community to overturn the close if you refuse to do so. I am very concerned that an editor with strongly held views on the matter (eg as someone who thinks CP is trash) is continuing to claim a consensus while agreeing there is no consensus, but sure, will proceed with the other CLOSECHALLENGE steps then. nableezy - 19:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand that you really, really want me to vacate my close, but I'm not doing that thing, I wanted discussion before such a drastic action. You can challenge the close, of course - in which case I suggest this section be hatted, so as to minimise multiple simultaneous discussions on the same issue - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually dont give a shit what you do, I was hoping you would as you obviously already agreed the discussion was invalid and that would allow us to proceed with a new RFC with a proper basis and not, as you really, really want, one in which your position that CP should be deprecated (how does
WP:INVOLVED work here anyway) to be the current status quo, but Im fine proceeding with the close challenge. nableezy - 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

There are editors going around claiming the RFC has been reversed and Counterpunch is no longer deprecated so putting it back into articles. This is incorrect, the RFC has not (yet) been reversed - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's a bad reason but restoring expert opinion, I don't agree with that being a bad reason.Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was based off your own admission the RFC was invalid, and as such other editors updated the edit-filter and
WP:DEPS. nableezy - 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I've to say the initial comment with which you started this discussion did make it sound like you have vacated the close but since you're saying you haven't, feel free to restore its status. Perhaps I acted with too much haste. Honestly though, it might be a better idea to just start the new RfC because otherwise this has boiled down to endless bickering and ambiguity. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that, but the status quo in the event of a no consensus should not be an invalid RFC. nableezy - 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De-deprecate CounterPunch discussion has hit the archives without any conclusion and the Price CP rfc is also still running. Maybe both those should be closed and then rerun RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy, if it's no consensus then its status would just be "no consensus", like with any other RfC following an older RfC. Selfstudier, well, the archived discussion can't overturn an RfC and the Price CP RfC (if that even gets closed) would get overturned by the new RfC if there is a contradiction between the two. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus would default to the prior consensus if one is established. Which is why David really, really wants the result to stand even when he admits the RFC is itself wholly invalid. nableezy - 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is how it has ever worked and you can just ask David Gerard what would happen if the new RfC leads to no consensus? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should just wait for a bloody close of this section here. Discussion is (and was) very much still ongoing here. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody please point to a consensus to deprecate CounterPunch? Because right now I am unaware of a single valid RFC for maintaining that deprecation. Anybody? nableezy - 21:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: RateYourMusic/Sonemic interviews.

Per this previous RfC, RateYourMusic is currently deprecated. I do not intend to overturn this ruling. However, starting in 2019, they started posting short interviews with some prominent musicians (including Sweet Trip, Lil Ugly Mane, Peter Kemper, and Injury Reserve). Here's a list of all the current ones. So my question is should we allow these interviews for artists' statement attributions? (e.g. "In an interview with RateYourMusic staff, Disasterpeace said "[insert quote here]")RadarStorm (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the last RfC involved the user-generated content on the site, which is clearly different from interviews conducted by staff. I don't see why this should be controversial at all. (Although I would probably attribute it to "Sonemic staff" in this case.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine for statements by artists in an interview. However, I wouldn't use it for notability, some of the interviewees seem to be people who are users of the site (example 1, 2). I also wouldn't use any of the non-interview articles, especially the top lists which are user generated ratings without editorial control. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marilyn Roxie is a staff member of the site: https://rateyourmusic.com/~MarilynRoxie Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is iNaturalist a reliable source?

Although it's UGC, I think an exception is okay as it is monitored by a bunch of biologists. @Rusalkii:@Kueda, AntiCompositeNumber, Bob the Wikipedian, and Invertzoo:thoughts? Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 10:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I mean the taxon and taon changes page, the obs are definitely unreliableLeomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 05:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for what? Evidence of a species existing in a locale? That seems appropriate. Evidence for taxonomic opinions? Not really. It's important to remember what the source is an authority of when citing it, not just whether it may be trusted. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be less sure, as it is partially run by citizen scientists. So we would need to know who made a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it briefly when AfC started getting a lot of drafts sourced to iNaturalist and ended up confused at how much oversight there was. They don't seem to have any biologists formally on staff. I would personally be inclined to trust the general range given, but trying to cite "this species has also been found in place X" on basis of a small number of observations in that area seems inappropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put iNaturalist in a similar bucket as IMDb. It's a useful database, but it's not a reliable source. It's a collection of user-generated primary sources, which presents two problems. Because iNaturalist observations are user-generated, they shouldn't be considered reliable. Even if the observations were considered reliable, they're still primary sources. Most of the things we might want to say based on iNaturalist (like species range) would be
improper synthesis of primary sources. Other things on iNaturalist, like taxonomy, are either user-generated or imported from other sites including Wikipedia. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with AntiComposite on this one in full: iNaturalist should not be cited as a reliable source for any claim. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a founder and co-director of iNat, I am somewhat biased, but I personally think a "research-grade" iNat observation page is a reliable primary source for claims like "species X occurs in place Y" or "species X eats species Y," or at least no less reliable than Wikipedia itself, because all iNat observations are subject to a peer-review process, like any Wikipedia page. That said, it's not clear to me whether an iNat observation meets the Wikipedia standard of a Reliable source, which seems to imply that reliability requires some kind of hierarchical quality control process, which doesn't exist on iNat (we have a peer-to-peer QC model for things like identification accuracy). I totally agree it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims, where we actually have more of a hierarchical QC process but as a result the taxonomic information tends to be patchy in its currency and sometimes even contradictory (multiple active synonymous concepts, for example). So I guess if you were to apply Wikipedia's sourcing guidance strictly, you should not cite iNat observations because a) they're primary sources, and b) they probably don't quite meet the Wikipedia definition of "reliable", but I would also argue that for many taxa, there is no current source of information that meets both of those requirements. In those situations, would citing iNat be better than nothing? On a related topic, is it better to cite a reliable secondary source that is very hard to check (like an undigitized book out of print) vs. an unreliable primary source that is easy to check and/or correct (like an iNat observation)? And, to address some of the uncertainties above 1) there is no staff oversight of every single observation on iNat, 2) two of our staff have PhDs in biology-related fields (env. sci. & ecology/evolution) and one has a BA in biology though none are currently practicing biologists. We have a little more info about our QC process if you're interested. I also tried to summarize our internal (though ad hoc) efforts to assess identification quality on iNat. There are also several peer-reviewed papers out there investigating data quality on iNat, though they are usually taxon-specific (e.g. termites) and thus tend to ignore the fact that quality varies across taxa. Kueda (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burroughs Corporation Computer History

A major computer system is not named/listed as part of Burroughs history. The B300 series systems were manufactured, sold and maintained by Burroughs in the 1960s. These mainframe systems were primarily sold to financial institutions but also to a variety of other users. Several hundred customers including the federal government owned or leased these machines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80a0:e00:7c:8d01:df5e:82d2:d3b1 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which source do you wish to discuss?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your request probably belongs at the article's talk page or at
WT:WPCS, —Paleo Neonate – 00:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Museum exhibit catalogs

While these questions has arisen with regard to a couple of particular articles, they might be of general interest.

Is an art museum "exhibit catalog" a reliable source?

Is it a publication which can be listed as an accomplishment in an article about the author, particularly in a BLP?

Art museums exhibit catalogs range from books containing little more than reproductions of the works in the show, perhaps with an introductory essay; to books with substantial text comparable to academic publications in art history. However, they are basically self-published works, since they are really part of the promotional package for the exhibit. Often they are entirely the product of the museum director or the curator of the exhibit, which may be the same person in a small museum. The publishers for these catalogs specialize in this market, producing whatever the client wants. They may end up in libraries, but the majority are coffee table books.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general I would treat them as high-quality
WP:DUE weight might also be a concern depending on the museum's significance - an artist's work being shown off in the Met is obviously noteworthy; a small-town local cultural museum might not be. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I disagree that they should be treated as ABOUTSELF for the more well established museums, because they are not covering themselves they are covering the works they host. You can probably find other sources for what it says, like there are surely other published works about Portrait of a Cardinal (Raphael) than the Prado's guide, but is the Prado's guide reliable and secondary about that work? Yes. nableezy - 22:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with regard to my question #1, the status of what is published in an exhibit catalog would not be as reliable as anything written by a professor of art history with no connection to the show, and for major artists or works the latter would likely be available to cite. However, occasionally an exhibit at a major museum will have a theme or be a retrospective bringing together a unique collection of works; in which case the written text may also be unique. It is very much case-by-case, but the commercial incentive to be less academically detached is there, even if the curator is a PhD art historian. Perhaps the test would be to locate the catalog in a library collection, which indicates it was published as a scholarly work rather than being an expensive souvenir.

With regard to my second question, I am referring to a particular BLP which had a long list of books published by the subject of the article, but the majority were exhibit catalogs with him as author or editor because he was the curator/director, which is not ABOUTSELF but is likely puffery.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the majority of all art catalogs are in at least one library due to legal deposit. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a museum catalog would have a LOT to do with the general reputation of the museum itself; I would be more likely to trust something from say the National Gallery of Art or the Victoria and Albert Museum than I would from Billy Bob's Backyard Art Jamboree. --Jayron 32 00:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to consider a blanket reliability of art catalogs for living artists. Some catalogs contain independent essays written by experts, some might be like quoting the official website of the artist. I would not use them for opinion on living artists work, unless it's an essay or some other piece not written by the curator but someone who would be reasonably independent. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that depends. For example, works of the Metropolitan Museum of Art are professional and scholarly, and would be totally fine in a BLP. World-class museums can have the same level of scholarship as world class universities (eg this from the Met is written by Vassos Karageorghis, Gloria Merker, and Joan Mertens. It is a work of scholarship, as are pretty much all of the Met's publications, including its guidebook). And some of them should be treated essentially as university presses. nableezy - 16:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent source and certainly one that should not be doubted due to it being published by a museum.

Don't get me wrong, I think museum publications are often of great quality and reliability, but not all of them might be sufficiently independent from the subject itself, if the subject was heavily involved in the exhibition (example: a solo exhibit of a living artists' own work), I think it should be treated as a non-independent promotional source, fine to cite for general background information but with some considerations about its neutrality. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I dont think we really disagree, I think as with most things on this board the answer is it depends. WriterArtistDC, what are the specifics here? What source and what article? nableezy - 00:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general RS issue is citing text published in an exhibit catalog compared to the same sort of content citing an independently published book. I think the "it depends" answer has been sufficiently fleshed out above: if the museum is academically solid, then its ok. However there are museums with significant collections that are the pet projects of billionaires. Are the catalogs likely to say anything negative or controversial? With regard to the second question, the specific article is the BLP for Tobias G. Natter, which in addition to a lack of reliable sources the article has a long list of exhibit catalogs (many from the same museum) where he is credited as the author/editor. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the difference between “Deprecated” and “Generally unreliable”

I have been re-reading WP:Deprecated sources, and while it does define the upper limit of Deprecation (stating that deprecation is less than a "ban"), it does not clearly define its lower limits. So... I thought we might have some (preliminary) discussion on that. With this in mind, I want to ask some basic questions: what is the distinction between "Deprecated" and "Generally unreliable"? If there one? If so, Where do we draw the line? I am not looking for specific language (yet)... I am looking to see if we have consensus on concept. Examples of sources on each side of the line might help. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deprecated_and_unreliable_sources keeps going all round this without any real agreement, I would dearly like to know the answer to this question myself, it ought to follow from the definitions but doesn't, not really. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I think you have answered Blueboar's suggestion about having "some (preliminary) discussion" on that" -- that's Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deprecated_and_unreliable_sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main practical effect of these sources is Use of these sources may generate edit filter warnings for registered users and may be automatically reverted for edits from IP addresses. Beyond that, the key point is that It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. That is to say that depreciation isn't really distinct, in terms of source quality, from generally unreliable outside of perhaps establishing that the consensus that it is unreliable is a bit firmer and that cases that would justify usage are so rare as to be nearly nonexistent relative to the large volume of people attempting to use it. But the real line for depreciation isn't "very super-special unreliable" (although being on the far end of unreliable is a prerequisite), the really important point is that it kept coming up and people kept trying to use it despite a very clear consensus that it is generally extremely unreliable. Hence why the two practical implications of depreciation (the edit-filter and the permission to auto-revert additions by IPs) are mostly designed to deal with "very much generally unreliable source that people nonetheless keep trying to add in large numbers." --Aquillion (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this sounds like we don't know the difference between how we should treat a deprecated vs unreliable source. I guess that's OK since we can't seem to define how to decide which sources should be treated as unreliable vs deprecated. So we don't know how to tell them apart or how to handle them when they are labeled for us. Something to keep in mind, for all its flaws, we have RSP now. When the DM was deprecated we didn't have RSP so I could understand repeated discussions. Now that we have this list (anointed from the heavens and all), why do we need to distinguish between deprecated and unreliable? In either case we just point to the list and say don't use it (with limited exceptions). Should we instead ask if deprecation has outlived it's usefulness? Springee (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fabricators (and any other thing we decide) get blacklisted, not deprecated. Poof, problems resolved at a stroke, Price and expert opinions generally, subject usual criteria. Any "clearouts" take place at the level of gunrel (per some agreed procedure).Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running into a related issue right now, I was going to add some more content to the article on
talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Daily Mail is likely a special case because we know they have outright altered interview responses and the like, rather than make fabrications in their original reporting. It is effectively blacklisted on BLPs for that reason. --Masem (t) 22:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more searching with better keywords and managed to find the same information from a non-paywalled, non-deprecated source.
talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

To me, generally unreliable means that articles can be used as sources if they meet the standards for use of self-published sources. Deprecated means that they cannot, although they can be used if published in a non-deprecated source.

If, as some editors argue, there is no difference in how the sources are treated then there should not be two categories. Also, it opens Wikipedia to charges of bias, since it is expressing an opinion that has no relevance to editing.

TFD (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecation is purge on sight and replace with something better, or remove the associated content if that can't be done, unless exceptional circumstances apply (e.g.
b} 00:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Los Angeles Times columnists

There is an ongoing sourcing dispute at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh concerning two contradicting claims published by the same publication, the Los Angeles Times. This article, published on July 30, 2015, written by LA Times staff, claims Kavanaugh finished his UCLA degree in 2012. This article, published on August 7, 2015, written by LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, claims the same degree doesn't exist.
Both claims are currently stated in the Ryan Kavanaugh article while Hiltzik's claim is attributed. The question is, do we know whether LA Times applies the same editorial oversight to its columnists? If not, we should obviously omit Hiltzik's claim. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Columns are
WP:RSOPINION. Levivich 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

That clears it up. Thank you. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hiltzik isn't the first to claim Kavanaugh didn't graduate. In October 2012, Connie Bruck wrote "Cashier Du Cinema" which called him a dropout. The litigious Mr. Kavanaugh freaked out and that's when he started telling people that he went back to college and completed his degree (and he also claimed to be enrolled in a PhD program at USC). Anyway, I don't think you will find any authoritative reliable source to clear it up, so perhaps it will be best to attribute the claim of graduating to Kavanaugh himself. --SVTCobra 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He did drop out in the 1990s, which is mentioned in the article. LA Times doesn't attribute the claim to Kavanaugh, they just state it as fact, so there's no real basis to attribute it to him as far as I can see. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:RSOPINION is that opinions should be attributed (which the information was). My question is whether a Los Angeles Times column is considered self-published? Self-publishing, not opinion, is the criteria for excluding information from a BLP rather than including it with attribution. Thanks, Popoki35 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:RSOPINION, hence shouldn't be used. Throast (talk | contribs) 03:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Popoki35: I don't think it's self-published, but the first line in RSOPINION is "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact," and "Kavanaugh didn't graduate from UCLA" strikes me as a statement of fact that should not be sourced to a column. Levivich 03:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I had thought describing his claim as his own was sufficient, but I respect your interpretation. Popoki35 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EP Today

EP Today (eptoday.com) is identified as a fake news site both in a Wikipedia article (Fake_news_in_India#Fake_news_against_Pakistan) and in a report (https://www.disinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20191213_InfluencingPolicymakers-with-Fake-media-outlets.pdf) by the EU Disinformation Task Force. This was discussed briefly in an earlier Reliable Sources discussion without any resolution.

I propose that eptoday be blacklisted.

Currently, EPToday is referenced in 10 articles (one being the Fake News in India wiki article). Some of the references appear to have legitimate sources, but the topics are outside my expertise, so I don't think I'm the right person to fix these references. Using the search term "insource:eptoday.com" the articles are

Religion in Pakistan
The focus of Islamic principles creates a system of institutionalised discrimination that filters down into society. Moreover, the Constitution sets up the Council of Islamic Ideology, tasked with ensuring Islamic ideology is followed in governmental decisions, actions and policy making.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani
After record voting percentage in Kashmir, Geelani, along with other separatists, were criticised by Indian media for misleading people of Kashmir and for not representing true sentiments of Kashmiri people.

Fake news in India

All Parties Hurriyat Conference

Rod Rosenstein

Religious discrimination in Pakistan

Mark Hendrick

Religious Minorities in Pakistan

Edward McMillan-Scott

Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan

rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC) so the tag should be removed. I also think the scope needs to be broadened, there are a lot of other obscure sites like this one with similar use cases. By the way, the link to the previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § Indian fake media outlets. Looking at it, the idea for blacklisting was brought up before but no one took it up after that. Since then the use case seems to have increased, so I'd think we should go forward with it now. Give me some time to gather a list of the most relevant sites and I'll start an RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
OK. I removed the tag. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Edward McMillan-Scott's article, it's an external link to an article he authored. At Rod Rosenstein the source was unnecessary and another could be used. I've not looked at the Indian/Pakistan related articles yet. Posting this at RSN was a good idea, as it may also result in an eventual RSP entry if discussed enough. Blacklisting would be more likely if the source was spammed. Deprecation may be possible but is unlikely at a first discussion or if it's easily manageable (there are few citations at current time). —Paleo Neonate – 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked film draft and ect

Deadline Hollywood story- linked draft

CBR story [48]- that reported Phillip said "Leaked Joker Script Is Outdated"

[49] -Easter eggs in Joker reported by Den of Geek

Well, draft of Joker was leaked and released at the internet, and several media reported and linked directly. In draft, there is different set-up between film, such as existence of illusionary cat, true relationship of Arthur and Sophie, etc. I would like to refer it to describe old set-up, and add later Todd's confirmation; "Leaked Joker Script Is Outdated". Is it ok that I refer the draft directly in this context?
And, I wonder if news story of Den of Geek is good reference. Thank you. Reiro (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gentnews

Is this source reliable as used in Mark Goldbridge? SK2242 (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty poor source for a BLP. Although the referenced fact does not seem controversial it could just be taken out. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Wikipedia proposals
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The Counterpunch deprecation RFC appeared to have multiple contributors who were fresh editors/accounts.
WP:RFCs
have conventionally allowed all contributors, including IPs. Is this appropriate to deprecation RFCs?

Option 1: Keep open to all contributors, as per
WP:RFC
.

Option 2: Require autoconfirmed status from contributors.

Option 3: Similar requirements to extended confirmed protection: 30 days, 500 edits.

Option 4: something else.

- David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

Option 3 for ALL RfCs and AfDs. -- Valjean (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is specifically for deprecation RFCs, but the latter might be an idea - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: If deprecation RfCs are the first type of RFC in the 20 year history of this site to require ECP to prevent disruption, I feel like that says more about deprecation RfCs than it does about non-EC editors. (That's excluding topical discussions, i.e. ARBPIA ones.) In the Jewish Chronicle RfC, the sockpuppets were all EC editors. Clearly there's some disruption going on in deprecation RfCs currently, but I don't think this sweeping restriction is a good way to manage it. And frankly there are many other issues with deprecation and its RfCs, as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, that should be tackled rather than disenfranchising even more editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also what is a "deprecation RfC"? Any RfC that has deprecation as a possible option, i.e. the modern standard format for RSN discussions? So an RfC started on the reliability of the BBC (i.e. clearly generally reliable) would also prohibit EC editors, since it would likely contain an option 4 option, even though no editor would seriously vote for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - this is deep nuts and bolts of Wikipedia stuff. Views of fresh editors might be appropriate to the discussion, but not to the survey - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. RfCs are not a vote, so closers should evaluate consensus based on quality of arguments rather than pure vote counts. Moreover, restricting participation in discussions to autoconfirmed users goes against
the founding principles of Wikipedia. – Anne drew 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Option 1. But obvious SPAs should be tagged and that should be considered at closing, as
MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak option 1 - While RfCs are not votes, votes do have unconscious effects on those reading threads. I don't like the idea that editors without ample experience using sources should be able to influence the discussion on the depreciation of sources. However, I'm not entirely convinced of such a heavy restriction, at least for now.
Please ping me! 19:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Option 1 - shocker I know, but ECP is meant to deter socking, or at least that is why it was developed. And things like the CP RFC show why that is needed, especially for any source even tangentially related, as it allows, as another editor wrote in the AC clarification request, ECP-prohibited editors from the IP area can easily skew a discussion on sourcing when it is a general review rather than a close look at what the sources are being used for, because you can argue the broad review of a newspaper isnt covered by broadly construed, but you cant do so when the topic is specifically about IP. So for discussions on sources that are largely used in affected topic areas covered by ECP that prevention of socking basis for implementing ECP holds. But for anything else it does not. Lets say I, newbie editor adding a source to an article that interests me, finds that the source is challenged here and it devolves, as sadly too many threads here do, in to a deprecation RFC. Why shouldnt I be able to participate? The only basis for ECP is to prevent throwaway socks from swaying the content, and for some topic areas it is needed. Largely it is not. nableezy - 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - I got your point Nableezy, but I believe an option 3 is still a correct approach under the current circumstances. That may change with time but not now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Options 1 or 2 - My impression is that an experienced closer would take in consideration SPAs and IP addresses, although it's admitedly common for them to generate a lot of noise during discussions. 2 might mitigate it slightly without being too restrictive. This may also be unnecessary since a page can occasionally be protected when required after significant disruption. —Paleo Neonate – 01:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, but note exceptions such as ARBPIA. Under the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-ec editors are not allowed to participate in RfCs in the ARBPIA area. This is an Arbcom ruling that we can't change here. The same goes if there are similar Arbcom rulings in other areas. Zero^talk 01:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - While I recommend that new users get involved in as much as they can, I doubt that a reader or a user with almost no experience regarding Wikipedia's running would have anything major - yet constructive - to say about it. Some kind of loose boundary may be appropriate for our inner workings. talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

I filed this because it seems a good idea to me and some others, but it's a major change in how we approach RFCs, which have long been open to all comers - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per
b} 18:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Per above, "Deprecation RFC" is an undefined term. We should have a deprecation policy or at least a formal guideline before any more tinkering.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this discussion should be listed in
WP:CENT because it is a drastic change. – Anne drew 19:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree.
Please ping me! 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Feel free - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note also, there was also discussion asking to retrospectively declare that ECP applied to the CounterPunch deprecation RFC on the basis of
WP:ARBPIA - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, discussions in topic areas covered by ECP should have ECP applied to the noticeboard discussions, including RSN RFCs. And the fact that those RFCs have such heavy socking demonstrates why. But outside of that I cant think of a basis for it. nableezy - 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Reliable source need to follow
WP:NPOV

Clearly NPOV is for Wikipedia but @
WP:NPOV. Is he justified in this ask? Venkat TL (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You have clearly misunderstood and have not been listening at that discussion and have been refusing to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to connote notability, yes - non-RSes can't connote notability - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NPOV? How can you criticize and follow NPOV? Venkat TL (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

David Gerard, these are two articles I'm claiming fail being reliable and come off as attack pieces, thus not neutral and fail the NPOV policy, 1, 2. If you take just a quick glance it's clear they can't help the article at the Afd pass notability and GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which AfD are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are opinion pieces, and no they are not reliable and no they do not support notability. nableezy - 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
M.Bitton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources having a point of view does not, on its own, make them reliable or unreliable. Wikipedia does not exclude publications for being biased or opinionated, this is very clearly outlined in the
reliable sources guideline
, which says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

That said, looking at the second article, the newspaper
Sunday Guardian itself is involved in the dispute which makes it non-independent. Also, I've had concerns regarding this particular paper's reliability and tried to bring it to the board in the past; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#The Sunday Guardian. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NPOV" as NPOV does not require sources to be neutral. That job is for editors. WE are supposed to edit neutrally, IOW to not censor or neuter sources. RS can be very biased and still useful. To understand how we are supposed to deal with biased RS (IOW most of them), please read my essay NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

By using those posts as sources violates the npov because using them does not help with notability, but also using them will most likely not have any amount of content on the article be written from a neutral point of view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS that to be reliable a source has to have a “reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:
Wikipedia proposals
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

It should be deprecated.

Option 1: Yes

Option 2: No

RFCbefore Previous RFC
Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Yes provided that expert authors who publish their articles in CP may be cited a la
WP:SPS, else No. Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, per the closing statement of the previous RFC. Per my statement in an earlier discussion, I will switch my !vote if it can be established in line with the assertions of some editors that their editorial process consists of little more than accepting or rejecting works as is (no direct control), and that their method of choosing which works to publish does not encourage creators to alter their work to increase their chances of being accepted (no indirect control), but as the evidence currently suggests that these assertions are incorrect I have to support option one per
WP:SOURCES, which tells us that the reliability of a work is affected by the reliability of the publisher as well as the creator. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

No, because other reliable sources routinely cite CounterPunch articles when written by an established expert, and so too should we. For example:
Paul Craig Roberts work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
Cheyfitz, Eric (2017). The Disinformation Age: The Collapse of Liberal Democracy in the United States. Routledge Advances in American History. Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-1-351-83908-2
.

Bonner, Will; Wiggin, Addison (2009). The New Empire of Debt: The Rise and Fall of an Epic Financial Bubble. Wiley.
ISBN 978-0-470-52871-6
.

Wiil, U. (2011). Counterterrorism and Open Source Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Social Networks. Springer Vienna.
ISBN 978-3-7091-0388-3
.

David Price (anthropologist) work in CounterPunch has likewise been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
Miller, Chris (2013). War on terror': The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. Oxford Amnesty Lectures. Manchester University Press.
ISBN 978-1-84779-497-0
.

Bangstad, Sindre (2017). Anthropology of Our Times: An Edited Anthology in Public Anthropology. Palgrave Macmillan US.
ISBN 978-1-137-53849-9
.

Falah, Ghazi-Walid (2008). "Geography in Ominous Intersection with Interrogation and Torture: reflections on detention in Israel". Third World Quarterly. 29 (4). Taylor & Francis: 749–766.
ISSN 0143-6597
.

Brennan, Timmothy (2021). Places of Mind: A Life of Edward Said. Macmillan.
ISBN 978-0-374-71471-0
.

Edward Said work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
Carapico, S. (2014). Political Aid and Arab Activism: Democracy Promotion, Justice, and Representation. Cambridge Middle East Studies. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-19991-9
.

Masalha, Nur; Isherwood, Lisa (2014). Theologies of Liberation in Palestine-Israel: Indigenous, Contextual, and Postcolonial Perspectives. Postmodern Ethics. Pickwick Publications.
ISBN 978-1-61097-745-6
.

Marrouchi, Mustapha (2012). Edward Said at the Limits. State University of New York Press.
ISBN 978-0-7914-8572-9
.

Noam Chomsky work in CounterPunch has been routinely cited in other reliable sources, eg:
Boggs, Carl (2013). Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire. New Political Science Reader. Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-1-136-72792-4
.

Absher, Brandon (2021). The Rise of Neoliberal Philosophy: Human Capital, Profitable Knowledge, and the Love of Wisdom. Lexington Books.
ISBN 978-1-7936-1599-2
.

There are countless more examples of CounterPunch articles being treated as authoritative by other reliable sources. There are literal scores of world class scholars writing on CP, most days they form the majority of the columns. Beyond the named authors above, CP publishes work by Dean Baker,^[50] Charles R. Larson (scholar),^[51], Mark Weisbrot,^[52] Vijay Prashad,^[53] Neve Gordon,^[54] and a host of other noted scholars. Yes, CounterPunch has published bullshit by crackpots. They often also publish responses to that same bullshit. Yes, it published Grover Furr claiming Louis Proyect propagated "fascist lies" about the cause of the Holodomor. But that is a response to a column Proyect wrote on CP, and later rebutted, again on CP. But this was presented as though CP preferentially publishes Furr's propaganda, and not as a willingness by CP to publish all sorts of viewpoints. CP publishes a huge range of material, and some of it should not be anywhere near an encyclopedia article. But it also publishes the work of world class scholars, and it publishes material that is often times the very best possible source. David Price's uncovering of the FBI's surveillance of Edward Said is cited in every authoritative biography of Said. They all credit Price, they all cite his CP article. But we have users claiming that our biography of Said cannot include that? Deprecating CP has directly led to the degradation of our articles, the removal of authoritative scholars in their field whose work on CP is rightly cited in scores of other reliable sources. CP publishes bullshit too? Cool, dont cite that. But also dont remove sources so obviously reliable that the only reason anybody was able to present for removing it was by avoiding discussion of those sources entirely and focusing on the crap that nobody in their right mind would cite here anyway. And deprecation is being used by partisan editors who could never challenge a citation to this any other way, and it should not be permitted. If, as users argue in practice, a deprecated source may not be used under pretty much any circumstance, with users removing deprecated sources for mundane details like a person saying they are married, then CP should not be deprecated. It certainly should not be treated as though it grants some reliability to a source, but rather the reliability of any one CP article rests on the expertise of the author, and even then an author may be reliable for some topics, eg Paul Craig Roberts writing about the economy, and not for others, eg Paul Craig Roberts writing about 9/11 or really anything else. And in too many cases that is clearly reliable to deprecate, despite some users tossing out clearly reliable sources written by top quality scholars without regard for the damage they do to our articles. Also, given the extensive socking by Icewhiz and NoCal100 in the prior RFC, and the usage of this source in ARBPIA articles, and that specific examples about the source relate to the ARBPIA topic area, this should be restricted to extended-confirmed editors. nableezy - 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should probably be in the standard Option 1/2/3/4 format that is conventional for deprecation RFCs on RSN - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I find deprecation to be too harsh. It's useful on a case on case basis, based on who is actually the author of the piece. The magazine publishes pieces by authors of varying quality, reliability and bias with no editorial control. It's not possible to make a general statement about the reliability of the publication. Some pieces are of great quality, some are reprinted with permission from other sources where the original might be in a print publication that is less accessible, but considered reliable source. And then there's a lot of pieces by amateur or otherwise unreliable authors. Deprecation should be for sources that are consistently unreliable, not inconsistently reliable. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, though a warning is appropriate. CP sometimes publishes articles of poor quality and we shouldn't cite them. However, the shot-gun approach of deprecation throws out the baby with the bath-water. Editors should be able to judge an article according to the expertise and reputation of the author. It is illogical to block use of a good article on the grounds that a different article is bad. In addition, the suitability of selective citation of CP is proved by its extensive citation in academic publications. The following examples are just from what is on my laptop, without any Google searching.

list of CP citations in academic publications on Zero's computer

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ismael Abu-Saad, Palestinian Education In Israel: The Legacy Of The Military Government, Holy Land Studies, 5.1, 2006, 21-56 cites Academic freedom in Israel is central to resolving the conflict’, Counterpunch (21 May), http://www.counterpunch.com/bendor05212005.html
Miriyam Aouragh, Hasbara 2.0: Israel’s Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age, Middle East Critique, cites M. Leas (2010) Delegitimizers of Israel, Counterpunch, May.
Maia Carter Hallward, Negotiating Boundaries, Narrating Checkpoints: The Case of Machsom Watch. Critique Vol. 17, No. 1, 21–40, Spring 2008, cites Jonathan Cook, ‘Watching the checkpoints: daily indignities and humiliations,’ Counterpunch, 23 February 2007, available at http://www.counterpunch.org/cook02232007.html.
David Kean and Valentina Azarov, UNESCO, Palestine and Archaeology in Conflict. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, cites Ehud Krinis, David Shulman & Neve Gordon, Facing an Imminent Threat of Expulsion, Counterpunch (June 22-24, 2007), http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/22/facing-an-imminent-threat-of-expulsion/ .
Mona Baker, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames. Critical Studies in Terrorism, 3:3 (2010) 347-364. cites Harris, L., 2003. A note on MEMRI & translations. Counterpunch. 15 Jan. Available from: http://www.counterpunch.org/harris01152003.html
Bashir Bashir, The Strenths and Weaknesses of Integrative Solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The Middle East Journal, vol 70, 2 cites Edward Said, “What Price Oslo?,” CounterPunch, March 23, 2002, www.counterpunch.org/2002/03/23/what-price-oslo/ .
Neil Caplan, Oom Shmoom Revisited: Sharett and Ben-Gurion (conference paper) cites Vijay Prashad, “The United Nations Equals Zero,” Counterpunch, January 16-18, 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad01162009.html .
Anthony Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, Oxford Univ Press, cites Oren Ben-Dor, ‘The silencing of Oren Ben-Dor’, Counterpunch, 15–16 March 2008.
Neil Caplan, The Israel-Palestine Conflict, Wiley-Blackwell, cites Roane Carey, "Dr. Benny and Mr. Morris: The Historian and the Tvlisted Politics of Expulsion," CounterPunch 19-20 July 2008, accessed 23 July 2008 at http:/lwww.counterpunch.orglcarey07192008.xhtml.
Victoria Clark, Allies for Armageddon. Yale Univ Press, cites Greg Grandin, ‘Good Christ, Bad Christ?’, Counterpunch, 9/10.9.2006. and CP 27.07.2006, ‘John Bolton’s Dual Loyalties’ by Tom Barry.
Orientalism & Conspiracy, eds. Graf, Fathi and Paul. I. B. Tauris. cites Lavie, A. (2003): “Partners in Pain, Arabs Study the Holocaust”, CounterPunch, 12 February 2003.
Ronit Lentin, Traces of Racial Exception. Bloomsbury Academic. cites Neve Gordon and Mark LeVine, “After 50 years, time for a paradigm shift,” CounterPunch, June 8, 2017
Ronit Lentin, Co-memory and Melancholia. Manchester Univ Press cites Ophir, A. (2004) ‘Genocide hides behind expulsion: A Response to Benny Morris’, CounterPunch, 16 January www.counterpunch.org/ophir01162004.html

As well as that, there are several books by non-academic presses which are probably citable. Going to the internet, I won't list individual examples, but I'll note three counts: (1) The library of academic journals
Proquest One Academic database restricted to peer-reviewed publications has about 800 citations. In summary, the academic world does not consider CounterPunch to be a forbidden source, and neither should we. Zero^talk 02:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

No - Even the list of CounterPunch citations in academic publications presented above indicates that the source should not be deprecated. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is absolutely true that people in the previous RFC identified a few articles whose views were indefensible; but a handful of bad articles do not discredit a source. A source's
WP:RS, but the writer is at least academically-qualified and it is one of the few sources that discusses it at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes I'm going to quote @
Mikehawk10
:'s evidence from the original RFC in full here:

Option 4: CounterPunch has a history of publishing false and fabricated information, including numerous conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated.
As I noted in my comments above, the site's history of publishing
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article
seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.

On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)

A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to
deny the Holodomor
, calling it fiction.

A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the
deprecated source The Grayzone
.

And, to add on to the above, the website has a troubled history of supporting the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory.

Their editorial process is also rather suspect; the magazine has failed to vet the identity of freelance journalists to the extent that it has, in recent years, published literal propaganda made by the
plagiarized
from other sources.

Taken together, I don't think consider CounterPunch as a source to be something we can use to
talk) 03:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The first bullet point was more than enough to more than convince me. A source that's claiming planes didn't hit the WTC on 9/11 belongs in the garbage. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, option 4. CounterPunch publishes vile material, like Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier, who writes on CounterPunch on his definition of Genocide:
‘Genocide’ is a nasty invention. Just think of it: mankind lived for thousands of years, through raids of Genghis Khan and Crusades, through extermination of Native Americans, slave trade and WWI, happily butchering each other in millions, without being encumbered by the G word. This term was invented (or updated from Jewish traditional thought) by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds. The word is quite meaningless otherwise.
There are horrible items on CounterPunch. DoraExp (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

ISSN 1548-1433
.

^ Lawrence, David. "A Selective and Annotated Listing of Politically Progressive Internet Sites Dealing with US Imperialism and Foreign Policy, War and Peace, and American Domestic Political Issues." Osaka Keidai Ronshu 56.3 (2005): 27-45.

ISSN 1521-0960
.

ISSN 1559-0682
.

ISSN 0888-4552
.

ISSN 0093-3104
.

ISSN 0734-4392
.

ISSN 0306-3968
.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1065201226"~~

[1] "Global security.org figures". Globalsecurity.org.

[2] ISSN 0362-4331
. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

[3] "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2022-01-06.

[4] Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

[5] Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

[12] "Washington Murdered Privacy at Home and Abroad, by". 25 March 2010. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23.

[ijc-13] Marmura, Stephen (2014). "Likely and Unlikely Stories: Conspiracy Theories in an Age of Propaganda". International Journal of Communication. 8: 2388. Archived from the original on 2018-05-03. Retrieved 2019-01-20.

[Holland-14] Holland, Adam (April 1, 2014). "Paul Craig Roberts: Truther as Patriot". The Interpreter. Archived from the original on January 20, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

[Southern_Poverty_Law_Center-15] "VDARE". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2021-07-14.

[Anti-Defamation_League_2014-16] Cite error: The named reference Anti-Defamation League 2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[17] ISSN 1548-1433
.

[18] Lawrence, David. "A Selective and Annotated Listing of Politically Progressive Internet Sites Dealing with US Imperialism and Foreign Policy, War and Peace, and American Domestic Political Issues." Osaka Keidai Ronshu 56.3 (2005): 27-45.

[19] ISSN 1521-0960
.

[20] ISSN 1559-0682
.

[21] ISSN 0888-4552
.

[22] ISSN 0093-3104
.

[23] ISSN 0734-4392
.

[24] ISSN 0306-3968
.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[3]

@@ Line 1,130: / Line 1,130: @@
 :The first bullet point was more than enough to more than convince me. A source that's claiming planes didn't hit the WTC on 9/11 belongs in the garbage. --[[User:RaiderAspect|RaiderAspect]] ([[User talk:RaiderAspect|talk]]) 09:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Yes, option 4'''. CounterPunch publishes vile material, like [[Israel Shamir]], a Holocaust denier, who [https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/17/russian-vetoes-and-the-terrible-cliche-of-genocide/ writes on CounterPunch] on his definition of Genocide:<blockquote>‘Genocide’ is a nasty invention. Just think of it: mankind lived for thousands of years, through raids of Genghis Khan and Crusades, through extermination of Native Americans, slave trade and WWI, happily butchering each other in millions, without being encumbered by the G word. This term was invented (or updated from Jewish traditional thought) by a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds. The word is quite meaningless otherwise.</blockquote> There are horrible items on CounterPunch. [[User:DoraExp|DoraExp]] ([[User talk:DoraExp|talk]]) 09:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 ===References===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 09:35, 12 January 2022

Kino-teatr and AlloCine

RfC: Politico update?

Discussion (Politico)

Times of India is not that pro-government as mentioned ?

RFC Only on TOI Plus. This RFC is not on TOI. TOI + only

RfC: Reliability of protothema

Survey (protothema)

Discussion (protothema)

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

Comments (India: A Country Study)

David Price writing in Counterpunch in Edward Said

RFC: Counterpunch

References (Counterpunch)

RFC on apa.az use for Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh articles

Source of study calling a "phase IIa trial" and my notes and texts there: "quackery nonsense"

Request for comment on citing Patheos

Discussion (Patheos)

RfC:The World News (twnews.co.uk)

Is Rotoscopers reliable

U.S. Military Sources on U.S. Military Topics

Columns at Skeptical Inquirer

Attractions Magazine

mig-21 shooting down an f-14

Theme Park Junkies

UploadVR

History of Civilizations of Central Asia: RS?

Xi Jinping Strengthens His Grip Over Chinese Media

Repeated blanking of a section in Mariners Church, with claims that LA Review of Books is not OK as a source

Are student newspapers considered independent RS when assessing notability of fellow students at the same university?

Rerun Counterpunch RFC?

RfC: RateYourMusic/Sonemic interviews.

is iNaturalist a reliable source?

Burroughs Corporation Computer History

Museum exhibit catalogs

Clarifying the difference between “Deprecated” and “Generally unreliable”

Los Angeles Times columnists

EP Today

Leaked film draft and ect

Gentnews

RFC: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

Survey: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

Discussion: Should deprecation RFCs be open to all users or restricted?

Does Reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV

Deprecation RfC: CounterPunch

Discussion

References

Times of India
is not that pro-government as mentioned ?

Does Reliable source need to follow
WP:NPOV