Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 280 Archive 281 Archive 282 Archive 283 Archive 284 Archive 285 → Archive 290

Article rejected for lack of reliable sources

Hi,

My article on Tadeusz Sielanka has been rejected due to lack of reliable sources. At least on of the listed sources is scientific "objective" publication:

Antagonizmy kontrolowane. Rozmowy i eseje o muzyce współczesnej. Sacrum Profanum 2018, edited by Jan Topolski and Krzysztof Pietraszewski, Krytyka Polityczna Publishing / The Krakow Festival Office, Warsaw 2018. ISBN 978-83-65853-92-9, p. 80-81

What could have been a reason for considering this source unreliable? Can I do something about it?

Regards,

MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm810629 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: The draft in question is at Draft:Tadeusz Sielanka. — Newslinger talk 23:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mm810629: They didn't say that source was unreliable, they said there are not enough reliable sources.
You really need in-line citations. I have a guide here that explains how to write drafts that will not be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about an SPS

Some editors experienced in the proper usage of

this RfC. Thank you, -Crossroads- (talk
) 00:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail reliable source or not?

Firstly sorry I am new.... I have been told that the Daily mail newspaper (UK) is not considered a reliable source where a living person is concerned - would appreciate it if some of the experienced editors can tell me which newspapers are seen as reliable and which not etc . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finderman999 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a good overview of the ones people ask about a lot. Most normal newspapers are probably fine - the Daily Mail is a special case, you can see from the discussions linked off that page - David Gerard (talk
) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

38 other past discussions on the Daily Mail, for details. — Newslinger talk
00:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

fandom.com

As a user-edited site, fandom.com would appear to me to be generally unreliable. There are over 400 references in articles, often for trivia. Should these be removed? And if so, should an exception be carved out for Memory Alpha? (incidentally, that article is terrible). Guy (help!) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have an editorial team, but I can find no contributor rules. Also three may be two sections, news and a wiki, but I cannot find where the dividing line is. I would err on the side of not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You're apparently talking about the former
WP:UGC are no reliable sources. There can be special cases, e.g., Freeciv has a Freeciv.wikia.com reference, and there could be also interwiki links to Fandom wikis. –84.46.52.176 (talk
) 14:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Feminist Forum

Is this (PDF) source and/or its journal Medieval Feminist Forum reliable? This journal does not appear to be indexed in Scopus or Web of Science. It is currently being used (alongside another source) at

here (this particular source was brought up toward the end of the discussion). -Crossroads- (talk
) 19:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indexing in Scopus or Web of Science is not necessarily indicative of reliability as there are plenty of high quality peer reviewed journals not indexed there, especially in the humanities. Medieval Feminist Forum is peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal. I've not looked at the context of how the source is being used, but my initial opinion is that it's reliable a reliable source. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
For the specific content that TERF describes a minority of feminists, No. The MFF source explicitly attributes this view to Susan Stryker and Talia M. Bettcher's work, “Introduction: Trans/Feminisms,” TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly 3, no. 1-2 (2016): 5-14, doi:10.23289252-3334127. Available from here. Stryker & Bettcher's work is the editorial introduction to that issue of the journal, not a study. The journal TSQ does not appear to be peer reviewed. -
talk
21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Both Medieval Feminist Forum and TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly are peer reviewed journals. The point that the statement originally comes from an editorial introduction is the most relevant here. In which case, it may be worth saying that 'x and y authors are of the opinion that' but it wouldn't have the same weight as one of the regular papers. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the peer reviewed nature of TSQ documented somewhere? -
talk
21:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Their website ('To facilitate the anonymous review process, please provide...'); a recent call for papers ('...TSQ is an English-language peer-reviewed academic journal based in the United States)...; and the introduction to their first issue ('To best wield the power of cultural capital for transgender studies, TSQ must follow the norms and standards of academic publishing, including adhering to the peer-review process'). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. I found the "anonymous review process" on the Submission Guidelines page and was just coming back to post a link to it. -
talk
21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to be crystal clear here - are you saying that TSQ:Transgender Studies Quarterly is not peer reviewed?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that I could not find evidence that it is. I'm further saying that even if the journal as a whole is, the editorial introduction is unlikely to be. -
talk
21:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

LiveLeak

I'm wading through LiveLeak links again. Last time we discussed it people were of the view that it's generally unreliable, but I am seeing issues that suggest to me that we should be blacklisting or deprecating LiveLeak. Of most pressing concern is the number of times a CNN, Al Jazeera or other press or agency report was referenced to LiveLeak, where it was uploaded by J. Random User in some random country, often with a transcript provided by no identified authority. Some are Russian propaganda uploads (e.g. "Russian separatists" campaigning for an ethnostate in Donbass), some are just broken (e.g. [1] where the link is clearly not the same as the original link from Ogrish days), some are Taliban / ISIS snuff videos that have since apparently been taken down (e.g. [2]). Attribution is often questionable. Example: is [3] actually LiveLeak or does that revolving logo in the top left identify a news organisation that owns the copyright?

It's bad enough sourcing to YouTube, but the main reason people use LiveLeak is that the content violates YouTube's policies: either it's stolen or it contains graphic violence. The approach to date - case-by-case - isn't working, as most of the cases turn out to be inappropriate. Guy (help!) 18:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider sources such as albawaba, netblocks and twitter, Can they support the following material?

  • In order to block the sharing of information regarding the protests and the deaths of hundreds of protesters on social media platforms, the government blocked the Internet nationwide, resulting in a near-total internet blackout of around six days.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion needs to be had at the WP:Spam blacklist. A site that provides mostly copyvios should not be permitted, with no exceptions. I'll post over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason to treat it differently from YT/other UGC, though? Certainly stolen videos shouldn't be linked, but isn't there a lot of original content there, too? Sometimes it's because it violates YT policies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it violates WP policies (we do cover violent incidents, after all). I confess I'm not exactly a regular user of the site, though, sufficient to know what proportion of its content is original. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think what matters isn't whether non-copyvio content exists, but whether the particular links that editors are adding tend to be disproportionately copyvios. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:SBL § liveleak.com for the request. — Newslinger talk
06:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Genesys - suggest unreliable or potentially so

I came across a citation to https://www.genesys.com/customer-stories/lianjia in the article Lianjia and when I took a look at the Genesys page I thought "this looks like a paid endorsement of the company". Genesys states (bottom of page) "Our success comes from connecting employee and customer conversations on any channel, every day. Over 11,000 companies in 100+ countries trust our #1 customer experience platform...." Looking through the site suggests that it could be a closed-garden platform favorable to paying clients, a way to promulgate positive social media rather than relying on the vageries of open format things like Facebook and Twitter. Thanks for taking a look and providing commentary on whether you would view this as either an unreliable or potentially unreliable source. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PragerU - an unreliable source?

We use it a lot.[4] Here's an example of a use I just found and reverted.[5] Scroll down to see more exampled of its videos. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I find PragerU to be mostly political screed masquerading as education. It still mostly consists of political opinion, but is presented as though it was established research or some such. I would treat them as any other
    WP:ABOUTSELF source: reliable only for reprinting the opinions and statements of the speaker themselves, not for accepting those statements as reliable facts in and of themselves. Insofar as anything said at PragerU can be confirmed with another, better source, use that actual source. Otherwise, use it to attribute quotes and not much else. --Jayron32
    19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Depends what you use it for if we use it for facts, no it is not an RS. But it is an RS for what it claims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable but biased. PragerU clearly has a political opinion and is biased, but seems generally reliable on the facts. Similar to the Intercept, Vox, etc, on that level. Many of PragerU's reports also are essentially reports by various academic experts (historians, psychologists, etc) and those reports may be worth citing for the expert's view, even if Prager itself is biased. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Never reliable for statements of fact, only usable for opinion on articles directly about PragerU itself. They're, effectively, just a Youtube channel coupled with a personal website, with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. While biased sources can be used when they are otherwise reliable, Prager itself exists only as a propaganda outlet ([6][7][8]) - simply being biased (obviously) doesn't make a source reliable. Note, from the last one, that they have
    WP:SPS, especially the fact that it can never be used for statements about third parties or for unduly self-serving claims (which, in this case, would include any exceptional claim that supports PragerU's mission and, therefore, almost anything they post.) --Aquillion (talk
    ) 20:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that the Guardian source claiming it promotes "conspiracy theories" is extremely thin; it does not give a single example (and the Guardian itself is considered a biased source per RS.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. --
talk
) 21:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
How so?MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Please don't waste our time:
talk
) 22:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, the discussion about PragerU explicitly gives this example: "Prager U, a far-right media outlet that was invited to President Trump's recent White House media summit, released a video on Monday morning with the hashtag #TheCharlottesvilleLie, propagating the (verifiably untrue) conspiracy theory that Trump never uttered the words 'there are fine people on both sides' when addressing the violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017." Not sure how that could be missed. –
talk
) 01:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
God I hate to wade into this but that isn't a good example. The Rolling Stones is making a demonstrably, factually incorrect claim. Contrary to RStones claim, the PragerU video doesn't claim Trump never literally said, "very fine people, on both sides". So already the RStones claim is wrong (and easily proven so). After that it's a debate about, in context, did Trump's "fine people" apply to the neo-nazis or just the non-violet people who protested removing the statue/changing the park's name. In the same presentation Trump said, "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally." Thus the RStones report fails because it falsely claims the video argues something it doesn't and suggests this is 100% clear cut (ie Trump called neo-nazis fine people) when context certainly offers evidence he didn't. That disproved RStones claim doesn't mean the PragerU video is overall correct, the video may still have gross errors but that isn't one of them. It absolutely doesn't mean the video would count as a RS (other than perhaps the opinion of Steve Cortes). Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (PragerU)

When I looked, there were only 9 instances where it was used. I removed four [12] [13] [14] [15] as promotion, noticing that 2606:A000:4854:7B00:40A3:2348:282F:A68E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (similar ip: 2606:A000:4854:7B00:5CE3:357E:DAE:20B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) was spamming it.

I left it in

talk
) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Prior to Ronz's work, I had also removed three instances where it was used: [16] [17] [18]. While one was by SPA
talk
) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I left the reference to PragerU in
talk
) 22:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed it from Paul Kengor. The addition and use seems promotional and trivial. --
talk
) 01:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Question: As a claim/fact attributed to PragerU we shouldn't treat any of the videos as RS's. What about as the opinion of the presenter? I can't think of an example where this might be the case but assume PragerU had a video by a noted economist, could the PragerU video be cited as the opinion of the economist? For argument sake assume people agree the person in question is a noted expert in the field (ie absent a discussion of where published, the views would be consider DUE opinions of an expert). My opinion is this would be acceptable so long as we have in text attribution to the speaker (not PU) and treat this as the opinion of an expert. This would be treated similar if the expert published the same information in a self published source/blog. Springee (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If a reliable source isn't covering those viewpoints, a PragerU video/profile/etc wouldn't demonstrate any weight or encyclopedic value. If the viewpoints are covered in a reliable source, then best to just stick to what's said in the reliable source. --
talk
) 04:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you make a valid argument why DUE is not likely in this case but I ask that we assume DUE for argument sake. Thus from a strictly WP:RS POV I don't see why this couldn't be used as a source from which to quote the statements of the commentator. Springee (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The times I've encountered it all look like soapboxing and promotion, and am assuming that's mostly what we'll have to deal with in the future. --
talk
) 04:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Context matters" is the "you can't PROVE it isn't true!!" of sourcing discussions. It's not philosophically disprovable that there might conceivably be, in some universe, a use for PragerU link - but it's really not the usual case at all, and trying to make out that it's a reasonable consideration is simply not the case. If someone says something on PragerU, then if it's in an RS use the RS, and if it's not in an RS then the real world didn't care - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel like in general that concept should be refined. There are absolutely sources that add nothing, ie. anything cited equally to a random blog or the like. What "context matters" means is that even the very best sources are not universally reliable. There are definitely "bottom tier" sources that do not count as publication for any meaningful purpose under our policies and whose only usability is therefore under the very narrow restrictions, like
WP:SPS citing. --Aquillion (talk
) 04:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
We already have a policy that relates to this: see
WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk
) 12:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Not what I'm talking about.
WP:USERGENERATED tier. I think we need a more clear term for such sources. --Aquillion (talk
) 07:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rascians

I put citation from published scientific paper to the article which talks about Rascians.[1][2] Paper is published in Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal [3][4] and it is written by László Heka.[5]This citation which I enter in article László Heka in reference based on his earlier book and another Hungarian source is there as reference. I am interested in your opinion if this is RS?Mikola22 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Term Rascians has wider meaning and includes all southern Slavs except Bulgarians. The reason for this is very mixed terminology of individual nations and ethnic groups immigrated to Hungary. They were distinguished by their religion as the "Catholic Rascians" Dalmatians, or as they are today called Bunjevci (which are they were originally from Dalmatia). Rascians mostly became Serbs but in Hungary there are and Rascian Croats. Ladislav Heka, 2019, The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands, https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=325892 #page=32
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rascians
  3. ^ http://transfer.iarh.hr/images/Podravina_35_1-25.pdf
  4. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/podravina
  5. ^ https://doktori.hu/index.php?menuid=192&lang=EN&sz_ID=10115
It is not per Wikipedia:No original research. The article in question is part of a larger corpus of works, mostly research papers and other original research. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy new year to you and everyone on Wikipedia. This is an explanation from earlier I quote: "Seen from the journal's point of view, they will publish what for them is original research. (They will actually prefer only to publish original research. If it is not original research, it will either be plagiarism or uninteresting repetitions of already published works.) In order to get published by the journal, the material will be evaluated and selected for publication through peer reviewing. When it is published, it becomes, from Wikipedia's point of view, a reliable source." This paper has been published in magazine Podravina, I quote: "The Podravina has been included in 110 scientific publications and magazines from 11 countries, and it has been referred to in four world secondary magazines. The editorial council consists of 25 experts from Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, while the magazine is edited by five editors, three from Croatia and two from Slovenia."[1]Mikola22 (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Editing and Peer review are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
»Podravina« magazine publishes articles and papers, subject to review and those which are not. Papers, categorized as scientific, must have 2 (two) positive reviews. The reviewed papers are catergorized in the following manner: 1. Original scientific articles, short notes, previous notes, scientific conference presentation - with yet unpublished results of original research in complete or preliminary form; must be laid out so that accuracy of research can be verified.. 2. Revised papers and 3. Professional articles. My source or paper "The Vlach law and its comparison to the privileges of Hungarian brigands." is marked as "Original scientific paper" which means there are at least two positive reviews of that paper.Mikola22 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
How do we know which ones are "scientific" and which ones are not?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
My paper is "Original scientific paper" "Izvorni znanstveni rad" and has a minimal (two) positive reviews otherwise can not get that category and be published in the magazine. The Podravina magazine(Scientific Multidisciplinary Research Journal) has A1 mark in Croatian legislation (law)[2] ie "The journals in category A1 have an internationally recognized review, ie they have been introduced in international index publications." Most of the articles in Podravina magazine have this name "Original scientific paper"(172 papers or 69.6 percent) and almost 70% of all papers published in that journal are original scientific papers with prescribed minimal (two) positive reviews.Mikola22 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ http://podravina.org/predgovor/
  2. ^ https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2019_07_72_1558.html

Predatory open access journal tag?

Hopefully this is the correct place to ask this question. I have been going through and adding DOIs to already existing journal citations, and somehow triggered some sort of blacklist. The edit is here. Can someone point me to the policy or blacklist that triggered this? I tried

WP:Predatory, but it doesn't seem to explain the tag there. My assumption is there is a source somewhere on the page Electrophoretic light scattering that is unreliable, but I'd like to find the blacklist so I can find the right one to remove. Forbes72 (talk
) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi
edit filter 891 (hist · log
):

Lee, Ji Yeong; Kim, Jin Soo; Hyeok An, Kay; Lee, Kyu; Kim, Dong Young; Bae, Dong Jae; Lee, Young Hee (2005-07-01). "Electrophoretic and Dynamic Light Scattering in Evaluating Dispersion and Size Distribution of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes". Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 5 (7). American Scientific Publishers: 1045–1049.

ISSN 1533-4880
.

It looks like Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is on Beall's List. Unfortunately, filter 891 doesn't identify which citation is the predatory one, so it takes a little bit of research. In the future, if you expand the citations one at a time in separate edits, filter 891 will only trigger on the predatory one. — Newslinger talk 03:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did try a control + f on Beall's list, but got no matches because the publisher was listed instead of the individual journal. Couldn't figure out what the issue was. I appreciate the explanation. Forbes72 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. And just to clarify, I identified the citation by going to Special:AbuseFilter/891 and checking the list of DOIs that are being caught by the filter (defined in line 4 of the "Conditions", which begins with dois :=). ​— Newslinger talk 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You could also expand the warning {{
b
} 04:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AnsweringMuslims.com

I saw usage of this source in Muhammad in the Quran. On that website, I saw some claims that seem to be written by either an uninformed person or someone who spreads propaganda or biased claims. I investigated the website and I found this in Southern Poverty Law Center, "David Wood, who runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth* which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com, a Christian-based, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam website." [19]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In regards to issues, raised above related to criticism of Islam, and 'AnsweringMuslims.com', it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles BTW David Wood (Christian apologist), is "an American evangelical missionary known for his critique of Islam"
The above quote, taken from the SPLC website: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/05/anti-muslim-roundup-6518 is based on this interview of Daniel Scot, by David Wood: http://imi.org.au/ps-daniel-scot-interview/ Koreangauteng (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The same Wiki editor who added the 'AnsweringMuslims' citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_the_Quran&diff=933643592&oldid=933639345 - one day later (above) denounces the same 'AnsweringMuslims' citation  ??
  • "The Ismlamoblog of Acts 17 apologists" does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Christian apologetics. It is not usable as a source on Islam. All these uses should be removed. Guy (help!) 09:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this RAND report being used accurately to make a claim on behalf of Human Rights Watch?

This RAND report says:

"The cult characteristics described in this appendix have been widely reported by former MEK members and by Human Rights Watch."

This source/statement is being used in the lede section of the article

People's Mujahedin of Iran
to make the claim that Human Rights Watch says it "describes" this group as "a cult built around its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi."

Is this an accurate representation of what RAND is stating? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Are references of Modi response on his personal platform violating ContextMatters for section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 ?

There is a section named "Indian Government Response" in this article Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response. But surprisingly, it gives references for response of Modi from his personal platform (personal twitter handle) rather than any official Indian Government response ?

Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Wikipedia, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 19 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.
(Some examples -
1. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
2. https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/
3. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)

So, are the references of BBC link and Modi twitter link not out of context with respect to the section title and violating
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
making them unreliable for this section ? Instead of Modi personal platform references, should there not be references and accompanying relevant text of media coverage on issue of FAQs on CAA released by Government of India ? Request to please give detailed reasons along with opinion.

Kmoksha (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say that it can be used for what (attributed to him) Modi has said (per SPS), not for it being the official government stance.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Request to also give your reasons for your opinion.
Kmoksha (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
wp:sps allows us to use things like twitter (assuming this is a verified account) for the attributed opinions of the person. Thus I see no reason why this would fail that. However it is also not the official account of the Indian government, it is only Modi's own account. Whilst he may be PM, he still has his own views that may not accord with those of the government (which as a parliamentary democracy is not under the personal control of one man).Slatersteven (talk
) 12:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, are you saying that the statement currently attributed to Narendra Modi should be removed from the section titled "Indian government response"? That seems to be the OP's concern here, as far as I can make out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. As head of the Indian government (yes I know presidents and all that, legislative head) It can be argued it is a semi official statement. But it is also not an official government statement. All I am saying it is an RS for Modi saying this, where it goes is another (not really RS) matter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven There is an official Government statement on this as issue as well. And that was covered widely in the Indian media. In your opinion, should that be covered in this section titled "Indian Government Response". One example of such a media coverage is https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
Kmoksha (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course official government statement should be, do they contradict what Modi has said?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven I do not see any contradiction between the two. This is tweet from personal twitter handle of Modi - https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1206492850378002432
Kmoksha (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that FAQs for CAA released by Government ought to be put in this section. The given source links are secondary and reliable. And the personal response of Modi on this matter should be removed from this section. Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

https://puzzups.com/

Hey guys,

While working on a media bio article, I wanted to verify and cite information that a previous editor added. This is the only web-site that confirms the info that I need but before using it I thought I'd pass by you guys.

https://puzzups.com/

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've got to say, that site looks pretty dubious to me. Their 'about us' page has no information about an editorial panel, just an anonymous e-mail address, and while the articles have bylines to authors, there is no information about who these authors are, or where the published information is coming from. I can't see any indication that this is anything other than a
WP:RS to me. GirthSummit (blether)
14:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Numerous Poor Sources Added to Yule log to Promote Religious POV

Recently @1990'sguy: has added, and readded numerous unreliable sources to the Yule log, many of them from evangelical Christian publishers and authors without any formal background in folklore studies. Examples include the following:

  • Collins, Ace (2010). Stories Behind the Great Traditions of Christmas. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310873884.
As his page makes clear, Ace Collins is not a folklorist nor an academic of any sort, and Zodervan is a Christian publishing branch of HarperCollins.
  • Bowler, Gerry. 2005. Santa Claus, A Biography. McCellend & Stewart Ltd.
While certainly better credentialed than Collins, Bowlery is not a folklorist, nor a specialist, but is also happens to be a Christian interests author. This is a general audience book not subject to peer review, and another
WP:RS
fail.
  • Grimassi, Raven. 2000. Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567182576.
Llewellyn Worldwide is a new age publisher that regularly publishes fringe stuff with zero editorial oversight. This is an RS fail.
  • Mosteller, Angela. 2010. Christmas, Celebrating the Christian History of Classic Symbols, Songs and Stories. Holiday Classics Publishing.
Obvious
WP:RS fail (author's site
). All that aside, appears to be self-published, which, under normal circumstances, would mean immediate removal.
  • Weiser, Franz Xaver. 1958. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs. Harcourt.
Catholic theologian with no background in folklore studies, nor any background, it would seem, outside of Catholic theology. Yet another
WP:RS
fail.

This page could use more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted per
WP:BRD, as you're making major changes to an article without discussion (thank you for starting a discussion after being challenged). The sources are RS, and being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS, just as an atheist author/publisher wouldn't be automatically disqualified. I'm pinging User:Walter Görlitz, a regular editor on topics related to this. --1990'sguy (talk
) 23:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about "being a Christian author doesn't disqualify one from being an RS". For example, Rudolf Simek is Catholic. Unlike the sources you've provided, however, he is a specialist and an academic, and his work receives peer review. Please go ahead and self-revert. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
HarperCollins and Harcourt are reliable publishers per
WP:RS. A theologian discussing a Christmas tradition (since Christmas is a Christian holiday) is most certainly appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk
) 00:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Being published by a respectable press is one crtiterion for reliable sources, but is not probative in and of itself. For some reason the publisher's reputation seems to be the go-to argument for editors who want to add janky information to WP articles. The main goal for publishers is to make a profit, not educate or ensure that information is unbiased or true. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the information can be hardly called "janky." The only reason the Yule log survived well into the Christian era is that it was Christianized. To eliminate the context in which it entered Christmas celebrations and instead claim that for most people, the Yule log is a Germanic pagan custom, is a specious claim and qualifies as POV-pushing. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know our requirement is reliable, not academic. Nor is bias (religious or otherwise) a criteria for exclusion. Now one can argue that they may be non expert, but one can argue that they may well be experts about christian tradition (but not folklore). As the Yule log is now very much part of Christian tradition their views might well be RS, if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Academic is a high standard for reliability, so it's a question of weight as to whether to consider other sources alongside academic material. That biased sources aren't necessarily unreliable doesn't mean we should include them, either. It just means they aren't automatically unreliable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Which is not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)+
Agreed, Slatersteven. And Rhododendrites, I have no problem attributing the claim. My objection is to Bloodofox wanting to remove it altogether. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:BIASED source can be cited, cautiously, provided they're not used for a large part of the article, and provided they're not used in ways that would contradict higher-quality sources; but citing a major chunk of the lead solely to such sources is waaaay over the line. If the opinions expressed in these sources are relevant, we ought to be able to find secondary sources covering it - otherwise, I think the bar for putting attributed opinion in the lead is extremely high and there's no particular indication that these sources are noteworthy enough to clear it. Is Franz Xaver Weiser someone so important that his personal opinions about yule logs belong in the lead? --Aquillion (talk
    ) 06:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A book which uses the same kind of declarative statement for historical and religious claims, conflating the two (e.g. "God came down to earth", reading from the introduction of the Ace Collins books published by Bible publisher Zondervan), is not a great source for historical facts on a subject which has already received coverage in academic history texts. That doesn't necessarily mean such sources are unreliable for any purpose, but they carry less weight and should generally be attributed if included at all. Also, just from a general editing perspective, it's not good form to add a single paragraph to the body and then transform the lead so that 2/3 of its paragraphs are about that bit you just added... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User attempting to promote a particular author and/or the author's POV

While the user apppears to have given up on re-adding self-published sources, the user is still adding random sources found on the internet featuring non-specialists next to academics and other specialists in the article. This is evidently to either promote one of these books (Perhaps the book by this guy), the ideas expressed therein, or both. Noted folklorists and philologists are currently emphasized next to these non-

WP:UNDUE. This is stranger yet considering that academic sources detailed in the article already make the situation clear (innovation vs. tradition). The goal appears to ensure that a particular quote by a particular author occurs in the lead. :bloodofox: (talk
) 05:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Metal Onslaught

This is the first of two heavy metal music "zines": https://www.themetalonslaught.com/about-us From this about us page, it seems clear that it's a site for fans by fans, but it does not appear to meet some of the hallmarks required for being a reliable source: there is no editorial oversight policy, the founder has no journalistic background, and this site seems to sell what it reviews so is motivated to provide good reviews. This site is used on many articles. Can it be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Metal Resource

This is the second of two heavy metal music "zines": http://mauce.nl/site/ There is no "about us" page, but individual reviewers do get entries and the founders are not journalists. Their mission statement, http://mauce.nl/site/mission-statement/, is interesting but makes it clear they just want to inform readers but do not claim to be journalists. The individual "editor" pages don't support journalistic experience of any of the writers and again, no editorial oversight policy. This site is used on many articles. Can this be considered a reliable source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Airline fansites

In cleaning up some spam I found a number of aviation-related fansites that do not appear to me to be reliable sources.

  • 7jetset7.com HTTPS links HTTP links - see about page, non-authoritative aggregator, SPS, one man website.
  • airliners.net HTTPS links HTTP links - see about page, amateur-curated photo upload site, many links are to forums or other user-generated content.
  • aviation-safety.net HTTPS links HTTP links - see about page, group blog with two editors.
  • aviationanalysis.net HTTPS links HTTP links - appears to be a domain squatter by now. Archived about page says: "Started as a simple blog in 2010 out of my curiosity to learn aeronautics, continues its gradual pace to a professional website." Single editor, non-specialist.
  • Aviation24.be HTTPS links HTTP links, formerly Luchtzak.be HTTPS links HTTP links - see About page. Personal site and web forum, no indication of editorial review.
  • theaircurrent.com HTTPS links HTTP links - no About page linked. Appears to be a personal project of Jon Ostrower.
  • air-and-space.com HTTPS links HTTP links - "Air-and-Space.com is a one man operation. My name is Brian Lockett. I take most of the pictures, write the captions, create the pages, and make all the arbitrary editorial decisions."
  • aerialvisuals.ca HTTPS links HTTP links - see About page. "The person behind the website Aerial Visuals, AV, is myself, Mike Henniger. I have a background in software engineering, and this website is a hobby site that I have used to develop skills in web services and applications."
  • aerospaceweb.org HTTPS links HTTP links - see About page. May be RS, at least run by people with relevant expertise.
  • globalaviationlaw.com HTTPS links HTTP links - 404 now and appears to have been a firm of plaintiffs' lawyers so a distinct POV.
  • b737.org.uk HTTPS links HTTP links - spammed, blacklisted, one-man site run by Chris Brady, whose sole claim to authority is publishing the content of the site via vanity press Lulu.
  • pyrochta.ch HTTPS links HTTP links - appears to be the personal site of Helmut Pyrochta, no evidence of review or reliability.

Does anyone consider any of these to meet RS? Guy (help!) 10:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Airliners.net is primarly a photo hosting website, so a lot of the uses are actually using photos as references - as discussed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_35#Images_as_a_source on WP:Aircraft (although without a conclusion as the discussion devolved into insults and finger pointing. Some uses, however, are using technical data & specs like [20], which appears to have been copied with permission from a reliable source. I would think that the last example is probably OK if not ideal (we would clearly prefer to directly reference the original source), but using photos from Airliners.net as references probably isn't.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The forum and photo sharing parts can't be RS, but the aircraft data is based on The International Directory of Civil Aircraft by Gerard Frawley and seems reliable, I use it in cite templates with Airliners.net in the via field.--Marc Lacoste (talk) but pretty pictures!
Aviation-Safety.net is part of the Flight Safety Foundation which appears to be a long-established non-profit organisation supported by the aviation industry according to [21]. In general most of ASN (like the accident database should be reliable, although it also contains a user-editable Wikibase for accidents which aren't in the main database - the Wikibase sould not be treated as reliable as it is user-editable.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The Flight Safety Foundation reputation is excellent, and ASN is one excellent source for accidents. (but indeed the Wikibase should not be viewed as reliable) --Marc Lacoste (talk)
I am a regular contributor to two of them:
  • aviation-safety.net scores quite high as an encyclopedical reference in my very personal observation, very open to contributions, and usually checks them carefully before adding them to published content; all of which happens quite fast.
  • Aviation24.be is an interesting chat site but its encyclopedical value is questionable; editorial articles have been known to copy releases from airlines or aircraft builders with few if any critical comment; whereas forum discussion often remains at "fan" level.
fwiw, Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
theaircurrent.com is run by Jon Ostrower, an experienced journalist who went through CNN, WSJ and Flightglobal. Should be kept as RS.--Marc Lacoste (talk)
Right, but it's a self-published source, so fails RS except for ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 11:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The other domains seems like fan blogs or forums, not RS I think.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Treat all except the fan blogs and forums as generally reliable unless evidence is found that they are unreliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Any website that is editable by anyone cannot be considered reliable.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)

The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment
. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Appears to be a no consensus outcome. From what I can make out of the relevant arguments, data provided by CEPR can be attributed, though its political alignment will also need to be taken into consideration. ToThAc (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the recent relevance, which of the following options describes Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) the best as a source?

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive, though editors acknowledged a partisan stance.

  • Option 1: Generally
    reliable
    for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally
    unreliable
    for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be
    deprecated----ZiaLater (talk
    ) 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Center for Economic and Policy Research)
  • Generally unreliable - I normally would have said Option 2, "Unclear or additional considerations apply", but I still have serious doubts about CEPR.
I have cited before their report attributing 40,000 deaths in Venezuela to international sanctions, "which was refuted because of inaccuracies, methodological errors and bias." Namely:

Economist Ricardo Hausmann and research fellow Frank Muci published a rebuttal to the report in Americas Quarterly, noting that to make their point, Weisbrot and Sachs take Colombia as a counterfactual for Venezuela, and arguing that Colombia is not a good counterfactual. In their rebuttal, they explain that the oil production trends between both countries were very different in the decade before sanctions and that two countries are also radically different in other dimensions. The rebuttal also states that just a month after the financial sanctions in late 2017, Nicolás Maduro fired both the relatively technocratic PDVSA president and oil minister and replaced them with a single military general with no experience in oil, who in turn fired and imprisoned over 60 senior managers of the oil company, including its previous president, on corruption charges, while nothing remotely similar happened in Colombia, thus confounding the effects of the sanctions with those of the firing.

The report also admits that the counterfactual data was unknown.[1][2][3]
On the case of the last report on Bolivia, regardless of the findings, I'm worried that the organization mixes analytical content from political one. Specifically, in their press release [4], the CEPR directly accuses the Organization of American States of enabling the crisis and the coup in Bolivia, various organs of the OAS have played an enormous role in driving the crisis that led to Morales’s ouster, only using their position and the publication of the report as proof, and citing other alleged examples of actions "against the Left", namely in Haiti, Venezuela and Honduras. These appear to be closer to ad hominem arguments, rather than more analytical ones.
CEPR has been cited by Telesur [5][6][7][8] and Venezuelanalysis,[9][10][11][12][13][14] both sources that have been found to be unreliable and that should be deprecated. I don't want to engage in ad hominem arguments myself, but it should also be noted that the CEPR's founders and members have been related and have openly shown their support for the pink tide in Latin America.
Citing other discussions, Example text, and the CEPR "will often choose professionals to sign large open letters that support their motives."

References

  1. ^ https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/dont-blame-washington-venezuelas-oil-woes-rebuttal
  2. ^ https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/05/09/pandering-to-the-imperial-left-the-new-cepr-report/
  3. ^ https://verifikado.com/las-sanciones-son-responsables-de-40-mil-muertes-en-venezuela/
  4. ^ http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-oas-helped-drive-bolivia-into-crisis-and-enabled-a-military-coup The OAS Helped Drive Bolivia into Crisis — And Enabled a Military Coup
  5. ^ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/bolivia-desmienten-oea-sobre-irregularidades-electorales-20191111-0045.html
  6. ^ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/mark-weisbrot-comenta-rol-oea-golpe-militar-bolivia-20191127-0038.html
  7. ^ https://www.telesurtv.net/news/venezuela-eeuu-viola-carta-onu-20190501-0019.html
  8. ^ https://www.telesurtv.net/analysis/US-Sanctions-on-Venezuela-Illegal-Under-UN-OAS-and-US-Law-20190605-0031.html
  9. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7313
  10. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14297
  11. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5877
  12. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2916
  13. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14446
  14. ^ https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14411
I want to clarify that with this I don't mean that the CEPR publishes mistaken or wrong information, meaning that it should not be included as it is the case if it was deprecated. On the contrary, their claims usually seem to be substantiated with research and analysis, but there seems to be a consensus on that it is a partisan organization, and at times the wrong conclusions might be reached because of this, meaning that not only said conclusions should be treated carefully, but also attributed. My fear remains that the CEPR is given the same weight as, for example, the Organization of American States. --
talk
) 00:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. As with similar agencies, its findings should be attributed. Burrobert (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly unreliable/opinionated/additional considerations per Jamez42. Their publications are partisan and published on a trendy basis. As a political thinkthank it should either be avoided or be represented minimally in political crisis issues. In the case of Venezuela, there have been also additional counter reports.
    talk
    ) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    I would also like to bring here that the CEPR Wikipedia article has some history of alleged
    talk
    ) 13:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bahar et al. , Impact of the 2017 sanctions on Venezuela: Revisiting the evidence, Brookings institute
  • Generally reliable Called by bot. It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Wikipedia. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board. Not many think tanks can claim that. Darx9url (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as per NorthBySouthBaranof.
    talk
    ) 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional considerations - I feel this is a split discussion. Looking into it, CEPR seems to be mostly reliable, if partisan, on many things. It does engage in some political activities that are quite commonplace in the US (e.g. lobbying) which are not seen as good practice in other countries, but it is US-based. However, coming from the minor discussion in regards their reliability on Latin American issues, this is where it gets more complex and where I'd say it becomes more often than not unreliable. Perhaps this discussion could be split that way. See Jamez's analysis above for a large chunk of detail, and in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
See [...] the 2019 Bolivian political crisis page history for details of a CEPR report that gives very different statistics on the political outlook to most good reliable and local sources. The CEPR report made use of the official, publicly available election results. It doesn't give "different statistics" from other sources, it just demonstrates that the "sudden" change in the results was likely due to geography (rural, Morales-supporting regions return results later). If there are actual errors in the report, they should be highlighted, but otherwise I'm not aware of any issues related to that report. —
talk
) 04:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling me up on that; can we change statistics to "interpretations". It's the only one I've seen that determines such a large change can be completely accounted for (as some of the other sources in the article would suggest, by not agreeing with it). Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable (randomly invited by bot) They are generally cited in the media as a reliable source. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable for factual reporting. As with all sources, the reliability depends on the text being cited. In general, for the US topics they specialize in, they may be regarded as a partisan source whose opinions can be used if they meet WEIGHT and are attributed. But on Latin American topics, more caution is in order, and they are not a reliable source (except in cases such as representing the Chavismo point of view, see South of the Border (2009 film)). Factual errors in analysis have been frequently pointed out: see Mark_Weisbrot#Venezuela. It would be (legally) risky to label extensive factual errors intentional, so let the reader decide. The 2019 report in particular was extremely misleading according to sources. I would also note that many of the "media mentions" alleged above may be related to the fact that "talking heads" on television shows willing to represent the Chavismo point of view are few in far between. See also the Mark_Weisbrot#Reception section of that article for charges that Venezuelan economics were slanted by the author.

    Additionally, as mentioned above, the closer of this section should note that MEATPuppetry has long existed in this suite of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2-3: As the user who posted this RfC, I have waited to see what multiple users have shared before placing conclusions. Two conclusions have been made:
CEPR also has a history of advocating for the Government of Venezuela and some of their staff were previous employees of the Venezuelan government's
ABC, "In the brief biographies that the CEPR presented by Deborah James and Alex Main it was not said that they previously worked for the Venezuela Information Office (En las breves biografias que el CEPR presentaba de Deborah James y Alex Main no se decia que previamente trabajaron para la Venezuela Information Office)
". With previous Venezuelan government lobbyists working for for CEPR in such important positions, especially the director of international programs, one can see how allegations of bias exist among reliable sources and other economists. For international discussion, it is higly advised that CEPR not be used, especially with controversial subjects.
  • As some users have noted, CEPR is similar to
    WP:RSP
    , such sources usually fall under Option 2. The group also focuses on US domestic issues in a partisan, but more polished manner. As for lobbying in the US, that is a different story. For US domestic issues, CEPR seems to follow suit with other US economic policy groups. As a result, Option 2 may also be appropriate.
At the very most, CEPR is Option 2 (additional considerations needing to be warranted for attribution, etc.) But as users and sources have indicated, Option 3 may be more appropriate if international subjects are covered, especially since CEPR does not seem to be notable for their US domestic policy position, mostly being cited when discussing international policy that is highly contentious (for example their Alexa Rating skyrocketed from a record low during the 2019 Bolivian political crisis). For anyone closing this discussion, please make note of the potential conflict with international coverage and that usage of this source must be attributed in a detailed manner.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable I have seen no major problems with using this source. It may be left-leaning but that is hardly disqualifying. I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Wikipedia. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per NorthBySouthBaranof, Burrobert, Bacondrum, "It is treated as generally reliable by news outlets, and so should be treated as generally reliable by Wikipedia. It's got Novel Prize winners on its advisory board." -- Darx9url, Bacondrum, "generally cited in the media as a reliable source" -- Jojalozzo, John Z, " I have seen academics rely on their reports so I think it is safe for Wikipedia." --Editorofthewiki. All strong reasons. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, for most coverage (left-leaning think tank, to be treated like CATO/AEI, etc.) Option 3: Generally
    unreliable for factual reporting, when it comes to Latin American coverage. --MaximumIdeas (talk
    ) 00:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Generally reliable, including re: Latin America, but should be attributed, as with other think tanks. As noted by other respondents, it is treated by other sources as reliable. It's usually described as a "left-leaning think tank" or similar.
Much hay is being made by some respondents about the "40,000 deaths" paper, but in the paper CEPR are careful to acknowledge that The percentage of deaths due to the sanctions is difficult to estimate because the counterfactual is unknowable, but it is worth noting that the counterfactual in the absence of sanctions could even be that mortality would have been reduced [...] in the event that an economic recovery would have taken place.. [22] It should also be noted that one of the authors of the "counter report" is Ricardo Hausmann, who is a member of the Venezuelan opposition and was an advisor to Guaidó at the time the report was written and published.
As for the Bolivia report, the only complaints respondents seem to have are with CEPR's claims that the OAS played a role in Morales's ouster. It's difficult to see how this could be objectionable given that the publication of the OAS's preliminary report alleging electoral irregularities is regularly cited as one of the factors leading to his resignation. Given that the CEPR report is a direct refutation of the OAS's preliminary report, it's unsurprising that they would criticize the OAS.
The traffic analyses, links from Venezuelanalyis, etc., are not really convincing, IMO. As noted, CEPR's editorial stance leans to the left, so it's unsurprising that other left-wing sources would cite them. That says nothing about whether CEPR itself is reliable or not. —
talk
) 04:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Adding link to Ricardo Hausmann for information, as he is mentioned in the above comment. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3: Wrt their report countering the OAS audit of the Bolivian elections, they felt comfortable releasing their examination and criticism of the OAS findings before the OAS had released their final conclusions and a host of corroborating data on 5th Dec. That also included, IMO, getting a host of people to sign an open letter condemning the OAS based on their criticism. Running a bunch of numbers to show likelihood depends on what data you put into it and their simulations are based on their own inferences about the reliability of the data and assumptions in interpretation. NYT pointed out that they had "not addressed the accusations of hidden data servers, forged signatures and other irregularities found by the O.A.S. observers, nor have they tried to explain the electoral council’s sudden decision to stop the count"
    WP:OR and I think it unlikely that there be a response of that nature as it is not a peer-reviewed paper.(talk
    ) 14:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely not Options 3-4. CEPR distributes working papers that often end up as peer-reviewed publications in top econ journals. These should absolutely not be depreciated. Publications by CEPR itself should be attributed and are generally notable enough for inclusion, in particular when authored by recognized experts. Note that the disputed publication above is co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia. NPOV applies which means that if a CEPR publication holds a fringe view, then that fringe view should not be given undue attention or focus (i.e. if other studies rebut the CEPR publication, then those should also be included).
    talk
    ) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Les Vicomtes du Mans et La Maison de Belleme

Does anyone have information pertaining to the author of this book, M. J. Depoin? I have been unable to find information on this person.--Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Not the most reliable source, but according to Google Books this is possibly the same as Joseph Depoin, a historian (see the connection and additional publications). Wikidata has a record about him here. The usual disclaimers apply, I have not researched the issue in more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That is more than I had. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Compare also these 2 records for more evidence: "Depoin M. J." and "Joseph Depoin" - both publishing via the Societe historique in Pontoise. Hope this helps a bit with your research - I like that digging around in old sources :). GermanJoe (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
M. Depoin is a red link on frwiki in w:fr:Liste des vicomtes du Maine#Généalogie. –84.46.53.65 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Question about a source used on Nick Gehlfuss

Hi,

On Nick Gehlfuss, the reference for his birthdate is http://birth-records.mooseroots.com/l/12392558/Nicholas-Alan-Gehlfuss which is both dead, and I suspect not a reliable source. What steps should I take, because this is the only reference for his birthdate?

Thanks Red Fiona (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:DEADLINK, if the source is acceptable, then we generally leave it until it's repaired. Admittedly in this case, it doesn't look like it's actually archived so that may be quite difficult. Still even in a BLP, I wouldn't removed sourced content just because of a deadlink, unless there is some other reason to. (E.g. I suspect the dead link is not an RS, or think it may have been misinterpreted.)

As an aside, if the common solution which doesn't seem to apply here, is if we have some RS on the birthdate, but it doesn't seem widely published, is to only include the year.

Nil Einne (talk

) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks. It was more the procedure I was asking about so this answered my question completely. Thank you very much. Red Fiona (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence

We're seeing issues recurring at the talk pages of the articles regarding racial groups and intelligence. Some participants are repeating claims that there is reliable scientific evidence that certain racial groups may have inherently different levels of intelligence to each other. These are really just the same claims that were made by fringe

Philippe Rushton and have been used here at RSN as examples of unreliable sources, but it would be good to get a clear determination that these conclusions are explicitly unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk
) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear what Onetwothreeip asking, the argument he's been making on this talk page is that certain sources can be judged as non-reliable based on the viewpoints they present, regardless of who the publisher is. Some of the sources being discussed there are the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, the journal Intelligence, and Cambridge University Press. (Both of those journals have published papers by Rushton, and Cambridge University Press has published books by other authors arguing in favor of Rushton's ideas.) Based on the comments by user:NPalgan2 and User:Jbhunley at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differential K theory, I don't believe it is consistent with RS policy to judge otherwise reputable journals and university publishers as non-reliable for this reason, but I suppose it'll be useful if this noticeboard could give some confirmation about this interpretation of policy.
This discussion also is useful as background. 2600:1004:B122:68E7:3499:54EA:14FC:FCA3 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion you have linked has nothing to do with reliable sources or with race and intelligence. Personal disputes do not belong here.
Being published by well-known publishers obviously does not mean the work is reliable. These views are not endorsed by those publications, and Intelligence is not widely considered reliable either. The fact that publishers may publish certain views does not make the publishers unreliable, and their reliability is not in question here. This is about the reliability of fringe reearchers like Philippe Rushton and others associated with Pioneer Fund, for whom any cursory glance shows that they are unreliable researchers. They do not represent anything resembling a scientifically accepted study of psychology. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you point to the specific sources that are being contested, and the claims they're being used to support? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't about sources being used to support claims, it's about both the sources (the authors) and the claims (inherent racial superiority/inferiority) being unreliable. The sources are sufficient enough to establish that these claims are being made by these people, but certainly not that these claims are either true or are sufficiently held in psychology, other than by a few fringe researchers. Claims like Rushton and Jensen argue that long-term follow-up of the Head Start Program found large immediate gains for blacks and whites but that these were quickly lost for the blacks although some remained for whites. and Rushton and Jensen have argued that unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these studies did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would presumably be higher. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Given that this is not about specific sources, I am not sure it belongs in a discussion here. If something is published in a respected academic journal (and not retracted), then that is a reliable source on any issue. If it is on a researcher's personal blog, then it's not. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are still reliable sources, and they don't stop being reliable because an editor considers certain ideas they publish as controversial. Loksmythe (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The sources in this case are the researchers themselves. They are reliable sources for describing what their own fringe views are, but they aren't considered reliable in the context of mainstream psychology. They are only published as what these researchers claimed, not as any consensus view on the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine. This policy is in place because it is not possible for Wiki to determine the credibility of every author among the millions who are out there. If Cambridge or another academic outlet or RS publishes some research, it should be treated as any other research they publish. (Absent retraction, RS reports that the paper was fraudulent, etc, which would of course be due to mention.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly as MaximumIdeas says. Loksmythe (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that as well, but in this case we have many reliable sources stating that these authors are unreliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, You've been making this argument for about two weeks, first at talk:Race and intelligence and now here, and it has not received any support from other editors in either place. Please read this essay: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 2600:1004:B105:1EDC:2998:401A:F3A0:4022 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Whether individual authors are “fringe” or “unreliable” is the job of the editors at the Cambridge University Press, etc, to determine. This is not entirely true. Something published in a peer-reviewed journal form a reputable publication can still be fringe. From
WP:FRINGELEVEL: Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources. Peer-reviewed papers are useful, but the important question is overall acceptance by the scientific community. --Aquillion (talk
) 07:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, a single primary source is not necessary notable -- for it to be notable, one would want to see significant discussion of it within the scientific field; not just a one-off paper. MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@MaximumIdeas: @Loksmythe: On the article talk page, Onetwothreeip is continuing to assert that "the writer of the publication is a source, and their unreliability makes the source unreliable". (This is referring to sources published by Cambridge University Press, in journals published by the APA, etc.) As a result, he won't allow the sources he removed for this reason to be added back to the article. This is the first time I've seen an editor ask a question at this noticeboard, and then refuse to accept the answer they've been given. Now that this is where things are, what should happen next? As long as he keeps making this same argument that the sources he removed can't be added back, will the same question have to keep being asked at this noticeboard again and again, while the edit warring over his removals continues indefinitely? 2600:1004:B14D:273B:4419:B503:B258:4339 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Fringe books used as sources for fringe theory article?

NO
There is strong consensus that the four listed books by Brenda James, William Rubinstein, John Casson, Mark Bradbeer, James Leyland, and James Goding should not be used in the
reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)​

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

Should Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship use sources promoting the theory itself as its primary references? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk
) 20:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Does that work? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Further explanation reposted from original statement. I don't know whether to post this here or on the

WP:Fringe
states that "for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." In general, Wikipedia allows discussion of fringe theories in articles about those theories as long as reliable sources discuss those theories, and the article is sourced to those reliable sources.

In contrast, the primary sources for this article are the very works that propose the theory. Other sources are used in the article, but in a manner that appears to be

WP:RS
for the topic is Matt Kubus' "The Unusual Suspects" in Shakespeare Beyond Doubt (2013), Paul Edmonson and Stanley Wells, eds.

These are the questioned sources:

On the

reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk
) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Leyland teaches cyber-media in
Regan Books, a celebrity specialist book producer that was closed down soon after, though then was reprinted by Pearson Educational somehow - she wrote it and it was such a cipher-mongering mess he seems to have stepped it to make it less weird. She was a sometime lecturer in English at Portsmouth University, but now, apparently an independent researcher. David Kathman’s review
, one of several, shows the hackwork flourished in that work. Both were utterly out of their depth with their ‘pseudo-scholarly inanities’. This theory so far has had a 14 year old life, and there is scant resonance in the serious, secondly literature literature on Shakespeare and his age.
The silliness there is one that permeates all these fringe books: a heuristic method that combines crankily austere scepticism for the written records establishing Shakespeare’s authorship with a parallel facile gullibility for any inference one might make from hints on the margins of the documentary record that a noble must have written the works. Anal Pyrrhonism for the factual record, hallucinating credulity for imagined possible hidden clues in the records which never mention alternative candidates – for no record exists directly or indirectly linking any Elizabethan other than WS to the plays and poems. I.e. silence whispers the truth that the ample noise of contemporary voices fears to state. None of those books are RS: reviews of them by competent scholars are.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Any book is a reliable source for the existence of its own content, insofar as it is evidence that the content exists in that book. It is not necessarily a reliable source for the validity of the content. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What I'm trying to determine is whether they conform to Wikipedia policy as reliable sources for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Fuck no. I mean, seriously. That's like basing an article on phrenology on the writing of phrenologists. I suppose if the books are shown to be notable crackpottery we can discuss them as exemplars, but the article itself should be written from and based on mainstream scholarship. Guy (help!) 17:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally, no, other than for
    WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
     😼  09:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ABOUTSELF may take you quite a way in this fringe of the fringe topic. It isn't clear that it has yet received a full detailed refutation from an orthodox scholar (or even say a Baconian). If it has then obviously that should be used. The lead makes it clear that this theory has gained next to no traction, but that para entirely lacks references. This is when we miss the late User:Paul Barlow! Johnbod (talk
      ) 12:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
exceptional claim. Tom Reedy (talk
) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The topic has (rightly I think) been found notable & carries a clear (if unreferenced) health warning in the short lead. If no one can produce a proper RS discussing the detail, we only seem to have the choice of saying there is a theory, but hardly setting out what it is, or using these sources. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's notable enough to have a WP page, but there are sufficient reliable sources to source the article without using the fringe works themselves. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
While what someone writes may be acceptable as a source for their opinions on articles about them, they are never acceptable in articles about other topics. So while writings by Brenda James and William Rubinstein may be reliable sources for their articles, they are not reliable sources for an article about the Nevillean theory. The article should be based on reliable secondary sources that analyze the theory and explains the degree of its acceptance. Sometimes quotes from the authors may help readers but they should only be included if they have been repeated in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, close, but not quite exact. Sources by Person A may and should be used for the opinion of person A about subject B, assuming subject B is notable, or a relevant part of a notable article. Whether this theory is notable enough for a separate article is in my opinion doubtful until there are more sources about this theory, but it is certainly relevant as a part of an article, and the sources can therefore be used, making the authorship clear. (The use should also make the publisher clear, so reader can jdge the likelihood of it being mainstream). So far from being a supplement, the explanation of the person's theory should be the main point of the article or section, and it should be based in large part on what the person says--taking account when necessary of other people's views that they may not be expressing it intelligibly or honestly. That's what we're writing about, his theory, not the public reaction to his theory. It is not nPOV to organize the discussion of something along the words of its opponents. We include the opponents, and may even give them greater weight than the supporter(s). but we first need to know what the supporters think, before the opposition can make sense. The opposition makes sense only if it's clear what is being opposed. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
for example.
The Truth will out is published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group in 2017--that gives it an altogether higher weight than if self published, since Routledge is an academic publisher, tho not one of the most important ones. Routledge tends to look for out of the way topics, and that has to be kept in mind, but the fact that they published it at all makes me willing to look at the theory. Otherwise, to be frank, I wouldn't even bother.
Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays was published by Sir henry neville was McFarland, a publisher of considerably lower reputation, but still respectable. .
"Sir henry neville was shakespeare." seems to be an popular version of that published by an unimportant publisher
"Who Will Believe My Verse?" is also by an unimportant publisher
But none of these is self published. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Rubinstein's work was sheer pathetic. John Casson was a psychotherapist while Bradbeer was a nurse and that says volumes about their expertise. The rest are published by fringe presses. Obviously, they are not reliable even for documenting the fringe theory in itself. The first one passes that bar (though CRC has published dubious stuff in past) but then the issue arises in abiding by
    WP:WEIGHT. So, no reason to use it, either. ∯WBGconverse
    07:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a recent book, Stuart Kells Shakespeare's Library: Unlocking the Greatest Mystery in Literature. The author is not a proponent of the Neville theory but goes into quite a bit of depth on it. So that is a new source that can be used. Kfein (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is another article in a peer-reviewed journal. It is co-authored by John Casson, but I think should be acceptable as an RS on the subject. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244018823465Kfein (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This RfC is not about those sources. But just en passant, the first is reliable according to WP criteria, the second is non-peer reviewed nonsense. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • These sources are bilge. Obviously they are "reliable" primary sources for their own views, but that is not really the issue - for NPOV we should be basing articles on respectable,
    talk
    ) 00:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as Truth Will Out, it is cited here as a source 4-5 times by an extremely RS. So this is overwhelmingly strong evidence that it is a RS, despite all of the name-calling and bluster above: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615 Kfein (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take its cue for what an acceptable source is from other web sites, so whatever point you're trying to make is moot (nor is that website "an extremely RS" for the purpose of the Nevillian authorship page). The consensus of this discussion is pretty clear that the book is neither an independent nor a secondary source, which is required to be considered a reliable source for the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus here at all, there's just a lot of cursing by people pushing an agenda. The issue isn't want you are discussing here, but it is a peculiar question for a fringe article. I just wanted to update this page with the latest information. Kfein (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I count 6 hard "No"s, 7 including me, 1 hard "yes" (you) and a couple of editors who brought up discussion points with no red-line opinion. Since you're the least-experienced editor here, and obvious
WP:SPA, and display no real knowledge of Wikipedia policies, I'd say the consensus is pretty clear. Tom Reedy (talk
) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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

"Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity"

Is this book reliable? An user reverts my edit on Ashina tribe saying it is disputed although he does not put any counterargument. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Publisher looks OK. Reliable until proven otherwise. However, I would rather reference direct page of that quotation, not only the entire chapter (pp. 269-418). I think the editor in question (Hunan201p) could explain their concerns here (there is nothing on the article talk page about this book), so I invite them to this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The full text is "Mythology employing shamanic symbolism along with references to the sky-god Tengri were, evidently, tools to strengthen the Türk ruler's legitimacy, and some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri."[2] I used this as reference that their religion was Tengrism, @Hunan201p: disagree. It's chapter 20: Infrastructures of legitimacy in inner Asia: the Early Turk Empires, by Michael R. Drompp, but I can't find the book online. Beshogur (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/world/americas/evo-morales-election.html
  2. ^ Empires, Diplomacy, and Frontiers. (2018). In N. Di Cosmo & M. Maas (Eds.), Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (pp. 269-418). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Honolulu Civil Beat

I'm curious to hear thoughts about using this article to source the claim that lively forum discussion pre-existed media interest in the Science of Identity foundation on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. The relevant discussion is at the talk page (diffs here and here). (NB: the question of Grube's article (also in Civil Beat) is not my primary question, though I would be interested in hearing whether that article is admissible). I gather Civil Beat is an Omidyar initiative. I don't know if there's a general en.wp rule/decree/etc. for Omidyar media initiatives at perennial sources? ^^

MrX, Xenagoras, pinging you both since you're in the starring diffs. (sorry) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been media interest in the Science of Identity Foundation and/or Chris Butler's nexus to politics since 1976 (see Independents for Godly Government). The media reported on it in relation to state senator Rick Reed as well as Gabbard's parents. It is well known in certain communities in Hawaii and has existed independently of online forum discussion. It received renewed interest with regard to Gabbard when she herself referenced her "guru dev" in an August 2015 YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GLgGw6ujU&t=150s). It would, however, be interesting to know whether Civil Beat articles are admissible, as they contain useful information. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Honolulu Civil Beat ranks high on our scale of reliability. I'm not aware that they have a reputation for fact checking. Their policy on corrections seems to be non-existent: https://www.civilbeat.org/topics/civil-beat-policy-on-corrections/. More importantly, I believe that this minor source should not be used to rebut reportage in far better sources like The New Yorker, The New York Times, New York Magazine, and The Guardian. Here is the wording proposed by the OP:

In March 2015, after study of extensive forum postings and the public record, Honolulu Civil Beat "found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is — or ever was — a Butler devotee" and "could find no record of her ever speaking publicly about it".
— []

Finally, the 2015 Honolulu Civil Beat article is comically out of date. All of the articles cited to support the material (see collapsed section below) about Gabbard's involvement with the Science of Identity Foundation are far more recent and the publishers are far more reputable.
Science of Identity Foundation content
Tulsi Gabbard was raised in part on the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.[1][2][3] Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her.[4] and in 2015 Gabbard referred to Butler as her spiritual master.[5][6] Gabbard's husband and ex-husband have also been part of the community.[7][8] Gabbard has been reluctant to speak publicly about the SIF.[9]

References

  1. ^ Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". The New York Times. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  2. ^ Hurley, Bevan (August 4, 2019). "Meet the guitar-strumming Kiwi surfer dude who's become US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's secret weapon". Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  3. ^ McCarthy, Tom (March 19, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  4. ^ Bowles, Nellie (August 2, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed". Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  5. ^ Sanneh, Kelefa (October 30, 2017). "What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?". New Yorker. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  6. ^ Howley, Kerry (June 11, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood". New York Magazine. Retrieved January 13, 2019. When The New Yorker asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had "many different spiritual teachers," that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing.
  7. ^ Howley, Kerry (June 11, 2019). "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood". New York Magazine. Retrieved January 13, 2019.
  8. ^ Hurley, Bevan (August 4, 2019). "Meet the guitar-strumming Kiwi surfer dude who's become US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard's secret weapon". Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  9. ^ McCarthy, Tom (March 19, 2019). "Who is Tulsi Gabbard? The progressive 2020 hopeful praised by Bannon and the right". Retrieved December 16, 2019.
- MrX 🖋 01:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, MrX fails to cite the full context. The following line of proposed text was the following:

Five months later, Gabbard referred to Siddhaswarupananda Parmahamsa as her guru dev (teacher), in the context of a celebration of Srila Prabhupada's trip to the United States.[1]

References

  1. ^ Tulsi Gabbard (August 19, 2015). "Tulsi Gabbard: an American politician Message for Srila Parbhupada's Journey to USA". Hare Krsna TV -- Iskon Desire Tree. youtube. 3:38.
The above video is the source for the articles he cites, yet he does not believe it should be included, only the sources making a big, big, deal out of a passing mention in this video (obviously without linking to the source, because that would show just how passing a mention it is: 3 seconds out of 5 minutes)... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
neutral point of view policy violation towards a BLP. Also, do not argue about the number of citations by the sources as you did there:[27]. Xenagoras (talk
) 22:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Simmer down
dredge up things wrote I did that you disagree with. I stand by everything I have written about Gabbard and about the quality of sources. Believe it or not, editors are allowed to to have differing opinions. Right now, we're discussing whether this Honolulu news website is reliable, not other things. - MrX
🖋 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is a dispute between one 2015 article by an obscure local news site and multiple more recent articles by multiple high-quality RS, then we opt for the language and content from the latter.

talk
) 02:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

According to the Intelligencer (New York) article: When The New Yorker asked her if she had a spiritual teacher, she said she had had “many different spiritual teachers,” that none was more important than the others, and that she has never heard Chris Butler say an unkind thing. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: Civil Beat policy on corrections Humanengr (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable as a local source with corrections policy shown in above link, but national rs such as NYT would take precedence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I checked yesterday to see if our article (and Xenagoras' statement) was correct about Honolulu Civil Beat regularly winning Best online news site in Hawaii from the Society of Professional Journalists. It appears to be correct as the references in the en.wp entry confirm.
In sum, if Civil Beat is considered generally reliable there should be no problem with using it to state that the long forum campaign conducted to suggest that Chris Butler is a "nefarious influence" on Tulsi Gabbard has failed to provide any evidence: By and large, this question is met with a collective head-scratching. Beyond the vague notion of transparency, none of the people Civil Beat has interviewed, or even the Gabbard skeptics on the Cult Education forum, can point to any nefarious plot being concocted by Butler or offer an articulate explanation as to why Gabbard’s constituents should be alarmed by Butler’s potential influence on the congresswoman. But that hasn’t stopped them from looking for evidence of a secret agenda
Cf. the talk page of Gabbard's BLP. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The concerns about it being outdated and fringe still apply. You will have to get consensus on the talk page to include it. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)$
Weird that you call a paper that has won the SPJ award 9 years in a row for best online news site in Hawaii, fringe. I reject this argument as baseless.
Could you provide more recent information published in an RS contradicting the claim above? I've never read anything showing there was some sort of "nefarious plot being concocted by Butler" or demonstrating that his "potential influence" should alarm people? You would need to show something directly contradicting the claim. Also, why don't you want info about the forum campaign mentioned, MrX? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to take a deep dive into the content on this noticeboard. I've already made my case on the article talk page, where the content is properly discussed. - MrX 🖋 14:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: Did you actually look at the corrections page? [28] It looks blank to me. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I followed this link here, also if theyve won journalism awards that is another point in their favour, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you found an old version of their website that had a corrections policy. Notably, their current website does not. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
To be fair on the publication, the link above is not necessarily where I would expect a corrections policy to be. It is to a list of articles tagged with the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Corrections". The general topics page says this should include one article; but it does not, for some reason. I do, however, find this article, on the publication of the Corrections Policy,[29] seemingly misplaced under the topic "Civil Beat Policy on Anonymous Sources"; and would think it more likely to have been mis-tagged than non-existent. No comment as to the broader reliability of the publication. -
talk
21:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, that did seem strange. Someone could email them and suggest they fix it. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. It is also likely more reliable than national RS outlets when it comes to Hawaii specific issues. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Points of information for all. I wrote HCB to report the blank page. (They promptly fixed it and said it was a glitch in the upgrading of their content management system.)
  • Generally reliable. I point to my detailed explanation from the article talk page.[30]
    reliable source, it is an investigative news website that practices watchdog journalism: fact-checking, interviewing, beat reporting and investigative journalism. Honolulu Civil Beat has been awarded best news site in Hawaii by the Society of Professional Journalists each year since 2011. Pierre Omidyar publishes and finances the Honolulu Civil Beat. He also finances The Intercept. Both news outlets have published many very critical articles about Gabbard. The specific article you are interest in shows that Honolulu Civil Beat did a lot of original research on Gabbard. It stems from a time before she resigned from the DNC to oppose Hillary Clinton and before she announced her 2020 presidential campaign. As for every source, general policies apply, as I explained here.[31] Xenagoras (talk
    ) 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Carey Sublette and salted bomb

I have been looking at the salted bomb article and I'd like some advice / help. The current reference two is misformatted but says

Sublette, Carey (July 2007). "Types of nuclear weapons". FAQ. Retrieved 2010-02-13.

and links to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6, a site that I was not sure qualifies as an

WP:RS
. It doesn't seem to me to establish who Carey Sublette is or why he's qualified to write on this topic. In looking around, however, I found that:

It was coming to the conclusion that Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive is an RS, though possibly self-published and not suited for BLPs... but I then noticed that the content of section 1.6 of Sublette's FAQ is nearly identical to the content of the article's first reference,

Bhushan, K.; Katyal, G. (2002). "Types of Nuclear Weapons – Cobalt Bombs and Other Salted Bombs". Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare. New Delhi, India:
ISBN 9788176483124
.

The FAQ is dated 1998 and the book in 2002 (but as a reprint) so it could be that Sublette's work has just been plagiarised. We have no article on the book's publisher (and I know some publishers are blatantly violating copyright), nor do any of the authors have wikibios that I can find. So...

  1. Is Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive an RS, and if so, is all of it or just the FAQ?
  2. Should I use the Sublette archive as a source and drop the book for the salted bomb article? If so, should this book be deprecated as a source due to suspected copyright infringement? It is presently used on salted bomb, radiation burn, cobalt bomb, Raja Ramanna, Sartaj Aziz, and history of Odisha.
  3. Should I use the book as a source and drop the archive for the salted bomb article?
  4. Should I drop both and seek alternative sources?

Sorry for the length but I thought explaining would be helpful. Any and all comments / suggestions / criticisms / etc welcome. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

talk:EdChem|talk]]) 07:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons Archive a RS, all of it. Sublette is a widely-respected expert on nuclear weapons, although he doesn't have a nuclear (as opposed to chemical) weapons security clearance. (If he did, he wouldn't be able to write about it.) I would like to tell you more, but one of our rules gets in the way.
  2. Use the Sublette as your source in the salted bomb article. It remains our best source, although some information in it is dated. It is 20 years old.
  3. The book plagiarises Sublette. For our purposes though, that doesn't maker it unreliable.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
ty, Hawkeye7... if the book plagiarises Sublette, isn't linking to it a problem as a copyvio? EdChem (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Edited to fix typo in ping and re-sign. EdChem (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Minority of feminists at TERF article

We have been having a protracted debate over whether we can say that TERFS is used to describe a minority of feminists. My general feeling is that the statement is most likely the Truth, but the level of sourcing found so far has been sub par. It would be nice to get some outside opinion on this from some sourcing experts who do not have much of a dog in the fight. The article is

Talk:TERF/Archive 1#RfC: How should we attribute "transphobic"?
) and it didn't discuss the minority part. The main sources that I have seen used for this are:

I guess it would be good to know if the sourcing is strong enough to say this in wikivoice, with attribution, or not at all. There have also been discussions about whether qualifying TERF as a minority is useful or whether doing so is undue weight as many sources use other words to distinguish between the two groups, but that may be beyond the scope of this board. The two most recent discussion are at

Talk:TERF#A minority of feminists who ...... ??. AIRcorn (talk)
07:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

this is not an RS matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
How is it not? AIRcorn (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Eye on Islamism

As stated at https://eyeonislamism.com/about/ , this is a site that reprints portions of mainstream and non-mainstream sources with attribution to the original source. I'm thinking that this site itself should not be a 'reliable source', but the original purveyors of the content could be, or could not be, depending on the source. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

specialforcesroh.com

Previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 153#specialforcesroh.com.

http://www.specialforcesroh.com/ is being used in a lot of articles, and in my opinion is quite obviously an unreliable self-published source. My removal of it was reverted from

SOE F Section networks, so thought it best to get a definitive answer before proceeding. FDW777 (talk
) 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

IslamQA

islamqa.info HTTPS links HTTP links

I found

IslamQA
as a Muslim-based, pro-Wahabi, anti-Christian website. It has been strongly criticised by Muslims and others.

The website was banned in Saudi Arabia because it was issuing independent fatwas. The founder of IslamQA is possibly in jail.

In regards to IslamQA issues and criticisms, it might be worthwhile to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

IslamQA says its "answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid" - otherwise it does not identify its editorial process and clearly establishes that its purpose is Muslim apologetics. It is not usable as a source in Wikipedia. All these uses should be removed. Koreangauteng (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing at Mottainai

There has been an ongoing debate as to the usability of certain sources for certain content at Talk:Mottainai since mid-November. Specifically:

  • this source for the text Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage.";
  • this source for the text Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan.;
  • this source (or this source -- they are functionally very similar) for the text According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life".; and
  • this source for the text One of the earliest appearances of the word mottainai is in the book Genpei Jōsuiki (A Record of the Genpei War, ca. 1247). This early use of the word appears in a story about Yoshitsune. Yoshitsune dropped his bow into the sea, and a vassal used the word mottainai in admonishing Yoshitsune that he should have considered his own life more valuable than even a worthy bow.

(Note that in some cases, the "facts" may be verified by the sources, but the neutrality/relevance is in dispute, as the authors of our cited sources appear to disagree with the matter asserted.) An RFC was opened, but very few outside editors have expressed interest. Some more third-party opinions would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC) — minor tweaks to sources in the above list (journal ref in #2 per current version of that reference in the Mottainai article; precision of endnote link in #4). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what good listing the publisher and publication titles on this noticeboard accomplishes, or how the above is "a bit clearer" than my "Source X for Text Y" approach, but whatever. (I might as well also point out that Taylor cites a source, McCullough 1988, who was one of the best-regarded scholars and translators of classical Japanese literature outside Japan throughout her career, but she does not actually support his assertion that mottainai appears in the text, and the original Japanese text she used clearly doesn't contain the word. (It is my intention to contact Taylor in the near future to ask if he can remember where he got the information, since it seems very likely he
got it from Wikipedia, which was added in 2008 with no source and an obvious chronological error in the edit summary -- 1247 is around a half-century after the end of the Heian era.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed the Shuto/Eriguna links in both my and Francis's posts; I had forgotten that the text presented as "version A" in the RFC contained a broken link. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've already written at length about some of these sources at Talk:Mottainai. As I see it, there are a number of issues with how they're proposed to be used. Some of those issues relate to reliability, particularly use of scholars outside their areas of expertise; others relate to misrepresentation/cherrypicking & neutrality.
Shuto & Eriguna - Have reviewed the Shuto reference, a study on childhood pedagogy (outside the appropriate fields of study); the supporting text there is in the "Background" section (which I would not consider reliable) and references Hirose, Y. (2008). "Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior". (again outside the appropriate academic field).
If all that Shuto & Eriguna do here is pass through something that they picked up from Hirose, then Hirose should be examined and, if suitable, used in preference.
Sato - The same issue with academic fields holds true for Sato Yuriko's article in the Journal of Analytical Psychology. Putting aside whether psychology is an appropriate field; Sato has an extensive introduction to this source, we choose to ignore this, cherrypicking one sentence. The source later develops into a series of anecdotes from Sato's clinical practice, which I do not consider appropriate for this article.
Siniawer 2014 - Inclusion of the content attributed to Yamaori Tetsuo (quoted by Siniawer 2014, which I have read in toto) is bewildering - the source covers 22 pages, largely about the "rebranding" of Mottainai in millennial Japan. It is astounding that we would cherrypick a seemingly contrary or minor view from this source and not include the main crux. Siniawer, read in context, is clearly disdainful of Yamaori's contentions; placing them in the context of a deliberate "branding" of Mottainai in the early 21st century. We ignore the primary thrust of Siniawer's work, to focus on a single quote from Yamaori.
Hope this helps. -
talk
21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It also might be worth noting that the Siniawer source has been referred to four times on the talk page as "peer-reviewed", as though that was necessarily a point in favour of inclusion of the content attributed to her, but the Yamaori source she cited most definitely was not peer-reviewed -- so if "peer-reviewed-ness" is an important quality when comparing sources in this case, then we have one peer-reviewed source (Siniawer 2014) disagreeing with one non-peer-reviewed source (Yamaori 2006), while we cite the former as support for our emphasizing the opinion of the latter. This kind of disruptive behaviour, which is clearly not a good-faith disagreement over article content or sourcing, is why I thought ANI was the correct forum for this, and the apparent lack of attention that it's getting at RSN would seem to support my initial belief. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Private Equity Professional (peprofessional.com)

I'm thinking that at least some of the content on this site is churnalism. For instance https://peprofessional.com/2019/12/frontenac-sells-liquid-technologies-pritzke/ . I've not done a review of content at large, but this is the first thing I've ever looked at on the site (came up in a duckduckgo search), and it says something in regard to 'random sample' with an n of 1. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

on the topic of churnalism ...

It might be useful to start a listing of sources that are prone to churnalism but also publish reliable content. Or the reverse, outlets that are known to be completely free of churnalism - if there are any. I'm thinking of a list highlighting those outlets that are a major % churnalistic in nature, like 50%+. These outlets might not be blacklisted as unreliable in an rfc. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceyockey, interesting thought. Top of the list in my experience is Mail Online, which is already deprecated, but virtually all trade publications source much of their content from PR. Guy (help!) 10:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

zoominfo

ZoomInfo or its agents appear to be engaging in an SEO spamming campaign. I looked at the uses here; there are... issues. Examples:

  • references to the name on ZoomInfo, which just provides a list of all the people matching the name;
  • references to pages that are blank unless you download and install software;
  • 404 links.

Ultimately ZoomInfo is a marketing tool, not an encyclopaedic reference. I think we should remove these links. Guy (help!) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I am removing these using AWB. I manually checked around 100 links, most of which were (a) a web archive that no longer appears to function; (b) links to person or company profiles that require you to register for a "free trial" (i.e. credit card required) to read; (c) links to person or company profiles that instead merely bring up a list of entities. I have yet to find a link which is actually what it probably was when added, let alone a valid RS. Please ping me if anyone finds any that are genuinely valid, and I'll whitelist.
Here's a representative example: diff of edit, {{{cite web|last1=Kerrouache|first1=Milouda|title=Women - Asma Lamrabet: "Reform of the religious sphere is essential."|url=http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=-274958819&page_url=//www.arab-reform.net/spip.php?article3480&page_last_updated=2010-07-27T05:43:02&firstName=Asma&lastName=Lamrabet|website=Arab Reform Initiative|publisher=Arab Reform Initiative|accessdate=21 July 2010}}. The original page is not available at the original site, and the ZoomInfo archive is 404 as well (many of these archive pages have been tagged as permanently dead by bots). There's nothing I can do with this other than replace with {{
cn}}. Guy (help!
) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bollysuperstar.com

Thoughts about reliability / suitability of the bollysuperstar.com site? According to https://bollysuperstar.com/about-us/ , "We are BollySuperStar (https://bollysuperstar.com), working under Bollywood Entertainment Ltd., which is an Entertainment Based Blogging & Technology Organization." Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable. No substantial Google hits for the alleged parent company(s). None of the supposed 30 employees is mentioned by name or credentials. The site may or may not be affiliated with a minor YouTube channel and seems little more than a personal blog with Bollywood gossip and news (quote: "We collect data from Wikipedia, IMDB, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube & over the INTERNET."). Not even suitable for uncontroversial info. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian journal article retractions

Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation A Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been investigating fraudulent or plagiarized articles and recommending retractions. Most of these are Russian-language so I don't know how often they might have been used on en:wiki. The full report is also available and also in Russian. I've lost almost all of my proficiency in the language, so I can't read through it myself to find out which articles and journals were affected. Of most concern are probably the eight journals that "explicitly refused" to retract recommended articles or otherwise cooperate with the investigations. If we can find out what those were, we should then probably at least see if they are used here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yomedan-chii.jp blog in Otokonoko

Otokonoko is a topic about crossdressing in Japan. At [32], Trappy-chan (talk · contribs) argues that the Japanese-language blog entry http://yomedan-chii.jp/archives/18333797.html is an appropriate source for this article, including for claims about gender identity issues, because, according to Trappy-chan, it was written by an expert in the field. I have serious doubts about that.

I cannot read Japanese, and I do not know anything about the blog's author, but: The blog has an informal, "cute" layout that is at odds with how a serious academic researcher would present their writings. And for gender identity issues in particular, I think that

WP:MEDRS
sourcing is preferred, or at any rate editorially reviewed sources, but certainly not self-published sources.

What do others think? And for those who read Japanese, does this blog post even support the added content? Sandstein 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is a mess and has a single, glaring problem that the recent edits do not even purport to attempt to address, which is that the word otoko-no-ko (男の子) is obviously a pun in Japanese: the common noun simply means "boy" as opposed to "girl" or "adult man", and only takes on a nuance of transvestism because of the fact that the character 娘 ("young girl" or "daughter") can also sometimes be read ko. Anyone familiar with basic conversational Japanese who isn't also deeply versed in Japanese transvestite culture (of whom there are probably more than those who are familiar with Japanese transvestite culture but don't know a word of conversational Japanese) would be somewhat
    not competent to edit in this topic area
    .
Moreover, this source doesn't appear to say anything remotely similar to what Trappy-chan is attributing to it; the source does not have anything do with gender identity but rather gives as its basic gist something like It's my impression -- MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION [Chii's emphasis] and I'm probably wrong lol -- that while josōshi refers to men who dress as women and mostly don't look like men, otokonoko refers to men who look like they've jumped out of a cartoon or comic strip in that they could pass 100% for women. Given the above post, it does seem like Trappy-chan understands that the source doesn't have any real relationship to the content it is being tagged onto, which makes me think this is some kind of Catflap08- or Bagworm-level disruption where the editor apparently believes that inline citations are not meant to provide sources so that readers can verify our articles' content, so much as a way to advertise "good sources in general". Not only do edits like this make it harder to verify the content (assuming there is some gender identity content in the
Bart Ehrman often uses as an analogy to explain why "vertical reading" of the gospels is not a good way of reading them for historical purposes the idea of someone reading one of his books and then reading something by Rush Limbaugh
before assuming the two authors were saying the same thing -- I'd find a video clip but it's quite late here so I'd probably fall asleep before the job was done.
I don't know why Japanese culture articles tend to attract edits like these, but hopefully this one can be nipped in the bud.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That. All of it. Particularly the bit about the pun; which is mentioned in the Kotaku and SoraNews24 sources. Seems marginally notable at best; should probably be merged to a broader topic. -
talk
20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable - Self-published; author not widely recognised as an "expert" in the sense meant by WP:SPS. -
talk
20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

-

There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references despite the fact that as I have already pointed out, they are not about the discussion on gender identity. I know you may not understand Japanese, but if you AT LEAST use google translator you can somewhat understand the context of the japanese sources. Newmo's glossary explains many LGBT terms and in 男の娘 it explicitly states that it is irrelevant to gender transition and sexual orientation. The LGBT-Life (Rainbow Life) article has a whole section for 男の娘 + 男の娘 couples and it explicitly includes transgender people. Kotaku's article interviews a non-binary 男の娘. Chii's reference was added, again, to indicate a few things:

- Not all 男の娘 are crossdressers, they can also be merely feminine people. 男の娘 does not directly equal crossdressing. 女装/女装子 are the words for crossdressing.

- However, as Chii explains, 男の娘 and 女装子 are largely used interchangibly, even though, again, as Chii explains, there is a difference between the two as 男の娘 does not necessarily equal crossdressing. That is why she mentions she personally does not use the slangs in the same way, despite the fact that they are largely used that way in general.

I agree that the discussion on 男の娘 and 女装子 is a large one and Chii's reference might not fully grasp the distinctions and similarities between the two slangs. In this case, as I have proposed, there is a need to expand on this subject (rather than pretending it doesn't exist and removing it from the article).

I also agree that we can expand on the section regarding the origin of the slang.

However, as I have pointed out, the discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation relating to 男の娘 is clear cut and backed up by many sources. There is no doubt in this subject as all sources comply with the same point, without presenting a single controversial argument: 男の娘 can be AMAB people of any gender identity and sexual orientation. We have, at the moment, AT LEAST 3 references in the article pointing this out. If there is further confusion on this subject, I recommend the work 不可解なぼくのすべてを (usually translated as "Love Me For What I Am"), a story specifically about 男の娘 people who work in an 男の娘 café and belong to many different gender identities and sexualities.

I hope now that we've cleared up the confusion on references, we can move on to improving the article which sorely needs it instead of accusing others of disruption while failing to read anything posted or referenced and undoing revisions that are backed up by sources because you haven't read them. Thank you.Trappy-chan (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a big problem here, which is the fact that *nobody in this discussion has actually checked the multiple references linked in the article* and are exclusively focusing (in bad faith, it seems) on Chii's references No, you claimed your edit was based on the Chii blog, when it clearly bore no relation whatsoever to the content of said blog. You then persisted to add that citation to the content (most recently here). You don't get to claim that some other sources you didn't previously cite and have never actually claimed support the content without being
synthesized with the blog you originally cited until now are the "actual" sources -- this is almost as bad as what has been going on at the Mottainai article, with the only reason I don't say it's as bad being that this topic is "sexy" enough to attract more immediate outside attention and not waste as much editor time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 01:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This page is the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors evaluate the suitability of a source as a reference in an article. This discussion focuses on Chii's blog, and at this point, there is consensus that Yomedan-chii.jp is not an appropriate source for the

reliability, please use the talk page of the article. — Newslinger talk
01:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: That seems reasonable given the title of this noticeboard, but I was actually told to come here in relation to a different discussion in which no one was disputing the general reliability of the sources in question but rather whether the (reliable) sources actually supported the content they were being cited as saying. I have always considered this to be the place for discussion of "either the general reliability of a particular source or the reliability of one or more sources for a particular piece of content", and given that in this case the latter is most definitely not the case (the Yomedan-chii.jp obviously does not support the content it is being cited for), that seems generally a simpler and more direct route than trying to establish based on third-party coverage whether the author of a particular blog is a recognized topic expert or whether the content in question is "uncontentious" enough that practically any source would do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
self-published), and is inappropriate in the context of this article. — Newslinger talk
02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Nation

There's been some inconclusive discussion here about the use of The Nation in this article. I believe it is a perfectly reliable source and at the very least it is as strong as other citations used in the article. The Author Donna Minkowitz is a respected journalist and writer. So, is The Nation and this article in particular a reliable source for this claim:

Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.

Given The Nation and the author both have a good reputation, I can't see the issue with this source personally. Thanks

talk
) 00:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Given The Nation's reputation for reliability, I think that the source is reliable for this claim unless someone has evidence that it is factually inaccurate. Having skimmed the discussion at the talk page, I don't think I buy the argument that this article should be dismissed as an opinion piece by virtue of being in the "Media Analysis" section. The claim here appears to be empirical in nature (as opposed to being conjecture or prediction), and I don't see any indication that the Media Analysis section is subject to less editorial oversight than news reporting. signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No The first sentence obviously reflects her opinion of Quillette. If not, you'd have to think that the profiles of Quillette in Politico, The Chronicle of Higher Ed, and The Sydney Morning Herald, which make no mention of "psuedo-science" on race all just missed the basic facts in their reporting. That's absurd. If the piece was due (which there is no consensus about on the talk page despite extended discusison), I would think her claims could be included as attributed opinion in the reception section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I want to clarify that I agree with those below who have said that the Nation--and in partiucular this piece--is reliable for attributed opinion, which in my view would belong in the reception section if it were deemed to be due in the article. But this is not what was being asked. What is being asked is whether this opinion piece is RS for us to repeat the author's opinion about Quillette in wikivoice. And the answer is that it is not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, will attribute the claims to Minkowitz. I don't believe this is about the outlets reception though, it's ideology that's being discussed in the article. Thanks.
talk
) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Journalists are allowed to form opinions, and as long as their analysis is based in fact we treat the resulting journalistic work according to the demonstrated competence of the analyst, who is in this case an award-winning journalist writing under effective editorial oversight for a reputable publication. The fact that other writing about the same topic may have missed the thread picked up here may be a relevant argument concerning BALANCE and DUE issues within an article, but is certainly not an argument against the reliability of the source. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment why is this being discussed in 3 locations? It was extensively discussed less than a month back. A RfC has been opened on the article talk page and now we have this discussion here. Springee (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Because there appears to have been a refusal to accept a reliable source as per guidelines, Wikipedia is
talk
) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree with
    talk
    ) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)—
  • Yes it is reliable, but opinion pieces need to be treated with care in all publications imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes... but - opinion sources can be reliable (depending on a blend of the reputation of both publication and author). However, opinion sources always need in-line attribution. The information needs to be phrased as: “according to Ima Journalist XYZ is true” or “Joe Expert disagrees, and states that XYZ isn’t true”. Obviously WP:DUE WEIGHT is a factor in this (Not all journalistic opinions are equal). In this case, I think the author has enough of a reputation (and the Nation certainly does) that noting her opinion is DUE... but what she says still needs to be phrased as BEING her opinion, and not expressed as being accepted fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes with attribution. Guy (help!) 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Bacondrum, you need to understand the difference between WP:V, which is what is being established here, and WP:WEIGHT. Just because The Nation is a RS for attributed opinion doesn't establish how much weight this particular writer's opinion should receive in the article. The fact that about half of the 18 editors who replied to the discussion last December were concerned about the inclusion of the claims in this article suggests WEIGHT still needs to be addressed. Springee (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Nejat Society a RS?

https://www.nejatngo.org/en/

Is this a reliable source for backing up in the

People's Mujahedin of Iran
that "According to the Nejat Society, in 1988, the Nuremberg MEK front organization was uncovered by police."?

Thanks :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Because it is attributed, this is essentially a statement about the opinion of the Nejat Society... not a statement of fact about MEK or the Nuremberg police. The source is a PRIMARY source, used to support a statement as to its own content. That content may or may not be accurate, but they did say it.
That said... reliability is not the only policy in play here. We also must consider WP:UNDUE. We have to ask whether the Nejat Society’s opinion is important enough to mention. I don’t know enough about the topic to comment on that. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

PitchBook

I'm thinking that the public information component, hosting entries like https://pitchbook.com/profiles/investor/10153-72 , should not be a reliable source as the page https://pitchbook.com/research-process implores companies with "Ensure your PitchBook profile is up to date". I'm thinking it would be on par with Crunchbase (on the perennial list). Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceyockey, it looks as if the reliable content is all subscription-only (see PitchBook Data), and the free content is not reliable. That's taking everything at face value, of course. Guy (help!) 12:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • P.S. there is an article on this at PitchBook Data, I just noticed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting question at the Teahouse

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Fiction_as_references

Interesting question, if you have a good answer. Basically, where in our policies does it say most clearly that we don't use a work of fiction for something "realworld" in this case floor-coverings? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The most applicable guideline is
WP:RSCONTEXT). A claim in a work of fiction is not reliable for anything outside of the context of its fictional universe. — Newslinger talk
10:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

BioSpace

Referring to www.biospace.com. The 'about us' page starts with "BioSpace champions the Life Sciences industry as a digital hub for news and careers." My experience is that the majority of content on the site is either churnalism or straight out press releases. Putting it here as people doing searches on companies in the pharma space will inevitably encounter this site, and I did not see any reference to it in the archives. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • P.S. the article BioSpace was deleted in 2007 as an A7-G11 speedy. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
  • I'm inclined to agree. I think this should be purged. Guy (help!) 11:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do?

In short, the original book and Austrian historian mentions the census of Lika and Krbava 1712. In that book is talked about "Greek-Orthodox" and Croatian historian write about that census and mentions "Serbian Orthodox". What should I do? Should I delete claims of the Croatian historian or to add claims from the original census and the Austrian book itself next to claims of the Croatian historian. Everything is explained here[33] but there is no answer so please help. Article is "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It might be nice to see who these "Croatian historians" are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The first book is from Austrian historian. It's a book about the original census from 1712. While a Croatian historian writes his book based on that book and instead "Greek-Orthodox" he uses term "Serbian Orthodox".This is his biography. [1]Mikola22 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure an MA would trump a professor when it comes to weight. Not does your link tell me what book it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Original scientific work of Marko Šarić[2] and book of Austrian historian Karl Kaser [3]Mikola22 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You first source does not look like a book, it looks like a paper. Nor does Marko Šarić appear to be a respected historian. So whilst Karl Kaser is an RS, Marko Šarić is less clear, no more RS than any other student paper ever published.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And what to do, to enter information from an Austrian historian.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Its an RS, so is usable, with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/pov/zavod/triplex/sariccv.htm
  2. ^ https://www.pilar.hr/wp-content/images/stories/dokumenti/lika/lika_1_mail_r_325.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.skdprosvjeta.com/pdf/9.pdf

southfront.org

In the original posting I was referred to here. This site has been blacklisted for being fake news. What to do with the over 500 uses as a source on en.wikipedia? (just wondering, as I am not a regular user here) Hardscarf (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • These uses should be removed. There was an AfD for a bunch of timeline articles that accounted for thousands of uses of these state-sponsored fake news sites, what's left after that deletion should be removed as and when you encounter it. Guy (help!) 14:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove for statements of of anything other than what SF says (that is another issue altogether).Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!
) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
As I said another issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The default should be remove, with the onus on others to show we can use it. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Newsbusters and The Washington Examiner as sources for facts in the lead of CNN

A user on

The Washington Examiner can be used for statements of fact in the lead of CNN, in this diff; Adfontesmedia and AllSides (familiar to anyone who frequents this board, I think) are also being cited. Note the removal in that diff - they're using them in a way that directly contradicts Slate, the Columbia Journalism Review, Southern California International Review, and Vox, and are directly removing a statement sourced to those four sources to replace it with something cited to the ones I mentioned. See further discussion here. --Aquillion (talk
) 06:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

That's nuts. They can't even be used for attributed opinions. We can only use RS here. --
talk
) 06:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to believe we are even discussing this. But I think we need to revisit the issue of Newsbusters/MRC as the last discussion listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources was in 2017 and says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. See also: CNSNews.com." Doug Weller talk 08:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Newsbusters claims to be a fact-checker. It is up to this community to determine whether their opinions are acceptable as a source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Newsbusters is as much a fact-checker as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually democratic, of the people, or a republic. You cannot go by just what someone says they are, it has to be proven. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to get the other side of the argument in here thank you. If one looks at

WP:Other
, but if somebody seriously wants to argue this point, they should argue the same on the other side of the fence.

Also, nobody has yet explained actually how The Examiner does not follow reliable sourcing standards. All I've heard as of yet, is that it's simply not, its biased (which does not matter, NPOV was followed), or now that I'm not competent. Good arguments here guys. Curivity (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias is not the issue, but accuracy is. Those two sources are so extreme that their bias pushes them into counterfactual territory, just like most of what comes from Fox News. It's entirely possible for both left- and right-wing sources to be biased and still remain accurate, and we can use them, but those sources go too far. --
talk
) 17:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner is a poor source in general. But, the particular article[34] Curivity is citing is an opinion column about chyrons. Chyrons are on-the-fly, electronically generated captions at the bottom of the screen picked up from what is being said and often containing misspellings they are generated so quickly. A cite that is wholly an opinion column rant about CNN chyrons is about as accurate a source for news network bias as an episode of the Simpsons. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. François Robere (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Not suitable: These sources are not suitable for the CNN article. Also, before a more broad discussion is created about Media Research Center, I do want to point to Curivity's concerns and the previous discussion of it's left-wing counterpart Media Matters.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • usable with attribution- no policy based arguements for exclusion have been made. Nor had any proof been provided that they are not accurate. All I see here is a group of editors arguing for exclusion because they simply don't like the source. One editor even voted "no" without any explanation and another editor (an admin who should be ashamed of himself) even went as far to suggest the editor arguing for inclusion was incompetent ( a clear personal attack). If we want to actually practice neutrality, we cannot have a double standard that allows media matters as a source, but excludes newsbusters. Both have biases and both report on the media. I challenge anyone here to justify different treatment for these two sources.
    Rusf10 (talk
    ) 00:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone want to weigh in at Talk:Mottainai?

No idea why the last thread, before it got archived, only attracted a few comments from those who had already commented on the talk page, but I would like to ask again if anyone would be willing to look at the sources and analyze whether they properly verify the content attributed to them. I would also like to ask that anyone who has already commented at least once on the article talk page refrain from posting here, in case the problem last time was TLDR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

InsideClimate News on accuracy of claims by proponents of climate change denial

There is a noticeboard discussion regarding the use of

WP:BLPN § Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. — Newslinger talk
10:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Filter 869

Filter 869 traps addition of deprecated sources to mainspace. I think we need to tweak this to also catch draft space - I just picked up a citation to a deprecated source that had been introduced in Draft and moved to mainspace. Guy (help!) 10:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I just boldly did that after reading this. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Beetstra, thanks Guy (help!) 15:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Boston Globe

Hello, I need to concern for a perennial source for the Boston Globe (www.bostonglobe.com), it would be a reliable source? But unlike other major newspapers like New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. --119.94.160.112 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes it is a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 100% reliable. May be annoying with its ad-blocking strategy but reliable. --Masem (t) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online

There are >500 uses of gameo.org as a source in Wikipedia. It's a wiki. It has restricted editorial access. Its mission is to promote the Mennonite Anabaptist cause, obviously, so there seems to be some risk of publishing Truth™ rather than fact. Is it reliable? Guy (help!) 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

hymnary.org

This site (>600 references on enWP) has an editorial board but is volunteer edited. Example from Apostles' Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

GIA Publications published a hymn text in 1991 directly based on the Apostles' Creed, called "I Believe in God Almighty." It has been sung to hymn tunes from Wales, the Netherlands, and Ireland.[1]

That looks to me like reliable-but-undue. I would tend to classify this as OK for sourcing facts about hymns but not OK to support notability of any specific work for inclusion either as an article or as a paragraph in a separate article. What does the panel think? Guy (help!) 11:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable for basic facts about hymns, but beyond that, I wouldn't use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "I believe in God almighty", Hymnary.

monergism.com

This site has 61 uses on enWP, so not especially high priority, but still. There's plenty of information on the website about its theological objectives, but nothing obvious about its editorial and fact-checking policy, or the expertise of its writers. It argues a particular POV on Christian theology, so it seems to me that in the absence of any compelling evidence of authority it should be restricted to

WP:ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!
) 12:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is
WP:RSP

I am using this article (https://fortune.com/2019/10/01/hypr-comcast-mastercard-samsung-funding-password/) to source an statement in HYPR Corp but I don't know if it is considered reliable. What about eweek? for example this article (https://www.eweek.com/security/hypr-debuts-biometrics-sdk-to-improve-authentication). Thanks! Kriptocurrency (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list. Yes Fortune is an RS by any definition other then "No magazines".Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, it is a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Post-WWII US intelligence reports on German intelligence figures

In multiple AfDs—including Heinz Bonatz, Adolf Paschke, and Rudolf Hentze—scope_creep is arguing that postwar reports by US intelligence agencies on German intelligence figures from World War II constitute reliable secondary sources and help for establishing notability of these figures. Yay or nay? buidhe 11:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My comment have been left on Hentze and I will review the other AfD's also. In short - reports are likely secondary as filled with analysis. However that the report exist doesn't inherently make any named person in the paper of any particular significance. To quote myself "Whether this makes it notable for a biography is a separate issue as the historic records are really not intended to establish notability. In fact as secret documents they are intended to not be notable. It might be that the unit is notable, and in the future analysis by further reliable sources may elevate such a person.". Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Reports by government agencies may be reliable sources (
WP:PUBLISHED. Pavlor (talk
) 12:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
For notability no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for facts, do not establish notability. Guy (help!) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

castlewales

This is identified as a personal project of Jeffrey L. Thomas. I cannot find any information showing him to be a recognised authority, the website doesn't seem to have anything about him (the links to his name are mailto: not links to a biography). I think this needs to be removed. Guy (help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In an interesting twist it has a few different contributors. Jeffrey L. Thomas seems to do most of it, and there's a short bio of him here. I think he's the main contributor but there are pages from Lise Hull (who has written several books on castles) and the above mentioned Philip Davis (I'll reply to that at some point too). It's described as a 'useful website' in Liddiard, Robert (2010). Medieval Castles (PDF). The Higher Education Academy.
ISBN 9781315552194., as well as [35] [36] [37]
.
So looking to the world of academia, it is being used as a source of information. As a bit of background, Robert Liddiard is one of the leading researchers on castles so I'd give his opinion on it being a useful website some decent weight; I appreciate it's not a detailed description and 'useful' can cover an awful lot (ie: the visual resources certainly are useful but wouldn't be suitable as sources for Wikipedia articles). Overall, I think the use of the site depends on the context. How is it being used at the moment? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable as per the information given above that shows it to be considered a reliable source in academia, no evidence of any unreliability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Secret war

A book by Philip J. Cohen [1] is often used on the project. The question can pretty much relate to other books authored by the same person. Cohen is a MD (without a degree in history) who was connected to Clinton administration (plus the political party led by Franjo Tuđman) which had their own interests during the Yugoslav Wars, which took place at the time of the publishing. More importantly, the book/s is/are met with heavy criticism (bad use of sources, use of fringe sources, cherrypicking, not going per NPOV and what not). Several notable persons like Jovan Byford even called it "quasi-historical writing". The more information is given in the article on Cohen. Should this book be used as a RS? ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

He is also a BA, he also has a wide expansive of the area (having been A UN adviser). Thus he may be RS for his views (and thus can be used with attribution).Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Bachelor of Arts, not History. That is important. Not just anybody can/should publish a book on sensitive issues such as these. The position of UN adviser is of little merit, because the book is about WW2 and other periods, not the 90s. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Errr a history degree is a BA.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Texas A&M is a well regarded, peer reviewed academic press, which should be considered for due weight. It got a reasonably positive review from a non-Balkans scholar,[2] while the negative evaluations seemed to come from individuals from the the area, who may have their own agenda. Perhaps Peacemaker67 would have some insight? buidhe 01:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-89096-760-7
    .
  2. doi:10.1177/009318539702500108
    .
This comes up regularly, usually from those that don't like his conclusions (they are critical of Serbs). They usually complain that he was a dermatologist and ignore his UN work. An overview of the praise and criticism of the book is provided at Cohen's article. I consider him reliable and he certainly is reliably published, but his opinions generally need to be attributed and used with care, as he, like many authors, has his biases. His factual stuff is fine to use unattributed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That is not the point. One can be critical with proper use of sources, which is just one of several problems with Cohen's work. This is not Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Exactly, thank you for pointing that out, he is critical of Serbs instead of Serbian government or Serbian leadership or parts of the Serbian army, parts of the Academy, choose your pick. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad someone brought this issue up. First of all, Cohen does not have a degree in history. He has a B.A. according to his Wikipedia page, in what is not clear. Though even if his B.A. is in history, that doesn't make him a historian. That's what a PhD. is for. He is a medical doctor who for some reason, became interested in the Balkans during the 1990s and took a hard-line anti-Serb stance.
He cozied up and maintained strong ties to Franjo Tudjman and his ruling Croatian party during the 1990s, receiving a medal of honor from Tudjman. This from a leader who, mind you, if he hadn't passed away would have likely been indicted by the ICTY for war crimes and a regime who committed their own atrocities in Croatia and Bosnia. The regime also tolerated and even at times promoted a revival of the country's WW2 fascist regime and holocaust revisionism. Yet Cohen, a Jew, had no issues with this, writing exclusively about Serbs, who undoubtedly were responsible for a good amount of atrocities during the 1990s.
My main problem with Cohen is that, upon observing his bibliography, literally every single one of his books (and other works) is about how bad the Serbs are and how they're responsible for all the problems in the Balkans. This isn't my opinion, it's plainly obvious when glancing through his works. I'd give him a pass, if say he had also written about other topics like the rise of Croatian or Albanian nationalism for instance, but there is none. It's just a strange obsession with demonizing everything Serbian. Unlike a serious academic or historian, he makes no attempt at objectivity. As the OP has noted, several Western academics have questioned his motives and historical interpretations. Little is also known about him, except what is written on the back of Serbia's Secret War and what other writers have been able to find. Only one picture of him exists online, also from the book. For someone who has written so much about Serbs, been a U.N. adviser for the Clinton administration and fancies himself an expert on the Balkans, it's bizarre.
Therefore, my view is that he can't be considered a reliable source, due to his dubious academic credentials, personal connections, promotion of one-sided POV and unusual criticism from reputable scholars regarding his work. If Serbia's Secret War or any other Cohen material is to be used at all, it should be done very sparingly and with an abundance of caution. I'm not necessarily opposed to it being used for uncontroversial statements but not when it comes to interpretations of history and documents or formulation of views and conclusions about Balkan issues.--Nolanfranyeri (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This Manchester University Press book[38] calls it a "controversial pro-Croatian revision of Serbian history." A Stanford University Press book[39] "Century (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 1997). Two studies that explore important topics, but in which censorious zeal trumps balanced scholarship, are Branimir Anzulovic, Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide (New York: New York University Press, 1999) and Philip J. Cohen, Serbia’s Secret War". A book by Raphael Israeli[40] after a few other negative comments says "Dennis Reinhartz, a professor of history, said in his review of Cohen’s book that Serbia’s Secret War belongs to "the current popular-historical and journalist literature that seeks to demonize and condemn more than to chronicle and elucidate fairly."* He also added that the book was in danger of degenerating itself into an irrational conspiracy history and belongs to those history works of the Balkans that contribute little to our understanding of past events and their impact on the present.". There are a few positive comments in his article on the book, but I don't see how such a controversial book can be a reliable source. The Bachelor of Arts degree will almost certainly have been a science degree, required to get into medical school.[41] There seems to be a common misunderstanding with people thinking a BA is always a humanities degree. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It works the other way too. My partner, an academic historian, has an MA, an MSc and a PhD - all in history. You can't make assumptions about the subject from the title of the degree. GirthSummit (blether) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, his degree is listed online in archives: It's in Social Sciences. [42] But a degree neither validates nor invalidates anyone as a subject matter expert by WP guidelines. SilverbackNet talk 05:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to deeming this source unreliable in all situations. This book was published by a solid academic press, and if you check Philip J. Cohen's Wikipedia page, you can see that a half dozen reputable scholars have a high opinion of the book. In cases where other reliable sources don't clearly refute what Cohen is saying, we should just cite Cohen without attribution. If a specific claim that Cohen is making is found to be disputed by other historians, then Cohen should be cited with attribution. Almost every history book will have some positive and some negative reviews, and this is no exception. However, a few negative reviews is not good cause to purge the book entirely. ErinRC (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like ordinary wartime propaganda: "An objective and thorough history of the World-War-II Serbian puppet state under Milan Nedic certainly is needed, but Serbia's Secret War is not it. This is not an exhaustive study, nor did I find it unbiased" [...] "Serbia's Secret War addresses several important historical topics, but does so poorly and incompletely."[1] The war is over, or someone still fighting?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dennis Reinhartz' Review, doi = 10.1093/hgs/14.2.300

Use of iffy birth certificate for date of birth

WP:BLPPRIMARY and I am sure we would not use this reference for a living person. Given that Heather O'Rourke is long dead, is this an acceptable source? Bitter Oil (talk
) 20:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the look, name and closest I found to an about-page [43][44], I would not use this as a source for anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Findagrave.com has same information but is also not recommended for us for the same reasons, largely user generated information (even if they try to audit it). A search online doesn't bring up any other source, most from '88 don't even mention her year of birth only her age. Koncorde (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm an idiot. I looked at the Find A Grave link and recognized the plaque bcause we have a picture of it in the article. It has her birth date on it! That takes care of this article at least. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283&oldid=937134311"