Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298

• It is mostly opinion and I would attribute on that basis. It's not quite as bad as Quadrant imo, but it does promote climate change denial[23][24] and publishes columns with questionable interpretation of the science on the origins of homosexuality[25]. I would avoid for anything science-based and I would be skeptical of their Brexit coverage as well, but it should be OK for culture reviews and attributed opinion. buidhe 19:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oh hell no. Not reliable for any claim of fact, possibly usable for attributed opinion but not to establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help!) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator isn't exactly my cup of tea either. While I absolutely wouldn't cite it for any scientific claim, I thought its attributed opinion on Who's Who (UK) (considering the suprising dearth of coverage on the publication), cowritten by Michael Crick, was usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Michael Crick has sufficient stature that I would probably agree. Guy (help!) 09:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• It publishes a very wide range of opinion pieces, with regular and occasional columnists covering a remarkably wide range of views from centre left to raving right wing, with a famously light editorial touch and almost all pieces clearly attributed to their author rather than the magazine. Attribute to the author as opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• The Spectator is the world's oldest weekly magazine. It therefore has a long history in which it has had many famous editors, writers and political positions. Currently it has the same proprietor as the Daily Telegraph and so it's rather like
  Caveat lector. Andrew🐉(talk
  ) 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, but The Lancet doesn't publish political op-ed with minmal prior review, which is the Spectator's main game. An occasional retraction is one of the things that tends to prove the reliability of a scientific journal. The Lancet also published Wakefield's fraud. Guy (help!) 12:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Lancet does publish op-eds such as its attack on the Royal Society. It's interesting to note that that editor, Andrew Horton, previously wrote for The Observer. The usage of all such sources depends on the context and the claim and so the idea that this is a simple binary matter is facile. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson, yes, and they are marked as such. We don't accept these as MEDRS, but attribute them as commentary where relevant. I recall several such from Fiona Godlee. But peer-reviewed papers in The Lancet are presumptively reliable, as is reporting (rather than editorial) in The Financial Times. But The Spectator mainly does opinion. Guy (help!) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for the things it is reliable for - Whilst I'm sure the label "right-wing" already has some people ready to ban the Spectator, it does cultural reviews and so-forth as well and is obviously a reliable source on them. Its opinion pieces should be treated the same as any other opinion piece in any other publication. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A number of issues have recently arisen around the creation of an article on a blog called The Eye Wales, which has since been reverted after it was a WP:ADVERT. It now exists as a page about its author Phil Parry. The Eye says it dedicates itself to investigative journalism, mainly targeted at the Welsh concept of the Crachach and the existence of a Welsh media and high society elite. That is fine, but I am hoping to gather some opinions on whether the content of The Eye Wales is sufficiently reputable to make it suitable for citing, especially where it tends to be used on articles about fringe political topics on articles. Parry has journalistic credibility, he is a former BBC Wales and HTV (now ITV Wales) journalist, but has been freelance since leaving the BBC in 2010, and now seems to engage in writing on articles including the activities of anonymous users in the Nation.Cymru comment section, he relies on Pepe the Frog memes, and seems quite fascinated with Carol Vorderman's bottom. I'm not sure the website as it currently stands should be cited as heavily as users like Martin Clintergate (talk · contribs) currently do. Llemiles (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like

WP:BLOGS cover this. I can't find any coverage of it online, apart from a passing mention in a Western Mail article [26]. Capewearer (talk

) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

With contributions like this (and of course, the recent example raised by Llemiles above) it's a bit difficult to take The Eye Wales seriously. I'm surprised at the sensationalist nature of the writing, I was somehow expecting and hoping for better. Unfortunately the website does not suggest it is anything other than a personal project of its editor (who is clearly very obsessed with Ifan Morgan Jones and Nation.Cymru). Sionk (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason I have been skimming the sources at a lot of articles on serial killers and other murderers in the last few days. And hopefully it will shock no one if I point out that a great many such articles are sensationalist garbage with no reliable sourcing that should be burned to the ground. But, what brings me here today is the website clarkprosecutor.org, used as a source on many such articles. It appears to genuinely be the webpage of the district attorney of

The site has apparently existed since 1998 according to the copyright notice, which is confirmed by this archive from October 11 1999, which look almost identical to the current website aside from the different attorney. The current head of the website is Jeremy Mull who took office in 2015. Much of the text on the website appears to have recived little update since its inception, as can be seen in the enormous similarity in the drugs section between the 1999 version and the current version of the drugs notice. This 2002 archive of the Buell article is essentially the same as the article you linked, making it effectively a relic of the late 90's - early 2000's internet like the Space Jam website. The websites updates to the death penalty stopped in 2008, so I would not consider the source to be reliable for up to date information on legal issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As whether it is usable as a source, given the above caveats, most of the uses appear to be articles on specific criminals like the one you linked, and is a collation of information found in legal documents. executedtoday.com   appears to be another (obviously non-government) site with a similar scope to these pages. Obviously there is not likely to be any further update needed to an article about someone executed in the 1970's for instance, but I would prefer newspaper sources and books. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hosted either here: https://jaffacity.wixsite.com/gazellebulletin/ - or here - http://www.gazelle.8m.net/index.html - unclear which of these is supposed to be the "official" address.

This appears to be the homegrown, self-hosted, non-peer-reviewed journal of a single author (this guy). We got a heads-up from deWP about the possibly fishy status of several taxonomic descriptions (see current AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilean blue whale) and that publication in particular [28]; unlike them we seem to have escaped getting an English article about this masterpiece, also published in the "journal". Following that, I have removed the dozen or so citations to this source that the author has inserted on enWP over the last few years.

I wouldn't have thought that there's much room for disagreement here, but since

I agree. Tisquesua I'm not sure what your thinking here is. Researchgate is considered an unreliable source per

WP:RSP

ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).

Also the paper itself "Ornithomimid Dinosaur Tracks from Beit Zeit, West of Jerusalem, Palestine" is not relevant to the Tendaguru Formation article itself, which is in Tanzania. As far as I can tell the article is not cited in the text. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Tisquesusa has since reverted his re-adding the publication, so there's no longer an issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw; it is appreciated :) However, if a couple more people wanted to add their assessment, that would be useful. I can see this coming up again - the author is currently busy decorating lots of other language WPs, and sooner or later that journal is going to rear its head again here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@

OMICS. @Headbomb: do you think that this is worth adding to your unreliable script? Hemiauchenia (talk

) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Re Headbomb's ref highlighter, that already is picking it up; sole red standout on several of the pages where I removed it. Works as advertised! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

At Iruña-Veleia an editor has twice made this edit.[29] "Despite this assertion held by the accusation, the two UPV-EHU experts committed an appreciation error, since the lines carved in the pieces are not actually letters, and no "RIP" can be inferred from them, as concluded in the June 2020 sentence.^[1]

I'm also unsure about this source (which in any case is being misused): In May 2009, prominent archaeologist Edward Harris published the conclusions of a detailed assessment of the findings in Iruña-Veleia, according to the copies submitted to him by the excavations team in charge, with the scholar examining the excavation method, recording of plan and section data, as well as the compilation and illustration of stratigraphic sequences. He concluded that the findings held true, according to the evidence provided.^[2] As you can tell by the title, it's something written "To Whom It May Concern" on a blog.[30] The author is an expert on stratigraphy (which isn't really an issue for the apparent hoax), but on a blog? In any case the blog is since a court case last week directing people to a new website[31] arguing the issue, so it looks as though both sites are not neutral about the artefacts in question. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian source is obviously usable, but I'm not sure for the others, especially if they're both primary and transient... —PaleoNeonate – 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is not policy (as far as I know) that forbids the use of photos published by news organisations. As plenty of people seem to think they are not RS maybe we need to write this into policy.

Should we forbid the use of photos published without accompanying text?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• A photograph should never be used as a source for information on Wikipedia... however, a photograph can be used to illustrate information that is otherwise reliably sourced. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • But do we say that anywhere?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I do know that we have discussed the issue of images from an original research perspective (saying that an analysis of a photo by an editor would constitute OR)... and we do have
      WP:OI (but that talks about images created by Wikipedians, not images created by news orgs.) we may also have discussed them from a WP:COPYRIGHT perspective. I would agree that we should say something about them from an WP:V and WP:RS perspective. Blueboar (talk
      ) 16:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• As a note, using photos from media organizations on WP is prevented by
  WP:NFCC#2 - we do not allow photos which are meant to be purchased from press corps like Gettys to be used as they have commercial value, unless they are the subject of discussion themselves (like the flag raising on Iwo Jima). --Masem (t
  ) 16:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That is using them not citing them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider what if we were using graph data from a news article...We're allowed to cite graph information but in such a case I would expect that we know the source of the graph data is reliable - which might be the actual work that published it but more often is a third-party source. But in this case, we can't make any further interpretations beyond

WP:CALC of graph data in the articles. (eg trying to interprete climate change data for ourselves, that would need the expert statements of what it means, but dropping a 100-yr graph of average temps going up, we can say this shows the average rising temperature over the past 100 years). Photos become more fuzzy because nearly everything about that is not hard data but interpretation that CALC doesn't apply to, and thus we have never considered them as reliable sources in discussions, but never iterated in policy. --Masem (t

) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I am asking if we should.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

We should, but I think its more an NOR issue than an RS, though the source of the photo/graph/image needs to be taken into account as a first step (sourcing graph data from a questionable source isn't going to work either). --Masem (t) 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If a picture show X its not OR to say it shows X. Thus the only issue would be its its depiction of X an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to be careful because a photo can't show other things like intent or action or the like. I've seen editors try to show a photo of X and Y together (X and Y being BLP) and then assert some type of connection between X and Y that may or may not exist. And unless the origin of the photo is clearly know, other factors, like identifying a location based on landmarks, as well as potentially identifying specific persons if the image is not clear. There's almost no case I can see using an image (outside graphs) solely as a reliable point of information. --Masem (t) 18:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at millhist it crops up every so often for issues such as military decorations (well this picture shows it on his uniform (but that is usually OR anyway)) for example.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the OP (which seems to be sort talking about a photo being a source) this policy creates a sourcing requirement for the presence of material, not a requirement that restricts the inclusion of sources. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC) I think that Blueboar is addressing a different issue, which is that the caption of an image or sometimes the mere presence of an image in context is itself a statement which may need to be sourced. An example is that putting an image of John Smith into an article on Australians may be an implied statement that John Smith is an Australian. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am talking about, a lot of users seem to be under then impression that A: Photographs are not RS (like headlines) and that B: you cannot judge the RS by the quality of pictures it uses (because of A, we cannot use the picture). But this does not appear to be the case. So therefore as some users seem to think (and from their tone agree) that they should not be regarded as reliable I am asking the community should that in fact be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This is just a category error. My sandwich from lunch can't be used as a reliable source, because it lacks the relevant kind of information. The same is true of photographs. People who say "in the photo one can easily see ..." are committing original research, just as if I tried to add "anyone who has a bite of my sandwich can easily tell it contains tomatoes, and is delicious". --

talk

) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Online photographs are basically digital art. The art and layout departments in today's clickbait environment may not always consider potential ethical implications when using a manipulated photograph to accompany an article headline, especially when working under time restrictions in the race to beat competitors to the punch. You can also liken it to artistic license - the artists often see nothing wrong with combining elements from different digital images that took place at the same time in basically the same location. The editor-in-chief and copy editors may not even know an image was manipulated until after they go online. I retired quite early from a 30+ year career in media, but have maintained an expert level in photography, digital image enhancement and photoshopping, field & post production for online video and television, and there are times when I can't even tell the difference when the job is done well; therefore, I have no reservations in saying that images are/can be changed without us ever knowing it. I agree with Masem in that images are not a RS. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Images can be taken from any source, provided copyright is respected. But, "Images should look like what the are meant to illustrate." I don't know how specific the guideline needs to be. Editors should not use images to provide misleading information because of a perceived loophole in policy or guidelines, but should adhere to the spirit of the project.

I remember a case where an editor created an image of Hitler and Stalin. In fact they had never met and the photo was deleted.

TFD (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And what if the are from an RS? How do we know an image is of what it claims to be?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is from a generally accepted RS we accept the image is what it is claimed to be in the RS. Anything else is OR unless its clearly and obviously a mistake (source says dress is white, dress is red in photo etc) We would not use the photo *as* a source for articles in most cases because our rules around inclusion of non-free media start to come into play. The exceptions are specifically where the photo itself is the subject of the article. This seems to be a rather specific query however, is there an example that has prompted this? If you look at the very top of this board in quite clear writing, it says in order to get an answer we need the source, the article, and the content the source is to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more a meta issue than one with a specific example in mind. The question probably should have been asked at the talk page of WP:RS itself - as a preliminary to (potentially) amending the guideline - rather than here at RS/N. That said, since it HAS been asked here, I don’t see any harm in continuing to discuss it.

As I see it, the underlying question is: in terms of reliability, do we consider photos appearing in news sources as being SEPARATE from the news reporting (as we do with headlines), or are they PART of the news reporting? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Pictures being an instant snapshot of a situation lack context without a written description. You cant use a picture as a source for anything except the basic facts of what the picture is showing. Take Eddie Adams most famous picture. Its a man pointing a gun at another man. There are plenty of factual things about the photo you can state, but anything actually useful (where it is, why, context, who, that one of the subjects was in the midst of being executed) cannot be sourced without accompanying text. Taken in isolation you cant even say its not a still from a war movie. As a primary source a photo is reliable for the basic details of what the photo shows. In much the same way any other visual media is a primary source for its own content. So I would say they cannot be considered except as part of the reporting (except in the cases like the above where the picture is the subject itself). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Article: David Haas
• URL: [32] (general), [33] (article in question)

Hi folks, I don't see much discussion of Catholic News Agency on this board (it only comes up once in the archives with a tangential mention) so I'm looking for opinions on its reliability. Right now, the second link above is being used to support a claim that a BLP was accused of sexual misconduct, which is obviously an area where we want high-quality sourcing. In this case, I've looked at the primary sources they're referring to, and I believe that the article is accurately reporting that the accusations exist. I've modified the article to attribute the report to Catholic News Agency, but I'm interested in wider input on the reliability of the source, both in this case and in general. My initial read is that it's not the best source (though it does at least claim to have editorial oversight), but in this case I think using it with attribution is reasonable.

• I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• According to its about page, "Catholic News Agency was founded in 2004, in response to Pope St. John Paul II’s call for a “
  admission against interest. But in that case it doesn't hurt to attribute. buidhe
  18:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't sound like something that can be used as evidence of notability, though, for instance. It sounds like they haven't been caught lying - which is good, but then I think about the deprecated LifeSiteNews, which is used as an opinion outlet by Catholic hierarchy. To what extent are they hooked into that media sphere? - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you may be right about that. I randomly clicked on their front page and CNA describes Czechia as "a largely atheistic country", but Pew says only 25% of Czechs identify as atheists[35] ("largely secular country" would be accurate). However, CNA is probably reliable for reporting what Pell says [36] (just not WP:DUE). buidhe 23:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It's widely cited in RS books, but mostly for quoting Catholic Church figures. buidhe 23:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else, does not establish notability. Its mission is to evangelise, not to publish fact, so we should not treat it as an authority for fact. Guy (help!) 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Week is cited a couple of hundred times on Wikipedia. Is it reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Falls into the same ballpark of works like The Nation; weekly politically-oriented news magazine. Typically editorial practices for such a work, and have not seen anything to suggest that they engaging in any fabrication or the like (in searching for any incidents on the web). May not be the Old Grey Mare but nothing to blemish editorial practices that I can see and when I've used them, nothing that stands out. Only small bit to note being a more central (but still left-leaning) magazine. So reliable. --Masem (t) 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And just to note, there is a UK version and a US version, same ownership (like Wired US and Wired UK). Same rational applies to both. --Masem (t) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Week isn't so much a publisher as a re-publisher.

Pieces which are "original" to The Week are composites of pieces from elsewhere. For example, a piece on Covid Lockdown in the UK is peppered with attributions:

• Britons feel betrayed, said Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.
• This escapade has unleashed "public rage," said Rachel Shabi in Independent.co.uk.
• Johnson has sabotaged public trust, a crucial weapon in the fight against Covid-19, said Janice Turner in The Times.
• The Left wants Cummings fired because he knows how to win, said Nick Ferrari in the Daily Express.
• That’s why the prime minister won’t get rid of him, said Marina Hyde in The Guardian.

Other pieces are covered by the small print disclaimer at the foot of the final page:

Sources: A complete list of publications cited in The Week can be found at theweek.com/sources.

which leads to a list of publications and their websites with no way of linking fact to source.

In short, it's reliable, but citing The Week denies credit to the original source of the material, and falls shy of being truly

verifiable. Cabayi (talk

) 14:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I looked up some of the uses on obvious hot button topics. What I found was not encouraging. Articles with no bylines, listicles and the like, but also attributed comment to (e.g.) Francis Wilkinson (who he? -- ed.), whose qualification as a valid opinion appears to be that he writes opinion pieces, mainly in The Week, where he was at the time Executive Editor. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. I don't see any valid reason for citing opinions form people known only for having opinions, in publications that only really publish opinions. We should strive for a more grounded approach to fact. I don't see any indicators that this is a generally unreliable source, i.e. that it makes stuff up, but I owuld say that any of the current uses I have seen should not, and probably would not, survive any challenge to removal. Guy (help!) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I want to ask about whitelisting a citation for the death of Mr. Wrestling II, but I can't find any mention of it in the archive for the blacklist. I want to know it's reliable, and/or why it was blocked. --Auric talk 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• No editorial oversight and simply reprints material from elsewhere on the web, including rumours from social media. It may also copy from reliable sources, but the social media thing is clearly a no-no. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, and the entry for the wrestler is indeed, just copies of social media posts and a summary of his life stolen from elsewhere on the web. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to go with another ref.--Auric talk 13:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I found this by accident yesterday. It aggregates other reports, of distinctly variable reliability, including what appears to be speculation. Basically clickbait, not a usable source. Guy (help!) 10:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

At

I can see

wp:undue issues with this, and it can be argued to not exactly be third party.Slatersteven (talk

) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Could you elaborate on the undue issue, please? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said its not exactly third party, thus one can argue it represents a very narrow and biased viewpoint. One can go as far as to say self serving and promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Or not. I assume you haven't read it? One of the sentences blanked from the article is this: In early days of AIDS, discriminatory views of political leaders were supported by religious leaders, including Catholic clergy, hampering the response and worsening the pandemic in some parts of Africa. That's cited to the director of the African Jesuit Historical Institute, who has a PhD in African political history from Oxford. I would not consider that a self-serving statement, and I bet nobody else would, either.

Given that this article is "Named organization and subject", it would be

WP:UNDUE to omit everything published by anyone related to that organization, but that is a subject for a different noticeboard. The question for RSN is whether this source is reliable enough to support this statement. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Self serving and "serving that version of my organisation" are not the same thing. It promotes a specific opinion, one that may not be independent of the publishers agenda, hence why I said this is more a case of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The same claim could be made with greater justice of basically any newspaper. I assume that you don't think that major newspapers regularly publish things that their publishers disagree with? Hearst would be rolling in his grave.

WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with whether publishers choose to publish authors whose views are congenial to their own. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but it does if those views are only represented by that one source (it is after all what it means, an undue opinion). Yes (by the way) I would and have said that if an opinion only appears in one newspaper then it might well be undue to mention it).Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Before we get to in the weeds on that quote, which is why this should all be on the talk page, it was also going to be a two sentence section where the second one was promotional. The bigger issue was that the page cited doesn't seem to be in the source, page 522 out of 424.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats

wp:v, not RS. But its a valid point.Slatersteven (talk

) 20:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't bring it here :) AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I cited "location" 522, not "page" 522, because I cited the Kindle version of the book. I also said I'm not sure how to cite a Kindle, so if you have some advice I would be obliged. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Add a bookmark on the kindle which you can then view the page number. Alternatively you can search for the quote you are using on the google books page, which will return the page number, though you may not be able to view the page itself. I recommend the search because no one wants to be forced to use the kindle.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, The source was also used as a secondary source to further support existing content. While admittedly I only skimmed the chapters that didn't seem directly relevant, and while I haven't worked my way through the entire book yet, I haven't seen anything that looked like a fringe position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would still consider it possibly undue,. It doers not have to be fringe. If there are other sources just use those. My concearn would be this on its own.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I agree. Exactly the kind of source we should steer clear of in a controversial area like this. Guy (help!) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what RS has to do with this as it is mostly a Due Weight issue. It is a weak source for two reasons. One the publisher follows liberation theology and is an imprint of a Catholic order which has a missionary focus. The Chapters added so far were not written by experts but by Catholic priests, Jesuits I believe. I am not sure where the "expert" part came for the priests, though?AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably when they get PhDs from Oxford, is my guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Being a priest or a Jesuit does not preclude being an expert... I agree that this is more a due weight issue though.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I get for trying to be brief. One priest was a director of a what looks like a Jesuit archival institute, which does produce a journal, who does not seem to produce much if any scholarship. Unless everyone with a DPhil is an expert then he would not be. The other priest "taught" at a number of schools but mostly just seems to contribute to various church magazines, though again he does have a Ph.D. Too be fair some of the other priests in the book do publish, seem to have actual academic jobs, and might fit under expert. But this should be decided on a DUE basis at the actual talk page. For all I know I just missed where these two priests have shown expertise. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ISBN 9781134505777

.

Your edit summary, when you blanked this, said that you thought the source was

WP:QUESTIONABLE, not that you thought it was UNDUE. UNDUE would mean that you thought there was too much in the article from priests writing that their organizations were discriminating against PWA. If you're no longer concerned that the source is unreliable for the stated claim, and you don't believe that there is too much criticism about discrimination against PWA, then maybe you'd like to go restore that sentence and its citation. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is dishonest to say that I said it was

WP:QUESTIONABLE when I in no way tied myself to that wikilink. Unless you are arguing that "questionable" doesn't have a understood English meaning, I ask you too strike your comment and not misquote me again. The rest of your comment is a strawman argument and belongs on the talk page anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk

) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You have made more than 500 edits at this point. If you use jargon, we're going to assume that you're doing it on purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Dishonesty is its own punishment. Everyone can look at the diffs if they want and see that you did not accurately portray what I wrote. So I guess you are arguing that questionable does not have English meaning and can only be understood as jargon.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, You said "this source seems questionable", which is why I brought it here. You didn't say anything about due weight. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Oxford University does not award PhDs and never has. Anyone claiming to "get PhDs from Oxford" should be treated with the utmost derision. I also agree that any self-published book by a POV source connected with the book's and the article's subject should not be considered reliable, nor consideration of it due. Having purportedly got a (probably theological) doctorate does not make a priest an impartial expert on the failings of the church to which he belongs. GPinkerton (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The difference between a PhD and a DPhil is purely semantic --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guerillero. The "DPhil" is in history, not theology. And Wikipedia does not require sources to be impartial; see

WP:DUE (and surely we'd rather use a book written by an African historian–priest than a newsletter written by a journalist for a local diocese?). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, Though Dr. Phil not so much... Guy (help!) 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The DPhil was for history. Thesis was on the effects of state policy in Tanzania on the Chaggas(sp?) people. Of course it was from the Jesuit private hall :) , still oxford is oxford so pretty sure we can trust them AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I glanced through a dozen or so of their articles. My impression is that their article quality varies widely, and seems to be mostly due to the freelance contributions. When one of their articles identifies sources, it may be better to use the sources instead. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I've seen much worse sites but it isn't great either. There isn't really a good reason to cite it in most cases. Wikipedia should generally not cite tertiary sources unless they have a good reputation for accuracy (like Britannica), but even then sparingly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• If HowStuffWorks is the only source for a statement I am highly doubtful of it. Therefore, uses should be replaced by more reliable sources. buidhe 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I added thisismoney.co.uk as an additional URL under Daily Mail on

I would say yes, being part of something means they are covered by the rules pertaining to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it not self evident that if it reprints stories from the entirely separate Mail and MoS, then it is simply untrue to say, for editorial purposes, it is governed by the same rules as MailOnline. It stands to reason that the entire point of choosing a separate brand name and domain, is to draw a distinction from MailOnline, reflecting what is, as anyone would know if they had ever picked up a copy, the fact that "This Is Money" originates from the name of the financial section of the print editions. Being part of the MailOnline would appear to only refer to the fact the MailOnline is the digital platform, and if all thisismoney.co.uk do is reprints of the print editions, it stands to reason the only involvement of MailOnline is technical support or other related activities not directly pertinent to editorial control, which presumably has to be quite strict in any financial newsroom. The City Editor of the Mail has been in post for twenty years, and for ten years before that was Financial Eitor of The Guardian. This surely contradicts everything we have been told about the reputation, culture and environment of the MailOnline by the more overtly biased sources out there, and as I have noted above, there is a notable absence from Wikipedia itself of anyone except Wikipedia being prepared to declare even the MailOnline generally unreliable. Brian K Horton (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know what other users think of this source and other self published media bias authorities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Ad Fontes has come up before, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#Ad_Fontes_Media_and_AllSides, but that was for its use as an authority of the political position of a news outlet in article space, not to justify discussions on this noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable for the same reason as MBFC. I don't see any major differences between these two publications in terms of their reliability. buidhe 22:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable as it's a professionally controlled project with multiple trained people on their team. They have a scientific approach and training. They are the best such site in existence. -- Valjean (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. As with MBFC, this is an armchair analysis of media bias by amateurs and non-experts. The people who put these ratings together are random volunteers who get $100, a mug and a t-shirt.[37]
  talk
  ) 14:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Usable with attribution (as no such assessments can be an exact science): I don't personally treat it as an authority but as a good reference/guide. The project also initially started small but funding was a success and it has a team, became notable, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 07:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I would not cite it on the encyclopaedia, it is a useful guide for us here to be factored in holistic assessment of a source based on multiple perspectives on its reliability. Guy (help!) 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute (encyclopedia) / Minimal Weight (debates). "but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production." resonates. Certainly doesn't imply a scientific approach, accepting the irony that "but a drop" is a very unscientific phraseology. Brian K Horton (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is, of course, not the board to discuss BLP violations - that's
  WP:BLPN. If this claim of a serious BLP violation is in fact a serious claim, and not just a spurious justification thrown into an argument in support of keeping the Daily Mail, I am sure it will be brought to BLPN properly. Else withdrawn - David Gerard (talk
  ) 11:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the quote is overly long anyway, and I don't think its removal seriously detracts from the article. The question is whether the quote is
  WP:DUE. Usage of the Daily Mail was "generally prohibited" for good reason. As for the editors who are upset with the Daily Mail's removal, we saw similar drama with portals where a handful of holdout editors were strongly opposed to their removal. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Dacre-era Daily Mail plus the context suggests that we shouldn't trust it - they have been known to fabricate quotes. Guy (help!) 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that some of these claims seem to be almost intentionally vague and or faintly ridiculous precisely to avoid legal action. Others seem deliberately crafted to have two quite different meanings, for the same purpose. You'll never go wrong with a specific claim, as long as you're not lying, or even if you had reasonable grounds to believe it was true (thereby excluding "I read it on Wikipedia" of course). Specificity. Accuracy. Umabiguity. Should all come naturally to encyclopedia editors, or so you would have thought. Brian K Horton (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• ettoday.net  

This site was linked in a couple of articles as Epoch Times, but it's not an Epoch Times domain (maybe it was syndicated). Looking at the site through Google Translate, it appears to be the Higashimori New Media Holding Co., Ltd - new media being in my experience largely a synonym for ad-riddled clickbait, which certainly looks to be the case here.

Is it just designed for a completely different audience, or is it as crappy as it looks? Guy (help!) 08:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• From a quick look, the site seems not to be affiliated with Epoch Times, even if the names are similar. The articles on ETtoday are still not very reliable though, most are poorly sourced and have clickbait headlines like "Nine Children Born! 29-Year-Old Man Complained That his Wife Was Sick and Could Not Give Birth. A Second Later, She Was Pregnant Again". The political reporting on ETtoday is not nearly as partisan as what I would expect from Epoch Times, which is somewhat good I suppose. For their political stories, ETtoday mostly focuses on politics in Taiwan, with fewer conspiracy theories and self-supporting "exposés" than Epoch Times has.

(I suppose there is a chance that the site could be a minor Epoch Times offshoot, and if proof could be found supporting that, I would be glad to change my assessment) K^{ʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ} K^{ɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici)} 12:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that Higashimori is a Japanese word and the news title translation is horribly wrong. Goes on to say how we shouldn't rely on Google Translate too much. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. ETToday is a subsidiary of the
  WP:NEWSORG. It is in no way affiliated with the Epoch Times. If some articles link it as "Epoch Times", these citations should be edited to fix the mistake. feminist | freedom isn't free 02:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Addendum: "new media" (Chinese: 新媒體) in the Chinese-language context commonly refers simply to online-focused news media rather than newspapers or TV. It suggests nothing about the quality of articles. feminist
  | freedom isn't free 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  Feminist, thanks, very helpful. Guy (help!) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. The situation is more complicated than it initially looks, although I don't think it affects reliability. ETToday was indeed owned and operated by the
  news organizations guideline. — Newslinger talk
  01:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this news agency, U.S. News & World Report, a reliable source? A recent article piece this by U.S.News claims "Indian government sources speaking on the condition of anonymity told The Times of India that 20 Indian army personnel had died in the fighting", where as in reality there is anonymous source, Army itself released statement of 20 personnel KIA which all medias have covered. It seems presenting the article as investigative journalism success. Again it claims, "American intelligence believes 35 Chinese troops died, including one senior officer, a source familiar with that assessment tells U.S. News" where as for such casualty report there is no need to hide anything, US House of Foreign Affairs/Pentagon/CIA never support such claim, above that which assessment, who are doing this, nothing is mentioned neither Indian Govt./Army support such claim. No other US sources like of NYT, WP, CNN which will be the first to receive such infomration do not claim such. So, again is this particular article a reliable source? Drat8sub (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't find anything in archives which would indicate that this is not a reliable source. There is no need for sources to reveal their actual identity as long as the news has been published by a

WP:RS and US news meets definition of WP:RS. --Yoonadue (talk

) 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No this was not the case here. The first claim is manupulating the veracity of the second claim. They have written "anonymous source from Indian Govt. that 20 personnel KIA", ofcourse no need of revealing identity. But when someone read more online they will find out that this claim is true because Army has revealed the same, thus this gives a notion for the readers that as the first claim by anonymous source comes out to be true then the second claim by anonymous is also true, does not matters if any Govt./Army source provide such or not. the problem lies there. Drat8sub (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It may be simply a time factor; it's hard to check exact when who knew what, when things were published, etc. It would not be surprising if USN&WR got their information and published first, then the Army got theirs and other RSes published that. In such a case, where we have information via way of an intermediary source as in these cases, it can be preferable to use the more "reliable" intermediary source (a named official over an anonymous one) and the reliable source that backs that, but that does not impact the reliability of the source using the weaker intermediary source overall. US News remains a high quality source for such things. --Masem (t) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Masem... there may be sources that are MORE reliable for a given bit of information, but that does not make US News UNreliable. As is always the case when covering recent events, as updated information comes in we need to update our article. And that may mean we need to switch the sources we cite. That does not make the old source “bad”... just the new source “better”. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• One of the better and less partisan US news sources imo. buidhe 21:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• As far as I am aware, this is one of the few news sources that just quietly gets on with doing its job without really getting involved in the punditry business. Guy (help!) 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5545;year=2020;volume=62;issue=8;spage=280;epage=289;aulast=Subramanyam Subramanyam 2020] states "clinical practice guideline" at the top. I would like to be sure on the reliability for

Amousey, this is a MEDRS question, please ask at the medicine wikiproject. Guy (help!) 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Taiwan News reliable? I hear that it is very biased against the CCP but I want to gather insight from more Wikipedia editors. Website: [38] ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be striking if it were not opposed to the CCP. The layout seems to be normal for Asian news websites, and Google shows some citations by other sites but none by what I would accept as gold standard sources. So: a definite maybe from me ;-) Guy (help!) 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally reliable,

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 19:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 a user has challenged thediplomat.com as "a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit" [[39]] so is this [[40]] an RS for "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession".?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable The Diplomat is a reputable current affairs magazine. The user is banned from the article in question for disruptive editing. The deleted tweet has been covered in other outlets, see. this story in the Straits Times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@

ABC Online

if it is an official twitter account of the Donetsk People's Republic?? (:

On Thursday a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic" issued several posts claiming to have seized a missile system from the Ukrainian army.

The official Twitter account has a special mark. And I don't see one. So everyone could create this account, right? That is why I would like to see a proof of the ownership but not these propagandist publications on the media and a picture of the "seized Buk launcher on 29 June 2014" which was posted in 2011 [41]. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that The Diplomat has come up before, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#The_Diplomat Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Well, let's just consider this publication of the Diplomat to lack reliability? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Seems to meet our usual standards, remember bias is not a criteria (assuming they are). Nor am I seeing any evidence they are not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, they also walk pretty far from the traditional line of "American propaganda bullshit” if thats the concern, I have found them to be one of the most if not the most even handed english language publication covering the indo-pacific. Ownership is Japanese and the majority of staff is non-American. Just a note that anything from the section “The Debate” is either comment or opinion and should be treated thusly although that should be pretty obvious. There are three internal degrees of quality but given that all are over Wikipedia’s bar for reliability I don’t think there is much to be gained from delving into that as it isn’t relevant to the problem at hand.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk
  ) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also the author of that piece, Ankit Panda, is one of the most respected security analysts of his generation (pretty much everyone has published him) as well as an editor at The Diplomat. I don’t think there is a legitimate objection being made here.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, but the editor has been topic banned anyway. Guy (help!) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Probably reliable however as I noted on the talk page, I don't think we should be using that particular article if possible. It seems to be a late breaking news piece since it notes it may be updated. I assume that is no longer the case, however such pieces should always be used with care since the level of fact checking can be more limited. And there is a particular issue with this piece which raises concern. It mentions a tweet and links to a screenshot of that tweet on Twitter. There is no doubt that the tweet is real, and the screenshot very likely is as well. However there's strong indications the screenshot is a machine translation of the original tweet in Russian. While machine translations have their uses, they need to be used with care. It's unclear why the article linked to a machine translation of the tweet and yet gave no indication that it was a machine translation (and nor does the tweet they linked to). Does this mean the source relied exclusively machine translation? Did they even know it was a machine translation? Given they didn't mention the machine translation issue at all, we don't know. While it may be acceptable for a source to rely on a machine translation, it seems quite questionable for a source to rely solely on a machine translation and not mention that is what they were going by. IMO this is likely a good example where we need to remember that just because a source is generally reliable, doesn't mean it always is. If there is ample evidence for problems with a particular article, we have to carefully consider whether we should use it or instead rely on other sources for which don't have that problem. It's not clear to me there's anything that the source claims which isn't backed up by other sources, so there is probably no reason to use that particular article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we “if possible” always be looking to upgrade dated journalistic sources to more current academic ones? Like you said I can’t imagine its too hard to find this piece of information in the ocean of scholarly work published about the incident in the last six years.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 14:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for what it is reliable for - The diplomat carries both opinion and analytical pieces, it has an editorial team, its opinion pieces should be treated as opinion, its analysis (assuming it comes from an expert) should be treated as expert analysis. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable but also includes opinion/analysis that may need to be attributed in some cases. FOARP is correct that the site carries a lot of opinion/analytical pieces and those should be treated accordingly. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable The Diplomat is generally considered a reliable source along with Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs. In the case of opinions and analysis, the text needs to be modified accordingly. According to... etc. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Muraselon.com a reliable source? It is used for articles about the Syrian Civil War, such as

This reads more like

wp:undue than an RS question. Bias is not an issue, accuracy is.Slatersteven (talk

) 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We mostly determine weight from coverage in RS though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear my main question is: is this source reliable? I only mentioned noteworthiness as sometimes I see a defence of such self-published sources that reliable sources don't cover the same level of detail. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that as muddies the water. Thanks. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said bias is not an RS issue, so any evidence they fake stuff?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have evidence. I literally don't know if it's a reliable source, which is why I am asking. However, it looks like a self-published source to me; there is no information on the website about its funding, editorial team, corporate structure, standards, location or contact address; it is very hazy in stories about sources (e.g. "according to a field source"); a lot of content seems to be sourced from social media or YouTube or from Syrian army press statements; there is no effort to distinguish betweeen any rebel groups, which are all simply referred to as "jihadists" or "al-Qaeda"; I can't find any examples of use by other reliable sources; the only independent reference I can find to it on the web is a very un-complimentary discussion at reddit.[42] In short, everything about it shouts unreliable, but I'd like that to be confirmed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone check if PhoneArena is a reliable website for a critics’ review (the review I want to cite is in the title)? They seem to be professional (albeit using a bit more technical terms than other reviewers) but given that I usually trust only TechRadar, CNET, Trusted Reviews and

Adding on to it, what about androidpit.com and 9to5google.com (again, specifically for reviews like the ones linked to)?

[43]

I can't see a discussion of this particular source before, but wanted to gain consensus (or lack thereof) as I think we would benefit from having something that achieved this statistical aim on

I had obviously missed this previous discussion, but I don't think it particularly reached a conclusion. Darren-M talk 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Many of you here are no doubt familiar with

Both Shen Yun and Epoch Times are funded and operated by members of Falun Gong, a controversial spiritual group that was banned by China’s government in 1999 … Falun Gong melds traditional Taoist principles with occasionally bizarre pronouncements from its Chinese-born founder and leader, Li Hongzhi. Among other pronouncements, Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Despite its conservative agenda, Epoch Times took pains until recently to avoid wading into partisan U.S. politics. That all changed in June 2015 after Donald Trump descended on a golden escalator to announce his presidential candidacy, proclaiming that he “beat China all the time.” In Trump, Falun Gong saw more than just an ally—it saw a savior. As a former Epoch Times editor told NBC News, the group’s leaders “believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party.

Source: Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties".

Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online Archived 26 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine

.

And according to NBC News:

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

The Epoch Times, digital production company

NTD

and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun make up the nonprofit network that Li calls “our media.” Financial documents paint a complicated picture of more than a dozen technically separate organizations that appear to share missions, money and executives. Though the source of their revenue is unclear, the most recent financial records from each organization paint a picture of an overall business thriving in the Trump era.

Source: Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online Archived 23 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine.

This is also happening here in Germany:

In the United States, the Times bills itself as the newspaper that President Donald Trump views as “the most credible” and the only one he trusts. The U.S. version of the newspaper is a far tamer version than its German cousin, but it has won over fans in the far-right with its exhaustive coverage of “Spygate,” a theory pushed by the president who claims the FBI “spied” on his campaign and a “criminal deep state” sought to undermine his presidency. Revenues for the newspaper have doubled since Trump took office, according to the group’s tax filings.

Source: Hettena, Seth. 2019. "The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe". New Republic. September 17, 2019. Online.

Anyway, currently quite a few Falun Gong articles—Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, Li Hongzhi, New Tang Dynasty Television, Society of Classical Poets, and several more—are either in a state of either reading as essentially promotional pieces for the new religious movement or are the subject of daily attempts at scrubbing, like this attempt from today. This often occurs from single-subject, new accounts, or accounts with very new edit histories.

These articles could really use a lot of work with reliable sources outlining developments in these circles since 2016, particularly the topics mentioned in the quotes above. If nothing else, these articles all really need many more editors keeping an eye on them to ensure that they do not revert back to promotional pieces parroting the talking points of the organizations they outline. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a few comments below:

• User Bloodofox's edits on the FLG articles were not proper.

Bloodofox made a huge change to the lede of the Falun Gong article on May 18.[44] Other users（not me）tried to cancel the edit. Their reasons have nothing to do whether those sources were RS or not, but were as one user explained on the article talk page on 5 June:

"With respect to WP:BURDEN, a reminder that the lede section was very stable for years. It was substantially altered by Bloodofox beginning a few weeks ago. Legitimate concerns were raised regarding Bloodofox's edits with respect to WP:LEAD, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, including WP:WEIGHT. These concerns have been repeatedly raised, and never addressed. Instead, users have edit warred to enforce their preferred version, and repeatedly accused other editors of acting in bad faith. This is not a platform for activism, and it is not a battleground."

• User Bloodofox​​​​​​​ has misrepresented his own sources:

As I commented on the talk page on 5 June, NYT and NBC were misrepresented. Aside from that, the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad" and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided , including these above 3 sources Bloodofox​​​​​​​ posted. But Bloodofox​​​​​​​ reverted any correction of his misrepresentations.

• Bloodofox​​​​​​​ is not supposed to copy the long paragraphs of his preferred sources on RSN. Plus the views from those sources are different views from other reliable sources. For example, reference a said "In 2000, John Tang and a group of Chinese Americans started The Epoch Times in his Atlanta, Georgia basement. ​​​​​​​", which was contrary to the LA Mag Think Blog source. Bloodofox removed many reliable sources [45] that say to the contrary to his views. Here are some of the deleted sources by Bloodofox.

• http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301%7Carchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690
• https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-falun-gong-religious-freedom
• https://web.archive.org/web/20140223153614/http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56301
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2019/06/17/the-china-tribunal-pronounced-its-verdict-on-organ-harvesting-in-china/
• http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/

Based on NPOV, different views from different RS should be proportionally presented. Bloodofox seems to have a strong viewpoint on FLG related topics. He promoted his favorite sources, misrepresented those sources and deleted other correctly represented reliable sources that express views contrary to his. He should stop advocating his own views in Wikipedia and blocking others’ legitimate edits. Precious Stone 21:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are some issues with the sources listed above:

1. "Be The People News" is the personal website of conservative analyst
   independent interview of Dana Cheng, the co-founder and vice president of The Epoch Times (RSP entry
   ).
2. Forbes.com contributor articles (
   self-published and generally unreliable, unless the contributor's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Can you link to where this is the case for Ewelina U. Ochab
   ?
3. There is disagreement on whether the News Weekly is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38 § Australian News Weekly. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § newsweekly.com.au for details.
4. attributed in-text
   for any controversial claims.

Can you clarify how the other sources are "contrary" to Bloodofox's proposed wording? — Newslinger talk 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the details of these sources and letting me know some of them may not be reliable. Here is only one "contrary" example (there are a few other examples):

1. as Bloodofox posted in this RSN page above from the LA MAG City Think Blog

"In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences."

.

2. But the NBC report Bloodofox used for other info said

“The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.The publication had been founded nine years earlier in Georgia by John Tang, a Chinese American practitioner of Falun Gong and current president of New Tang Dynasty.”

3. The SF Chronicle report said

"Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong, which Li Hongzhi had founded in China in 1992 and drew on the tradition of qigong, in which breathing, meditation and movement foster good health or spiritual enlightenment."

.

(Please note in my post above, the Newsweekly source were typed twice, which was a typo I made on this RSN page - one time should be used for this SF Chronicle source - that was used in the article and was deleted by Bloodofox)

Bloodofox's info that Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded or launched by Li is quite different with the NBC source and the SF Chronicle source, which said Epochtimes and Shen Yun were founded by John Tang in 2000 and by followers of Falun Gong in 2006 respectively. There are many other sources confirming such info. Precious Stone 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see the conflict between sources you describe, they seem to be in almost complete agreement on the important details. Are you trying to argue that Shen Yun and The Epoch Times aren’t part of the FG movement?

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Above shows the LA Mag City Think Blog info is contradictory with other sources. Aside from that, I have said to you many times that the line "The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad..." and the line "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun" Bloodofox added to the lead section of the article, also cannot be supported by any of the 6 sources provided. you disagree with me. it is simple, please follow WP:V, and show every one here.

All material in

inline citation that directly supports the material

.Precious Stone