Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306

• Not reliable for statements of fact about history. First, it's not the case that a source is assumed to be reliable unless proven otherwise. On the contrary, we need to establish "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For a history book, we generally do that by looking at the author's scholarly credentials, such as peer-reviewed publications on the subject, or at the publisher. In this case, the author is not an established historian. The publisher specializes on religious content, and I don't see evidence that they have a reputation for fact-checked publications on history, as university presses or some other publishers have. As another editor noted, given the wealth of academic publications about Khomeini, if the statement is accurate, it shouldn't be hard to find it in a RS. Eperoton (talk)

• Eperon, there are quite some
  syllogistic fallacies in your comment. First, we are not discussing Nonie Darwish' reliability as a source because not “proven otherwise”, we are discussing her reliability because Vice regent explicitly asked us to discuss about it. Second, she qualifies as a writer, not an academic, so measuring her academic achievements is out of place. Third, I have only heard so far discredit about her publisher or prejudices about her views as disappointed ex-muslim and yet I have not heard anything about her alleged lack of fact-checking or dishonesty. I have the diametrical opposite political views of Darwish, especially concerning her endorsement of the state of Israel, I would have zero interest in the average titles of the Thomas Nelson publisher, and yet I still defend her right not to be prejudiced for her beliefs and her right to be judged only on the facts. Fourth, the editor specializes exactly in history books together with Christian-focused books. --Grufo (talk
  ) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Again, to establish a source as reliable, we need to establish its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Being a writer doesn't establish one's book as being a RS for history, not does being published. The onus is on those who seek establish reliability, not vice versa. Of the things that we normally look at to establish reliability for a history text, I see none of them here. Where do you see that the publisher specializes in mainstream history books? The religious nature of their publications is stated explicitly in their mission: "Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. [...] Thomas Nelson is committed to one central mission: inspiring the world by meeting the needs of people with content that promotes biblical principles and honors Jesus Christ." Eperoton (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable, though I'm not opposed to in-line attribution. I agree with Grufo, GPinkerton, and buidhe here; just because a source is critical of Islam as an ideology, it doesn't mean it's Islamophobic (the same goes for criticism of other ideologies). There is a major difference between "demonizing" and "criticizing", and unless we know for certain that the author has a particular agenda here, I don't see why we can't use a book that's been released by a reliable publisher. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I only see one reason for reliability in your statement above, that the book has been published "by a reliable publisher". The publisher is Thomas Nelson (publisher) and their most famous book has been subject to criticism. They publish books on trying to prove the infallibility of the Bible. So I ask you once again, Stefka Bulgaria, are all books published by Thomas Nelson reliable?VR _talk 11:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Defining a publisher that has been existing since 1798 as “unreliable” only because it focuses on Christian books is quite a bold statement. To give you a parallel example, the Vatican Publishing House is a very reliable publisher. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

G. P. Putnam's Sons is a reputable publisher, doesn't mean that Chariots of the Gods? isn't total nonsense. Non-academic publishers like the big 4, (which Thomas Nelson is a subsidiary of, as part of HarperCollins) are interested in what sells, not what is scholarly and accurate, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Another_fringe_book_from_Simon_and_Schuster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vatican Publishing House books may be reliable for views on the Catholic church, but I doubt we'd use in the article on evolution.VR _talk 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why? Unlike many other religions people, Catholicism accepted evolution as fact more than a century ago. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion I had with Roscelese. Stuff published by the Vatican Publishing House could be reliable for views of the Catholic church, but it would not be a reliable source for factual statements in most fields, like anthropology, evolution, Islam etc.VR _talk 16:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

While I haven't read through the entire discussion here, between Darwish's questionable credentials and the questionable status of the publisher, there's absolutely no way we can cite this kind of statement to her. If it's true, why are these low-quality sources the only sources that talk about it? Shouldn't reliable sources have said somrthing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this book ("Refuting the Anti-Israel Narrative: A Case for the Historical, Legal and Moral Legitimacy of the Jewish State" by Jeremy Havardi; pubisher: McFarland) saying something similar to what Nonie Darwish claims:

"Sharia law dictates that there is no legal minimum age for marriage (beyond puberty), an opinion upheld by Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini lowered the marriage age to 13 for girls but permitted girls as young as 7 to be married, if a physician signed a certificate agreeing to their sexual maturity. The Ayatollah also stated that a Muslim man could "quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby" provided he did not "penetrate".

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That quote contradicts what scholarly sources have said about

Islamic jurisprudence. His book makes many mistakes when talking about Islam.VR _talk

11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This controversy is also mentioned in Khomeini's book: "The book has been the target of some polemics by some critics of Khomeini, owing to certain passages which seem to sanction sexual practices with minors, including toddlers"; although the source for that passage doesn't seem to be currently working. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You can't source wikipedia especially if that content is likely original research.VR _talk 11:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

“You can't source wikipedia”: You have literally just done that. --Grufo (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a link to Khomeini's book (Tahrirolvasileh) where he said this, but I'm not sure. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Nonie Darwish isn't a source - she's an author. The source we're talking about here is her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, which appears to be published by a respectable publisher. A quick Google check tells me that it appears in the reference list of at least one academic monograph, Global Jihad in Muslim and non-Muslim Contexts by Jonathan Matusitz of the University of Central Florida, but I haven't read the book and can't see exactly how it was treated by that work. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd be leaning towards saying that this looks like a reliable source, as far as our guidelines are concerned. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Matusitz seems like a pretty controversial figure himself, per the Orlando Sentinel:

Matusitz’s views on Islam have generated controversy before. In 2013, the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations accused him of teaching anti-Muslim bigotry and asked UCF to review the content of Matusitz’s courses. Later that year, he was the featured speaker at an event called “The Islamic Threat to America" in Viera. The American-Islamic advocacy group described the organization that sponsored the event as “an anti-Muslim hate group” and asked Brevard County not to allow it to use a commission meeting room.

The second incident is referenced in this Yahoo story which notes that the sponsoring organisation is

ACT! for America which SPLC describes as a hate group. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 14:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UGC is definitely not reliable.VR _talk

14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, huh? Which academic books use Wikipedia as a source? Just so I can make sure never to buy from that publisher... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit This book and this book, both by Springer Publishing, and this book by Routledge. I have also seen this done by books published by various University presses. Once I find them, I'll message on User talk:Girth Summit.VR _talk 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, jings. Bit of a red flag. I guess I won't be able to avoid Springer entirely, but seriously, that's pretty poor. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion of publishers is a red-herring; things are not automatically reliable when published by a particular corporation. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron is correct, in the general sense - we don't just look at the publisher to determine reliability (I've seen some terrible rubbish published by otherwise respectable presses.) I've just looked into Thomas Nelson a bit further though, and it is giving me pause. The first sentence of their company profile runs thus: Thomas Nelson is a world leading publisher and provider of Christian content. Looking at their publications, they mostly appear to be bibles, bible study guides and the like, but they also have a non-fiction bookstore, which exclusively sells... well, I find it hard to describe. Let's call it Christian stuff. I'm starting to lean away from my earlier position - perhaps this is a piece of polemic, written by a campaigner, and published by a company given over almost exclusively to... Christian stuff. What we want is scholarship, and this is looking less like that to me now. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Would not her books be considered biased sources? Per Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break (Nonie Darwish)

Darwish's twitter account certainly is... something. "Is Corona the First (grand scale) Biological World War orchestrated by globalists and China? Sure looks like it" "Must read! Many white girls are seduced into transgender! Being a victim has become the only thing to aspire for in America today!!!!! White girls want the victimhood status so they choose to be transgender!" I would place about as much trust in her words as I would those of Alex Jones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A quote from Darwish this 2018 journal article

... in Cruel and Usual Punishment, Darwish avows that Muslims “are incapable of feeling compassion toward non-Muslims. Acknowledging compassion to non-Muslim oppressed minorities is grounds for apostasy. A Muslim must stay hardened and unyielding”

I think literally suggesting Muslims cannot feel emotion is quite beyond the pale, especially considering the quote is from the exact same book we are talking about. Kevin Parker (New York politician) in a 2011 letter to chair Greg Ball (politician) asking to disinvite Darwish, cited her describing Islam as "not a true religion" and Obama as a "political muslim". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Obama is a "political muslim" is from this article in Media Matters for America (RSP entry) by our old friend Max Blumenthal. While I have immense distaste for his current output, I think he is reliable in this instance as the article provides a audio log as well as a transcript. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This definitely convinces me that Darwish' political position are among the most horrible political positions one can have today. It does not convinces me though that this would make her an unreliable source, especially considering the fact that she seems saying the truth about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia. Dan Fincke (an atheist), reports a quotation of Khomeini given by Maryam Namazie:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

On the other hand Kaveh Mousavi, another atheist who lives in Iran, reports this other quotation, adding that Dan Fincke's translation “actually waters down what Khomeini has said” and Khomeini endorsing pedophilia “is quite public knowledge among Iranians”:

Whoever has a wife under nine years old cannot penetrate her, whether she is his permanent wife or his temporary wife. But other forms of sexual pleasure are allowed, such as lustful touching, embracing, or rubbing the penis on the thigh of the girl, even if she is an infant still. And if the baby’s vagina is so badly damaged that the bladder and urethra “become the same”.he penetrates her before she is nine year old, and her hymen is not broken, he has only sinned, and if he has only sinned, but if he has, then she will be forbidden to him forever, and [he has to pay for her her entire life (I summarized here)]

It seems that these are all quotation from a speech, not a written document. But even just by google-translating this original page from the series of documents (Tahrir al-Wasilah) posted by Stefka Bulgaria it appears something like: A woman who has not reached puberty yet (i.e., she is not yet nine years old) takes no decisions in divorcing from her husband – implying that she can already be married when she is nine years old. But of course we cannot rely on Google Translator and I cannot speak Farsi. --Grufo (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that all sources that are translating the Khomeini document are a. Ideologically opposed to Khomeini. and b. have no expertise on islamic jurisprudence. I think that her stating that "Muslims are incabable of feeling" (a statement that is obviously false to any rational human being) in the same book that the quote comes from means that an alternate source should be found, and regardless of the outcome of whether the text stays or is removed it should not be cited to the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health. In any case, if the pages posted by Stefka Bulgaria are really the original Tahrir al-Wasilah I think the question about Khomeini endorsing pedophilia is quite closed. I have nothing against finding different sources, but I am definitely against erasing the truth. --Grufo (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Patheos piece states that: "Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of." and "on many issues Khomeini was a progressive for his time, and the fact that he seems so ancient and fundamentalist now is a testament of the great progress of the mentality of certain parts of Iran." but Patheos is a really marginal source for claims like this as it is a self-published blog. I would really want an impartial academic scholarly source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

“Khomeini was by no means a lone voice on this. Actually, these views are still quite dominant among the Shia clerics I know of” sounds like “

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”. Pedophilia was already defined internationally at the time of Khomeini, so no, I would never agree that Khomeini “was a progressive for his time” – and let's not forget that he stopped an actual socialist revolution that was happening before him in that very same place that Patheos seems to describe as so backward. Italian neo-fascists still say to defend Mussolini “…But trains were always on time when there was him”. I am sure that with a little bit of research we can find something good that even Khomeini did. --Grufo (talk

) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB. I don't see any reason to consider either of the two pieces reliable.VR _talk

01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep in mind this discussion is whether Nonie Darwish is a reliable source. If there are other sources they can be presented and discussed at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. Grufo's comment here hints at Grufo no longer defending Nonie Darwish as reliable. Grufo do you still consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source? If yes, what is your reason? VR _talk 01:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent:

“Grufo's comment here hints at Grufo not considering Nonie Darwish reliable”

Last time I checked I had a mouth to express my own opinions, I am quite sure I did not need to signal or “hint” them.

“Grufo do you still consider Nonie Darwish to be a reliable source? If yes, what is your reason?”

You might have missed it since it was an explicit statement and not a hint: So far yes, because she seems stating the truth and the only arguments used against her so far are her political opinions, or her positions against Islam's teachings, or what she believes the latter might provoke in people's empathy.

--Grufo (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Islamic jurisprudence? Do you think Thomas Nelson (publisher) a reputable publisher on Islam related topics? VR _talk

02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If Khomeini really didn't write this in his book and Nonie Darwish is making it all up, then Darwish's source would indeed be a problem. Is that the case though? An author doesn't need to be an expert in

Islamic jurisprudence to make a note about what Khomeini wrote in his book. Stefka Bulgaria (talk

) 10:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Islamic jurisprudence, clerics are asked if a certain action is forbidden. If they can't find a prohibition against the action in texts (Quran etc) they say "no". That doesn't mean they "approve" the action. Saying "Khomeini could not find any scriptural prohibition against sex with babies" is a lot different than "Khomeini approved of sex with babies." Yet another possibility could be that Khomeini was quoting opinions of more conservative clerics and not endorsing the position as his own (see this

). A reliable source could be trusted to present Khomeini's objectively and accurately.

We keep making this discussion about Khomeini, when really it is about whether Darwish is a reliable source, at least on

Islamic jurisprudence. You said earlier that your main reason for considering Darwish is a reliable source is because of the publisher Thomas Nelson (publisher). In light of this comment above, do you still think Thomas Nelson is a reliable source in the field of Islamic jurisprudence? VR _talk

15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In case any Iranian is present here, there is a video with (I presume) Khomeini's speech ([28], it starts at minute 3' 20''). Vice regent, all your comments seem aimed at raising suspicion that Darwish might be an unreliable source, but you constantly avoid to convince that she is. --Grufo (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion, and at first glance, thought my eyes were either playing tricks on me or I developed dyslexia because I could've sworn the title read User:Darwinbish.🐲 A few drops of Systane Ultra fixed me right up. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: there is a discussion at Talk:Ruhollah_Khomeini#Darwish, where I went through a reference of Darwish and found that it wasn't saying what she claimed it was saying. Darwish either misquoted the text or made part of it up. I did a google search and found that text to be in random forums and anti-Islam websites, but not in any reliable sources. The possibility that she "copies and pastes randomly from the internet" was raised.VR _talk 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The claim of Khomeini permitting sex with babies is promoted by anti-Islam/Iran sources. A simple search in Farsi would bring multiple explanations [29] as to who and why these false accusations are spread against him. For clarification, I will list some of the points being discussed in this discussion (sorry if my translations are not so good):
  • Regarding the marriage of a young girl, Khomeini regards 'satisfaction' of the two sides of the marriage as a pre-condition. Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text:

    عقد ازدواج بین دو نفر باید با رضایت هر دو باشد، بنابراین اگر یک طرف را مجبور کنند و یا بدون رضایت او عقد ازدواج را جاری کنند، صحیح نمی باشد.

Translation by me: "The marriage between two should be accompanied by the satisfaction of the two sides. So, if one is enforced to marriage or the marriage is done without seeking the satisfaction them, the marriage is not correct."

Khomeini further clarifies the marriage. He explains that for a girl (or boy) to grant permission for marriage, they 1) should have reached 'puberty', 2) should be 'Rashid' - (This means, besides being matured, he/she should grown enough so that he/she recognizes good and bad). Again, Imam Khomeini's portal provides the original text as such:

برای انجام رضایت به ازدواج، باید دو طرف عقد (مرد و زن) بالغ و رشید باشند، بنابراین اگر دختر دارای رشد نیست نمی توان او را به عقد دیگری درآورد

Translation by me: "For satisfaction of the marriage parties to be sought for doing marriage, the two sides should have reached puberty and should be Rashid. Thus, if the girl is not grown enough, she can't be married to a man."

I am ready for further keeping on this discussion, if its need. Finally, I suggest avoid basing this discussion on such a bogus source -just see the title- when we have access to more reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, thank you for your intervention! At these two links #1 and #2 this post appeared:

I have a personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah, and this fatwa is found in second volume.

(Taken from my personal copy of al-Khomeini's TaHreer al-Waseelah (Damascus: Sufaarah al-Majhooriyyah 1418 A.H.), vol. 2, pg. 221 - 222)

Click here for the Picture (file too big to upload) --> http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4414/khomeinitahreervol2pg22.jpg

مسألة 12 : لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .

Ruling #12: It is not permission to have intercourse before (her) being 9 years old, be it in nikkaaH (permanent marriage) or temporary marriage. And As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, embracing, and thighing, there is no problem in it even with a suckling infant. If he does have sexual intercourse before nine years of age and does not penetrate, there is no penalty, but he has committed a sin. If he does penetrate causing the vagina and urethra openings to be one, she will become forever haram for him, but this is as a precaution. And it is more probable that her status as his wife is not removed. And the rulings of inheritance, and the prohibition of a fifth wife or marriage to her sister applies. And it is waajib upon him for her maintenance as long as she is alive, even if he divorces her and even if she marries after divorcing her as a precautionary measure. And it is waajib upon him for blood money for the penetration and the amount is equivalent to that of an individual. If she is a free-woman, the amount is half that of a man, plus the dowry that she became entitled to through the `aqd and penetration. If he penetrates his wife after the age of nine, she does not become haram to him and there is no evidence that blood money is liable, but as a precautionary measure, he should maintain her as long as she is alive, although it is more probable that this is not obligatory."

Source:
al-Khomeini, taHreer al-Waseelah, vol. 2, pg. 241, Kitaab al-Nikaah, Ruling # 12

Could you tell us what you think? --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo: See your response- it is available in three languages. Not all what you find on the net is reliable. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I can only use Google Translate for that. It seems to neither confirm nor deny the controversial passages, since the text seems to be a summarization of Khomeini's words. In my opinion it actually seems to go towards the direction of confirming the controversial passages, since it quotes at least some parts of them. Is there a way to have the original whole Khomeini quote instead of a summarization? --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Roscelese commented that Darwish is not a reliable source for this kind of statement. I'm only pointing it out cause the comment is buried deep in the discussion.VR _talk 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• I see no proof that Nonie Darwish is reliable, let alone objective, and the publisher doesn't even pretend to be neutral in these matters. They are "dedicated to acquiring, developing and promoting authors whose content inspires, informs, and transforms the lives of readers", which is fine--but not when you are using these books to write an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is dnd.com.pk reliable? The way it wrote this bio, it looked quite amateurish, like many of those unreliable sources like CelebsWiki, StarUnfolded, etc. However its About Us page claims to be an " international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan..". Kindly help. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well this [[30]] makes it clear the (anonymous) online editor also writes stories. Thus thre is no clear delineation between writing and editing. Thus is (to a very large extent) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This provides a bit more information on the people writing and editing that website. They claim they are "international award-winning News Agency, accredited and certified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."VR _talk 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

They can claim all they like, its does not make it true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried googling this claim but could not find any mention of it in reliable sources.VR _talk 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Frankly the the fact they do not list what they are was enough to tell me its either an outright lie or (at the very least) an exaggeration. Certainly not enough to overcome my doubts about their "editorial policy".Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Slatersteven and Vice regent: guys. I'm going to remove it from the article. Looks unreliable enough. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

We have many articles on poker players, but only a handful of the most famous ones have coverage in mainstream media (i.e. major newspapers). The rest are sourced exclusively to poker publications, which is fine as long as they are reliable. The following are sources I see being used most frequently:

• Bluff
• CardsChat News
• CardPlayer
• HighstakesDB
• Online Poker News
• PartTimePoker
• PocketFives
• Pokerfuse
• PokerNews
• Poker News Daily
• PokerTube
• The Hendon Mob
• WSOP player profiles

I'd like to ascertain the reliability of these and other sources so we can create a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker and add it under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Topic-specific pages. Note that this is solely an evaluation of whether the site is reliable, not whether it can be used to demonstrate notability; it's very possible for a website to be usable for a listing of facts such as tournament winnings but perhaps it doesn't include significant coverage of anyone. Feel free to add other common poker-related sources (whether reliable or unreliable) so we can evaluate them together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we simply edit

WP:NSPORTS so that it covers Poker players? If Snooker is a sport, then Poker certainly is. King of Hearts, could you please look over the criteria for other sport on that page and give us you opinion about what criteria we should use for poker? --Guy Macon (talk

) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That is orthogonal to the issue being discussed here;

WP:NSPORTS is mostly a set of requirements that athletes need to meet to be presumed notable. Personally I am not in favor of adding yet another sports-related SNG. Instead, poker players should just be evaluated against the GNG, but perhaps with sources which are not mainstream but nonetheless reliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't place RfC tags on things that are not properly formatted RfCs. You are supposed to discuss the issue first and only post an RfC if editors cannot agree. See

WP:RFCBEFORE

.

Starting to look at your list of sources, is Bluff a printed magazine or something that looks like a magazine but is actually an app? It's a little concerning what happens when you click on "contact us". --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Bluff is now defunct, but it used to be available in print (this looks like a cover, they wouldn't put a fake barcode on a virtual-only publication). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can say that Bluff is reliable for poker information, then. Moving on, CardsChat News has an editorial policy[31] that makes me inclined to say that they are reliable for poker information. More later, must sleep now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Highstakesdb is reliable for most things. It appears to be a 3-person blog. I would consider it reliable for tournament results. Any website that got that sort of thing wrong wouldn't say in business very long. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK so far. Note that Hendon Mob has been discussed before without a conclusive result. I would say that it and the WSOP site are reliable for citing statistics. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant to go through every source on the above list, but I have too much to do on a project that actually pays the bills. I am going to leave it at this: In my opinion, pretty much every poker source is reliable for statistics and tournament results unless a web search turns up dozens of people complaining about them making stuff up. If the stats/results are on a couple of site, even better. Simply put, if they didn't get that right they would have no customers. None of them are reliable for determining whether a person is notable for poker playing. For that you need at least one non-poker site that talks about that person. Finally, I think that King of Hearts is well-qualified to make these determinations and has no obvious bias, so unless someone complains just go with what he says. Sometimes you just need a poker fan who keeps up with the sport and also understands how Wikipedia works. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that requirement would kill 80-90% of poker player articles. When you say that they are not reliable, do you not trust the quality of their reporting, or do you just think that the coverage is too "in-universe"? What you're saying is similar to

WP:AUD

, which exists so that a small-town business can't become notable just by being covered in the local news.

There are two aspects of notability: whether there is sufficient well-sourced content to write about the topic, and whether the topic is subjectively "important" enough for Wikipedia. The first aspect is obviously the most prominent one, and underlies

WP:NOTNEWS

). I don't think we have such a problem with poker players, so I would consider one notable as long as we have something to write about them. For that, determining which publications are reliable for sourced prose will determine which publications are reliable for establishing notability. IMO a poker player who has received coverage in widely read national or international poker publications is of greater encyclopedic interest than a small-town business that hasn't been written about outside its town.

Also, I wouldn't blindly trust a site that publishes statistics just because "if they didn't get that right they would have no customers".

WP:RSP, yet they're still in business. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

05:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

By "not reliable for notability" what I mean is that any article about a poker player or poker-related topic that is only discussed on specialist poker websites isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. See

WP:GNG

Once an article has passed that bar, there is no problem with using specialist poker websites as sources for content.

Let's look at one example: Blind (poker). Clearly that page need work; zero citations. But is it notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? certainly. [ https://www.google.com/search?q=poker+blind&tbm=bks ] shows that a bunch of books talk about the topic. They just haven't been added to the article as citations.

OK, once we have determined that there should be an article on poker blinds, it is perfectly OK to use poker websites as sources about the topic. It would then be up to the person editing the article to decide which sources are good. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon It seems to me that your concern is more about the indepencence of the publications rather than the reliability. Much like we deprecate articles about companies or executives in many niche "trade magazines" as they tend to simply write what they are told (advertorials) instead of applying much editorial discretion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:GNG does not prohibit using specialized publications. Being involved in the same field does not mean that the publication is not independent; otherwise, we wouldn't be able to use, say, Politico or The Hill (newspaper) to establish notability for a politician because both are "involved" in politics. Therefore it is important to determine which poker publications have sufficient editorial oversight and fact-checking. Once that is met, I see no reason to disqualify such sources from satisfying GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

18:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

See [ https://themediafund.org/about-us/how-the-coop-works/ ].

Paragraph in Daily Mail where [ https://themediafund.org/news/daily-mail-most-unreliable-paper/ ] is used as a source:

The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research,

British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019.^[7]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliable enough to call the Daily Mail unreliable? Interesting meta question. This refers to a blog article referring to IPSO but without a specific link. Maybe we can find it at the source and use that? Here are yearly reports but I'm unsure how to read them. We have four others there that are without doubt reliable sources, if there is nothing better as alternative we can just remove it. --mfb (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

When this type of source is raised at RSN it is usually because editors want an article to say something but cannot find a good source. In this case the Daily Mail had more complaints upheld against it that any other paper but no media (except the Media Fund) chose to mention this because its record was only slightly worse than The Times and most of the other major newspapers aren't even included in the complaints system. To answer the question, I don't see any evidence of fact checking or other standards that would make the source reliable. I find it ironic to throw out Wikipedia's policies for content inclusion in order to say that the Daily Mail has a poor record for accuracy. But then I don't think this has ever been about the Daily Mail's reliability. TFD (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

canadalandshow.com   is used 54 times as a source. Canadaland is a partly crowdfunded news site and podcast.

• In 2015, Simon Houpt of the The Globe and Mail wrote a long article about the site and said that its editor has a track record of playing fast and loose with facts.
  • This article also cites some other evaluations such as
    Montreal Gazette
    blogger Steve Faguy stating that Canadaland has a habit of sensationalizing and editorializing.
• Head of the CBC News Jennifer McGuire wrote an editor's blog about Canadaland. She wrote that Canadaland had deliberately made false assumptions and left out important facts.
• In 2017, Canadaland published a fake obituary of Conrad Black. Christie Blatchford's National Post article detailed the incident: The problem is, it wasn’t a story or a column; it was a pretend obituary, fake news in the current lexicon. She concluded that It was, in short, a cruel and juvenile piece that no newspaper would ever publish, let alone with such relish. It shames the profession.

I'm a bit concerned that this is used as source about politics and other media outlets. Do you reckon that despite these controversies this is now a generally reliable source? --Pudeo (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be concerned too. That concern would lead me to not rely on this source for fact. I'd be cautious using it if at all which might be too generous Littleolive oil (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it either. (t · c) buidhe 09:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, and have never heard of Canadaland until today. It certainly doesn't have the track record to be considered as a generally reliable source. PKT(alk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to PKT's view, I'd say Canadaland is reasonably well known in Canada as a podcast producer; among media people in Canada its news website is also well known. Canadaland's Thunder Bay podcast was praised by NPR's All Things Considered [32], IndieWire[33], CBC [34], and NOW [35]. At player.fm, Canadaland currently has two podcasts listed in the top 10 English-language Canadian podcasts by popularity [36]. As for its news reporting, my own impression is that Canadaland has high journalistic standards; for example, it publishes corrections/clarifications when any of its reporting is shown to be inaccurate. Opinion is distinguished from news reporting; for example the "obituary" of Conrad Black mentioned above is headlined "For Future Use: An Obituary For Conrad Black" [37] and labelled "OPINION", and makes clear that Conrad Black is not actually dead. The piece may be in poor taste but it is in no way fake news (defined as deliberate disinformation). Canadaland first became well known for its reporting on the Jian Ghomeshi scandal and has broken numerous stories relating to Canadian media [38]. News reporting by Canadaland does meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Some more information indicating Canadaland is considered a reliable source:

• 2018 Toronto Star news article: "... Canadaland, an independent news website known for its coverage of the media." [39]
• 2018 CP news article: "The statement was first published Saturday by the website Canadaland." [40]
• 2020 CP news article: "Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer pointed Monday to a report by Canadaland that red flags were raised in 2018 by auditors..." [41]
• 2020 National Post news article: "... information first revealed by the news site CANADALAND." [42]
• 2017 Toronto Star column: "As Ashley Csanady, host of the political podcast Canadaland Commons, put it on the air this week..." [43]
• 2020 CTV News story: "... shortly after Canadaland, which has reported extensively on WE, first broke the story on Twitter." [44]
• 2020 CBC News story: "The website Canadaland reported on Morneau's familial ties to the WE Charity on Friday morning." [45]
• 2014 Columbia Journalism Review: "... the freelancer who helped break the scandal, Canadaland's Jesse Brown ..." [46]
• 2015 National Post news story: "... in an interview with the media watchdog website Canadaland on Wednesday." [47]
• 2020 National Post news story: "In early 2018 she began a column for Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media, but was dropped at some point later the same year, according to CanadaLand." [48]
• 2017 Montreal Gazette arts interview: "This is familiar territory for the podcast [i.e. Canadaland], which has been looking to tell Canada’s unheard stories since 2013, and has since expanded into a mini-media empire of free content primarily funded by voluntary donations with four weekly programs – which form Canada’s most popular podcast network – six full-time employees, a stable of paid freelancers and a news website known for breaking its own stories." [49]

Mathew5000 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Given Mathew5000's demonstration of UBO, editorial control, and positive comments from other outlets, I'm is at worst a weakly reliable source. I've come across it on a couple occasions myself where it seemed like it might be useful, well-sourced, and balanced for those purposes (though I don't believe I wound up using it). Those cases when I considered using it involved discussion of other local Canadian media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a rule, we should almost never be sourcing any content in Wikipedia articles to any podcasts; I can, in theory, imagine that special cases may occasionally exist where we have to use a podcast for reasons unique to a particular situation, but we should be minimizing that as much as possible. Just because a podcast is popular and well-known is not, in and of itself, evidence of whether its content is reliable or not — I'll grant that Canadaland has occasionally scooped the media on real stories, but there are at least as many examples of it messing stories up as there are of it getting stories right. Most of Mathew5000's links certainly offer verification that Canadaland exists — but almost none of them actually speak all that strongly to whether its content is reliable or not, which is not the same thing as existing. I'd be on the side of no, Canadaland should not be accepted as an RS. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: We aren't talking about information in Wikipedia being sourced to a Canadaland podcast, but rather to a news article on Canadaland's website. That's my understanding, anyway, based on the mention at the top of this thread of canadalandshow.com having been used 54 times as a source (canadalandshow.com  ). Have a look, for example, at how the Canadaland news story "Toronto Star Suspending Internship Programs Indefinitely" is used as a source at Toronto Star#Internship program suspension. The links I posted above, to Canadaland being cited by the National Post and various other Canadian media, do more than verify that Canadaland exists. They show that other Canadian media treat Canadaland with some respect, for example reporting information that was first reported in Canadaland, or specifically describing Canadaland as "an independent news website known for its coverage of the news media" (which connotes that its reporting has a favourable reputation, not just that the website exists). Mathew5000 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are using Daily Hive as a source—which we are, frequently—then Canadaland is at least as reliable. Daily Hive is at least half advertorial-style content and has been critiqued before for at-times shoddy journalism. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Daily Hive isn't a source we should be using, though. Obviously it gets used — a lot of people either don't understand or don't care what is or isn't a

reliable source for our purposes, and will try to use just any web page they can find that technically supports the content (we even see people try to source stuff to iTunes, Netflix, Breitbart and YouTube!) — and it's not easy to always catch every attempt to use a bad source right away. But that doesn't mean it's a source that should be getting used. Bearcat (talk

) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would be curious to know how many of the people who discount Canadaland have actually consumed much of their journalism. I've been following them for years and find them quite reputable. I would venture to suggest that anyone who has 'never heard of Canadaland until today' should perhaps not be weighing in on their reliability. The only solid basis for discounting Canadaland is to cite specific instances of stories which they both got wrong and then refused to correct. We should be extremely wary of basing our judgement on a vague sense that they're problematic, especially when that vague sense might well have been created by Republican PR firms hired by WE. Standingwolf (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Standingwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We currently have around 1,600 citations to Nikkei, including around 600 to the main Japanese language newspaper per www.nikkei.com   and over 1,000 to the English language Nikkei Asian Review per asia.nikkei.com  . I think that the Nikkei Asian Review is generally reliable. However I am unfamilar with the domestic papers reputation. The Economist has some interesting views from the FT purchase.

Nikkei journalists themselves have a reputation for knowing everyone and everything that matters—but holding their punches on controversial stories. One former reporter, Shigeo Abe, who spent 25 years at the paper before leaving to set up Facta, a monthly investigative business magazine, says its journalists are overly timid due to their fear of legal action and losing ad revenues from the big companies they cover.

This is corobborated by a quote from the New Yorker, also related to the FT purchase.

Japanese reporters, and those who work for Nikkei in particular, have a reputation for going easy on the country’s corporations

There's also some interesting criticism in this piece from the Irish Times, which aside from the previously mentioned criticisms also states that the paper was uncritical of Abenomics, again similar in Quartz. I think from this that Nikkei is the gold standard source for Japanese financial reporting and generally reliable, but it's reporting is considerably less hard hitting than one would expect from Western newspaper, but this criticism is one that could be applied to most Japanese newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think how hard they hit comes into consideration when assessing reliability. In any event Nikkei is generally reliable.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• etymonline.com  

There are over 2,500 references to this site. The About page indicates it's a one-man psudonymous amateur project. Am I misreading this? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, its how it reads to me, an SPS if ever I saw one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don’t think we should be citing it, it’s sometimes wrong. For example, it claims Hun is a Turkic word when this is not known or even the most common theory among specialists. It’s somewhat opaque in its sourcing too. It’s also definitely a one man project. (I use it as a convenient source in my private life, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good source for Wikipedia).—Ermenrich (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2020‎ (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm generally in agreement that unless it can be shown to be wrong (in situations where a lot of other dictionaries might be wrong according to specialist literature), Etymoline should receive a better sourced needed tag rather than being removed entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we should rely upon it, though I also have the sense that in any particular case, assuming that it's correct unless there's specific evidence to the contrary is a low-cost kind of error. In practical terms, I'd rather replace citations to it with {{
  talk
  ) 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've been known to use it for quick ref-desk answers and in my own private uses, but it does not have the provenance necessary for use in articles. There's literally nothing there that shouldn't instead be cited to better dictionaries (OED or Merriam-Webster) and it's only use seems to be "I'm too cheap to have an OED subscription to look this up in the actual source" (which is why I use it in less critical applications). In short, I like it, it's a cool project, but there's no way it's a reliable source as defined by
  WP:RS. --Jayron32
  18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The author might well be a
  self-published rule. His library of dictionaries with which he sources his work is far more vast than anything I ever imagined for myself. (I have been a collector and user of dictionaries for decades.) I checked quite of few of his entries against some of my own print dictionaries and found his etymologies to be accurate to the printed dictionaries, including "hun". I got an insight into his technique and level of scholarship at this link. I'm familiar with the old dictionaries he refers to in that essay. I once had a Johnson 1755 but was convinced to part with it for $500 cash. I still miss it; it was unique and distinct from other modern dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary (which I also used to have and sold, though kept the magnifying glass, LOL) is rather verbose and obtuse for the average reader, and even some scholarly ones. After reading his About page and several of his current essays, which you can find on the right side of the About page, he definitely is a researcher and very precise. He has a degree in history, he's published, he's worked as a copy editor — all key elements you would expect in a subject-matter expert for etymologies (his humble and self-deprecating manner notwithstanding). He's obviously a deep-dive researcher: "To write the Chester County books I immersed myself hours every day for years in censuses, old maps, letters, diaries, accounts, glass-plate photographs, deed books, minutes, newspaper morgues." Normal Op (talk
  ) 09:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An English etymological dictionary is not a good source for something like Hun. For actual scholarly opinions on the origins of the name Hun, you can see our Huns#Name and etymology which is well sourced and includes not a single Turkic derivation that has widespread support. I bring this up mostly because Etymonline is used as a source in the ongoing battles with Pan-Turkism here.

Also, I don't think that he can qualify as a self-published expert. He doesn't seem to have any credentials. Plenty of people amass large quantities of books on subjects.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Transclusions of {{OEtymD}} should be checked and the template deprecated or revised if consensus is that etymonline is not reliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable and should be removed on sight—an obvious self-published
  WP:RS fail. This is an amateur website from an individual without a formal background in historical linguistics. Its entries are works of synthesis, and should not be trusted. The OED is widely available, as are various other etymological works produced by philologists. :bloodofox: (talk
  ) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Legit linguists use it frequently, but they characterize it as "a good place to start, but not to stop" (much like Wikipedia). Someone with access to the OED should replace existing citations with it, instead of indiscriminately replacing them with {{cn}}. Nardog (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It is indeed self-published, but I've seen it cited by other sources that are credible. (It's not pseudonymous by the way; the author is Douglas Harper.) I remember it being widely cited (up until recently, at least) as a source on Dictionary.com. You can see evidence of this through this type of Google search. Linguist Daniel Midgley often lauds the source on his podcast Talk the Talk; here's one of many examples where Midgley lists the source in an episode's show notes. I actually emailed Midgley about this about five months ago. He contended that Harper had a Patreon post where he addressed questions as to his credibility and "has looked up every word in many sources, including the OED, Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, and some others. From what I've seen, it seems pretty solid. I use it. I haven't seen any clangers. I try not to make it my only source. The OED is better, perhaps, but not everyone has access to it." Midgley admitted that he really knows nothing about Harper's personal credentials. Wolfdog (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I agree it would probably be better to cite the actual references he uses instead of him. Quite often the OED has the same information as is being cited, but I don't think the reference should be removed, just tagged with {{
  cn}} makes it harder for subsequent editors to track down an appropriate source to back up that fact since they no longer have his list of sources as a starting point. Umimmak (talk
  ) 14:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• The "Better source needed" tag is the correct course in my opinion. EtymOnline is better than nothing since it's usually pretty okay, but in general we should prefer the OED and similar sources with editorial oversight. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with replacing the citations with better sources, or—if no RS is at hand—adding {{bcn}}-tags as default solution, since etymonline is an SPS by an amateur who is obviously highly competent, but has no credentials based on earlier peer-reviewed publications that could "heal" the SPS-issue. If someone feels compentent enough to contest a dubious etymology, but has no source for the correct solution, they may replace the citation with a {{cn}}-tag or even remove the complete information, but a removal spree as default procedure would create more harm than benefit. –Austronesier (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Agreeing that we should prefer other sources. It's got occasional inaccuracies, but my impression is that there aren't more of them than you would expect in any "properly" edited popular dictionary (which is an impressive feat for the mostly one-man project that it is). I don't see a need for blanket removal of existing citations. If any editor has reliable enough grounds for believing this dictionary to be wrong, then presumably they should be able to produce a reliable enough source with which to rewrite the text in question. And obviously, Etymonline shouldn't be used for words like "Hun" where there exists a lot of scholarly literature. – Uanfala (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of claims cited to the "Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe"? "about us" German Wikipedia article Apparently (not mentioned on their website) it is a project of

No. I just looked at it in respect of the

independent norms we expect. Cabayi (talk

) 14:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi and GPinkerton, this is Wikipedia:Systemic bias, so reporting on church vandalism disqualifies it as reliable? Unfortunate, the "mainstream media" does not pick up those type of stories. Also, news sites regularly report on Facebook posts or Tweets from political figures and or celebrities. But, a local mayor documenting church vandalism is just a "narrative". Cabayi, I find you statement "weave a collection of stories about vandalism at churches into a narrative about persecution of Christians" quite frankly despicable, as a Christian I'm offended. I find numerous NGOs, charities, and issue specific news sites cited in Wikipedia, apparent this is where you draw the line. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: Church vandalism is a very long way from persecution of anyone. Wikipedia represents a global mainstream perspective, not that of an aggrieved(-feeling) minority. Your taking offence to a quite anodyne remark is completely irrelevant. GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

E-960, you're misrepresenting what I said. I don't accuse the local mayor of weaving - it's clearly intoleranceagainstchristians.eu weaving multiple minor incidents into a larger narrative. Only by aggregating trivia can the website make a supposed anti-Christian story.

If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the [...] conspiracy". It's an excellent piece on the value (and to whom) of exaggerating the importance of events. Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I understand and I do not agree, one citation comes from a NGO the other form an established charity which also has a news website. They are not weaving a "narrative" how many time did I see a news blurbs about site vandalism (related to other groups), these are treated as a crime and statistics are documented by the police and often compiled and analyzed by NGOs. But, in this case when this NGO is compiling and analyzing stats on church vandalism it's a "narrative". Again, I don't agree with that view and its not a "conspiracy theory" when in 2019 you have 3000 reported cases of vandalism in churces. --E-960 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The question is actually about using it as a link in the list of "External links". The site is basically a curated database of cases which provides links to the sources of information like here. One should use these linked sources as RS. However, this in not "a link to avoid" because it maybe useful for a reader of this page. Hence I think this link might be restored. My very best wishes (talk)

  It's just a tiny little bit disingenuous to claim that what that actual sources say looks like a fire started by a short-circuit is an instance of a case of intolerance and discrimination against Christians. No, we should NOT link to that.Vexations (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about one news story about a short circuit or a graffiti, the sites document issues facing Christians. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see why we should hold "External links" to a lower overall standard than inline sources; if the former can't in principle be promoted to the latter, there's often something wrong. A polemical aggregator with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking is not a
  talk
  ) 17:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's because
  WP:ELNO. "Random communist site" may or may not be OK, depending the site and specific WP page. That one? I am not so sure. If it would be a notable resource we have a page about, I would be sure. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between say Amnesty International and Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe? Both report on the issues they see fit, compile data form individuals as well as government sources. But a report by one would be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, while the other not. We should treat all NGOs the same, if both are registered and official NGOs. --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The legal status of an NGO is not what grants it credibility. You can be batshit crazy and still register an NGO. The quality of reporting is what makes the difference. Amnesty international also has its own problems, as it is very biased in terms of issues such as capital punishment. They should not all be treated the same by virtue of all being registered NGOs, in stead - their track record of publications should be analyzed for reliability and biases, with their acceptibility on wikipedia determined on account of how well they fare when judged by those factors. As for an NGO that hasn't made a name for itself - one should be careful and opt to find corroborating sources. If none exist, the validity of their claims becomes questionable. This has nothing to do as to wether or not they report on church vandalism, it has everything to do with establishing credibility. Of course, I would welcome any evidence you could provide that could prove this NGO's credibility as an RS. NGOs should be held to the same standards, but that standard shouldn't be "is it registered?". Goodposts (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Some NGOs are notable, recknowned, have an editorial staff, work with recknowned experts and other bodies, etc. Others are small propaganda advocacy orgs with dubious reliability. It really depends. As for external links, they have to be relevant to the topic and controversial links are usually not preserved. As aforementioned, some are usable as sources with

WP:PROMOTION. —PaleoNeonate

– 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Vexations, Goodposts and PaleoNeonate, I find some of the arguments presented here as evidence of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, right of out the gate, User:Cabayi starts to throw around not too subtle jabs that my views regarding the Christian marginalization in Europe are akin to conspiracy theories, and User:GPinkerton bluntly accuses the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe of having far-right ties because Gudrun Kugler is a ÖVP politician (apparently the party of the current Austrian prime minister Sebastian Kurz is far-right). If you are going to be so blatantly bias and use such non-neutarl language to descibe my arguments as the two editors above mentioned you are pushing nothing more then Cultural Maxistim talking points, utilizing the same approach taken by the Bolsheviks, who called themselves the "majority", even though they were not, and took power through a coup not a democratic vote, yet always presented themselves as the voice of the people, and viciously attacked everyone including moderate democratic voices in Russia (everyone not on the left is a radical right-winger). Also, please focus on the 2019 report here [50], which was put out the the NGO not some individual news articles. Finally, this NGO is frequently cited by religious news sites [51] or [52]. --E-960 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Btw, the U.S. Helsinki Commission held a briefing titled The State-Sanctioned Marginalization of Christians in Western Europe [53],[54] and BBC posted this article on the issue of Christian persecution in the Middle-east [55], quoting that in the West "political correctness had played a part in the issue not being confronted." --E-960 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If I am correct in assuming that by "Cultural Maxistim" you meant "Cultural Marxism", then I hope you know that the concept of "Cultural Marxism" is in itself a conspiracy theory. Furthrmore, you mention the Bolsheviks - while you are correct that their name is derived from the russian word for "majority", it does not reffer to a majority of the russian population, but rather a majority of representatives at a congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party. The Bolshevik faction held a majority in the congress and as such managed to pass a motion regarding party membership over an opposition faction, whose proposition was supported only by a minority of representatives and as such were labled "Mensheviks" (from the Russian word for "minority"). Not that it really matters though, because the entire argument over Bolsheviks is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Goodposts (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point about the cultural marxism conspiracy theory, —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Special pleading and personal attacks are not convincing. Being a registered NGO is not a sign of reliability. No evidence of credible reputation has been presented, while several warning signs have been brought up here.--Hippeus (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No pleading, just blatant Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Systemic bias should not be used as a club to include sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia standards. I worry that this website has been added as a form of

WP:ADVOCACY to promote a certain narrative. Vandalism isn't necessarily motivated by anti-christian sentiment. (t · c) buidhe

00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable per
  talk
  ) 06:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable. "The Scottish Justice Committee has proposed a new hate crime bill, which extends the current hate crime law covering race, to include other "protected characteristics" such as religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity." Sorry, guys, but stopping people from engaging in Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and the like is not oppressing Christians, it's oppressing bigots. You can certainly be a Christian and not be a bigot - most Christians in the EU manage it just fine. And that kind of idiosyncratic interpretation of "oppression" also disqualifies it as an external link. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am interested in knowing what editors think about the effect of deprecating sources. I haven’t been able to find an explicit answer in policy though there are some hints. If a source A is deprecated at time ${\displaystyle \ T}$, what effect does that have on our ability to use articles in A that were published at time ${\displaystyle \ t<T}$? More particularly, suppose source A has been examined by the community at times ${\displaystyle \ t_{1}<t_{2}<\dots <t_{n}}$ and at each time has been found to be reliable. Suppose that at time ${\displaystyle t_{n+1}>t_{n}}$ a further examination of A found it to be unreliable. Does this latter decision affect the usability of articles published at a time prior to ${\displaystyle \ t_{n}}$ when the source was regarded as reliable?

The hints in policy related to this come from wp:Deprecated sources which says:

"Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not". This suggests that once a source is deprecated, existing links to that source should not be removed without taking into account the specific circumstances related to it.

"Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare". New articles published by the source after it is deprecated should not generally be added to Wikipedia.

"Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia". Common sense is a nebulous concept. Common sense would seem to allow links to articles that were published during a period when that source was regarded as reliable.

Burrobert (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be more helpful if you're more specific. For example, which deprecated source are you looking to relitigate? --Calton | Talk 10:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a general question. The list of deprecated sources is continually changing so it would be helpful to work out what the general principle, if any, is. It would also be useful to know that there is no general principle and that adding articles that date to a period when the source was reliable isn't specifically proscribed and may even be welcomed. Burrobert (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert is making an error in logic. He is assuming that if a source is found to be reliable and later found to be unreliable the reliability of the source must have changed. It is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors, new arguments, and new examples.

To answer Burrobert's question, a source is only considered reliable before a certain date if the consensus of the latest discussion specifies that it was reliable before a certain date. Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ. If the two agree, older consensus adds weight to the newer consensus, as in "We have has 432 RfCs on the reliability of [ https://www.zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]. The results ranged from No to Hell No." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I referred to a new vote deciding that a source was unreliable after it had previously been deemed reliable. I didn’t make an assumption about the reason for the change - whether this was due to a change in the nature of the source, change in the views of editors or other. It may be true that “it is far more likely that the consensus changed with new editors” but I didn’t include that assumption or its negation in my question.

Your answer to the question itself, ("Newer consensus overrides older consensus if the two differ") seems fairly clear and means that all references for a deprecated source back to the year dot become suspect unless the decision specifies a date. I note that the Daily Mail which was established in 1896 was deprecated in 2017 but "some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". On the other hand there was no such qualification in the deprecation of the Daily Express, first published in 1900 and The Sun, founded in 1964. Therefore all articles from these latter two publications, including reporting on Buddy Holly, "Ben Hur", space monkey, Mafia, Hula hoops, Castro, Edsel is a no-go, U-2, Syngman Rhee, payola and Kennedy, Chubby Checker, "Psycho", Belgians in the Congo are suspect. Burrobert (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

fwiw, the Daily Express isn't deprecated. (Though it'd be a fine candidate for deprecation.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Perhaps I was distracted by the note that it “is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail”. Burrobert (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that we use CB Insights quite a bit for private company data. i.e. data about companies that are not public (e.g. startups), and any private acquisitions etc. Since private company data is hard to come by, there are a handful of reliable sources e.g. Crunchbase, CB Insights etc.

I found that this morning CB Insights, an article that I had created somewhile ago, was tagged for an AfD. Hence, my question if CB Insights is a reliable source specifically for pointed private company data (e.g. investment / funding value etc).

Ktin (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at
  The Financial Times it seems that they rely on CB Insights data but don't actually seem to report much on the company that owns the database (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+"CB+Insights"). This suggests that it is a reliable source, but leaves a problem for notability at AfD. I see that the CB Insights page cites a Forbes article specifically on CB Insights, but that somebody has tagged that as an unreliable source, which is rather surprising, and also a question to be raised here. --Andreas Philopater (talk
  ) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Andreas Philopater, Agree. That's what is leaving me conflicted - in the private markets (i.e. where the companies are not listed / public) reporting, CB Insights is used quite definitively for transaction data e.g. investments, valuation etc. Now, someone has marked CB Insights as a candidate for deletion, and I am struggling to explain. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Crunchbase is not merely not "reliable", it's literally deprecated and shouldn't be used as a source for anything: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261#RfC:_Crunchbase - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  David Gerard, Sorry, my question was about CB Insights. Did you mean to say CB Insights? Ktin (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think he's responding to this: Since private company data is hard to come by, there are a handful of reliable sources e.g. Crunchbase, CB Insights etc. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  JoelleJay, Got it. Thanks for that clarification. I should have clarified that this was about CB Insights, and in the above text Crunchbase was just an example. The AfD discussion was specifically for CB Insights.Ktin (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is MDPI's journal Religions (website) a reliable source? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable1 says MDPI journals are "hit and miss". JzG's User:JzG/Predatory implies that good journals would appear in "ISI JCR" and "DOAJ". Religions is listed at ISI JCR and listed at DOAJ. And I don't find it listed at this version of Bealls list. But the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable seems to flag it as "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".VR _talk 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As it says above, you should provide the article used as a source, the information it supports and the article it is used for. The North Toronto Town Crier for example is probably a good source for local restaurants that have just closed down but for the Middle East peace process or inter-planetary travel not so much. TFD (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The stats are not encouraging (IF 0.45 and dropping), it's safe to say that it's not going to be considered generally reliable., so it will depend on the authors and the specific content as TFD says. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Beall never listed journals when he could list publishers instead. Beall listed MDPI in 2014, but removed it in 2015. The main issue with MDPI, much like Frontiers, is that their editorial boards are pressured to accept crap and mediocre articles. So it'll always be a borderline source.

b

} 16:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)