Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 320 Archive 321 Archive 322 Archive 323 Archive 324 Archive 325 → Archive 330

Xinhua News Agency

Per Sun (2015), "When Mao told Xinhua to ‘take control of the earth’ and engage in international communication, his premise was clear: that the media were the propaganda tools of the CCP... In the 1990s, Jiang Zemin’s numerous external propaganda policy directives again re-affirmed the official line that Xinhua was the ‘mouth and throat of the Party, charged with the dual responsibility of both internal and external propaganda, the mission of both being to promote the CCP and Chinese government’s policies’."[1]

Per Brady (2015), "In early 2009, Beijing announced that it would invest ¥45 billion (roughly US$7.25 billion) into its main media outlets in order to strengthen its international news coverage and global presence. As part of this campaign, known as “big propaganda” (da waixuan), Xinhua News Service increased its number of overseas bureaus from 100 to 186. That same year, the

CCTV International also began broadcasting in Arabic and Russian, and in 2010 rebranded itself as CCTV News."[2]

It appears that Xinhua, the Global Times, and CCTV International (aka CGTN) are all part of the same propaganda campaign that the CCP has used to increase Beijing’s global presence. Why is it that the Global Times and CCTV International/CGTN are now deprecated while Xinhua remains largely unchallenged?

Normchou (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Xinhua in general has a higher standard than CGTN/CCTV and Global Times. One blind spot is to misinformation/disinformation which originates within the official Party/State ecosystem, for example
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Kazakh virus. I would say additional considerations apply, they’re fine for statements about the Chinese government’s position on an issue but I would not in general use them for objective statements of fact and I would *never* use them for the BLP of a non-Chinese government official. Horse Eye's Back (talk
) 19:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be helpful it if you could provide some corroboration and analysis for the statement that Xinhua generally has a higher standard than the other two outlets. Normchou (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
You are west centric. Would you do the same for Chinese official? (i. e. Never used western reports for BLP of Chinese official.) The Master (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Xinhua is a news wire that produces factual and broadly unbiased (in terms of content, biased in terms of story selection) content largely for other news organisations. These fall into two camps: foreign news sources that use Xinhua to complement their reporting (e.g AP News [1], BBC [2], The Guardian [3] and it's a partner of AFP [4]); and Chinese government sites that spin the stories for propaganda. Xinhua has attracted some moderate praise in RSes in the past [5] [6] and its output is generally best described as boring (China's industrial output further expands in November is literally the current second to top story on the business page). In recent times it has been more roundly criticised (this article from the Guardian is a good example. It is also hilarious) but as far as I know no one has characterized it as inaccurate. ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems that the issue can be boiled down to the reporting of factual content, and how (ir)replaceable Xinhua is in that regard. My own observation has been that headlines such as China's industrial output further expands in November are almost always available via a primary source such as the National Bureau of Statistics of China's website. Normchou (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Half the things Xinhua reports are "this subway opened" or "this power plant went online" or "this port moved xx% more containers than last year" which don't seem terribly controversial. Primary sources are incredibly hard to navigate and translate if you don't know Chinese. Xinhua's news has clean and precise english, which makes it easier for editors and readers to understand and also fact-check if necessary. Albertaont (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I need to point out that, in cases such as "China's industrial output further expands in November" like what Normchou has named above, Xinhua is the primary source just like China's statistics bureau, Xinhua's role is irreplaceable when making such announcements on official statistics and press releases because this is one of the main roles Xinhua was designated for when it was founded. China's new laws, regulations, announcements from Beijing, and so on must be published through Xinhua and no other means. This is a tradition that dates back to telegraph and morse codes, and even until today, important law releases such as Hong Kong's new national security law this July have to involve every other media's journalist nervously refreshing Xinhua's newswire feed. Xinhua is widely cited by other media for official announcements and it dates way back. Some instances that I have noticed include when the Communists established the People's Republic in 1949, or once towards the end of the Cultural Revolution when the New York Times translated Xinhua's announcement into English unaltered. This is not mentioned in Xinhua News Agency's entry, but starting in the early 2000s, Xinhua started to call itself "Xinhua," prior to that, its English name was "New China News Agency," and before the 1990s, "Xinhua" was often romanized as "Hsinhua" or "Hsinhua News Agency." Go to any newspaper archive and look for "Hsinhua," there will be tons of instances of Xinhua's words being cited. When serving as Beijing's "telegraph operator" for announcements, Xinhua is the ultimate primary source.
In addition to El. D, besides AFP, Xinhua also has collaborations and image exchange agreements with AP, Reuters, Japan's
Kyodo News Agency, and several more, and Xinhua has been supplying images to the AP since the 70s. On an unrelated note, CCTV/CGTN also has image/video footage exchange agreements with CNN, and you can definitely see CCTV's footage being used on CNN, while CNN is cited as sources on CCTV. Also, I do consider that the Guardian's article on Xinhua is nonsense. That Xinhua's press release which shamelessly praised Xi Jinping is essentially what you would have been expecting from Xinhua. Firstly, on high Chinese officials, Xinhua does release official profiles for them (which may shade negative news or imperfections of them). Secondly, when it comes to Xi Jinping, do except Xinhua praising him like North Korean media praising Kim Jong-un. Thirdly, Xinhua's English service may not run stories of Xi's personality cult as often as its Chinese version, and that's probably what makes the Guardian's journalist surprised, but hell they run tons more of such propaganda stories every day in Chinese and that also includes CCTV on its prime time news program Xinwen Lianbo. Xinhua has been running such stories all the time, and getting surprised by them most likely indicates that the Guardian's journalist needs to consume more Chinese state media to get an idea of how they behave. --Techyan（Talk
） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Techyan: your information is dated, these days CCTV/CGTN are reporting that CNN produces fake news about China such as this piece from January: "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang”[7] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism, but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.

Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine. --Techyan（Talk） 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this has apparently been discussed before – see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. doi:10.1080/10286632.2015.1043129
    . Retrieved 16 December 2020.
  2. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0056
    . Retrieved 16 December 2020.

Ban NYT first because it has been awarded No. 1 in the fake news media list, presented by the president of its country of origin. Discrimination against Chinese is not justified by any sense before banning No. 1 fake news media. --The Master (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Trump awarded NYT as his fake news awards doesn't means the NYT is a
controversies, most of its reports are reliable. Banning the Xinhua also doesn't means we are discriminate against Chinese.--BlackShadowG★ (talk
) 02:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
NYT is a left wing proporganda machine in USA and Fox News is the right wing counterpart. Chinese state media is much more reliable then NYT. There is a lot of fake news in NYT. google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn. Finding an excuse to discriminate against the media representing Chinese people is slapping the faces of 1.3 billion people.--The Master (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think posting random nonsense to RSN is unlikely to convince anyone of your position, and strongly suggests
WP:NOTHERE - David Gerard (talk
) 18:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
You are nonsense. Stop ad hominem! Chinese state media are much reliable than some media controlled by money groups and aimed at satisfying the bias of its readers. Strongly suggest you to read google:fake news new york times site:globaltimes.cn Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist. --The Master (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Chinese state media are like Russian state media, and the state media of many nations. They push propaganda alongside their regular news reporting. They are good enough for ordinary news, but not for political stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Chinese Wikipedia user. I'm from Hong Kong, China.

I can't help but participate in the discussion. On the question of the reliability of Xinhua News Agency, as a Chinese national and Wiki user, I think I have a good say in this issue.

Everyone here may have some strange or even bad views on the media in our country. In this regard, I would like to tell everyone here that the Chinese media is not high compared with Western countries in terms of freedom of the press, but there is no doubt about authenticity and effectiveness. Xinhua News Agency has been an official media with a long history. Xinhua opened international affairs in 1940 and has been facing the public for 80 years. Even if the evaluation is mixed, not every news media can satisfy everyone. But its still existence can show that it has its own value.

Xinhua News Agency may be regarded by some as the government's propaganda media, but Xinhua, as the official media, bears the image of China, and the news and news released should be responsible for China's image. I think Xinhua has been able to release effective news.

So Xinhua News Agency is regarded by some people as the propaganda channel of the Chinese government. I can only say that everyone has their own views. But the news and news released by Xinhua News Agency are real and effective. Several Wikipedia users mentioned Xinhua's cooperation and praise with other internationally renowned media, so I don't mention it here. But it is enough to see that Xinhua News Agency is internationally recognizable and a reliable and effective source of use.

I can't represent anyone, but I also pay attention to the news and what happens around me. Edit entries on Chinese Wikipedia. We also need to provide reliable sources. I've always been happy to use Xinhua News Agency as my reference source. So at least I think it works.

（“抱歉，我只能用中文写这一篇回复。这一篇回复是机器翻译，如果有人能将此译为正确的英文版本、让读不懂中文的维基人能够看得懂的话，我将非常感谢。 ”）

（Machine translation,The specific meaning is subject to the Chinese version.Translation:[8]）
-WiokTALK‧Wikipedia-zh 15:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The above comment from the Chinese Wikipedia editor,
WP:RSP in Chinese[9]. It appears that there was no consensus on whether the Chinese version of Xinhua is a reliable source, either.

由于《新华社》是中华人民共和国官方通讯社，其发表的政治类新闻需要审慎对待，尤其是涉及到与中国大陆相关的负面新闻更要谨慎。對於中華人民共和國的正面新聞或中性新聞，只要不是出於誇大或扭曲（變成正面新聞），新華社可以作為可靠來源。其转载或编译的国外新闻，应尽量用原始出处的新闻替代。
(Since Xinhua News Agency is the official news agency of the People's Republic of China, the political news it publishes needs to be treated with caution, especially when it comes to negative news related to mainland China. For positive or neutral news from the People's Republic of China, Xinhua can be a reliable source as long as it is not exaggerated or distorted (turned into positive news). For foreign news it reproduces or compiles, one should try to replace it with news from the original source.)

It would also be helpful to see Chinese Wikipedians having a discussion again regarding this matter, since the last discussion was in 2014. Normchou 💬
23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with Xinhua being a reliable local news source as, even being considered as propaganda service by much Wikimedians, it normally can fulfill the role of a news source provider. But I'm quite weary of political news, particularly in US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and anything China had its tooth against. I'm not stating that Xinhua should be outright banned, or as what some users said, completely allowed, but the nature of Xinhua can loosely corresponds to the reliability of RT, or Al Jazeera. English version is better than Chinese version, but may still contain some propaganda or whatever Wikimedians think it as biased. --1233 ( T / C） 15:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
You says Xinhua "being a reliable local news source" but not about political news in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang. Aren't Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang part of China? Though Taiwan is yet reunified. For Hong Kong and Xinjiang, do you think Western media being more reliable than Chinese state media?--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It should get the same treatment as RT (formerly Russia Today) at WP:RS/P: "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation." -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Xinhua is a useful source, especially for everyday news like the examples Albertaont gave above (new metro lines, industrial output, and so on). It's certainly not in the same category as the Daily Mail. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Xinhua should be put above medias like NYT and Fox news. It is a state media and has its reputations, unlike western media controlled by interest groups and aims at satisfying the bias of its readers. They only cares about money, that's the difference. Interview: Some Western media reporting on China biased, unfair: German sinologist--The Master (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@El komodos drago: points out to me Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Here are some references proving western media are biased in Chinese reports. I list below for you to verify. There is no reason to discriminate agianst Chinese reports before discriminating the biased western reports.
  • You have listed a large number of propagandistic, non-neutral and unreliable sources from Xinhua and Global Times, please stop promoting your anti-western sentiments, it's not helpful.--BlackShadowG★ (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please constrain yourself to addressing the argument, declaring a editor to have anti-western sentiments seems irrelevant to the discussion and seems, in my view, to amount to censorship of a political viewpoint. I mean, I agree that editors should approach Xinhua stories on issues where the Chinese government is a stakeholder with the view that is at least biased but can we not be accused of parroting "anti-eastern sentiments" from our government? To avoid this, we must listen to all the opinions from editors and assess the argument's validity per our own policies not simply discard them on grounds that we believe that an editor has "anti-western sentiments". I am sorry if I have sounded too harsh, and I agree with the general thrust of your post but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the general desire to flatly disregard The Master's arguments on here on the grounds that they are Chinese. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
While there is consensus that RT "publishes false or fabricated information", it would be helpful to provide instances of Xinhua doing the same when arguing that they should be treated the same. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, looking at the sources, I see that the Journal of Democracy is part of the National Endowment for Democracy. While I have no serious reason to doubt the reliability of the article you cite or the journals as a whole, I am somewhat concerned about the link. For context, here is a New York Times article about some of the shady stuff the NED does. [10] ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no good reason to doubt it, I just wanted reasurance that editors had considered the link irrelevant for the purposes of this RSN. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be depreciated as per reports from The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, NYT, and from evidence of its reporting on Tibet and the Dalai Lama, also noted in these first rate RS. Reliability is directly contrary to being "effective". Furthermore, Xinhua's reports on the capitalist-model economy in Tibet and elsewhere in China cannot be assumed generally reliable either, since the fabrication of reports cannot be assumed to stop with economic reporting. Normchou, depreciation should be applied equally to CCTV, Global Times and to Xinhua. Andreas Philopater, to provide what was suggested: There are numerous examples that Xinhua "publishes false or fabricated information" during the 2008 Tibetan unrest and its aftermath, and continues to currently do the same.

  1. Here, the number of Chinese "civilian" deaths is noted as false[11](per translated edits of text), since the only reported deaths of Chinese in Lhasa at that time that I've come across in numerous sources/RS occurred in a building fire, where 4 Chinese died and 1 Tibetan died as well. Also omitted are reports of 140+ Tibetans killed by Chinese forces during the same time period. Here's the
    NYT covering the same info [12]
  2. Another is reported via VOA[13]and the NYT above, where Xinhua blames the Dalai Lama for the spontaneous uprising, a charge disapproved by numerous RS. (I'll refractor in more and better examples.)
  3. In 2008, another death might have occurred outside Lhasa, to a policeman in Garze, while here's an AFP via
    France24 comment about "fabricated" (to use the term above) Xinhua reports[14]
    .
  4. Machine gun use in 2008 was not reported by Xinhua, but a report of leaked documents which support the eyewitness statements on machine gun use exists[15] and is reported by RS Tibetan Review[16].
  5. In 2009 Barnett also reported on the deaths, and included more due to building fires inside and outside of Lhasa[17] and to shootings by government forces.
  6. In 2012, evidence of more Xinhua's fabricated or false reports on political violence by China's govt, again by France24[18].
  7. A 2013 report of a France24's reporter being harassed in Paris "mafia style" for editorial content, by Chinese diplomats. (Included as an illustration of the serious nature of Chinese propaganda)[19].
  8. In 2014, France24 reports Xinhua's sources are not reliable,Xinhua, which cited the Xinjiang region publicity department in its report,... and that China's public executions are not reported[20].
  9. A 2015 Reuters report on China's attack policy on the Dalai Lama, and on Xinhua in "The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has to be endorsed by the central government, not by any other sides, including the Dalai Lama himself,” Zhu said, according to a March 11 report in the state-run Xinhua news agency.[21]
  10. A 2020
    NYT detailed opinion article on forced labor system of nomadic peoples in Tibet, which is denied by Chinese government (Xinhua mentioned but paywall popup prevented inspection of lower text area.)[22]
  11. In 2018 The Guardian details unreliability, "creative writing", and agenda pushing by Xinhua[23]with a quote that it distinctly pushes "Chinese agenda", and of the govt CCTV and related media, The whole point of pushing that kind of propaganda out is to preclude or preempt decisions that would go against the People’s Republic of China.. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC))
  • Xinhua is a good and reliable source and should be retained. It is no less reliable than major Western news sources. Its coverage of China is unmatched by other English language sources. For controversial statements that are not supported by other source, it would be enough to use attribution. Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Declaring Xinhua "good and reliable" makes no difference as declaring RT as the same. Both are controlled by government and echos corresponding government's voices. A media with such influence by an authoritarian government should always leave a question on its credibility. The lack of acceptable public editorial guidelines should also add doubt on its reliability. I'm not stating an outright ban, but should proceed with extra care as reporting in some cases are irreplaceable and would be fine. --1233 ( T / C） 09:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We just had an RfC on this in September. Why are we having a new informal discussion on the same points? — MarkH21talk 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Was wondering the same, it's in RSP and I don't think anything has changed since the assessment there, has it?Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and I tried to point this out above. This strikes me as an unnecessary/superfluous discussion given that the RfC was only a few months ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian sources

Since the source review process lists several Russian sources as deprecated (e.g. RIA Novosti, TASS, RT), I find it curious that there are no similar Ukrainian sources so listed. In reviewing the products of UNIAN.ua, for example, there are instances of news reporting that are no different than those on the mentioned Russian news sites - other than they are from a differing point of view. Why are official Ukrainian media sources any more reliable or credible on matters of importance to Ukraine than are Russian ones? The deprecation of at least the listed Russian sites (without topical limitation) functionally amounts to Wikipedia censorship because it blankedly removes those sources from being acceptable as source citations. On the basis of Wikipedia policy relevant citation citing these source have been removed. In this way a limited number of Wikipedia editors have pronounced as pariah sources those with whose reporting it is politically acceptable to disagree. It would be better for the fundamental stated purposes of Wikipedia (free exchange of information) to allow free citation which would allow the readership to engage in a discussion of veracity and/or come to their own conclusions.Moryak (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There are no sources as far as I know which systematically spread Ukrainian propaganda (not even UNIAN, which I would say is reliable for reporting everything which happens in Ukraine as far as it does not touch Russian-Ukrainian relations - like TASS or Interfax in Russia; may be the only things which are published by the institute of National Remembrance are close to pure propaganda). On the other hand, most Ukrainian sources which call themselves mass-media are nothing more than blog-agregators, they just repost twits and Facebook posts of celebrities without making any effort to fact-check. In this sense, I do not think any of these qualify as reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't find this curious. I don't even understand the essence of your question. Are you saying that based on the fact that some sources are found generally unreliable, we should recognize other as generally unreliable? Some sources are just not useless (i.e.
Russia Today), because they spread false, distorted or partial information. We don't lose anything when we don't use them. And I don't see any problem with UNIAN.--Renat (talk
) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
RT is a public-facing, foreign focused, TV channel and as a result, it faces more pressure from its government to distort reporting and is more likely to be used as a source by Wikipedia. UNIAN is a news agency meaning that it largely provides news to other news organisations and its output seems to be mainly domestic. UNIAN is used by foreign RSes (eg [24]), so I would categorise it along the lines of RIA Novosti, TASS, or Xinhua as reliable but to be used with caution in certain areas. The fact that is privately owned may well confer greater reliability. Seems to be not worth listing on RSP. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Somali Dispatch

The "About us" section says "Somali Dispatch is the first full fledged English website that addresses the unique information needs of the growing English speaking masses in the Diaspora. Established in 2019, the website currently receives thousands of visitors a day. It is independently run and can be accessed and contributed to from around the world." It hints at some connection to

WP:RS (it's alluded to in a few partisan Medium articles, that's about it). OhNoitsJamie Talk
01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS would forbid this usage even if this were otherwise reliable, which I doubt. (t · c) buidhe
07:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't see anything about it that would qualify it to be used in any way. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable It doesn't have a gatekeeping process, as noted by OP; it does not have a physical presence by which it could be held liable for what it publishes (no address listed on website and WHOIS has a privacy mask); it is not recognized by RS as RS (a cursory Google News search for "Somali Dispatch" and "somalidispatch.com" doesn't return results in RS). Chetsford (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Diplomat

User:Horse Eye's Back added a statement on the reputation of People's Armed Police in Special:Diff/989899561.

The statement is as follows: The People's Armed Police are both feared and mocked by the Chinese public. It comes from an article from the Diplomat.

The author of the Diplomat analysis/opinion piece in question, Bonnie Girard, stated that [i]n general, it is safe to say that the PAP is not well-tolerated by a majority of Chinese, who both fear the PAP’s right to make arbitrary arrests and mock its members for their often brutish, thuggish tactics, implying that the PAP as a whole has the power to enforce law and make arrest. Furthermore, Girard does not provide evidence for this claim in the Diplomat article.

Previous publications states that [e]xcept the MPS-led active service troops within the PAP, such as the Border Defense, Firefighting, and Guard Corps, other PAP units do not have the power to impose sanctions (e.g., arrest and detain) [1]: 230 , and that [t]here were law enforcement services that reported to the MPS: the Public Security Border Defense Force...; Public Security Firefighting Force...; and and Public Security Guards Force... The reforms addressed this problem in part by divesting the PAP of most law enforcement and economic functions[2]: 8, 21 

User:Horse Eye's Back stated that The author is in fact a professional and subject matter expert (Girard is widely published as a quick JSTOR check can confirm) where au:("Bonnie Girard") on JSTOR and au:Bonnie Girard on WorldCat yields no result.

Girard's claim contradicts what the previous published sources known about the PAP and therefore exceptional. Does this source qualify as multiple high-quality sources required by

WP:EXCEPTIONAL? -Mys_721tx (talk
) 03:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. OCLC 874118926
    .
  2. ^ Wuthnow, Joel (16 April 2019). China's Other Army: The People's Armed Police in an Era of Reform (PDF). Washington: Institute for National Strategic Studies. Retrieved 3 October 2019.

Tapol bulletin

I'm working on the Izaac Hindom article and I found out about the Tapol bulletin (you can search the whole collection in [25] here). As you can read in the article, the bulletin was published by a group of political prisoners based in London (Tapol itself means political prisoners in Indonesian) to monitor human rights issues for Indonesia. But what makes me doubt the reliability of the source is when I read this particular edition.

Tapol accuses Hindom of "Javanization" (you could read on page 6 of the bulletin) and cites Kompas, 26 October 1982 as their source. When I check Kompas, 26 October 1982, the title of the headline reads as "Transmigration in Irian Jaya not "Javanization"" (Transmigrasi di Irja Bukan "Jawanisasi"). Furthermore, they quote Hindom (a Papuan) as saying "This will give birth to a new generation of people without curly hair, sowing the seeds for greater beauty." (note that curly hair is the main characteristic of Papuans, so he's basically saying that Papuans are ugly) The bulletin also quoted Hindom stating Irian Jaya (Greater Irian) will soon become Irian Java, or Javanese Irian. However, a Tempo source noted that this was only a joke.

Aside from the controversial statements, Tapol is frequently cited by journals, such as this and this.

Regards,

Jeromi Mikhael (marhata
) 15:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably fine, based on how it is cited by journals, but that it should be attributed in the article. The only thing that seems that concerning is the first point you mentioned, but without further context (for example, the specific text in both of the articles) I'd say it's fine. Zoozaz1 talk 04:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people

Is this raw data an acceptable reference for the date of birth of living people? It seems to fail

WP:DOB in that it's not widely published by reliable sources (is raw data really a reliable source?). At least one entry on the list is incorrect, see Talk:Paul Maskey#Birthday. FDW777 (talk
) 19:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Given the contradiction between the sources of the two legislative bodies, I would defer to the MP's personal posts. This is a case of generally reliable does not mean always reliable. Generally speaking, though, I would trust a legislative body for basic information about its members. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the information doesn't even appear on profile pages, it's raw data. Is it even "published" in any meaningful way? FDW777 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
That list is clearly unsuitable as the sole source for DOBs or frankly anything for anyone covered by BLP. It would probably be better to have asked this at
WP:BLP/N than here though. Nil Einne (talk
) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Irish Times and Irish Examiner

Are these Irish newspapers reliable references at John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) (Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article) and Claire Kerrane (Irish Times article and Irish Examiner article)? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, standard, reliable newsorgs. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I second, @buidhe, both totally fine.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Are these estimates reliable?

  • Source: [26]
  • Article: Kurds => infobox
  • Content: Infobox => current cited source #2.
  • Is it a reliable source? Can we use it? --
    talk
    ) 05:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It's quite likely to be a disputed figure, given the tendency of Turkey and other countries to minimise minority statistics, and the fact that it is possible to (somewhat justifiably) divide the Kurds between smaller ethnic units on linguistic or religious grounds. However, it seems to me to be RS in and of itself, I'd look at the minimum number and see if you find RS that give you a lower number, if so include both numbers in the infobox, perhaps with attribution in the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that source itself does not have any specific author to see if it's written by a reliable/expert person or not. It does not cite any other stats, estimates, or reports. It's not clear where those numbers come from. e.g. it claims: "In addition, the Kurdish communities of Khorassan (1.5 million) and Tehran (0.5 million)..." Look at
talk
) 18:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is inferior to an Academic source, if one that contradicts it exists, but the Tehran thing doesn't look out of whack. Tehran's metro area is 16 million, half a million Kurds does not seem unlikely, if we include children of Kurdish immigrants to the city. As for the Medes thing, they actually say "In the 7th century BC, the Medes, the Kurds' equivalent of the Gauls for the French...", that is a reference to geography, ancestry and cultural perception. The French =/= The Gauls. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily Kos election predictions

The Daily Kos has only been discussed three times. In 2015, there was consensus that it was unreliable for its election predictions. Despite this, its predictions are currently being used in articles on house races both this election and last election. Is there still consensus that it is unreliable for these? Username6892 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Unreliable Daily Kos is both user-generated and aggregated content and doesn't have the reliability background that electoral aggregators like FiveThirtyEight have, so yeah, i'd consider it unreliable still and should be removed from those articles. SilverserenC 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    Silver seren, their election predictions are not user generated. They have staff that handle that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per
    WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." Predictions are always expressions of opinion and, in the use case examples given, these opinions are credited as being those of Daily Kos. Whether or not Daily Kos' predictions are important enough to include in the articles in question is a separate matter (I'd argue it's not and should be removed), but if it's determined they are then the Daily Kos is a RS for its own predictions. Chetsford (talk
    ) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC); edited 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree, Silver seren, that the Daily Kos is potentially not RS for statements of external fact. However, my position is that Daily Kos is RS for statements of internal fact; that is, to confirm whether or not it wrote something. In this case we're not saying it's a fact that Arizona 1 is "Likely D" in 2018, we're merely saying it's a fact that Daily Kos said that Arizona 1 is "Likely D" in 2018 for some reason or another (the reference link in the article indicates this conclusion was written by staff and represents the blog itself, as opposed to a random contributor; I believe contributor posts are labeled "Community"). Of course, whether or not that's even relevant to include in the article may be a separate question. Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But if the argument is just "it's the opinion of the author", then couldn't that statement be made about literally every site that we do consider unreliable? Especially in this case, the "opinion" nature of it is questionable, since it's reporting on election statistics, which is information about facts. So either it is reliable or unreliable for reporting facts. SilverserenC 20:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "But if the argument is just "it's the opinion of the author", then couldn't that statement be made about literally every site that we do consider unreliable?" Yes, per
    WP:SELFSOURCE
    , virtually any source is reliable as proof that source wrote something. In other words, even a questionable source can be reliable for claims of internal fact ("The Daily Kos has written that the Earth is flat.") even if it's not reliable for claims of external fact ("The Earth is flat.").
"since it's reporting on election statistics, which is information about facts" In the use case examples given, I don't see that it's reporting on election statistics. It appears to be predicting future human behavior by rating a particular congressional seat as "Lean D" or "Safe R" prior to an actual election occurring. Predictions of future human behavior are almost always opinions and are undefinable as either fact or fiction due to the linear perception of time the humans editing this encyclopedia experience. Whatever means TDK used to form its opinion — polling aggregates, quantitative analysis of historic trends,
WP:DUE, in my opinion, not of RS. Chetsford (talk
) 03:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Is a statement by Governor Cuomo enough to call an incident terrorism at Terrorism in the United States ?

It's this edit[27] that concerns me (I've reverted it twice). Its article, Monsey Hanukkah stabbing also only has Cuomo as a source. In October 2019 we had an RfC at Talk:List of terrorist incidents[28] that determined that list entries should only be included if "The incident is notable (has a stand-alone article), and (2) the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism"." I guess as Terrorism in the United States albeit being a standalone list is technically not covered by the RfC, the principal still seems sensible. It's also relevant that the perpetrator " had a long history of serious mental illness and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia the year before the attack. He was charged in state court with five counts of attempted murder and one count of first-degree burglary, and in federal court on federal hate crime charges. A federal judge ruled him incompetent to stand trial on the federal charges." He is now in a mental facility. I'm not convinced that any act by such a person can be classified as terrorism, and I'll also note that by calling this terrorism we are calling him a terrorist, which looks to me like a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • No. The Governor's comments are not themselves an RS, if other sources aren't calling it that it doesn't belong on the list. GirthSummit (blether) 12:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    I'll add that I agree it's a BLP violation, which would imply a
    WP:3RRNO exemption for anyone reverting its addition unless RSes are presented. GirthSummit (blether)
    13:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No per Girth Summit, and also - why is the perpetrator's skin colour mentioned in the first sentence? Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No It might be for his claim it is (with attribution), but as he is not the US government nor a federal agency hard to see why its relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No We base the description on weight, that is, how it is unusually described in news or expert sources. Another way of looking at it is that government officials use non-standards definitions of terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes with qualifications to the general question but No in the specific use case. As terrorism is an attack on the corpus of the state, the controlling mind of the state is a RS to qualify whether or not a particular act is terrorism. Cuomo is the head of state and chief of government of New York and is the personification of the state of New York. That said, I agree that linking the term to named individuals - instead of a more general, amorphous incident - would be a BLP violation and should be policed in the manner done in this instance. As well, if it's clear he was using hyperbole, speaking in a personal capacity, or a preponderance of RS dispute the incident as terrorism, it would be inappropriate to describe it as such. Unrelated to this question, I agree with Black Kite, etc., that the race of the alleged perpetrator should not be mentioned in the first sentence (or at all, unless it's directly relevant to the attack). Chetsford (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No, largely per others. Statements by politicians, no matter how prominent, are not generally reliable for statements in Wikipedia's voice, particularly in contentious situations. Cuomo is a primary source whose views likely warrant mention, but that's about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No, a statement by a politician or leader is absolutely not usable as a source for article-voice statements of fact. If it is covered by secondary sources, we can cover it, with attribution, as their opinion, but stating that something is terrorism in the article voice requires an
    WP:RS purposes; that is to say, nobody is exerting editorial control or fact-checking over Cuomo's statements here. --Aquillion (talk
    ) 12:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Fryderyk Chopin Institute

Is the Fryderyk Chopin Institute reliable for claims about pianists? Its page on Fou Ts'ong refers to an album called The Pianistic Art of Fou Ts'ong – which apparently has quite complimentary things to say about Fou in its liner notes – which I cannot verify the existence of in other reliable sources, at WorldCat, or at Discogs. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Reliable The institute's materials have been cited by RS about both Chopin and other pianists [29], [30], [31]; there has been a minor point of controversy as to whether or not it may have obfuscated one historical perspective on Chopin [32], but even that question seems unresolved and not so expansive as to indicate a possible falsification of information. Rather, it seems to be a framing controversy, which is a routine dispute in historicism. Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    Hm, perhaps the key lies with the fact that the album was, according to their profile, a "private issue". Fwiw, it's also referred to in this obit from a major Portuguese newspaper (as A arte pianística …) I'd never heard of a non-public record album before, but you learn new things every day … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    Amongst other things, the Institute runs the
    Ivo Pogorelich in 1980. The Institute organises The Chopin Review which lists its editorial board, including John Rink, Professor of Music Performance at the University of Cambridge. He is reliable on pianists. Here is a detailed article citing Fou Ts'ong where Rink is mentioned. I haven't looked at the obituaries of Fou Ts'ong. Mathsci (talk
    ) 01:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Golf course website

Can this[33] be used in golf course articles as to either the existence of a course or its ranking. An administrator @Billinghurst: has been removing it out of Beaconsfield Golf Club with the following explanations- 'site non-authoritative, requires accepting cookies,' 'these were spammed which was why they were removed', and 're-read the history, the original author didn't add the spam; look at who did and all the articles that they added the spam'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Who ae they?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Questionable as it appears, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, to be largely based on user-generated reviews [34]? Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • They were link spammed us back in 2017 per User:COIBot/LinkReports/top100golfcourses.com with their rankings; we removed at the time. I don't see how their ranking criteria can be relied upon without evident criteria and by an experts, no evidence of expertise of rating, etc.. I see nothing that makes them a reliable source with where their information is sourced. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

New research on ancient indian history and dating

In last few years, some of the following people have come up with original research, theories - with widespread corraboration and proofs about India / Indic / Vedic civilization going back a few thousand years. This point of view aligns very well with the local knowledge and belief system as well, and when scientific proofs are provided, it helps convert "myth" into the proper history.

There are plenty of videos, articles, books - wherein these research have been collated. Some of them are cited here. Recently, I added a bit of information in the Mahabharata page based on this research. The edit was reverted and it was quoted that the author of the book (Nilesh Oak) is a chemical engineer and not an academic.

I would like to ask / understand - on what basis does a piece of information become acceptable in wikipedia ?

https://www.amazon.ca/Historic-Rama-Indian-Civilization-Pleistocene/dp/1494949466/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1C8CJCQ6ZDBG8&dchild=1&keywords=nilesh+oak&qid=1609346676&sprefix=nilesh%2Caps%2C329&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/When-Did-Mahabharata-War-Happen-ebook/dp/B005CDXTTO/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1C8CJCQ6ZDBG8&dchild=1&keywords=nilesh+oak&qid=1609346694&sprefix=nilesh%2Caps%2C329&sr=8-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGyjvyXEKdc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsyi4zYHP0

https://sangamtalks.org/dr-raj-vedam/

https://www.amazon.ca/Breaking-India-Interventions-Dravidian-Faultlines/dp/8191067374/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1609346867&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/9385485016/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i6

Isnt this enough to prove that the so called "mainstream" indian history need to be revisited ?

talk
)

Who is Neelakandan?Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, see if
Neelakandan is any help! Johnbod (talk
) 17:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that does not mention he is an Author or historian.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No, and these Hindutva theories are decades old, not "new". P. N. Oak was publishing from the 1960s until his death in 2007. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
its not Neelakandan, rather Nilesh Oak (Nilesh Nilkanth Oak). And, thats just one person, my references are not limited to him. Rather, a different perspective on Indian history, which differs from the so called "mainstram". P N Oak and Nilesh Oak share a surname, nothing else - i.e. they are not related. Even if you want to refer to P N Oak's work - the scientific proofs coming up these days - are definitely new.
talk
)
"by Neelakandan (Author)", so why is what not "Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" (and who is Nilesh Nilkanth Oak)?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where you are getting this name - Neelkandan. Here is a bit about [Oak]
"Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines Hardcover – Jan. 1 2017 by Neelakandan (Author)" the Amazon page you linked to.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
well, I was referring to the book, and the first author - Rajiv Malhotra.
talk
) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
AS to Mr Oak, what are his credentials?Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure what kind of credentials are you looking for ? The link I pointed to - google search page about him - isn’t that a starting point enough ?
talk
) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, has he been published in any peer-reviewed astronomical journal, does he have any qualifications in Astronomy (or in fact any degrees in any subject)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Aravinda Neeklandan appears to be the author of the Breaking India book, and the only thing I could find about him is that he has a number of self published books and that he is at present an author with
WP:PROFRINGE. Tayi Arajakate Talk
20:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
WDR, how are you able to discredit the works based on astronomical evidences ? Have you got evidence to the contrary? Btw, I m not suggesting that whatever he and others are saying is 100% correct; rather that this narrative is worth being considered as a perspective in the overall document on Mahabharata and Ramayana etc.
talk
) 23:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
S raghu20, basically speaking, the "astronomical evidences" are just made up. The rest is all pareidolia. There is literally no reason why we should take some guy's internet ramblings as a "narrative worth being considered as a perspective in the overall document on Mahabharata and Ramayana". There are thousands of reliable scholars who have reputable qualifications in both Sanskritology and astronomy; there is literally no reason to credit these claims, which are based on nothing at all. GPinkerton (talk
) 03:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

I'm really not an expert here - but I feel like the [chicagotribune.com Chicago Tribune] should definitely make the list? It's a reliable and widely circulated newspaper in the United States. I found it cited in over 500 articles.

talk
) 22:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It is already considered a reliable source. The reason it isn't on the list is that it's reliability has not been seriously challenged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@
talk
) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
They have been challenged in the past, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on reliability of apple fan sources 9to5Mac, AppleInsider, and MacRumors

These sources are all used on the Apple Inc. article as well as other apple related articles such as Beddit. There hasn't really been any discussion on these source's reliablity on RSN apart from this short post and thread, which is why I came here to ask what your guys' thoughts are on these sources and their reliability. X-Editor (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Reliable if considered reliable by RS A cursory search on Google News for the phrase "according to 9to5Mac" finds that its original reporting has been sourced by CNET [35], Ars Technica [36], the Hindustan Times [37], and others. Since it also has a gatekeeping process, a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes, and my (very cursory) search sees no evidence its reporting has been questioned or discredited by RS, this indicates to me it's RS. If AppleInsider and MacRumors have the same qualities, they should be reliable, too. Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

hotairengines.org

  1. hotairengines.org
  2. Stirling_engine
  3. Early hot air engines

This source has been used on the listed article and on several others related to the technology being discussed, ie hot air engines and several inventors. This website has a single author who cites difficult-to-verify sources that all appear to have been published earlier than 1900. In the instance cited above, the entire subsection has only that one website for 12 references, and places where several more would have been appropriate under different circumstances.

My biggest problem with this is the website author seems to have put his personal bias on the presentation of facts and their importance to the scientific community. Also, I haven't been able to confirm that Isaac Woerlen, whose only point of contact is through LinkedIn, has the 'chops' to be relied upon so heavily. Does he have a degree relative to the subject matter?

I'm inclined to believe that rather than this author being cited, an editor might chase down his sources and use them.  — Myk Streja (beep) 21:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited at hotairengines.org are primary sources. Woerlen seems to have done a great job aggregating historical facts and diagrams into the website, which would make it a secondary source, as Wikipedia prefers. IMHO the website is a good one, but your concern about the author's opinion is valid. Woerlen's opinions are not notable unless there is secondary coverage of him, I think; so judgements like "most important" should be discarded. The facts are not controversial, are they? Thundermaker (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Newsopener.com a reliable source?

It's used at Eton College controversies to source the statement "Lord Bellingham wrote to the Times to say that Old Etonians would be withholding over £2 million in donations to the College as long as Henderson remained in post because of his 'woeful handling of this issue'"[38] (yes, that's the link, nothing to do with Lord Bellingham or Eton, this must be what was intended[39]). Doug Weller talk 15:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I'd say not, but it's straight copyvio from The Times, so the actual statement seems true. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Designers & Dragons

Is Designers & Dragons [40] (various editions) an RS for (a) general information, (b) BLPs about game designers, (c) non-BLP information about games? Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Not reliable for A, B, or C. RS do not consider it, or the author, RS, to wit: (1) a cursory check on Google News finds it cited by no RS (there is a single mention, in a quotation, in a WIRED article); (2) a check on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, and Google News finds no non-fiction writing bylined by the author (Shannon Applecline) in RS; there is no evidence the book has been reviewed in any mainstream publication (e.g. Publisher's Weekly, New York Review of Books, etc.) or an indexed, scholarly journal. In addition, this is the only non-fiction book published by the publishing house ("Evil Hat Productions"), and the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but
    WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Chetsford (talk
    ) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for A, B and C - the previous discussion of this source found that it was Generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements. In other words, the previous consensus was Yes to the current questions A and C and No to B. However, I do not see any policy-compliant objection presented in that discussion to the use of Designers & Dragons for non-controversial BLP information, so I would like to see the RSN finding corrected on that point.
Also, Chetsford who is posing this question now claims that the book's cover page lists only an author, no editor, indicating it is all but
WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I do not know what publication Chetsford is looking at, but the four-volume version in my possession (ISBNs 978-1-61317-075-5, 978-1-61317-081-6, 978-61317-084-7 and 978-61317-087-8) credits in each case Shannon Appelcline as the author, John Adams as the editor, Evil Hat Productions as the publisher and 2014 as the copyright date (along with 9 other Evil Hat staff involved in the publication). Definitely not self-published, and independent except when dealing with Evil Hat Productions itself. Newimpartial (talk
) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wired's write up on the book seems pretty positive for the case that it is an RS. [41] ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable for A and C, marginal for B generally and unreliable in the case of controversial claims about BLPs the book seems to have seen proper editorial oversight but I do not trust Evil Hat to have proper arrangements for making controversial claims about BLPs. I think that it is fine for the
    WP:NOTPAPER explicitly states that we should have more content than a paper encyclopedia like Designers and Dragons. ~ El D. (talk to me
    ) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Rahul roy is sign Director Aaron Nagar so please ad the detail in aarun nagar wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp21btQMtI&list=UUTXmPRRlEkGaQNSsuExg43A

YouTube isn't a reliable source, so the source can't be added to the article in question. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2021
YouTube is typically a publisher and not a source so it's not generally considered "reliable" or "unreliable". ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
True, but in this case, it doesn't look like the most reliable source, which is kinda what I was trying to say. X-Editor (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2021

Sources for noteability of "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams"

A page on "Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams" (FIRST) was rapidly deleted. In refusing a request to undelete the page

neutrally
written article may be possible. ..."

There are references to FIRST that go beyond mere mentions in The Baltimore Sun[1] and The Wall Street Journal[2]. As far as I can see these are both reliable sources. However if two sources is not sufficient to establish notability, then I need advice on the following:

networkworld

networkworld has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is networkworld a reliable source?

The article in question is by Ellen Messmer who is a "senior editor at Network World, an IDG publication and website, where she covers news and technology trends related to information security." According to their About Us page, Network World does not publish contributed articles. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

bluekaizen

bluekaizen has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is bluekaizen a reliable source?

Whether this is reliable or not is probably moot. The link above redirects to sites that my adblocker blocks - please consider my question on this source to be removed. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

elvocero

elvocero has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is elvocero a reliable source?

The full title of the publication is el Vocero de Puerto Rico. According to google translate "el Vocero" is "the Spokesman". This 2017 article was by José Carmona who, according to the 2019 Conócenos (know us) page, "Graduated Cum Laude from the Universidad del Sagrado Corazón, he has 20 years of journalistic experience in the United States and Puerto Rico covering issues of economy, finance, technology, and the automotive industry."[3] In 2019 there were 25 people on the "know us" page and 18 today. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

internethealthreport

internethealthreport has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is internethealthreport a reliable source?

The Internet Health Report is an annual publication of the Mozilla Foundation published in English, German, Spanish, French and Portugese. This article was in the 2018 report and the read me page from that year stated "A prototype of this report was published in January 2017 and was followed by an open, public discussion about metrics, several meetings with allies, and the establishment of a smaller “Report Coalition” to support content creation."[4] Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

tradearabia

tradearabia has an article that makes extensive reference to FIRST. Is tradearabia a reliable source?

Under "About Us" at the bottom of every page on the tradearabia.com website there are two links to the tradearabia contact page titled "Contact" and "Feedback". Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the above are reliable sources but would appreciate feedback before proceeding. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources can be reliable, but to show an article is notable they have to be independent too. These are two different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell all of the articles I am asking about are independent of the subject and I have not found any evidence to the contrary. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Newspapers.com
    .
  2. ^ Isaac, Anna (18 September 2019). "Huawei Suspended From Global Forum Aimed at Combating Cybersecurity Breaches". The Wall Street Journal. New York. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  3. ^ 2019-02-26 version of elvocero "know us" page from web.archive.org
  4. ^ Internet Health Report 2018 Readme page

Nithyananda

Is this Telegraph India article a reliable source to use in this BLP? It's been used heavily in the article. Also, I think that page needs protection, but I'm not sure what kind or even if I'll be able to justify it again (I've successfully had it protected before), it'd be nice if someone looked into that. Thanks in advance. Please ping when you reply Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph India article appears alright, it has quotations from him which should be attributed in the article as well if that hasn't been done. I don't see it being heavily used in the article though? Tayi Arajakate Talk
20:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
See also followup discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Nithyananda again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned

The issue at hand is to determine the reliability of a Washington Post newspaper article and, by association, a sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", within the article.

Your feedback about <The reliability of an article in the Washington Post has been questioned> would be appreciated on this talk page discussion where the disagreement about the reliability of the Washington Post article and its contained sentence was initiated.

I have made a post to the

WP:NEWSBLOG
be revised as it is too vague to be useful in resolving the issue concerning the reliability of the Washington Post newspaper article.

Although the

WP:NEWSBLOG
policy is not to be resolved at "Reliable Sources", here is some background concerning the difficulty that prompts my request.

The
WP:NEWSBLOG
policy is:

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online

columns they call blogs
. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.

The issue with the
WP:NEWSBLOG policy is that it does not define "blog" with any precision. Simply saying a "blog" is an "online column" isn't much of a definition. Yes, it refers to the Wikipedia article Blog
, but that is whatever Wikipedia editors decide it might be, whenever they decide to alter it with having the constraints involved when writing a Wikipedia policy.
It seems that a definition of what is considered a "blog" would include, but not be limited to, the key elements of a blog, such as:
Immediate access to readers
Highly interactive
No set deadline or publishing schedule
No fixed length
Relies on comments
More casual in tone
Continuous conversation

Here are the particulars concerning my "Reliability" dilemma:

I have had an encounter with @PackMecEng: who claims that a Washington Post article was not creditable because it was from a "blog".
A link to the article is promoted by the Washington Post on a page called Morning Mix - Stories from all over. It explains itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world."
The Washington Post calls a collection of links to some of its newspaper articles a "blog". It is an unfortunate name to define its genre. It isn't a "blog", it doesn't look like a blog, it doesn't smell like a blog, and it does not act like a blog.
The article in question is:
PackMecEng asserts that because the "source" of this article on the Washington Post website is called a "blog", it is not a reliable/creditable article. PackMecEng continues to argue this position and refuses to be collaborative in working to obtain a resolution as PackMecEng values only PackMecEng's opinion. PackMecEng particularly dislikes and discredits this sentence from the newspaper article:

Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation.

which I want to use in the lead for the article
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump
.
PackMecEng has posited various arguments, but in the end, the final position is that the article is from a "blog" and is therefore not reliable. I disagree. The circuitous argument that ensued concerning the news article's reliability can be found on this talk page discussion
Here is a DIFF that shows the first time that my edit was altered by PackMecEng. The sentence, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation", was deleted.
PackMecEng's edit is disingenuous as the reference to the disputed "not creditable" newspaper article remains for the edited sentence. The edited sentence contains other information from the disputed "not creditable" newspaper article.

Please help me by determining the reliability of this article so I can end, one way or another, the argument which PackMecEng continues to prolong.

Osomite hablemos 06:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a neutral question I think this is a problematic question since it is far from neutral. Additionally, you are disparaging a respected editor. PackMecEng may be outspoken on some topics but they are not prone to trying to draw out arguments. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think one issue is the sentence, "Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" ('prodigious' compared to what)? I think the wording could be improved because this is a somewhat subjective assertion that, unless tweaked to be more objectively worded, probably shouldn't be in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I think "a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is a fair paraphrasing when it involves someone who managed to make over 20,000 newsworthy false claims in 1,267 days.[42]. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The objective claim is that Trump made "over 20,000 newsworthy false claims in 1,267 days". The subjective claim is that this constitutes being "a prodigious spreader of misinformation". (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: That's an average of 15.79 newsworthy lies per day. What's your numeric threshold for "prodigious"? I think any sane person would agree that's WAY over the minimum frequency required to use the adjective. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:WIKIVOICE. (t · c) buidhe
00:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The phrasing "prodigious spreader of misinformation" is not the kind of thing we say in wiki-voice, but there doesn't appear to be a reliability issue with the source. It's a non-opinion item published by a national newspaper of record that exercises editorial control over their website; in this case, "blog" is like "News in Brief".
talk
) 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree that this is not a blog article as NEWSBLOG concerns itself with, but it is subjective use of "prodigious" in wikivoice that is a problem. --Masem (t) 05:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This whole discussion is kind of stupid, given that one can just as readily cite the 20,000 number without having to worry about whether the other comment is editorializing. This really isn't the hill anyone should be committing to die upon. Mangoe (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Baháʼí journals

Hi, hope you're doing well. I've been directed here from the Teahouse. My question is about

WP:RSE
. I'll just copy my post from there.

At

WP:RS
, it says:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

On the other hand, at

WP:RSE
, it says:

In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.

The

Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether
, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?

Extra note: the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is run by the Association for Baháʼí Studies (specifically the Australian branch), which works closely with the Baháʼí religious leadership of Australia, and everything submitted to it is reviewed and approved by the Baháʼí religious leadership. There are no non-Baháʼís on the editorial board, nor are they welcome to join the board. So I would normally think it shouldn't be cited, except perhaps to say "Baháʼí author XYZ has argued..." However, after an editor mentioned
WP:RSE I am now uncertain. Is it okay to use a journal outside the scholarly mainstream because it shows opinion within a religion? That's what the excerpt from WP:RSE I shared above seems to say, but I'm concerned this would introduce a lot of pro-Baháʼí POV. There are also some other Baháʼí journals with similar issues. Gazelle55 (talk
) 02:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks Chetsford, that makes sense. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

'Sludge' magazine article on Douglas Murray's video for PragerU

In 2018, Sludge magazine ran an article[43] about the video

Prager University "The Suicide of Europe", which was published on PragerU's website and on YouTube. Note that the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. The Sludge article was highly critical of the video, saying, among other things, that its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' "evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'" says that Murray "energizes white nationalists" and takes issue with some of the specific claims made in the video. Frankly, I believe that this source is being repeatedly removed from Murray's wiki page for ideological rather than evidentiary reasons. Other sources from Middle East Eye, Southern Poverty Law Center and Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative,[44]
which aims to document anti-Muslim sentiment, were repeatedly removed from Murray's page with scant justification as well. I've engaged in discussions on Murray's talk page but they've proved fairly fruitless.

A few reasons why I think the Sludge article is a reliable source:

Sludge has been addressed in these forums before, in 2018.[50] However, Sludge is now two years old and for the reasons listed, I think it deserves to be treated as a fairly reliable source - and I am just treating as a source of opinion, not looking to speak in Wikipedia's voice.Noteduck (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A two man band barely seems any better than simply being self-published, regardless of the authors credentials, and therefore should not be used for claims regarding living persons per
Wikipedia:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I disagree with the "two-man band" assessment. Sludge may only have two paid employees but they certainly have other contributors - eg see [51] See also that they've had other reporters at different times - under the heading "The Sludge team"[52]. Furthermore, I don't believe they're anything like self-published when they mention that they receive funding from a 501(c)3 non-profit organization called the Participatory Politics Foundation - see again[53] I think if Sludge is to be reject as an unreliable source, it has quite regrettable implications for any small-scale journalism project Noteduck (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Funding seems to be a red herring here. We are talking about whether they are self-published not who funds them. They could be funded by the New York Times, the Washigton Post, CNN, the Guardian, the BBC etc but if all the content was written by Alex Kotch and they were also the one who decided what content to publish, it would still self-published. This doesn't seem to be what happens here or at least that story lists both a writer and an editor, so the question is whether that editorial process is robust enough to allay concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
AS said above it does not seem to really be an SPS, but what is their reputation for accuracy?11:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that Sludge has only been around for two years it's not surprising that there have not been many discussions regarding its veracity as a source. I did find this[54] which lists Sludge as having a "left-wing bias" but gives it a higher "factual reporting" rating than, say, The Guardian, so I'm not sure what we can infer from that. However, we can conclude that:

  • the story lists both a writer and an editor, so there was some degree of editorial control
  • both the writer and editor are highly experienced journalists and not amateurs
  • the journalist mentions that he interviewed Mark Pitcavage in his capacity as an expert working for the ADL. Would Pitcavage have lent his name and the ADL's considerable clout to a publication he considered low quality?

IMO, Sludge seems small-scale but fairly intellectually rigorous and reliable. Noteduck (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As bias is not a reason to reject, but factual reporting is a reason to keep, its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The two man nature of the source was also raised by Kyohyi in this BLP discussion about Murray [[55]]. If nothing else such a new and limited source shouldn't be given weight as it isn't well established and is being used to make negative, critical claims about a BLP subject. Also, when one reviews the article itself the writing style leans heavily on using appeals to emotion and loaded terms rather than facts and logic. That also says this isn't a good source for controversial claims. Springee (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, which is not to say it's unreliable. Unlike journalists or academics, Wikipedians can't engage in independent content analysis of a source, its funding, the credentials of its staff, etc., to determine if it's reliable or not; our only modus is to see if reliable sources consider it reliable. A cursory search on Google News of the phrases "according to Sludge" and "Sludge Magazine reported" finds no examples of RS citing Sludge (I did find one example of Sludge being cited in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, but not by the Daily Hampshire Gazette - it was in an op-ed column [56]). As it's only two years old this is probably to be expected and, while it's not reliable now, that's of a qualitatively different value than saying it's unreliable. At some point in the future it may become reliable. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Springee: You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "appeals to emotion and loaded terms" as distinct from "facts and logic". As I've noted on Murray's discussion page, this must be placed within a worrying context of multiple sources that don't accord with Murray's self-identification as a moderate conservative being removed[57]
@Chetsford: Here's the Sludge video being cited by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative [58]. This is an academic project with an impressive team credited with writing its articles[59]. The Bridge Initiative is another source that has been repeatedly removed from Douglas Murray's page.Noteduck (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The Georgetown reference is good and, I agree, RS. But a single example of a source being cited by RS is insufficient to demonstrate that source is considered reliable by other reliable sources (plural). If I look hard enough I can find a single example of a RS sourcing
WP:DUE, of course). Chetsford (talk
) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chetsford: Sludge seems to co-publish and get re-published by multiple other left-leaning news organizations.[61][62][63] Here's another few articles from different sources approvingly citing Sludge[64][65][66][67]
OK, you convinced me. I don't believe Jacobin Magazine is RS. The Salon story seems to be reporting about Sludge, rather than citing Sludge, which isn't a demonstration that it considers Sludge reliable. That said, American Prospect and Politico are, of course, RS, as is
WP:DUE and if the material in question only appears in Sludge and nowhere else that may not be sufficient, but that's a discussion that can be had at the article's Talk page, I imagine. Chetsford (talk
) 03:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that goes quite to the level of establishing the source is generally reliable, especially when we are using it to say negative things about a BLP subject. I do agree that it didn't establish weight for inclusion regardless. Springee (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: the relevant question is not whether the source is generally reliable but whether the source is reliable in context. The argument in terms of weight is very weak. As I've mentioned in this thread, the video has 7 million plus videos on PragerU's website and is, by a considerable margin, the most-viewed video when you type "Douglas Murray" into YoutTube's search bar. Here is a mention of the video in Media Matters[68] and the LA Times[69] For academic mentions of the video, see Simon Strick, "The Alternative Right, Masculinities, and Ordinary Affect" inRight-Wing Populism and Gender eds. Gabriele Dietze, Julia Roth, p 217 [70], and of course, the Bridge Initiative's page on PragerU[71] Noteduck (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you should ask if this source is DUE in context. Sludge is clearly not a source with a lot of weight. Thus an opinion of this video published by Sludge should not be given weight in this article. If other sources (and Media Matters is not a good one) say this video is significant, fine, use them. I think what you are missing is this is a BLP and thus the standards for including negative content are high. Note that the LA Times article about PragerU only says Murray was featured in a video. It doesn't say the things Sludge says about the video or Murray. Per the recent article talk page post it appears there are a number of academic/academic press articles that talk about Murray so it shouldn't be an issue to find better sources. However, it would probably be best to avoid sources that don't discuss Murray in detail. By that I mean a source that says, "some far right writers such as ... Murray." are generally poor. They are in a sense, mentions in passing. A better case would be a source that says, "Murray is X because they published [this] and [this]." The difference is in the first case the source just tells us something and we have only the author's credentials to back that claim. In the second case the author shows via an explanation why something is the case. We should be doing the same thing in Wikipedia articles. It sounds like there should be sufficient sourcing for this so no reason to use lower quality (either in terms of general quality/weight like Sludge or ones where Murray is secondary to the topic of the article). Springee (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: You've again asserted that Sludge is low quality/weight when this noticeboard discussion has established the opposite. You're setting the evidentiary bar unattainably high. You haven't responded to my points about the high visibility of PragerU nor the millions of views Murray's video has received. The central theme of the Sludge article has been echoed again and again in academic and journalistic commentary. @Buidhe: I'd be interested to know your thoughts on thisNoteduck (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes I've asserted it. This noticeboard discussion does not say the opposite. That the PragerU video has millions of views doesn't make the Sludge assessment of that video DUE. If the NYT did an assessment of that video then I would agree it's DUE. If the central theme of the Sludge article is echoed by better source why should we cite Sludge? Springee (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
"You've again asserted that Sludge is low quality/weight when this noticeboard discussion has established the opposite." The point of discussion is to exchange different ideas, not to get everyone organized into battalion formation. Disagreement is permitted on Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Noteduck has restored the disputed content sourced to Sludge. I do not believe this discussion reached a consensus that Sludge would be either reliable or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking about this edit? It looks like there eight other sources, several of them (at a glance, at least) academic in nature - it doesn't seem like Sludge is the locus of dispute there anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Re USEBYOTHERS, the author seems to have a fair few citations (fourth onwards here: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22alex+kotch%22&btnG= ) for articles written in elsewhere. This Cambridge University Press book cites his Sludge article on Tucker Carlson. This peer-reviewed public health journal article cites his Sludge piece on tobacco lobbying. Also a couple of citations in PhD dissertations.[78][79] Not sure if this is a legit journal but another journal citation on Islamophobia: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1067597 I think this is probably a reliable source for a non-extraordinary claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this sufficient to establish weight? Springee (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That discussion is probably better had at the article talk page. Jlevi (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Eye Opinion article on Douglas Murray by Nafeez Ahmed

This is a source that was used on the page of conservative commentator Douglas Murray.

  • Nafeez Ahmed, "White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall," Middle East Eye, 9 March 2015[80]

Note that it's listed under Opinion>Human Rights. Observe that

Sydney Morning Herald etc and also has academic publications to his name, eg[81] and quite a few books.[82] See on his website[83] and [84]

Two passages in the article for Douglas Murray quoted Ahmed's article in order to make the following points:

  1. "Murray's views have been described as proximate to the
    far right
    by a number of academic and journalistic sources" (note two other journalistic sources referring to Murray as "far right" were used.
  2. "Murray views have been described as a form of
    far-right entryism
    ".

Both these claims were derived from the passage in the Ahmed article which read:

"I'm not sure Murray’s screed against the free speech of those asking questions about the intelligence services is ironic given that in a separate Wall Street Journal comment, he laments that the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen prove the West is losing the war on “free speech” being waged by Islamists. But Murray’s concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism."

It has repeatedly been argued that references to Ahmed's article should not be used on the basis it is not a RS, undue weight, appealing to emotion etc. It's true that the Ahmed article is an opinion piece, but note that the excerpts are never phrased in Wiki's voice and that the article merely notes that Murray "has been described" as

far right according to Ahmed. This comes amidst an unfortunate context of vandalism and tendentious editing on Murray's page. It's the academic consensus that Murray's views can best be described as far-right, alt-right, Islamophobic, white nationalist or some combination thereof[85][86][87][88]
, so the point Ahmed is making is hardly novel.

Any help would be appreciated! Does this belong on Murray's page or not? Noteduck (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the source is relevant for Ahmed's opinion, and I'd say his opinion is DUE. The phrase "Far right entryism" also is a good summary of what many academic sources have said about Murray. (t · c) buidhe 02:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe I wholeheartedly agree and think it should be restored to the page. Unfortunately this source has been repeatedly removed from the page. Springee I'm interested to know what you think of this, given that you've been repeatedly critical of MEE as a source. Noteduck (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Forum Shopping Noteduck, this exact source is being discussed just up the page [[89]]. Springee (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee this thread pertains specifically to the Ahmed source. Can you answer the question of whether you agree with Buidhe and me that the above quote from the article linking Murray to the far right belongs on the page? Noteduck (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This exact article is being discussed in the other thread. Others have already weighed in there. Springee (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion

The following book is written by

National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada (1983–91). The book is published by Baha'i Publishing Trust. Is it a reliable source on the history of Baha'i Faith? Taha (talk
) 17:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (2002). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Baha'i Publishing.

ISBN 978-1-931847-06-3
. Retrieved 2021-01-02.

Given his obvious COI, no I would say not, nor the facts its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
In-universe, probably promotional source, so likely not. There ought to be plenty of histories of the religion from without; generally more reliable independent sources. GPinkerton (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with using such a source judiciously -- obviously not for self-serving or exceptional claims. Do you have examples of where it's being used? Do you object to them? --JBL (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@
talk
) 17:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Taha. This is en.wiki; no discussion that we have here has any bearing on the policies or content at fa.wiki (and vice-versa). --JBL (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@
talk
) 18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@User:JayBeeEllThe book is used to summarize the content of the letters of Baha'ullah to the Pope and some rulers and monarchs of the time which are not found in other sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have moved your comment to the correct location. If we're still talking about things happening on fa.wiki, I don't have anything to add (I do not speak Farsi and would not edit there); if we're now talking about en.wiki, a link to a relevant article would be great. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The source is valid. First of all the first publisher of the book is Harper & Row which is a credible publisher, and secondly the book is used to summarize the content of the letters of Baha'ullah to the Pope and some rulers and monarchs of the time which are not found in other sources; this is not a contested theme that different sources have different opinions on. Finally even Baha'i Publishing Trust is a valid publisher due to WP:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Policies are pretty clear that it's a reliable source and can be used in context even if it has bias.

WP:BIASED
:

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.

Also

WP:WIKIVOICE
:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@
talk
) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this section into a battleground, but I would really appreciate some clarity on
see here), I got the impression that religious sources of the sort mentioned in WP:RSE were useful to establish the perspective of believers in a given religious viewpoint, not to reliably source scientific or historical fact. Have I understood correctly? I also want to note that WP:RSE is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. Gazelle55 (talk
) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@
talk
) 23:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Taha Juan Cole has a degree, but he is absolutely not a neutral source. He has a negative bias just like Baha'i authors typically have a positive bias and it would be inappropriate to describe him as a neutral academic observer. If you intend to include Cole then Hatcher should be allowed and both treated according to the policies I quoted above. If you want to raise the standard of sources, then find someone like Margit Warburg. Cuñado ☼ - Talk
00:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Gazelle55 and Taha.
just like Well, no, obviously not "just like" -- adherents of a religion have a very particular problem serving as commentators on their own religion that is not similar to any problems that might be held by anyone else (except maybe apostates). --JBL (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, JayBeeEll. Though to clarify on behalf of Cuñado, Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin are apostates from the Baha'i Faith. They were Baha'i scholars who were essentially forced out of the religion because they were perceived as deviating from the orthodoxy of the religion in their work and have since written critically about it. I believe that is what Cuñado meant by them having personal conflicts. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks -- I've read Cole's blogging on and off over the years, but never picked up that fact about him. --JBL (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In the case of Cole, he accidentally sent an email to the wrong listserv describing his plans to covertly subvert Baha'i institutions, then when he was confronted about it he resigned and wrote a subversive piece attacking Baha'is with unprofessional accusations of sexual misconduct, bigotry, and authoritarianism. "deviating from the orthodoxy" had very little to do with it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The ill-fated email was about getting reformist views out in a non-confrontational way despite Baha'i leaders' repeated actions to quash them, not about the broader accusations he made later. Anyone can read it here. His articles were published in respected academic journals and so are
WP:RS. I agree the picture they paint may be exaggerated, but we achieve balance by contrasting with other sources. Gazelle55 (talk
) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@
talk
) 14:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

When can we use The Social Crediter published by the far-right and anti-Semitic Australian League of Rights

I didn't expect to be back here quite so soon, but just ran into it being used for this edit[90] in Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. I removed it as clearly not a reliable source for that edit. It's used in other articles.[91]. Other than for itself, I can't think of any reason to use it at all. Here's a link to the journal.[92] Doug Weller talk 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There have to be better sources available, especially for anything that isn't
WP:ABOUTSELF (and even then yikes, use with GREAT caution). IHateAccounts (talk
) 15:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I cannot image that anything from it should ever be used except for WP:ABOUTSELF. -
Location (talk
) 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Music surveys

Recently on Please Please Me (song) I attempted to include relevant information about the spelling "Beattles" being on the 17 January 1964 and 24 January 1964 WLS Silver Dollar Surveys. However, Sundayclose objected to sources such as oldiesloon or www.las-solanas.com as being "self-published", even though oldiesloon is currently referenced just a few sentences earlier, even in the very same article and in many other articles, and without providing any alternative source.

I see no evidence that either source is "self-published". For example, I see no means by which anyone could contribute to either site, at least in any direct sense. After reading suggested articles that supposedly deal with such things, I am now more confused than I have ever been.

Clearly the surveys exist. I have a copy of each. The problem seems to be finding a source for such surveys without running afoul of a myriad of possible objections from Wikipedia editors. At this point I have no idea who to ask about what.

Any ideas come to mind?98.149.97.245 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question asserts that the spelling "Beattles," which the article notes was used on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys in 1963, was also used for two weeks on Silver Dollar Surveys in 1964 with respect to a different song, "I Want To Hold Your Hand." Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article. John M Baker (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources are, in fact,
self-published. They are personal websites. At least one of them invites readers to contribute. What is the basis for claiming that a personal website is not self-published? Regarding your copy of the survey, where did you get it? Is it in a publication? Sundayclose (talk
) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


"Regardless of the reliability of the source, this seems like a minor point that is only peripherally related to the subject of the article."

The point is that the spelling "Beattles" on the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys carried over to "I Want To Hold Your Hand", even after the spelling had been corrected on the record label for "Please Please Me".

From Sundayclose to me:

"I assume you mean these photos: http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-17_1.jpg [and http://www.las-solanas.com/surveys/WLS/WLS_1964-01-24_1.jpg] . On this you need more than my opinion as I am not sure whether the links to the photos would be considered reliable since the source on which they are posted is not reliable. It's certainly better than just linking the website's transcription of the surveys.

"Post the links at WP:RSN and see what others think.

"You have to be patient; you're not going to get a lot of comments quickly. But if you get some support over the next couple of weeks and no serious opposition, that would be good enough for me. If you don't get much response there after a couple of weeks, another option later is a WP:RFC at Talk:Please Please Me (song). That probably will generate some attention. By the way, another editor pointed out a completely different issue: whether the misspelling in the surveys is notable enough to be included in a discussion of the misspelling by Vee-Jay. I don't have an opinion either way on that." Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts?98.149.97.245 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The actual source here is the WLS Silver Dollar Surveys themselves; the website in question is merely the host for the source. And you would be citing these not for the substantive information presented (most of which, including the name of the song, is wrong anyway), but for the fact that this is what the surveys said. So the surveys should be reliable sources for what they said. I still have questions as to whether the fact that these surveys continued for a while to get the group's name wrong should be included in the article, but that is a separate issue. John M Baker (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Crux (Online Newspaper)

I recommended that Crux (online newspaper) be added a reliable source, since I could not find any mention of it here. https://cruxnow.com/ While editorially it is aligned with the Catholic Church, have a viewpoint does not make a source unreliable and most news items seem largely free of a very biased pov. They are regularly cited by The New York Times and Washington Post for information on the church and does not have a record of a failed fact-check, at least from what I have seen. What do people think? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommend Decline. This would be its first time being listed, so it would not be added to
WP:RS that would be found to cover the information. IHateAccounts (talk
) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean in regards to Church affairs or others things covered by them, which I mentioned above. I admit to being rather new at adding sources, but I thought it would be good discussion to have. Also I am a little confused by your final statement do you think that it is not solid
WP:RS and if so why? Also could you sign your posts? Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk
) 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Failing to sign was my mistake, I copied my comment back as it had an edit conflict with a comment further up.
Regarding the source, please provide the specific wording you wish to use it for and the page you want to have it included on. Regarding
WP:RS (being a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church rather than an independent entity), or (b) it is a "niche" site that has not seen enough usage to have been discussed. "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion." IHateAccounts (talk
) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Crux is not a "mouthpiece of the Catholic Church" they have had editorials that have taken issues with the Vatican and have provided numerous viewpoints on items in the Church such as the Amazon Synod, German Synod path, and others. It is not owned by the Church, it simply agrees with them on some issues like abortion, aid for the poor, and immigration. I want it to be added to the list of reliable sources listed here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or where reliable sources are listed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSP lists sources that are repeatedly the subject of reliability discussions either here, or elsewhere, and summarizes the consensus or views on those sources. The non-inclusion of a source on RSP doesn't mean that source is unreliable or unusable, only that it has not been the subject of repeated discussion. Chetsford (talk
) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable for Reporting on Catholicism; Use with Caution on Matters Related to Church Governance It is considered reliable by
WP:RS as evidenced by its reporting being cited by NBC News [93], USA Today [94], ABC News [95], etc. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. It is staffed by persons with conventional training in journalism and backgrounds in secular reporting with RS, for example John L. Allen Jr. and Inés San Martín. There is no evidence it has a newsgathering capability that would enable it to reliably report on general news, or matters not directly related to Catholicism and should not be used as a source for those subjects (i.e. elections in Thailand, zoning regulations in Fresno, etc.). According to a recent editorial statement its reporting on certain matters is done in a way that doesn't "undercut the papacy" [96]. In addition, one of its dozen or so writers appears to be an ordained priest, meaning he is part of the Church's government. Crux should, therefore, be used with caution when reporting on church governance; unextraordinary claims such as direct quotes and basic Who/What/When seems fine while analytical and investigatory reporting on church governance should not be sourced to Crux unless it can be corroborated by other RS. This is the same standard I'd expect we should use for Voice of America (but which we generally don't). Chetsford (talk
) 01:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand that, I just thought it would be helpful to use for people. Also on an edit I was making some questioned it as a source, so I thought going here would be helpful to see what others think. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, it seems perfectly fine for
WP:BLPs. "I thought going here would be helpful to see what others think." You thought right! This is the place to go. Chetsford (talk
) 02:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Your reading seems fair, but I disagree about the Church governance part. Priest like him are generally pretty low level and do not really have much say in the running of the Vatican or church bodies around the world and there are plenty of such low-ranking priest that none the less take stances that upset Church leaders, but they still remain where they are. Also I think we can add them as reliable on reporting for the Eastern Orthodox Church based on some of these articles. [97], [98], [99], [100], [101]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your statement about a priest being fairly low-level, however, I'm inclined to believe an ordained priest would be unable to weigh journalistic neutrality as a higher ethos than papal infallibility. But that's just my 0.02 and we may have to agree to disagree on this point. Some other editors may weigh-in differently. And, yes, I agree with you they would be fine for reporting on church governance in non-Latin Catholicism, like Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, etc. My comment on church governance was intended only to refer to the church in Rome; I may have expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@
Talk:October–December_2020_Polish_protests#Undue_weight_from_weak_source and there are further issues for both the wording and sourcing regarding this edit [102]. Problem #1 is that the source provided by 3Kingdoms doesn't support the edit, even before we get to the question of whether a Catholic-Church-affiliated newspaper is reporting accurately on a situation where the issues raised by protesters, at least in part, have to do with hardliner / ultra-extremist Catholic control of government and the resulting policies towards women's rights. IHateAccounts (talk
) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the loaded words used above. You misread the discussion, I removed violence, once I could not find examples to justify it. I used the source however to support acts of vandalism by the protestors, give more context to a speech by the deputy prime minster and the reaction of the Church to the protest. If you wish to discuss this please move to that talk page. Finally you don't seem to understand how reliable sources work, having some form of bias does not mean a source can not be used. By your logic NYT, WP, the Guardian, the New Republic, etc can not be used to discuss the 2020 election in any regard since they endorsed Biden and cannot be objective. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
"having some form of bias does not mean a source can not be used", but an overwhelming bias may very well taint a source's reliability. As Chetsford notes, a Catholic-affiliated site, with an "editorial statement its reporting on certain matters is done in a way that doesn't "undercut the papacy"", probably isn't reporting very reliably in this instance given the Catholic Church's entanglements with certain *ahem* elements in the Polish government concerning certain policies being protested by the populace. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no "overwhelming bia" in the article in fact there is no pov, numerous other articles about the protests that are neutral [103], [104], [105]. The statement of not undercutting the papacy is meant to refer to the far-right anti-Francis crowd. There is no difference between Crux and the examples I listed above, if anything they are less biased. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:SYNDICATED stories from the Associated Press
that Crux has merely republished. They establish essentially nothing for reliability of Crux itself.
The other one you tried to cite was syndicated from Catholic News Service. Thus far, you've not provided anything to indicate that Crux provides anything of independent value at all... and I would have severe reservations about citing CNS as reliable in any case. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
What you posted makes no sense. Crux labels articles from the associated press where as others have that and a writer who works for them here is are three pages of examples [[106]]. You reservations on Crux and
anti-Catholic belief that a Catholic can't be independent of the Pope and does whatever he commands without question or that you simply don't like what the Church teaches thus they can't be objective. In any case what you think about the Church has no bearing on this, numerous sources on [107] look through and you see numerous partisan sources like slate. reason, and rolling stone. All of these are more opinion based than Crux. Since you have yet to explain this difference and you have not provided anything to support you objections. 3Kingdoms (talk
) 04:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, now you're getting into ugly personal attacks again, and I'm not taking that bait.
WP:RS
rules for the agency that produced it, not the paper that reprinted it. Merely reprinting multiple AP columns does not make Crux "reliable".
Regarding bias: while a minor lean in one direction or the other does not counterindicate reliability, a very strong bias tends to indicate unreliability (which is a part of why disinformation outlets like Newsmax, Breitbart and OAN are viewed so poorly; their extremist positions lead them to publish disinformation, misrepresent facts or promote obvious falsehoods). An organization like Crux, with an editorial policy of "don’t seek to undercut the papacy" per the link by Chetsford, is simply not going to be reliable on topics such as women's health rights.
Regardless, Crux as a source has numerous issues. I can't find a clear indication of editorial control/standards beyond one of their staff calling himself "editor". Their "About Us" [108] and "Contact Us" [109] pages both go to a 404 Error, which isn't a great sign either. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Complaining about "personal attacks", which it was not, is pretty rich coming from you. Second once again you could not be bothered to read the links above which show original content, but I guess research is too hard. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, please stop with the personal attacks. Thus far you have provided 8 links that were
WP:SYNDICATED off of Catholic News Service. Insulting me repeatedly with personal attacks such as accusing me of failing to "read the links" and then saying "but I guess research is too hard" is unhelpful. IHateAccounts (talk
) 17:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I provided a link to Ines San Martin that shows three pages of articles not from associated press or Catholic News Service [110] you can look at what other staff members posted and you will find the same thing. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
But you have not proposed any topics or edits to evaluate that list for reliability. The sources you provided when you claimed "Crux should be considered reliable for X" have all been
WP:SYNDICATED content. IHateAccounts (talk
) 17:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I have, you just keep ignoring it. I want it added as a source for being reliable for Church issues, issues that the Catholic and other churches comment on, etc. I have provided links to articles by editors that are reliable not just from AP or Catholic News Service, this is not complicated. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No, you haven't. The specific edit that started this which was reverted for very good reasons [111], you sourced to a
WP:SYNDICATED AP articles to support your proposal "I think we can add them as reliable on reporting for the Eastern Orthodox Church based on some of these articles."). You have not provided any specific articles that are actually by this site's employees associated with proposed edits or pages on which you would use them for sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk
) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Then how about you go to that page and discuss there. Also as noted above not being on the list does not make a source unreliable, so what you said makes no sense. I have already proved my point there. Catholic News Service has not been declared unreliable, I asked for Crux to be up cause I thought, that maybe when some wants to make and edit on church issues, they could go the list and see this and then go source hunting. Seriously, the fact that you are still arguing over this is absurd, everyone else has been reasonable in discussing this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the people there have amply explained the reasoning to you. And I have MORE than adequately explained my perspective to you here, even though you have continually made personal attacks and completely uncivil false accusations of religious bigotry. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Evidently not since my edit remains and they have stopped debating it. I've gone over my problem with your statements and why your idea that a Catholic news site can't be objective on the church is absurd from the examples listed below and following that logic numerous wiki pages for other groups would have numerous sources removed. Since you won't answer I bluntly said what I think are two possible reasons for this, if you could explain why this is different than you might have an argument, but you don't. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
First stop with weasel words like "women' health rights" just say abortion rights, in fact you saying that shows bias on you part since that term is solely used by abortion rights groups. Second here is a what the guardian says about them selves "Your support helped raise more than $1.25m for high impact journalism in the new year. From broken healthcare to corrosive racial inequality, from rapacious corporations to a climate crisis, the Guardian will tackle America’s systemic challenges in 2021." New Republic "The New Republic was founded in 1914 as an intellectual call to arms for public-minded intellectuals advocating liberal reform in a new industrial age. Now, two decades into a new century, TNR remains, if anything, more committed than ever to its first principles—and most of all, to the need to rethink outworn assumptions and political superstitions as radically changing conditions demand." The Nation "Principled. Progressive. The Nation speaks truth to power to build a more just society. Home to tenacious muckraking, provocative commentary, and spirited debate about politics and culture, The Nation empowers readers to fight for justice and equality for all." Do you really think undercutting the papacy is so much worse than these statements (All of these are labeled reliable). Answer, they are not you just don't like Catholics beings used as a news source. Finally if we follow your logic, we should go through every article on LGBT and remove all sources from said people or said organizations since they can not be trusted to be objective, something tells me you won't do that. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well your just wrong here both work fine [112]. Second given how mad you got when I objected to a source once because I questioned their creds, its pretty funny to see you just dismiss John L. Allen Jr. who has for more experience than the person you decided to defend, but hey who needs principles when your trying to win. Clearly you can't be bothered to do actual research or separate your own views, which is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and can not be used. Your allowed to have that, but that is not how the site works, so get over it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Once again, please stop with the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Please provide actual evidence or objections that aren't rooted in you not liking what the Church teaches. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This shouldn't be added to WP:RSP. Clearly this is just too minor a source for that. I agree with Chetsford's assessment. Springee (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment/question. Can anyone find this publication indexed anywhere? It doesn't seem to have an ISSN (see [113]) and I didn't see anything in WorldCat. Doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on reliability, but they seem a bit hard to track down organization-wise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Can't find much sorry about that your best bet is their website [114] and maybe look up the Boston Globe since they used to own it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Watch - Australian TV program

Is

Media Watch (TV series)[115] a reliable source? Basically, this is a weekly Australian TV series produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
which aims to highlight errors, hypocrisy and conflicts of interests in the Australian media. According to the blurb on the ABC website:

Media Watch is Australia's leading forum for media analysis and critique.

Since 1989 Media Watch has been exposing conflicts of interest, journalistic deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation and plagiarism.

Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who 'make the news': the reporters, the online editors, producers, camera operators and photographers. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, media agencies, spin-doctors, lobbyists and social influencers.

It's hosted by Paul Barry, who is quite an acclaimed journalist, and has an extensive staff listed including Barry as presenter in additions to a story editor and two additional journalists[116]. It's well-known and well-respected in Australia and I can't think of any times when it has published a story found to be incorrect or retracted a story (correct me if I'm wrong). That said, given that its job is attacking the news media it frequently runs into criticism or threats of lawsuits,[117] but I can't think of one that ever led to any finding against the program. Here's Media Watch mentioned in the parliamentary record[118] It has made it into academic journals as well - here's a reference to a hoax it successfully pulled on the Australia media in 2010[119]

The specific point I want to make is quite minor. I want to make a point on the page of The Australian's Greg Sheridan. There's a paragraph about Sheridan's claim that he "never saw racism in the USA", to which I want to add something like "the ABC's Media Watch criticized Sheridan's assertion on the basis that he lacked lived experience of racial discrimination". Clink this link for the Media Watch story I want to use, which is about BLM and the lack of diversity in Australian media[120] Sheridan's claim was also criticized in The Guardian here[121]

RS? Thanks Wikipedians! Noteduck (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

David Irving and Hitler's dogs

I was surprised to discover a book by famed Holocaust denier David Irving among the sources of Blondi, (one of) Hitler's last dog(s).The cited claim is that Hitler bought a different German shepherd to keep Blondi company and that her name was Bella. Is this sort of thing allowed? GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the book in question was "Hitler's war" which is where Irving started his trek to Holocaust denial, it would be for the best if it was removed. While it seems likely that in this case of Irving was telling the truth, he is too discredited I think to use. Do you know any other works that mention this fact? I don't like removing info that is truth, but Irving is a major problem as a source. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
3Kingdoms, that was my thinking, and I don't anything at all about Hilter's pets; I just wanted to copy some information from Blondi to German Shepherd (mystifyingly, the most famous German shepherd was not mentioned, though others of Hitler's dogs were) and here was a citation to Irving nestled among the Traudl Junges and the Ian Kershaws! GPinkerton (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

MobileReference/MobileReference.com

This is (or was) a publisher that produced books consisting of Wikipedia articles. (Previous discussions: Archive 120 and Archive 97.)

From Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents:

Despite all MobileReference citations being removed some years ago, we now have a small number re-introduced, which I plan to remove, depending on the feedback received here.

They may have produced books source through other means, or possibly combining Wikipedia articles with other freely available sources. One such example was cited in Museum Lane:

Museum Lane runs between two of

Science Museum to the north and the Natural History Museum (formerly the Geological Museum) to the south.[1]

  1. ISBN 978-1607789314
    .

This source claims to include opening times, as such probably incorporates information from Google Maps.

It seems difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the reliability of all the MobileReference books individually. Nonetheless it seems to me reasonable that, sans a reason to make an exception, we should add MobleReference to the list of perennial sources as unreliable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

Pando.com

Is Pando a reliable source? It comes up a fair bit in BLP deletion discussions, and taking a look at it, they certainly hold themselves out as a news site. But it's a tiny bit unlike that, somewhat more like a blog. The contributors are often professional journalists [122] [123], but sometimes podcast hosts [124], non-journalists [125], academics [126], and... people contributing apparently promotional pseudo-articles [127] and opinion pieces from activists [128]. Amiee Pearcy appears to be the only staff editor [129] and I'm slightly concerned this may be more like her blog with guest contributors than a news organization. Sometimes they repost random medium articles from contributors whose qualifications they do not state [130]. It looks like it might be a very small operation, and in 2019 it appears its entire editorial staff changed due to the sale of the site [131]. In the founding statement, the founder calls it a blog [132]. What do we think about the following questions?

  1. Does being profiled here count as significant coverage in a reliable source?
  2. Are contributor articles here reliable? Do we think they are adequately fact checked and that there is significant journalistic oversight, or is it possible that contributed articles might present opinion and advertisement as fact?
  3. Are staff articles here reliable?

FalconK (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment:
    Business Week. Pando has done some legitimate investigative journalism on tech companies like Uber, and published a number of well-known technology journalists and was something of a must read years ago on tech news matters. I'd suggest that referring to Ronald Purser, a professor of management at San Francisco State University, as merely a "podcast host" is somewhat unfair. The "promotional pseudo-article" is a legitimate problem, and in cases like that, I think it is more than reasonable to exclude articles like that. I'd also be careful given the disclosures section of the site—tech investors like Marc Andreessen of VC fund Andreessen Horowitz own a small chunk of the site, so it might be reasonable to consider appearance of bias if they're covering a company that has been funded by one of the investors listed. The "blog"/"not a blog" discussion is as pointless and unilluminating as it almost always is on Wikipedia (using blogging software or having a blog-like style does not preclude one from doing legitimate journalism, not referring to oneself as a blog doesn't magically make you reliable). —Tom Morris (talk
    ) 09:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Rollcall a reliable source for Rob Portman's wealth?

While

Rollcall.com may be a reliable source for some things, it's page ranking the wealth of the 115th United States Congress at the beginning of 2018[133]
(shown as 2021 in Portman's article) says:

"While these reports open a window into the financial position of every member, they are far from comprehensive or exact. Members need only report their financial positions in 11 broad ranges of value, starting with less than $1,000 and maxing out at $50 million or more. And they do not need to report the values of their principal residences or their contents, the biggest assets for most Americans. Liabilities open during any part of 2016 are also counted. What’s more, the policing of the accuracy of these reports appears to be spotty. The consequence for making an obvious mistake or omission is generally a letter from the clerk of the House or the Senate Ethics Committee encouraging an amended filing." Doug Weller talk 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say this disclaimer reflects well on Roll Call and poorly on US federal financial disclosure law. Here, Roll Call is specifically pointing out a defect in the requirements of the financial disclosure, and noting to the reader that—because of the limits of these disclosure requirements—the data cited may not give a full picture. This indicates a careful editorial policy on Roll Call's part. As for use in the article, I think we should qualify the statement in the article the same way as Roll Call does, if we use it at all. So, something like, according to Roll Call's ranking of the wealth of congresspeople, which relies on disclosure reports filed by members of Congress … etc. In general, I've always seen Roll Call as an excellent source for US federal politics, and this article confirms that prior as opposed to calling it into question. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and I've revised my section heading as I wrote that first before I looked at the site more. I don't think we should use it, giving the disclaimer is complicated and almost pointless. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say reliable especially because of such a disclaimer. Though you should probably use the numbers as a "at least this much" sort of inclusion, since the disclaimer entails the numbers being the minimum amount of wealth known. SilverserenC 19:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI, we're also currently using this Roll Call wealth ranking source in the ledes of Michael McCaul, Trey Hollingsworth, and Vern Buchanan, and in the bodies of Cynthia Lummis, Roger Williams (American politician), Brad Schneider, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Collins (New York politician), Rick Berg, and Alan Grayson. Probably in more but that's what I found in a quick search. Marquardtika (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Also David Perdue, but I qualified it in Special:Diff/998684159. I couldn't get Special:LinkSearch to give me anything super helpful based on the url. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Local Government Information Services

In Illinois, conservative operative Dan Proft has set up various political publications that take on the style and format of newspapers, obstinately to hide their true purpose as political advertisements. The main umbrella for these publications is Local Government Information Services which as of writing includes

As documented in this article from the The State Journal-Register, the political advertisements run negative content about Democratic candidates ("Democrat X eats babies") giving no right of response to those candidates while running vague upbeat stories about Republican candidates ("Republican Y wants to help everyone") that lift content word for word from said Republican's promotional materials. Illinois Playbook, a publication of Politico has a summary of the politicized coverage coming from the various publications. An example of this being used against a Republican that Proft's organization did not prefer can be found here.

The reason I raise this issue Rich Miller, a longtime journalist covering the Illinois General Assembly, estimated in a 2018 article published in the The News-Gazette that 90% of the articles about the 2018 Illinois House of Representatives election and the 2018 Illinois Senate election were from one of the political publications. I believe this creates the risk of such politicized information being used in articles about Illinois elections and in the biographies of Illinois elected officials.

The publications include some non-political content that appears to be pulled from public sources and then written by algorithms such as "Meeting of Cityville City Council to Occur on Smarch 32nd" or "Bill Smith Pulled 4 Democratic Ballots In 5 Cycles". I believe I may have used such a publication in the past for party affiliations of township officials. I have no reason to believe that the information I used was wrong. However, considering the amount of political advertisements versus apolitical content, I believe we should have some caveats on how these publications can be used on Wikipedia.

Thoughts on this would be appreciated.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Wow! That is a ton of sources to try to track. I am reluctant to state that they should not be used at all, but my impression is more that they should be treated like opinion pieces or whatever the general consensus is regarding FoxNews. -
Location (talk
) 01:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarification is that they are not thirty outlets. It's one outfit that publishes under 30 different names. I only felt obliged to provide enough sources to name my point. There are more articles on more unique incidents from other outlets that call attention to what is literally fake news in some cases. As for their citations by the Alton Telegraph and Journal Star, those are public figures from the Illinois State Board of Elections and whatever publishes the pension data. It's the kind of issue I am talking about. They mix in legitimate information with politicized nonsense. I'm not sure how Wikipedia policy and the editors would want to deal with that.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
We could probably do with a Wikipedia article about these publications (or the groups that fund them like Think Freely Media). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, even if you ban all these domains what is to stop the operator from just switching the names around and continue? "South Cook News" becomes "South Cook Times" and "Southern Illinois News" the "Metro Southern Illinois Telegraph" etc. It's not an easy problem to solve. Are these sites frequently cited on Wikipedia or is it more of a theoretical problem though? ImTheIP (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Other issues aside, I don't believe the worry that they might change their names because of Wikipedia should be a factor in any decision. First, are we so important to the publisher that they'll change all their stationary, business cards, bank-account names, etc. so readily because Wikipedia won't cite them? They're going after their small-town audiences directly, day after day. Second, we can't predict what someone may or may not do in the future — we can only address the reality in front of us.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America

A concern has been raised about the quality of sources at Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America, an article I created yesterday. Before I did, I consulted the four similar articles and thought the sourcing here was at least as good as in those:

When the CUA article was new page patrolled the reviewer didn't flag it, but I would appreciate another review. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to believe that any of these is independently notable, but I don't think this is the right venue to settle that question. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, although as another said I don't think this is the best place to discuss this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
3Kingdoms, To be clear, are you saying you think the sources are OK but it might have notability issues aside from that? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Not that at all. I thinks its find to have it up, just that board is more about deciding if sources are reliable, not if the page is notable, I fully support it being up and think you did a great job. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
3Kingdoms, Thank you for the kind words. That is what I am trying to determine: are the sources at Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America reliable and appropriate? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Looks good to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope. Not even close to reliable or appropriate.
  1. The sourcing of OTHER articles is completely irrelevant as to the question of THIS article, except as a form of rationalization.
  2. The ONLY independent source is a single page from a 1915 book that lists various university BOOKPLATES, which depicts the coat of arms.
--Calton | Talk 04:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How Stuff Works

Curious to know what others think about the reliability of How Stuff Works. They don't appear on

WP:RSP at all as of Dec 2020. Their website has a section on reliability where they talk about their approach, their commitment to transparency, awards they've received, and writer selection process.[1] They also stress that they're not a primary source, but my understanding is that secondary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as they're not the topic of a page. I'm on the fence on this one, and would love to know what other, more experienced editors think. Mozby (talk
) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Unreliable: HowStuffWorks doesn't seem to issue corrections, they quietly edit things they find to be wrong. They do seem to have some rigor, but transparency is hard with these websites. I'd say whenever possible, try to use any secondary sources they cite.

References

  1. ^ "Is HowStuffWorks a reliable source?". How Stuff Works. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
  • Generally Reliable rated as very highly factual on grounds of being pro-science by MB/FC. [136] ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:MBFC and should not be invoked in source reliability discussions. It has no editorial oversight. It rated the Epoch Times as "factual" until media coverage forced them to change the rating. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 18:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
MB/FC is inappropriate for article content but in terms of reliability generally arrives at the same conclusion we do here so an MB/FC rating in the absence of other evidence is generally a good pointer. (given that most sources gain little to no coverage in third parties, MB/FC is probably the best place to start most discussions from). Obviously, RSN is here because we do not take MB/FC as gospel, it is just one source of many. But let's go and look at the factors that MB/FC will have used for its decision for our selves.
It reports largely on scientific studies, so uses factual sourcing. A brief glance at it reveals it to be pro-science. It doesn't appear to be pushing conspiracy theories. A search for failed fact checks [137][138] gives no results. This is what an MB/FC rating of highly factual means.
Basically, if what we've got is MB/FC and nothing else, I'd go with the MB/FC. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
But saying "MCFC found it reliable, therefore it is reliable" isn't a meaningful contribution, you've said essentially nothing about HSW except for repeating MBFC's superficial analysis. I could say that "I fucking love science" iflscience.com HTTPS links HTTP links is pro-science, but it isn't a reliable source. My own opinion about HSW is that it is a marginal source for facts, and that anything that HSW covers is likely going to be better covered by other more reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, a more in-depth analysis. How Stuff Works is listed as a class room resource by PBS [139], The Guardian describes it as professionally writen [140], it is used as a source by The Independent [141], it was a New York Times podcast pick [142]. Is that still too superficial? ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
None of these three count as evidence that the source is generally reliable. (1) The first link you provide speaks to its reliability for schoolchildren in the topic area of animals in the Etosha pan. By this standard, of course, Wikipedia itself and many other sites we would never consider reliable would also be considered reliable sources. (2) The second link you provide does not itself confer any sense of general reliability; it notes that the site may be suitable for the audience of "American teenagers doing homework projects". (3) I've been quoted in newspapers too, and that doesn't make me reliable. So has Wikipedia. (4) I can't even find How Stuff Works in there, but I can say that doesn't look like the kind of thing I look at in determining the reliability of a source. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
At best, unclear/additional considerations apply. I'd say closer to generally unreliable. Our article on How Stuff Works describes it as a "commercial infotainment website". Thankfully, their articles also seem to cite sources that are themselves reliable, and we can use those sources instead. In the event that they present original material that cannot be elsewhere found, their articles can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for reliability. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

State-sponsored fake news sites

The US State Department released a report in August 2020, titled Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem, which documented six state-sponsored disinformation / fake news sites. There is some overlap with the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force's sites that have already been blacklisted here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#State-sponsored_fake_news_sites. The six sites named in the State Department report are:

  • www.strategic-culture.org Strategic Culture Foundation
  • journal-neo.org
  • globalresearch.ca (already blacklisted)
  • news-front.info
  • southfront.org (already blacklisted)
  • www.geopolitica.ru
  • katehon.com

Would propose that these four sites be added to the spamblocked sites from the December 2019 RfC here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.

Suppose that another RfC would be required for this? - Amigao (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose any blanket determination of unreliability of websites based on a national security agency's declaration as inconsistent with the intent of the RfC which directs deprecation in cases identified by "reputable sources" (plural). This is not a statement opposing the spamblocking of any site on this list (they're all, obviously, non-RS), only the manner in which we're proposing it occur and based on the singular evidence offered. I would support a specific RfC dealing with each site, individually, but not an en masse determination based solely on the declaration of a single nation's security apparatus. This does not constitute (a) sources (plural) as per the RfC, or, (b) reliable sources as per the RfC, since the source in question is an agency of the U.S. Department of State whose singular mission is "advancing the interests of the American people" [143] (a fine mission but incongruous with the concept of reliability). Further underscoring the unreliability of the U.S. State Department as a source, is the fact that it has repeatedly either proved to have lied to advance its mission or been strongly suspected of lying to do so over a period of 80 years with great flippancy on a vast multitude of topics (e.g. [144], [145], [146],[147], [148], [149], [150], etc.) Chetsford (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't automatically declare any source reliable or unreliable solely because a government department said so, but there can definitely be a discussion on each of the sources, and the fact that the State Department declared them unreliable should in my opinion hold some weight (not dispositive weight, but some weight) in those discussions. Zoozaz1 talk 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force has documented quite a bit of disinformation from each of these sources. Just a few examples:
  • katehon.com - anti-vaxxer disinfo [151]
  • strategic-culture.org - anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories [152]
  • journal-neo.org - COVID-19 bioweapon conspiracy [153]
  • news-front.info - COVID-19 vaccine disinfo [154] - Amigao (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also consider the East Stratcom Task Force non-RS for the following three reasons:
  1. They are an agency of a state-sponsored national security agency (the European External Action Service) and should not be viewed as an objective factfinder but, rather, a mechanism to advance the foreign policy and national security objectives of its government sponsor; the government sponsor, in this case, is engaged in non-militarized conflict against the sponsor of the other sites (Russia) so its objectivity is questionable. As well, they don't follow any normal editorial standards (for example, all of their posts are unsigned and anonymous) and there is no evidence they are functionally independent of the governing political apparatus of the EU.
  2. The ESTF's reliability and editorial independence has been directly challenged in the past by reliable sources (e.g. [155], [156], etc.).
  3. A cursory search of the ESTF archives finds numerous examples of it publishing objectively false information (just to cite one example, here [157], it claimed residents of Washington, D.C. weren't allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections).
Disinformation is a popular subject of media coverage today and we should have no problem finding independent RS; if the only examples we can find to support our position are official publications of foreign ministries and intelligence agencies, we should take pause. There is probably good cause to spamblock the sites listed, but we should reach this conclusion solely based on independent RS, not on the basis of the declarations of official agencies of governments engaged in conflict or cold war against the other side. This creates a dangerous precedent. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This only makes sense if you agree that the EU is a state and that it is a state which is engaged in non-militarized conflict against Russia. The NYT article you cite does not question the site's reliability, only notes that it toned down its China coverage and that Eastern European states think it is "underfunded and undersupported and should be more ambitious".[158] The one example you give of "objectively false information" was corrected.[159] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the United States government is a reliable source for what constitutes fake news, since it consistently lies itself. Unfortunately, its not possible to factcheck it's most recent claims, but here are a few from the past: spy planes over the Soviet Union, its involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, babies in incubators killed in Kuwait, the military strength of the Soviet Union, the planned invasion of Grenada, Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, and the NSA surveillance program. The CIA even has an old article on its website, "When the Government Lies." TFD (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with TFD who makes some good points. Burrobert (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The what-about-ism regarding the U.S. government in many of the posts opposing the proposal is silly and should not be weighed in favor or opposition to whether or not these sources have some level of disclaimer or disallowed use on Wikipedia. If I can read the US State Dept report in the near future, I'll choose to vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment as per Zoozaz1 I would oppose spamblocking purely on the basis of this US State Dept statement or purely on the basis of EUvsDisinfo. However, this might prompt us to look at these sources and see if they how they are used in WP and if we need to discuss reliability. For example, journal-neo is used quite a bit[160] and almost certainly shouldn't be used as a source for factual claims. The others are not used though. Should we hold a seperate conversation on whether New Eastern Outlook should be seen as generally unreliable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to deprecation based on US State Department documents, national intellience agencies, etc. The intelligence community has a long documented history of fabricating news in support of their media or to undermine other media that they deem as opposed to their interests. --MarioGom (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to blindly implementing the wishes of the State Department. I will diverge with some of the comments above in treating their analysis of state-sponsored medias as equivalent with their established track record (well documented by
    Ed Snowden, etc. We do frequently discuss and scrutinize state-sponsored media sources and attribute when they are used, and we should continue to do that as usual. Spudlace (talk
    ) 11:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics for UFO claims

This popscience magazine publishes interviews, press releases, etc. It has often been used on WP to promote

WP:ANI here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate
– 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What text are you looking to verify specifically? The source, AFAIK, is reliable for what is written in it, but that is a distinct problem from people using that reliable text to say something incorrect in Wikipedia's voice. Whether or not a source is reliable is distinct and different from people using reliable sources to "verify" something incorrect in Wikipedia by misinterpreting or misusing what the source says. --Jayron32 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to
talk
) 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but are we saying that Pais invented a compact fusion device, or that Pais claimed to have invented a compact fusion device? Those a fundamentally different statements, and the Popular Mechanics article could only be used to verify the second statement, not the first. --Jayron32 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Useable with attribution, I am not sure anyone has shown it is guilty of any fabrication.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    But does coverage there actually count towards
    talk
    ) 17:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Which is not an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    Consensus about the reliability of a source can and does include this question. It is the kind of thing that's listed in
    talk
    ) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I completely disagree; reliability and due weight are orthogonal. More importantly, while reliability is a general concept that can be evaluated independently on the subject due weight is intimately tied to close knowledge of the specific subject. Therefore due weight is not something that can be easily considered in a general noticeboard but must occur in venues specific to the topic, primarily the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm genuinely confused. For one thing, reliability can require specialist knowledge to evaluate; sometimes, training is necessary to cut through superficialities and sales talk, and without at least a little background on a topic, one might not even know what RS to look for in order to evaluate a publication. For another thing, there isn't a specific article in question here.
talk
) 20:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the author of that second article also writes for Men's Health [161] where he has written things like "3 Men With a Really Huge Penis Reveal What Their Lives Are Like". -
Location (talk
) 21:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A man of many talents it seems. PackMecEng (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's no Aliens Smell Like Farts but I suppose we can't all win the Pulitzer. -
MrOllie (talk
) 23:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What about China's various CCTV channels?

China's CCTV is their state-run TV channel, and they have many channels. Unlike CGTN, which often features VOA-like or RFA-like garbage, CCTV actually has very good content on their other channels other than #1 (I've watched both a lot recently). Xinwen Lianbo, their famous news program, has more a more propaganda-esque tone, especially when reporting on controversial issues (it's my least favourite CCTV channel for this reason, and I even jokingly nicknamed all the CCTV news reporters "陈先生" (Mr. Chen) and "李小姐" (Miss Li) regardless of their name, because they sound all the same and say the same things over and over), and sometimes their reporting on subjects such as Taiwan or the South China Sea may be questionable and should be avoided in citations. However, it is a reliable source for citing the official opinion of the PRC and the CCP, and the reporting on non-controversial mainland news is usually reliable. In CCTV-1's other programs, they are usually "meh", and it sometimes gets annoying when they over-sensationalize something and say, for example, when the aforementioned "陈先生" says, "哇！这颗螺丝显示出来“中国速度”！真先进啊！" (that was obviously an exaggerated joke, but you get the idea) However, other channels, such as CCTV 9, has great, factual documentaries on Chinese history (this is my favourite so far, it's on the Chengdu-Kunming railway, and there's no annoying 陈先生和李小姐), and CCTV 10 has a lot of good technology-related documentaries too. Is it safe to cite CCTV, provided that the subject of the news report or documentary is non-controversial and well-presented? Félix An (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Félix An, depends on the specific content and the context in which it is used. Do you have a particular source usage in Wikipedia? MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No, just asking for future reference. Félix An (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

BET

Is BET considered a reliable source?

Neither Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources nor Media Bias/Fact Check mention this website. I'd like to think it's reliable given that it's owned by a major media company, but the fact that some of its articles are heavily sensationalized makes me think otherwise. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe this question requires more context. What article would be used, and on what wikipedia page, to support what text? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about citing this article in
shooting of David McAtee. However, the source it used was a tweet from a regular user. This made me doubt its objectivity. Ixfd64 (talk
) 23:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't conflict with other
WP:RS coverage such as this: https://www.wlky.com/article/lmpd-no-body-cameras-activated-during-shooting-death-of-david-mcatee/32734260# IHateAccounts (talk
) 00:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I see. In this particular case, the article could probably be used as a source if I didn't already use another one. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The subject of personal websites for reliability and/or opinions

Hello, as part of the

Tampa Bay Business Journal as being one of these amusement park experts 1 2. The main question I wish to pose here relies on individual roller coaster articles (i.e. Time Traveler (roller coaster), Iron Gwazi, VelociCoaster
) that seek historical information and opinions based on their respective reception sections.

For one, how can I determine definitively if these people are indeed "leading experts in the field"? Does a mention in a newspaper or journal define such expertise? On another point, if their expertise is reliable, can their personal website(s) be used towards providing any relevant information to historical reporting on an attraction and/or be sufficient sources for opinions related to the reception cascaded upon reviewing a new attraction? All the best, Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, personal blogs cannot be used for factual aspects, but if you can assert they are an expert for amusement parks (of which I'd think this is not people traditionally in journalism) their opinion can be included per
WP:RSOPINION. --Masem (t
) 05:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That does not agree with our
due weight) but it's not prohibited. ElKevbo (talk
) 05:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a lot of nuance in answering the general question of "who is an expert" with a tremendous amount of variation between different topics, fields, and disciplines. In general, I think we look for people whose expertise has been recognized by others e.g., sources that are indisputably reliable such as well regarded newspapers, sources that have undergone significant review such as peer-reviewed academic publications. It's not enough that someone proclaim that they are an expert nor is it enough for one or more Wikipedia editors to believe that the person is an expert; we need to know that others whose opinions carry weight believe that person is an expert.
Of course, establishing that a source is reliable does little or nothing to establish that it should be cited;
due weight. If something is so important that it must be included in an encyclopedia article then we should be able to find it in high quality sources that have been positively reviewed and edited.) ElKevbo (talk
) 05:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Masem and ElKevbo: Appreciate the responses! To clarify in short, yes to opinions if in a reliable source (though it is not necessary to use all opinions per due weight), but a no to historical information or coverage of an attraction, especially in the case of a personal websites coverage. If wrong correct me, as I usually come back to discussions as a future reference point. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. Determining if a source is reliable (i.e., it can be cited) is separate from determining if it can be represented with due weight (i.e., it should be included). Self-published materials like blogs can certainly be reliable but whether they can be represented with due weight in an encyclopedia article is a different matter. There is nothing that prohibits us from citing a self-published source for factual claims but it would be very unusual especially if the SPS is the only source for those claims.
So it's a probably reliable and maybe due weight for opinions and maybe reliable and maybe (but less likely) due weight for facts. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If Androckitis' experience is limited to riding coasters in Central Florida then he is certainly not an expert. I personally know plenty of amusement industry writers who have been to parks all over the world and have track records of more than 1,000 different coasters. Those are the experts whose opinions you should be seeking. This Androckitis guy needs to get out more before you start including his personal opinions in wiki articles.—JlACEer (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:RSOPINION but it is unnecessary and unlikely to be welcomed.—JlACEer (talk
) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@JlACEer: I had a while back and was informed to first take it to this forum. Though, the input on this page from you is also helpful. What I find hard is how do we know this person has experience with such-and-so roller coasters. I could claim to have ridden coasters all over the world and no one would be none-the-wiser. Is there a way to account for this expertise with certainty as in the case of this Mr. Bill Androckitis Jr. or do we have to take their word at face value? Also if you could link those opinions it would be helpful in gathering opinions for reception articles Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
An expert is someone who has written articles and books about the topic for academic publishers. If a new species of ant is discovered, it might make more sense to use the blog of the scientists who discovered it rather than a newspaper article based on their press release. Or you might want to use it for additional details not included in media coverage. News media sometimes quote well informed amateurs and we can use the news articles to report what they have said. But we cannot use their blogs directly. We rely on the news media to use judgment in assessing the reliability of their claims, which we cannot do ourselves.
In most cases, weight is relevant and provides a reason not to use blogs. If it's that important, why didn't news media mention it?
TFD (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I would not say there is a need to be published by academic publishers... for one thing, there are topics that no academic publisher covers... and those topics can have non-academic experts. There are even a few amateurs who are experts in academic topics. It really depends on the specific topic.
I would say that two criteria would qualify an amateur to be considered as an expert: 1) the person has written articles and books on topic that have been published by reputable publishing houses, and 2) those articles and books are routinely cited/referenced by others who write on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and not everything published by a reliable publisher will automatically be suitable for inclusion. The answer may vary depending on context and how the claim or statement is worded. Adog, can you post an example of a claim and its corresponding reference? It would be nice to add more context to what is still a rather broad question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Apologies, my original statement is vague on purpose since there is not a Wikipedia article that has used him as a choice quote, it was more of a hypothetical. If I were to use an example I think there are four avenues I could take of what is questionably appropriate to include in an article:
  • The opinion or information provided by an "expert" used in a reliable source/medium on the history of a given amusement park-related article (As exemplified in the Tampa Bay Business Journal article)
  • The opinion or information provided by of an "expert" used in a reliable source/medium in the reception of a given amusement park-related article (As exemplified by my own inclusion in Iron Gwazi using Park World's Paul Ruben in a RS)
  • The opinion or information provided by of an "expert" used on their own personal blog/website on the history of a given amusement park-related article (Such as the websites of BGT History, BGT Nation, BGT Guide)
  • The opinion or information provided by of an "expert" used on their own personal blog/website for the reception of a given amusement park-related article (A review from Bill or Roller Coaster Philsophy)
Thank you though to even more users responding to this. What really screws me is who gets to be called an "expert" in the amusement park industry since its not an academic field and more-so relies on experience and recognition questionability. I think Blueboar hit the nail on the head. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. There are different kinds of experts in the amusement park industry. Some provide consultation services for amusement parks and manufacturers based on marketing trends, some may provide expert analysis of trends and feedback within the enthusiast community, and others may be the engineers and concept designers behind the actual rides and attractions themselves. Reading Blueboar's post, I think that's exactly what's at play here. Not every kind of expert is going to have a flourishing presence in academic literature, and therefore falls under a different standard of verification. Having reliably-published information being picked up and cited routinely by other reliable sources covering the same topic would qualify them in my book as being an industry expert. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
To answer your question Adog on how you know if a person is an expert, I guess it comes from observation. You quoted Paul Ruben, and we all know that he has been writing for Park World for years. Prior to that he was an editor for RollerCoaster! magazine. We've also seen his name as a contributor in various other publications. We know he is an expert because articles like this one often mention his credentials. I know Arthur Levin is an expert because I've seen his articles in USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, numerous other papers and he used to write in the amusement section of about.com. I see Tim Baldwin's name as a frequent contributor in RollerCoaster! and Amusement Today. He covers coasters all over the world so it is pretty safe to assume he's ridden thousands — plus his profile says he has. Other names should be familiar because we see books and articles from them all the time: Tim O'Brien, Scott Rutherford, David Francis, to name a few. And, it doesn't have to be those who have been around for a long time. Taylor Bybee with CoasterStudios is fairly young, but from his YouTube videos we can see that he travels extensively. The videos are very professionally done and I frequently watch them to see what his opinions are. I trust what he has to say. I would consider him an expert. On the other hand, I have no idea who Bill Androckitis Jr is. I realize that someone at the TB business journal refers to him as a theme park expert, but, in my opinion, he needs more creds than simply having a Central Florida blog to be considered an expert.—JlACEer (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323&oldid=1138648554"