Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324

Silver seren, mind sharing an example of GMO-woo promotion? I see one or two critiques on the site, but their mostly from an economic perspective, rather than a 'scary scary chemicals' perspective. Don't want to derail the Jacobin conversation, but it would be valuable to see some examples of what you're mentioning if possible. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Even so, economics is a social science. And I wouldn't trust any political source on economics - not socialists, not libertarians. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yellow Jacobin is obviously a publication that approaches topics from a leftist perspective. I'd consider it "generally reliable for facts", as it's clear, despite them not categorizing articles as such, what is a fact and what is opinion. Moreover, the case studied above is entirely unconvincing that the article is actually stating that Sanders is unambiguously the winner. Despite this, obvious care needs to be taken to ensure that the facts reported don't constitute undue weight, given the obvious leftist POV of the magazine. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

One additional detail that I haven't seen mentioned yet: opinion is much heavier from in-house employees who tend to write more of the breaking-news, politically-charged material. Examples: Luke Savage, David Sirota, and Meagan Day. Still obvious when it's opinion vs. reporting from them. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. It's a pure political commentary and punditry outlet, and as such everything falls under
  WP:RSOPINION - not suitable for statements of fact. As with any opinion piece, pundit talk show, etc., any facts given, even if accurate, have a high likelihood of being cherry-picked or framed in a misleading way. No reason to use it and not actual news sources. Crossroads ^-talk-
  08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is worth considering how other RS use this source:

In short, academic sources often use Jacobin to source statements of fact without inline attribution, including regarding protest movements, international economics, and the history of various political movements. Mainstream media sources on all sides of the aisle often use Jacobin to source the perspective of the American left. Usually media sources do so using in-text attribution, unlike academic sources. Jlevi (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Search for

WP:RSP. There is no reason for special pleading for Jacobin; it should be treated the same because it is the same sort of outlet; just with a different political POV. A punditry magazine is about the worst possible source for economics and political history; that a few marginal academic papers cite it anyway for that is best not imitated. Crossroads ^-talk-

05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a major difference: at the RSN RfC on Quillette, a large number of specific critiques were made regarding reliability. Multiple hoaxes were pointed out and specific criticisms in RS were discussed. So far, only bias has been criticized for Jacobin, with no concrete comments made regarding reliability. Far from special pleading, UBO is a very standard thing to consider for all sources.

As far as I saw, UBO was not brought forward for Quillette. That is because it would not apply to that outlet! Google Scholar is not a very good way to look at this because the results are polluted with the sites' own articles (~700 for "quillette", ~5500 for "jacobinmag" on GS). Instead, I suggest comparing a search of a specific (mostly) peer-reviewed network of journals . I do so like this:

"site:journals.sagepub.com/ quillette" (74 hits)

"site:journals.sagepub.com/ jacobinmag" (1250 hits)

But let's go a step further! Looking at the usage patterns, I see that Quillette is used as a primary source[36] to describe particular perspectives, and the articles rarely use it to source facts. In contrast, a random assortment from my search finds citations for facts about US labor history[37], about the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s [38], and about policing and municipal budgets [39].

Thus, if we accept

WP:RS content guidelines, note the statement, "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence," and evaluate the extent of use of Jacobin in this single network of journals, I think it is very reasonable to say that it is identified as an often-useful source by peer-reviewed academic sources (and that Quillette isn't). Jlevi (talk

) 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Errors of fact were laid out above by Feminist. Academics can know based on their expertise when a source gets it right whereas Wikipedia editors cannot; and frankly, some academic papers are garbage, which is why

WP:V. These show that Jacobin is not suitable for use on Wikipedia for unattributed fact. Put another way: Why would we trust a magazine whose explicit purpose is to push a political ideology to accurately represent economics and political history? Crossroads ^-talk-

05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you critiquing any specific citation I described? Or are you just saying that predatory publishing, etc., is generally something to look out for? I don't think this response really addresses anything specific I put forward, and I certainly acknowledge that UBO is only a part of evaluating RS status.

Regarding the discussion above, it seems it is much more about mixed fact and opinion than about "errors of fact". Feminist starts by expressing concern based on perception that Jacobin "inappropriately blurs news reporting and opinion" (not based on direct "errors of fact"), and the extended discussion is clearly contested.

To your last point, good question! It's totally possible that an expert might be better situated to sort out fact vs. non-fact than a Wikipedia editor. Determining if that's the case is a reasonable end-point of this conversation. Implicit in that statement is the idea that experts have determined some subset of Jacobin as somehow useful. Is that a majority of coverage? Only a part? Is that mostly as primary sources demonstrating left-wing viewpoints, in a similar way that academics use Quillette to display certain perspectives? (I argue that this is not the primary usage above.)

To find out, I am trying to look at specific use cases to evaluate who is using Jacobin and when and how they are doing so. Jlevi (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair. Are there any subsections of the site that are more curated? Or are they all basically user uploads? If some are curated, it would remain a pretty useful resource for that smaller collection of documents. Jlevi (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We should be wary of making a blanket policy that discourages general use of Libcom and instead work on a case by case basis. It is an incredibly rich and well curated repository and many of of the texts hosted there would not involve any copyright violations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. So I support making it red, rather than deprecate. There is a good amount of "uploaded" contents, as such it should be treated as

WP:UGC and the fact they have plethora of infringing materials directly hosted is a huge problem in the same way Scribd is. Graywalls (talk

) 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I think making a general assessment on Libcom is very open to misinterpretation. With Scribd, it is effectively a social media platform, but most of what Libcom puts out are reputable published books, as such the problem is people using Libcom as a link, not people using the stuff Libcom produces as a reference. Some sort of edit filter might be preferable so that the citations could be remade correctly. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is my concern. Scribd wasn't primarily depreciated for copyright reasons but because Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated - anyone can upload anything there, making stuff hosted there suspect (an

WP:RS concern, so I would be opposed to adding any source to RSP in any context solely based on legal or copyright issues. That's not what RSP is for. --Aquillion (talk

) 16:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The copyright issue was one of the issues actually explained in RSP listing for Scribd. Libcom contains quite a bit of

WP:QS For example, some kind of UPLOADED essay by user on Libcom http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-left-opposition-rise-stalinism-theory-practice-john-eric-marot as used as a source in the article Communism. Graywalls (talk

) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That essay was originally posted in Historical Materialism (journal) (volume 14, issue 3 published 2006 - a peer-reviewed academic journal affiliated with the University of London and published by Brill Publishers) and as such is not user-generated. It also doesn't appear to be in violation of copyright but that is a matter for people who know more than me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Brill (the publisher) released this copyright. As attributed, the upload is definitely a copyright violation. czar

21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Libcom has been described as semi-reliable. Again it's to broad, it is an excellent source for a large amount of varying information presented by anarchists, of course it's biased and we use the source with care. However many Libcom authors include well known academics such as Noam Chomsky, to accept Noam Chomsky only when he is writing outside of Libcom seems well ridiculous. It can be an excellent source for anarchism assuming we use it with care. Therefor stating it as self published source seems extremely off. Many articles use libcom for good reason. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should make a distinction between libcom.org's news section, blogs and library. Blogs are obviously full
  WP:RSOPINION, etc. --MarioGom (talk
  ) 11:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree. I don't think blogs would be cited here much but are clearly UGC/SPS. News is almost all reposted from elsewhere, so can assessed case by case on basis of original source. Library is all reposted but is frequently good material whose provenance is clear, can be assessed case by case to identify if primary in relation to a particular claim, opinion in need of attribution etc, or might involve copyright violation. History articles also need to be assessed case by case, as provenance of each item is set out clearly on libcom and it should be easy to determine what counts as a secondary or primary source for a given claim. In short, blanket assessment would be unnecessary and problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• As an active editor in this space, I can't see any case for calling Libcom a
  ping}}) czar
  21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So,I added a reference to this article(Turbo_Tech_Controller) and that reference was linking to an artsandculture.google.com page,so is google artsandculture a reliable source?

Simulator-master (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. It appears to be a recursive source (i.e. Citogenesis), considering the link back to the Wikipedia article in question just to the lower right there. And, presumably, that source URL would not be reliable in general. It does appear to have source link backs to where it gets stuff from on other pages. So...just follow and use the original source for other stuff in those cases. The problem here being that the source is the Wikipedia article, so no reliability at all. Silverseren^C 05:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what has been stated above, the article was first created unsourced in 2004, when quality standards around new articles were much lower. I can find no other sources about this controller other than a reddit thread, indicating that it is not notable. It should probably be nominated for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No. It just scrapes data indiscriminately from museum websites, Wikidata, and WP itself. Usually there will be a credit to the original source—use that if it's reliable, and find something else if it's not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi editors, I came to the subject article on Dunning–Kruger effect as a normal reader. While reading, I found a source that I consider to be unreliable. The source is number 4, "What the Dunning–Kruger effect Is and Isn't", URL here [61].

I note that this article was protected in April 2020 due to disruptive edits. I very intensely want to avoid an edit war. Before editing, I want to check with you experts and make sure that I am correct that this source is unreliable and can be removed.

I posted about this source on the talk page. Thank you very much for your help.Jarhed (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The

WP:Burden is on Wikiuser100 (or whoever is defending the source, the talkpage is indented weirdly or missing a signature) to prove it is reliable. My quick searching shows Tal Yarkoni to be a Research Associate Professor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 21:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for replying. I am not sure what an academic credential for an individual has to do with a reliable source. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk)

The source is a personal blog post (

WP:BLOG), so it was a good idea to investigate it. As such it can be considered that author's opinion. The author's competence field matters (emphasis mine): "Research Associate Professor Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin". Another good sign is that his post cites his sources, including the 1999 paper he's writing about.^[1] If I understand, Yarkoni argues that the paper doesn't support the popular misconception that incompetent people believe they are better than competent people, just that they overestimated their own skills (the overestimation tends to be less for more competent people). If I read the 1999 paper abstract, it doesn't contradict that conclusion. Considering all these I tend to find the source usable about the misconception. If it's challenged by other good sources then it could ultimately be attributed and presented as this psychologist's understanding of the paper (but that might not be necessary at first glance). —PaleoNeonate

– 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that challenges to the

Dunning-Kruger effect are not valid. I am appealing to undue weight. The subject effect is well known in the behavioral sciences. My problem is that a personal blog post is being used to imply that the entire theory has been discredited and that is simply not true.Jarhed (talk

)

I agree that the post doesn't discredit it, it's only valid criticism about the misconception that the incompetent believe their skills to surpass that of experts. If the way it's presented and if it's considered due are still debated, this would normally be decided at the article's talk page, or processes listed at

WP:DR can be used. —PaleoNeonate

– 12:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• in the thesis of a graduate student at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School at Monterrey, California (Disaster Threat and the Dunning-Kruger Effect), which investigated the occurrence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in individual decision making during disasters for its impact on U.S. homeland security policymaking;
• at the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange in answer to the question: Does the Dunning-Kruger effect still work the same if the incompetent person is aware of this effect? by a lecturer in psychology at Deakin University in Australia;
• being quoted at length at the Chart of the Day feature at The Atlantic the very day it was published, July 7, 2010, here; and
• cited and directly hyperlinked in the Science section of National Geographic.com "Not Exactly Rocket Science" by that section's author, Ed Yong, under News/science/writing here, lauding its "big caveats on the Dunning-Kruger effect". Yet you post here as though none of that ever happened.

Thank you User:Emir of Wikipedia and User:PaleoNeonate for your contributions. I have corrected the errant indenting I had inadvertantly created in my single post at the Dunning-Kruger effect Talk page (linked above), eliminating any confusion it might have introduced. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikiuser100, your response to my criticism was composed from other articles that are not reliable, such as from Stack Exchange. In the article, there is substantial criticism introduced through unreliable source (4), a personal blog post by so called author Tal Yarkoni and his blog. I intend to remove this unreliable source and everything that references it. I am here on the reliable sources noticeboard to get some expert opinions about this. I apologize if my effort to get expert opinions offends you.Jarhed (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yarkoni's blog post seems like it meets SPS imo. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SPS Self published sources Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it was worthy of investigation and discussion and I'm kind of impressed with the thoroughness with which editors on both sides of the debate have examined this source. I agree with the other above who said this is an OK source to use as an expert
  WP:SPS, however it should be used with attribution. So, "According to Tal Yarkoni, [D-K is a misconception, or however it's worded]..." We shouldn't use it to cite a statement in wikivoice, but attributed is OK. Levivich ^harass/_hound
  18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, User:Jarhed, it's time for you to stop threatening to remove the Yarkoni material that has been at the Dunning-Kruger effect article since 2017. Five editors here have weighed in in support of its use - User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:PaleoNeonate User:buidhe, User:Levivich, and myself, with supporting documentation - and none have supported you. Yet you persist with challenging it in spite of this at the Dunning-Kruger talk page:

To be frank with you Mr. Wikuser100, I actually think that your criticisms of the theory are valid and worth recounting in this article. All that I want you to do is to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources and to source your criticism accordingly. That blog post that you used is not reliable. I would appreciate it if you would find some reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources.

The author's qualifications, how the cite is used in the article, and how it is used elsewhere by others have been upheld. You are beating a dead horse. Enough. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your characterization of agreement with you is erroneous, no such agreement exists here or on the talk page of the article. I insist that you stop characterizing my discussion here as a "threat". I threaten nothing and I have no intention of arguing with you. I will say again: personal blog post (4) on the article is not reliable, and it is being given undue weight in the article. I have been convinced by this discussion that it should not be removed from the article completely, and I agree with that analysis. I am preparing to edit the article to remove the unhelpful paragraph from the article header. I will leave the reference and all discussion under heading "Mathematical critique", although there is criticism about this section on the talk page that it contains no math. I don't care about that section. What I care about are your edits that imply that the theory has been disproven, which is flat nonsense. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What you have written above is nonsense, User:Jarhed. You are in your own world. Nobody here - five people: User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:PaleoNeonate, User:buidhe, User:Levivich, and myself - has agreed with you.

Please stop your threats to remove legitimate content (including that addressed above regarding the Yarkoni cite, and that supported by four independent, reliable sources at the DKE page, as I addressed in my post there earlier today) or I will be forced to take the unhappy step of seeking administrator intervention. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

[62] I have no clue with this one. If this is the wrong place, I'm sorry about that. I'm looking to add this bridge collapse on October 9, 1977 to the article on Hurricane Heather, and I can't find another source on the bridge collapse. Thanks! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm...there's a lot of primary sources in there, so those could be used in a limited fashion for what they are. As for the secondary commentary, do we know who wrote the text portions? I would presume someone who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, considering the source URL. The reliability of the textual commentary depends on if the writer is a reliable source for the information, such as a professor who actually researches the topic. Silverseren^C 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I found this path to the pdf: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ > https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/flwo > https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/facilities/Staff-Locations > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/whipple.html > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/flwohis.html > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/hist/flwo1973-79.pdf. The coverpage of that document is here and indicates that Don Hogan was the author. A brief biography of his credentials can be found on p.135 or so of this pdf. I'm not sure what information is to be sourced, but I am inclined to say that despite the document's informal appearance Hogan had expertise regarding the facility's history. -
  Location (talk
  ) 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh wow you're a hero. This looks heaps like the equivalent of newspaper clippings/scrapbook by someone that knows how to find information about a topic. It has more or less referenced its source regarding the bridge (Tucson Citizen newspaper, approx date, approx topic - if you had access to the microfiche you'd be able to find the article), so I think you can assume this to be accurate. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Uh also just in case anyone wants this, http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/ is the directory which we're allowed to look at for some reason. It has more history pdfs, but nothing else over that bridge collapse range. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks all! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reporters from both sources report management altered stories to advance a pro-Trump bias.

Sadly for the journalists, I wonder if this should cause us to consider these two works somewhat unreliable (not for fault of the journalists) for the last several years. At least in the realm of politic topics. --Masem (t) 02:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is definitely cause for concern. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is way too early to make that sort of judgement based upon a two-day old story. (Here is another article about this in The Washington Post.) I am not about to go through all of the articles they post, but here is one I found in The Blade that states "supporters of President Donald Trump swarmed the building and sent lawmakers into hiding". -
  Location (talk
  ) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have any knowledge on what the kind of alteration done was? Like, a specific example of what information was changed? Because that's really the question. Was outright false information presented or just a biased stance on topics? Silverseren^C 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Per the article, we know upstream words were changed to give a pro-Trump slant, and that this was going on for a "few years". This may simply be a matter of bias issues with these sources, which would be a thing to flag as a "use caution, replace if possible" and certainly would not use direct quotes attributed to the journalists' writing themselves. It is unlikely outside US politics other edits were made upstream, but it would simply make sense to caution editors on this situation and recommend using other works if at all possible to source information for the 2010s. --Masem (t) 02:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Even if it true we do allow biased sources --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Shrike. Change of frames is qualitatively different than change of facts. This appears to be the case of the former, not the latter. And reporters being edited is a customary part of the gatekeeping process that differences a newspaper from a blog. There's not a journalist working who hasn't complained about the headline or photo caption his editor has placed over his story, or cuts and additions made to it. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this cite from a non-notable organisation that declares it's an advocacy group as used here reliable? Would have thought it contravened

It's certainly not a violation of neutrality to document the fact that an advocacy group does advocate something, and this is one of the cases where self-sourced claims are acceptable. But it would be better to have a secondary source for this, especially if you are worried that the advocacy group is not significant enough for its activity to merit coverage; cf.

WP:UNDUE. I'm inclined to say this instance is OK. — Charles Stewart (talk)

09:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently cited on a few dozen pages. For general reference, for example information about hummus: [63] place of origin, ingredients, word definition, etymology, etc. I can't tell what kind of fact-checking they do, or who exactly writes it. Is it comparable in reliability to other dictionary-type sources, like Lexico, Collins, Merriam Webster, or simple encyclopedias etc? --IamNotU (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid it. Seems to be more of an educational tool than a source per se: see [64]. That said, I can't imagine a case where it would provide information another source couldn't. Merriam Webster is free online, there are plenty of dictionaries in the PD, and I assume many Wikipedians have access to OED through various institutions. No reason to use vocabulary.com. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

[65]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, since this noticeboard has a higher-than-average number of RfCs active right now, could you please limit yourself to one active RfC and refrain from starting another one until your previous one is closed? It would also be helpful if you offer some background research on the source when you are proposing it for deprecation. I have converted this RfC into a standard discussion. If the consensus in the discussion is supportive of deprecation, an RfC can be added as a subsection of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 11:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a brilliant source but shouldn't be deprecated. Here is the editor: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/joshi-herrmann NYT says "Tab uses traditional journalism tools like Freedom of Information Act filings, door-to-door sleuthing and libel training. But it also digs deep into Reddit, excavates meme chains and cultivates gossip."[66] Guardian says "Some of those stories that impressed the owner of the Sun included Malia Obama’s decision to attend Harvard; a Cambridge student setting fire to a £20 note in front of a homeless man; and an interview with an Oxford Brookes student who kissed Cheryl Cole on New Years Eve."[67] Its focus is UK universities, and on this topic might have more detail than better sources. I'd class as Use with Caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mostly student gossip afaik. I’d consider it generally unreliable / deprecated. I can’t really think of any case where we’d actually use The Tab as a source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine it being used in an article relating to UK universities. For instance, would it be problematic to use this (one of the most recent news items on The Tab)?: https://thetab.com/uk/2021/01/11/22-russell-group-su-executives-demand-no-detriment-policy-189298 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Better to look case by case. I went to see if we use it much.It turns out The Tab is used as a source in quite a few of our articles, and it would be better to discuss reliability in context in relation to one or more of these. If we deprecate, these and other similar articles will need to be sorted:

Made in Chelsea (series 19), Gordon Aikman Lecture Theatre, KingsGate Community Church, Rare FM. None of these are in areas I know about so can't comment really. BobFromBrockley (talk

) 10:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Use: thetrumparchive.com in order to link to Trump's tweets (website is pretty reliable, [in terms of completeness])
• Use the Wayback Machine, which is not as reliable (in terms of completeness).

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is far preferable to the other website. It is maintained by a well-funded staff with a long track record of keeping materials accurate and available for many years.

I have to wonder, however, why we'd cite these tweets in the first place. They're primary sources. If they're important enough to include in an encyclopedia article then surely editors can cite secondary sources that establish

due weight e.g., news articles. ElKevbo (talk

) 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say either source is reliable, but I think the Wayback Machine is better to use if possible. One day, the National Archives will have some site where his tweets will be archived and available, but of course, that is not available at the present time. Historyday01 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo:I think part of the reason for having the alternative citations to the primary sources (e.g. an archive of the original tweet) is that many news websites link the tweets themselves using cross-site linking rather than taking screenshots, which then breaks if the tweet or account is deleted later. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ElKevbo, you make a valid point there and having alternative citations is important without a doubt. Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• If its a tweet that has caused issues (such as his various racist ones, the ones encouraging violence and so on), it will have been covered by reliable sources in the news and we would use them. That the original tweet is no longer available is irrelevant, the secondary source is enough to verify the content. If its used as a reference for something primary (the only real legitimate use of self-published social media) - well Trump isnt even a reliable source for himself due to the habit of you know, being a gigantic liar. Do you have an example of something which Trump's twitter is currently being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm with Only in death on this. There is no need to link directly to the tweets (a primary source). If the tweets were notable, they would have generated secondary coverage. If the recent ban created broken links, I would just remove the links, rather than use Wayback Machine or other means. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixing mention of Only in death. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Only in death and K.e.coffman. In the past when I've had cited individuals who have deleted their tweets or deactivated (like was recently the case for Shadi Petosky and Dana Terrace), and I have included the references with their tweets, I've just changed the url-status from "live" to "dead". I don't know where his tweets are cited elsewhere, but considering the raft of news coverage, I'd imagine they are quoted in other media outlets, so you wouldn't even need to cite the tweets directly. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would say both are usable and neither is essential, per the above. Having a link to an archive of the tweet may be useful to readers, provided there is no question as to its accuracy; the heavy
  WP:ABOUTSELF. (Though for ABOUSTELF usage, there is honestly no reason we should ever have to do that when it comes to someone as prominent as a president, so I'd tend to view any invocations of it skeptically even if it's something we could notionally do.) --Aquillion (talk
  ) 23:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks to those who have responded. I think the verdict here is to mainly use secondary sources for his tweets, and if none are avaliable, use thetrumparchive.com or the Wayback Machine. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What about Inquisitr? (I don't have a specific use case in this instance, I just keep seeing it cited and was hoping for some community clarification. There was a short-lived discussion previously here [68].)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 Option 1 ... My first reaction, based purely on the website design and that fact it is known as an aggregator, was 3. However, on closer examination I don't think the facts support that. It appears to primarily deal in précis' - not aggregation - with some original reporting thrown in. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical address in a jurisdiction in which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes. And it's easy to find a great many RS that have cited its reporting, e.g.
  Yahoo News appears to syndicate some of Inquistr's original reporting, too [75]. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC); edited !vote based on further comments by Aquillion
  and others 17:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Along with The Daily Mail, it apparently published quotes from a fake interview with Roger Moore in 2013, although did issue a retraction: [76]. Not sure how much I trust AOL.com for news, but they also note a fake story + retraction involving Melania Trump: [77]. And another from Psychology Today: [78]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good find! As long as there's a prompt correction I'd probably rank that in the same category as MSNBC reporting Bob Dylan dead last year [79] and then issuing a correction or the Washington Post claiming Jair Bolsonaro was the President of Mexico a couple months ago [80]. But it's good to have these things available to help our evaluation. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. While not horrible, I have seen Inquisitr give undue credibility to the allegations by
  Location (talk
  ) 06:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• 3 leaning 4: MBFC rates Inquisitr's factual reporting as mixed which is a very bad grade. The story about Melania Trump having previously worked as an escort that the Inquisitr and the Daily Mail published in 2016 is so beyond the pale that a retraction and an apology doesn't cut it. Some examples from Snopes and people the Inquisitr has pissed off:

* In 2013, they stated that Doctors Kill More People Than Guns, A New Study Reveals. In 2016, Snopes revealed that the "study" Inquisitr referenced doesn't even exist.[85]

* In 2014, they falsely claimed that "The CDC and CIDRAP have admitted that Ebola is now airborne."[86] The CDC and the CIDRAP did not.

* Another story of theirs from 2014: Over 30 Percent Of Americans Have An RFID Chip Implanted In Them… And They Don’t Even Know It! The story has been taken down, but come on...

* In 2015, the aplty named site MORON published an fake news/satirical article about a "Florida Man" killing his imaginary friend. Inquisitr republished the story as if it was real. Snopes writes: "this story was still listed as a real news story on the Inquisitr as of 13 May 2015".[87]

* In 2015, they published an article titled Ku Klux Klan Forces Black Baker to Make Racist KKK Cake, So Does Memories Pizza Lose Religious Freedom? based on a fake news article from 2013 in the satirical Tribune Herald. Snopes points out that the Tribune Herald had a disclaimer at the bottom of all articles reading: "Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes. All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories."[88] The Inquisitr's article is still online and there is no indication that it its fake.

* Less nefarious, but still incorrect, in 2015 Inquisitr claimed that "social media released reports that Michael C. Hall agreed to resume the role of Dexter Morgan for two more seasons."[89] "Social media" didn't "release" any such "reports," the "journalist" made it up, apparently.[90]

* The Inquisitr has been criticized for selling "do follow"-links for $250 a piece. Something that is both immoral and against Google's TOS.[91]

* The Inquisitr has been caught plagiarizing stories about, get this, plagiarism![92]

* In 2015, they published a hoax about how Costco supposedly removed a "Dinosaur Cake" with the number 666 on it.[93][94] Matthew Keys' indepth analysis of how the story came to be is damning and reveals that entry-level freelance writers are paid $10 per 400 word article.[95] The "Dinosaur Cake"-story was written by John Albrecht, Jr. whose sole source was his girlfriend. Treisman's "off the record" comments cited in connection with the story: Treisman denied the notion that Inquisitr’s low pay might be an incentive for writers to submit fabricated stories. But he did acknowledge — in a statement he later tried to declare was off the record — that their editorial “system can be abused” and that the site’s focus on search engine optimization and page views over content was in line with the conventional tenets of journalism. “News is about what’s trending,” Treisman said, “and SEO is all about how to write at certain levels of readability…the system can be abused — that’s not a news story, that’s life — and if it means as a result systems need developing and building then welcome to the real world. And none of this is my official statement.”

* Employment ads [96][97] from the Inquisitr reads as follows: "Applicants must speak English fluently and be able to write a minimum of 25, 400-word articles per week" Emphasis theirs. Assuming a standard work-week of 40 hours that comes out to about 1 hour and 40 minutes per article. According to the Inquisitr's employee handbook, this includes photo tagging and image editing.

Given that 99% of the content on Inquisitr is celebrity gossip, which falls under

WP:BLP, I cannot see how the site could ever be used. But I almost never edit biographies so idk. (UPDATED) ImTheIP (talk

) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• "MBFC rates Inquisitr's factual reporting as" Wikipedia rates MBFC's reliability as unreliable (
  WP:MBFC). In any case, I'd be most interested in examples of recently unreliable articles, not those from 5-7 years ago. New media outlets evolve and professionalize as they gain traffic and advertisers to better resource their operations; for example, early Buzzfeed--> Later Buzzfeed --> Buzzfeed News. Chetsford (talk
  ) 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• 3 or 4 per most of the examples given by ImTheIP and this academic paper, which classifies it as Junk News (defined in that paper as sources that ...deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting / Publishes false or fabricated information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious for others' thoughts on

I don't think it's a data scraper. It looks more like a low-quality clickbait content farm, with article titles like "10 Things You Didn’t Know about Chelsea Laden" and "That Actor Whose Name You Don’t Know: Zach Grenier", the sort of stuff you would see in an Outbrain external link section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The specific concern is that content like this is not a real article and is basically just web scraped content... So, that, combined with what looks like low editorial oversight, makes me guess this isn't a

WP:BLPs. But I'd like to see what others think. --IJBall (contribs • talk

) 03:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The term "data scraper" implies that text is being taken wholesale from elsewhere automatically via bots, which appears not to be the case. The term "content farm" essentially describes what you are stating, totally vacuous articles designed to satisfy an algorithm, churned out in great volumes. According to tvovermind.com   it is used in 511 articles, many of which are BLP's, these should systematically removed there might also be a case for adding it to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually,

WP:BLPs) because of all of these issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk

) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an exact memory but I remember seeing articles on the site which were literally verbatim copied from Variety or some other publication. Not sure if it used to be more reliable in the distant past. It's also run by the same "company" as moneyinc.com, which has a similar appearance/quality. Heartfox (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The attributed blockquote below was used in COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine. It was removed with a suggestion that it was a primary source that needed secondary context. This questioning of Amnesty as a source comes up with reasonable frequency in the IP area with some editors arguing it is primary, partisan, biased, or an advocacy org. I found in the archives quite a few references to Amnesty with this from October 2019 being solely about it and it is not on the RSP, is it worth having an RFC about general reliability?

According to Amnesty International^[1]

"Israeli authorities must ensure that vaccines are equally provided to the Palestinians living under their control, in order to meet their obligations under international law. They must also ensure smooth entry of vaccines and other medical equipment to the OPT, including making any necessary logistical arrangements to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines."

.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty is advocacy group and biased regarding the I/P conflict[98],[99] to the very least they should be attributed and used in conjunction with secondary

WP:DUE at all--Shrike (talk

) 13:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My feeling is that Amnesty is a primary source for its own views on its own wikipedia page but a secondary source for content on a page related to, say, Palestine. Ignoring this interesting philosophical point, the same content is available from other sources ([100], [101], [102]). Even the Times of Israel mentions Amnesty's opinion ([103]), though it isn't completely happy with it. Burrobert (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS to give a proper context? Shrike (talk

) 14:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be one way of cutting the

Gordian knot. However, what about next time someone uses an Amnesty report in one of our articles? Burrobert (talk

) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE Shrike (talk

) 14:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

as happens a lot.Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an advocacy group (although more respected than most), and biased wrt the I/P conflict, so in most cases its conclusions should be attributed to the organization, assuming that it is WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you able to clarify what you mean by "biased wrt the I/P conflict"? Biased toward/against whom and for what reason and how do you know? Burrobert (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, in general they are viewed as holding a pro-Israel line although that has lessened in the last two decades. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty is reliable but this piece of text should never have been used as it was... Thats a recommendation not a conclusion or finding. It certainly doesn't say whats its inclusion in the section "Debate over responsibility” (which is weirdly atypical and shouldn't exist at all BTW) suggests it says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There are conclusions and findings in the Amnesty report which are relevant to the question of responsibility. What do you mean by "which is weirdly atypical and shouldn't exist at all BTW"? Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are strong recommendations but they are not conclusions or findings as they are inherently speculative. The entire section is block quotes with barely any context... Have you ever seen that before when editing wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You can retitle it if you like, it is just a subsection of Vaccines to hold the conflicting sources until we get some clarity and can write it up normally. I did read them as saying Israel has the obligation - "to meet their obligations under international law." I think that's probably what its all about, legal interpretations. Some say yes, some no, 180 degrees apart.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think Amnesty claims should generally be added with
  in-text attribution. Its inclusion is almost always granted. You can find a secondary source for the publication of virtually every Amnesty report. I would apply the same reasoning to other notable advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. --MarioGom (talk
  ) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• "The Israeli government must stop ignoring its international obligations as an occupying power ..."
• "The COVID-19 vaccine roll-out plan so far covers only citizens of Israel, including Israeli settlers living inside the West Bank, and Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. It excludes the nearly 5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, under Israeli military occupation".
• "Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine programme highlights the institutionalized discrimination that defines the Israeli government’s policy towards Palestinians".
• "... there could hardly be a better illustration of how Israeli lives are valued above Palestinian ones,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International".
• "Over half a century of occupation and enforcement of a system of institutionalized discrimination in the OPT, including East Jerusalem, Israel has deprived Palestinians of their basic rights and committed mass human rights violations. Israel must end its discriminatory policies and remove any barriers that may hinder Palestinians from accessing or enjoying health care".
• "Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law include ...".

Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

An organisation having an agenda doesn't mean it's unreliable. For example, the WHO aims to improve global health outcomes, but they're considered very reliable. So, then one should look at the normal indications of reliability. AI has special consultative status with the UN.[104]. I went through their report Australia, where I live and grew up: of the statements I know a fair amount about, they are all true; they don't use rhetoric; and they are summarised in ways that are not easily misunderstood. They tend to provide at least overarching sources for their reports (making them worse than journal articles, mediocre for white papers or books, and better than most news articles), but not author names. There's an additional problem though in assessing reliability: they produce a number of different types of resources, including news, research, and reports. Personally, I would definitely look to them for interpretation or criticism of practices (like describing Australia's conditions for detained refugees as inhumane), but would consider verifying statistics (like the number of people Australia keeps on Nauru) elsewhere before reproducing those in a WP article. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty is an advocacy organisation and should usually be used with attribution. Its research and investigations are widely seen as good quality. Its reports are usually noteworthy, as evidenced by wide secondary coverage. It is a primary source for its own positions and findings, and secondary sources generally can and should be added. We might distinguish between factual findings in its reports and normative conclusions and recommendations ("Israeli authorities must ensure" etc would be an example of the latter), the latter requiring even more careful attribution and more attention to secondary sources to check for due weight, but absolulely no reason to avoid or delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this raises a questions two questions, first, if an AI report is not cited by others can it be considered DUE? For example if an AI report says Mr BLP is a doing [bad thing] can we add, "According to AI, Mr BLP is doing [bad thing] [cite AT report]"? Do we need a RS to make the connection first? For example a CNN article about Mr BLP or a topic related to Mr BLP notes what AI said. If the answer to the first is no but we have the CNN article giving weight to the contents of the AI report, can we include information from the report that wasn't covered by AI? My general feeling is the first one should be no. If the AI (or any similar activist organization) report is not mentioned by others then it's content isn't DUE. If the report is given weight by others then we have to use some judgement as to what of the report can be used (with attribution) in a wiki article. If the organization is well respected/established like AI, ADL, or a respected think tank (CATO), then I would think the whole report may be acceptable. Conversely, if this is a smaller group then we should limit things to material others have cited from the report. Springee (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with Springee here. If no secondary coverage, would not generally be DUE. If considered DUE, then can cite elements of the report not mentioned by others (because it is sufficiently reliable) but with more caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC) However, I would not remove an AI source as a reference if there is no secondary source, as almost all of their reports we are likely to cite will have some secondary coverage, so am not concerned about the large number of uses on this site.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References (Amnesty International)

Is it possible to use this source (thesis for the degree of doctor) to support the following material in the

• Classical Islamic law allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves.

Saff V. (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say no per

Sexual slavery in Islam, which would be a good source if it supported the claim, does not appear to: it's here, and does not explicitly state the claim at issue here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 18:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to say yes or no, but point towards some considerations outlined at

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The University of Leeds is a good uni, and I think that it would be fair to say that the PhD supervisor, Avihai Shivtiel, is a recognised specialist in the field. If the thesis has been cited by other scholarly works, it might be reasonable to use cautiously as a source. It's pretty old though - is a 30-year-old PhD thesis really the most recent and reliable work done on a subject like this? GirthSummit _(blether)

20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Same response as Girth Summit. A PhD thesis is not an SPS, and an examined PhD from a good university should be considered a reliable source, and even if it was then it would by definition be a self-published expert source if it were a claim about the topic of the PhD itself. However, PhD theses are better used for more niche topics, e.g. some detail of historical Islamic jurisprudence in a given period, rather than for topics where there are a range of sources enabling us to see a scholarly consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A doctoral thesis from a reputable institution that was reviewed and passed using typical scholarly processes is usually considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As is often the case, however, the more nuanced question is whether the document meets the bar of

due weight. In many cases, if a thesis or dissertation is the only place where a statement is made then it doesn't meet that bar as most theses and dissertations are only ever read by more than a few people. I am not qualified to make that judgement for this specific thesis but it would be such an unusual case for a thesis to be widely read and influential that I am comfortable placing the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. ElKevbo (talk

) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Two Middle East Eye articles have recently been added as sources to the Douglas Murray (author) (fixed link) article [[105]], [[106]]. Is MEE a RS and/or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject? Are their OpEd articles considered acceptable? Springee (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are referring to Douglas Murray the author. Contentious = likely to cause disagreement or argument. Any negative statement about a person is likely to be contentious to that person and her supporters. Who is doing the contending in this case? Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the author. Sorry, I didn't realize the page was Douglas Murray (author). I believe standard practice is any negative/disparaging content that is associated with a BLP subject to be contentious. The first link is being used as a reference to a book Murray wrote so if MEE is a RS and generally considered DUE then I think that would be OK. While scornful it doesn't attack Murray directly. The second link is an OpEd article and is being used to support a claim that Murray is associated with the far-right. My primary concern is the OpEd part though claiming someone is associated with far-right, alt-right, white nationalist etc are all what I would consider to be value laden labels. At an overall level is MEE reliable (it does at least report to have an editorial structure) and second is it normally DUE? My feeling is probably RS but I can't say if it should be given WEIGHT. The OpEd article is not acceptable because it's an OpEd being used to support negative associations about a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't found any editorial board on the site also it regularly publishes fake news [107] and hate [108] --Shrike (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to find information about the editorial structure of MEE. I couldn’t find it on the website. We know that former Guardian journalist David Hearst is the website’s editor-in-chief. Some information about staff is contained in this (not particularly positive) article [109]. Regarding MEE’s reliability, no reliability problems are mentioned on our page for the website. The two articles provided by Shrike do not mention specific examples of unreliability. The Arabnews article says something that strengthens MEE’s claims to being GR: "many human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, use MEE’s articles as a point of reference, as do the New York Times, the Washington Post and Germany’s Deutsche Welle". The main issue raised in the Arabnews article relates to a disagreement about its focus. The JewishNews article is upset with what it believes is MEE’s connection with Hamas. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm always way of MEE, which publishes some good stuff and some flawed stuff. The article about the book seems somewhere between an opinion piece and a book review and so could maybe be used with attribution if we think that its author, Ian Almond, Professor of World Literatures, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University in Qatar, is sufficiently expert or noteworthy for this to be due. The other piece is more reportage and it's by Nafeez Ahmed, who is quite a controversial journalist, so I would consider only using it in a way like this: "his work has also been linked to the alt-right by Nafeez Ahmed". I think the alt-right claim and footnotes should be moved out of the lede and into the body, and the Islamophobic claim should be summarised in the lead and detailed properly in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the Ian AlmondNafeez Ahmed article says it's an Op-Ed I don't see why we would include it, especially since it is being used to support a contentious claim about Murray. Springee (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Corrected Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

the Almond article is published under "opinion" but is clearly a book review. A detailed book review by a well-known Georgetown professor is hardly undue. As for the "contentious claim" you keep bringing up - in today's polarized media environment there is little that is not contentious. Noteduck (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cut-pasted the wrong name. The Ahmed article is the one I meant as it was the Op-Ed. I'm still concerned about the claims that MEE is a propaganda outfit. At this point I wouldn't be OK with citing anything to a MEE article. Is Ian Almond's opinion of the book available through other sources? Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To make my point, let's compare Almond's review to

Rod Liddle of The Times called the book "a brilliant, important and profoundly depressing book".

I think we can all agree this is silly - the claim isn't written in Wiki's voice, and Liddle is writing in The Times which is a well-established media outlet. The point I'm making is that my ongoing complaint about the Murray page is that sources perceived as unfavorable to Murray are being subject to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold. Just because the Ian Almond review is highly critical of Murray's book does not mean it has no place in the article Noteduck (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a basic sourcing issue. Wikipedia, like it or not, says material published in things like The New York Times, etc are generally given more weight than material published in sources with less reputation. If Ian Almond's view is highly significant is it shared by other sources? Why would it only be published in this source. I know this can be frustrating as I've been on the other side of this sort of thing. Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"is it shared by other sources" - yes. The points made by Almond are shared by the other negative reviews of The Strange Death of Europe, or did you not look at them? Again, this is part of a frustrating trend of articles critical of Murray being held to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold for inclusion. Absent stronger rebuttals please do not remove this material from Murray's page Noteduck (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is shared by other sources yet deprecated. In this case Almond's review is not shared by other sources. The other article is clearly labeled opinion. Springee (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A few points that summarise my views:

• What we know about MEE indicates that its editors/journalists are experienced.
• MEE seems to operate from a particular viewpoint/bias. This is what several articles linked above are saying. This does not preclude it from being a reliable source.
• There is no evidence that MEE is unreliable in the sense of publishing false information or failing to correct errors it makes.
• Both Ian Almond and Nafeez Ahmed appear to be notable enough for their opinions about a subject within their areas of expertise to be included in a Wikipedia article.
• As with other sources, opinion pieces and reviews, whether positive or negative, should be attributed to the author of the piece.

Burrobert (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The question we should be asking is whether this source is reliable, not in general, but for some particular context and proposed addition to the Murray article. That's my understanding of how RSN is supposed to work. The quote that is being appealed to from the MEE piece by Ahmed is this:

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.

This is being appealed to in order to support the following claim:

Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the

far-right

by a number of academics.

So is Ahmed an academic who thinks that "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right"? I can't tell from this source. Ahmed says that Murray's view that certain attacks show something about Islamists is what he unclearly calls a "ploy for far-right entryism". There are two problems. First, Ahmed is not talking about "Murray's views" but rather one particular view he holds. So it's at best misleading to suggest that Ahmed thinks "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right" since only one of Murray's views is under discussion here. Second, I don't know what he means by the claim that the view in question is a "ploy for far-right entryism". It seems to me OR to say that he means that this view of Murray's is "proximate to the far-right". I think it's unclear what he means by "a ploy for far-right entryism", and that it is basically impossible to reliably summarize his claim in other terms. So it would have to be a direct, attributed quote if it were regarded as DUE. But it isn't DUE, because it isn't clearly written, and it's published in a non-prominent source. So I'd oppose relying on this source for the proposed content for all these reasons. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to include Almond and Ahmed’s opinions from MEE with attribution. The question of how their views should be summarised on the page is a question that would be better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

this whole thread is somewhat misleading. The Ahmed source is one of THREE journalistic sources used to demonstrate Murray's "proximity" to the far right, along with FIVE academic sources. Shinealittlelight these are semantic games you are playing - clearly Ahmed is associating Murray with the far right. I would go back over your talk page and consider your biases, especially given that you have called out for bias before. Noteduck (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading here. The term, "proximity" is vague. Also, this isn't a question if other sources make a claim, only if this one passes BLP standards. Once again, MEE is a questionable source per discussion above and this is labeled as an opinion. Either way I think we can agree this isn't a consensus. Springee (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Quotes are provided as courtesies for readers and editors and are not in themselves sources. The source is Ahmed's article "White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall" Ahmed mentions Murray 41 times (I counted) in his article and the context, white supremacy and far-right activism, makes it clear that he thinks Murray is one of them. Ahmed's opinion is one of (at least) five others which establishes

WP:DUE. Whether MEE is "reliable enough" or not is quite irrelevant because no one can seriously dispute that the article on their site is written by Ahmed and accurately reflects his opinion about Murray. BLP is meant to keep potentially libelous content out of Wikipedia, like when some rag reports that a politician has had an affair, it is not meant to stop content which is unquestionably true. ImTheIP (talk

) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Am a bit confused about the quotes part. I agree that we can assume this MEE article accurately reflects Ahmed's opinion/analysis regarding the Murray book. I guess that puts me in the same boat as some other editors who ask if this is DUE based on the reputation of Ahmed. I'm not sure that it is. I agree that others say similar things. So while that suggests Ahmed's views are out of line with others I still have to ask if that makes his specific reference DUE for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSN, RSN is where we assess whether a quote from a given source adequately supports a bit of proposed text for a WP article. In this case, I have argued that the answer is "no": the quote provided from the source does not adequately support the proposed content. You're all free to disagree with me if you want, of course, but let's keep it civil. I'm not playing any games, I'm providing an analysis in line with RSN. For what it's worth, if Ahmed had written something that wasn't totally unclear, I think his reputation and credentials suggest that his opinion on matters within his expertise would be DUE. But I find what he wrote in the relevant quote to be unclear and for that reason not usable for the proposed content. If someone wants to ask about a different quote as support for more competently written content, then we can talk about that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While DUE is offtopic for this noticeboard, the point of sourcing the claim to Ahmed and five other authors is to demonstrate that the claim is corroborated by a large number of sources and is therefore DUE. No, the quote in itself isn't the source. Quotes are provided as courtesies to readers who are too lazy to click on links and in cases where the source might come under a paywall. The entirety of Ahmed's article is the source. This is of course immaterial to the question of whether an article written by Ahmed on MEE is a reliable source for Ahmed's opinion, which it clearly is. ImTheIP (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you. This source belongs on Murray's page and the attempts to remove it, which have been rejected repeatedly by editors with no stake in the page, should stop Noteduck (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Ahmed is a recognized expert, and while the venue in this case is low quality, he is clearly respected. Thus, I think that the source provided is a reliable source for the claim that Ahmed regards Murray as one of several people who "appear to be funded and embedded in a network of far-right ideologues" and he thinks that Murray's "concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism". That's what Ahmed says about Murray's relationship to the far-right in this piece. So while I have no idea what these quotes mean and would not know how to summarize them other than directly quoting them, I do think that the piece is reliable for establishing that these are direct quotes of a recognized expert. I don't see that the piece supports the proposed content, though, which is very misleadingly written. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable-- Given that Middle East Eye has documented connections to terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the fact that it is funded by the Qatari government, and the lack of a strong editorial board, demonstrates that this site is unreliable--especially for contentious claims to a BLP: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]. Additionally, this site seems to engage in borderline antisemitism: Is Israel's hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?, Palestinian groups urge Labour: Don't adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Israel’s push to control global discourse has infected the medical realm, Israeli settlers' racism is not an aberration. It's part of an apartheid system etc. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

MEE's pro-Palestinian stance doesn't mean its antisemitic or unreliable. It just means its a

WP:BIASED source. You cited a blog (not reliable) and The National (Abu Dhabi) (also problematic) against MEE. The BBC article and WSJ article you cited are both reliable but neither says anything negative about MEE.VR _talk

23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The BBC source and the WSJ article were meant to show that MEE is funded by the Qatari government, whose human rights abuses and sponsor of terrorism are too numerous to list. They have also used the media to run disinformation campaigns. Why is the National an unreliable source, but MEE is not?. Also, did you not read the AEI report by Michael Rubin, a foreign policy expert? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LIKE this source Shrike (talk

) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Shrike Agreed. If only that was a sufficient rationale, then we wouldn't have to spend our time explaining why using a site connected to terrorist groups might not be such a good idea. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are all sources funded by a government that is accused of terrorism considered unreliable? Well, BBC News is funded by a government accused of terrorism. NPR is also funded by a government accused of terrorism. But both of those sources are considered reliable.VR _talk 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Stop with the false equivalency. The United States and the United Kingdom rank in the top 20 on the Human Freedom Index. Qatar ranks in at 127 out of the 162 nations measured: [116]. They are not the same. And the BBC and NPR don't have ties to terrorist groups. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: out of curiosity, what would you think of state-controlled Arab News? We have State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia, Saudi Arabia isn't a free country...There's even a discussion on Arab News down below Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR _talk 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@

People's Mujahedin of Iran, but only with attribution and an in-line qualifier like "Saudi controlled-newspaper." But, still, a different, independent source would still be preferred. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk

) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict?VR _talk

21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent With attribution and an in-line qualifier, in some circumstances, then yes. The reason I would exclude it from Douglas Murray is because it's a BLP. Contentious claims to a BLP should only be supported by high quality sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd just add that

Al Jazeera, which is controlled by the Qatari government, is considered a generally reliable news organization by Wiki[118] and believe me, there has been EXTENSIVE debate and discussion on this. I would be cautious in using MEE in an article defending Qatar's human rights record or something like that, but an argument by a renowned expert like Nafeez Ahmed with a wealth of academic and journalistic experience hardly seems unreliable. Also note that his claim that Douglas Murray represents a kind of "entryism" to the far right, putting an acceptable face on extreme ideologies, is supported by multiple other sources, eg ^[1][2][3] Noteduck (talk

) 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking for

WP:DOYSTYLE. Some editors objecting to a cite requirement in those articles point out that a project's decisions are not binding on everyone else. Schazjmd (talk)

21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thanks for the guidelines, which are helpful, but clearly there was discussion and consensus which led to their adoption; do you know where they would be archived? Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, that I don't know, I wasn't involved in them. Toddst1 might know (ping). Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Schazjmd:. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Archive_13#Exemption_from_WP:V and the section below that. Yeah, we get a lot of wingeing and pushback but that's what it takes to effect an improvement like this. Thanks for your hard work on this, @Elizium23: Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that providing a citation to verify a death date or birthday addition is tedious to a list article such as the day or year articles if sources verifying the subject's death or birthday are already present at the Individual's article themselves. I will say that a source would be needed if there is not one presented at the article. As for events on those list articles, I believe that they should have should have references as they can be fabricated easier. This citation measure could only be taken if heavy vandalism is at play on that specific article or list, But for now I think it's monotonous to place citations on list entries if they are already submitted and verifiable at the linking biography. And this measure will hurt overall progression of these articles as a majority of IP users won't follow those measure to put references on entries and will be reverted. I've seen multiple IP users be reverted for putting notable biographies in the death or birth sections in the day list article without sources when their is sources at the article. I personally wouldn't care to using either editing measure though. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but no thanks. "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." per

WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk

) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion, Toddst1. When I review pending changes for a day-of-year articles, if they don't include a cite, (say, for a date of birth), I try to get one from the source article and it's disappointing how often there isn't a good one. Even though articles should have sources for date of birth, death, or event, they don't always. I think the project's call was the right one to make, otherwise we're just perpetuating unverified information. Schazjmd (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Several of us have been painstakingly going through and cleaning these articles up. Yes it's tedious, but we've removed a ton of unsourced/unsourceable or downright wrong entries. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Much of the work I do on Wikipedia is tedious and monotonous. I actually prefer that kind of stuff to creative work, which can be draining. Some of us are gnomes and we like it. Just because a task is tedious or monotonous doesn't mean it should be shirked.

You are a volunteer. All your work is optional. Therefore, if you don't want to cite a source, you are free to make no addition to the article. If you wish to make an addition, then you know the requirements. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Arab News a reliable source on

The assumption made here that there is a connection between the MEK and Arab News lacks any form of evidence and falls within the

WP:OR realm. Stefka Bulgaria (talk

) 17:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Also that Arab News article used in that RfC was written by DR. Majid Rafizadeh, who is an expert political scientist. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, the statement in that RfC was supported by other sources besides Arab News. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the Guardian,

SRMG

"has close ties to the Saudi ministry of information". I already showed above that the Saudi government funds the MEK. Is that not a clear conflict of interest?

And if an expert publishes in an unreliable source, then the source would be considered

WP:SELFPUBLISHED.VR _talk

18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a

WP:SYNTH assumption; you have not showed that Arab News is a primary source for the MEK or that there is a connection between Arab News and the MEK. You're also ignoring the other points made about the article's author, as well as the other sources used to support the sentence that Arab News is also supporting. Stefka Bulgaria (talk

) 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can y'all give it a rest? Coming to RSN is no use if you don't let uninvolved users get a word in edgewise. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two accepted ways in which one can assess the reliability of a source assessing a particular claim. The first is the one usually seen on this page: is a venue generally reliable for our purposes in the kinds of claim it makes? - if so it just is a reliable source. The second is the one that is usually seen on the talk pages of individual articles: one looks at all the sources that bear on the particular claim and weigh up their credibility to see if should either (i) conclude there is a fact of the matter supported by a working consensus of reliable sources that allows us to simply assert or deny the claim, (ii) conclude that there is reliably sourced evidence on the matter but no acceptable consensus, so we should document the various positions without violating

Seventeen.com is the online version of American teen magazine Seventeen. What are the views on the reliability of the source, and specifically this "Loren Gray facts" article? I am wishing to use it on our article on the subject for her supposed birth name, "Loren Gray Beech", if it is deemed reliable as the source currently used is Heavy.com which RSP advises against using for contentious statements. SK2242 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This source shows that her original musical.ly handle was @lorenbeech, which is consistent with what Seventeen say. Dazed also give her full name as Loren Gray Beech and it doesn't seem to be in contention, so I'd support inclusion with this sourcing. Fences&Windows 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)