Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 320 ← Archive 324 Archive 325 Archive 326 Archive 327 Archive 328 → Archive 330

The Needle Drop

I already know how this discussion's going to go, but I'd like to once again revisit Anthony Fantano's reliability as a source. At this point, given that he's been called The Only Music Critic Who Matters" by the New York Times (AKA the most reliable of reliable sources), Wikipedia's refusal to acknowledge him as an album reviewer seems to based more on respect for precedent and/or stubbornness than his actual merits as a reliable source. It is both at odds with reality and inconsistent with the way other sources are treated.

Jim Sterling is self-published and self-reviewed, yet his reliability as a source for video game reviews is not questioned. Like Fantano, Sterling's work was published under someone else's brand before he moved into self-publushing. Unlike Fantano, his current practice of self-publishing is not used as an excuse to remove his reviews from articles. Can someone please explain why Jim Sterling is an acceptable opinion to cite for video game reviews when the same is not true for Fantano and music reviews? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk
) 02:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call NYT "the most reliable of reliable sources". We tend to rate scholarly sources higher than journalism. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this and was thinking about opening a thread about this (Its worth noting that the "The Only Music Critic Who Matters" was subtitled "If you are under 25"). This isn't really a source reliability question, but more a discussion about whether Fantano's stature is equivalent to those of mainstream media outlets like Pitchfork for album reviews, and whether his opinions are due for inclusion in the reception section, but as we are discussing a particular source this is the appropriate noticeboard. The fact that he is a self-published source is irrelevant for his opinions on albums. Fantano's status as an independent music critic is Sui generis, that is to say, totally unique, there simply aren't any other contemporary independent music critics with anywhere near his stature, which rivals that in audience and reach of mainstream music publications. I don't think that Fantano's opinion should be mass edited into every album he has ever reviewed, but I don't think he should be banned either as he effectively is now. I think his reviews should also count towards the notability of any album he covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't agreed with this. The problem with his reviews that he post them on

WP:SPS. Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano. I'm a fan of the guy but I don't think it should be allowed on Wikipedia, if it supported by a third party source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk
) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, Music reviews are subjective, Fantano isn't being cited to support statements of fact, but his opinion on music, ergo this isn't a reliability issue. In the 2020 RfC there was clear concensus against adding an edit filter to YouTube links because youtube is a platform, not a publisher and has no effect on source reliability. The question is a due weight one, namely, does Fantano have the same prominence as critics in professional publications that he deserves to be placed in the reception section, and does he qualify as a subject-matter expert? Arguably, he does. "Basically anyone on YouTube can do a album review besides Anthony Fantano" yeah but how many of those have recieved multiple profiles in high-profile publications? Fantanos status as an independent music critic is unique, and to just dismiss him as a "YouTuber" is silly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Further to this, we accept Robert Christgau's personal and private reviews on many album articles, and not just because it is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. While NYT may not be a glowing endorsement, I tend to agree with the "marginal use" opinions offered here. We don't know if Fantano has an editor or makes retractions, or even if there may be payola involved in having Fantano offer a review, so I would not accept Fantano's word as final, but if an album has fewer than five reviews and Fantano has reviewed the work, it would benefit our project to include the review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, accepting Robert Christgau's self published reviews but not Fantano's is hypocritical. Fantano covers many less popular albums by smaller musicians and his views would enhance the reception sections of those articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: That's not the same and it's not hypocritical. The thing is Robert Christgau has written his reviews on his website in this fashion and now on Substack. That's different then posting a video on a website that can be considered as unreliable. So are you saying we should use Anthony Fantano's videos as a reliable sources instead of an article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
As long as it's some sort of "official" YT-account or whatever, they seem about equally
WP:RS as CNN elsewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk
) 11:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Fantano has his own website, which functions as direct youtube links. I don't see why there is an issue citing Fantano when theres no issue citing say a CNN report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
These comparisons don’t make any sense. CNN isn’t applicable — CNN (or whatever news source of your liking) is a massive publication with editorial oversight and review. Needle Drop is a person - Fantano - a person uploading his content straight to YouTube. Entirely different. The problem is no editorial oversight, no policy, nothinh, just a guy recording his thoughts and throwing it on YouTube. That is absolutely not what happens when a news reporter uploads content to a publications YouTube channel. Completely different. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I completely agreed. Using a video review is not the same then using a text review, these comparisons are dumb and don't make any sense. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Is he an acknowledged expert (by more then one RS) ?Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Also against this. This has been discussed to death at the musical WikiProjects. It’s straightforward - hes a self-publishing Youtuber. It’s extremely rare that such a sourc is deemed usable on Wikipedia. If anything, we should be re-looking at why we deem someone like
Jim Sterling as usable, not the other way around. Sergecross73 msg me
17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: And yet Christgau's self-published reviews are just fine eh? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia Why would you put words in my mouth like that? When have I ever said that? If you’re going to respond to me, please at least address the comments I’m actually making. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and that you think that he's "just some guy on YouTube", describing him as "mak[ing] boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation" and criticising him for making joke reviews even though Pitchfork does the exact same thing, and not addressing the evidence presented from reliable sources that Fantano is indeed a notable critic. Hemiauchenia (talk
)
Apologies for me not realizing you were responding to something I said six years ago to someone else? My sentiment from 6 years ago was that Christgau was usable but not compulsory and that he should be used sparingly. I personally dont use him at all, but I’ve learned to pick my battles because older editors in the music WikiProjects appreciate his work. Believe it or not, opinions can change over the course of 6 years, and if someone put forth an effort to not use Christgau anymore, I’d probably support it. Anyways, regardless, My problem with Fantano is that he’s self-published. Please assume good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that the attention and endorsements that Fantano has received from RS makes a strong case for his expertise and relevance on a USEBYOTHERS basis. In addition to the NYTimes coverage linked above, here's two more examples attesting his relevance: [1], [2]. His use of the video format is annoying for us since text sources are so much easier to work with, but that's not a reason to consider him unreliable or irrelevant. Concerns about a lack of editorial oversight or fact checking are less germane for assessing his relevance because ultimately he is primarily being used for his opinion, and the question is whether his opinion is relevant, not whether it is "accurate". With that in mind, I wouldn't use him for controversial factual claims, but I think it's valid to cite his opinion as part of critical reception sections for music. signed, Rosguill talk 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that RSes have praised Fantano's reviews enough that his opinion "matters" enough to be included in the review section of album articles --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Another note - the opening comments are also misleading. To say
    WP:VG/S - you’ll see Sterling listed as “situational” with caveats and restrictions on his use. As someone who also edits in music and game content areas, I can verify that we often treat Sterling the same way we do Fantano - limiting the use of his content to when it’s been published by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me
    20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
My comment about Christgau is based on fully recognizing his body of work in reliable sources, with editorial oversight. He has been recognized as an expert and has written several books on albums. None of these books were self-published. There are reliable, sources that believe he is a qualified music journalist. There are discussions that have reached consensus that he is a RS when he writes on his own as well as when he has been published in other sources.
I have not seen any sources that support this same standard for Fantano. I have seen editors claim that sources exist. Please provide them so we can see what the sources say about Fantano. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Needle Drop

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editors have achieved a consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of
talk
) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can Anthony Fantano (The Needle Drop) be used for his reviews of music in the reception section of articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Responses (The Needle Drop)

  • Yes There is no disagreement on the fact that Anthony Fantano is a self-published source, and therefore should be not used for independent claims about living persons. However, Fantano's opinion on music is not a question about whether Fantano is a reliable source, but whether or not he is a prominent critic. Coverage by reliable sources such as a profile in the NYTimes indicates that he is, and that he has a substantial following, far more so than any other independent music critic aside from
    WP:ALBUM does (Technically the rule is that his views must be mentioned by a separate reliable source, in practice this functions as an almost total exclusion) and his reviews of less popular albums would help flesh out coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk
    ) 00:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
After having a think about this and doing some additional research, I have come to some conclusions. Fantano and Pitchfork have a lot of overlap in what they cover in terms of more obscure albums, while Fantano's reviews of lobsterfight - pink, black, and orange in the corners and Dope Body - Crack a Light are the only reviews of these particular albums I can find. I agree with other commenters that there's not much reason to use Fantano for mainstream popular music where there is likely to be extensive coverage by other sources, unless reliable sources consider his opinion on them significant. I also agree that the inclusion of Fantano's reviews should vary on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Only when no other sources can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Only when no other sources can be found. At the end of the day, he is a YouTuber. His Wikipedia page uses {{
    Infobox YouTuber}}, his page says "YouTuber", so he’s a YouTuber. No one can tell me otherwise, for obvious reasons. YouTube as a platform is not reliable. It has no one to review videos, no one to fact check. That is left entirely to the content creators. Even if someone is a verified creator, in my eyes, they aren’t any more reliable then a verified Twitter account as Twitter is the same amount of unreliable. Having NYT recognize their person doesn’t make their videos more reliable. The platform is still YouTube. I’ve seen all sides of the argument from reading the above discussion, and I’m suggesting he is questionable as a source and should not be used when not needed, but can be used under dire circumstances (i.e. when there are minimal (0-2) reviews other than him and it is safe to assume no other sources will review the album). D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!
    ) 02:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No (Unreliable unless published/mentioned by a separate reliable source) - per my prior comments and
    WP:SPS. The issue is less about YouTube being the medium, and more about how he’s just a self-publisher without the things we look for in a professional publication. (No editorial oversight, editorial policy, anything like that.) Sergecross73 msg me
    03:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Usable for music reviews per the RSes treating him as an important voice of music criticism. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
He was definitely acknowledged by Christgagu, but to call it praise is questionable, the full quote (rather than the snippet in the article) seemed pretty dismissive to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - He's popular, perhaps he's the "wave of the future," but he's also, as the NYT article mentions, as much an entertainer as a critic. The article also mentions a managing editor, without describing what this editor actually does. The comparisons with Christgau are bizarre; Christgau has written for dozens of prestigious publications for over five decades, and has served as an editor himself; he is also an acknowledged expert on popular music. Mr. Fantano worked at a college radio station, and then Connecticut Public Radio. That would seem to be about it? He can be hugely popular, and even a harbinger, without actually meeting Wikipedia's standards for integrity and oversight. But, like Pitchfork, he will most likely continue to professionalize and mainstream himself and his platform, and may yet meet these outdated notions of editorial oversight. Caro7200 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes on critical opinion, No for factual claims - The New York Times piece demonstrates that Fantano's critical opinion matters in today's new wave of journalism, whether we like it or not. I think some of the "No" votes are taking a black and white approach to
    WP:SELFPUB when the guideline is actually a bit more grey. The purpose of the guideline is to deter editors from sourcing material that clearly has no ground to stand on, like blogs and forum posts. It offers consideration for self-published authors who are deemed "subject-matter experts". While the guideline looks to works published in reliable sources to support this, I think this Times piece is an acceptable substitute. I think everyone should read it before voting. Now, music opinions are cheap :), but facts are not. Since the inner workings of The Needle Drop and its editorial process are still an enigma to me, I can't say there is strong enough editorial oversight that he can be used for factual claims. TarkusABtalk/contrib
    05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes for music reviews, per Rosguill and TheSandDoctor. He's treated as a significant critic in reliable sources, so while obviously his reviews shouldn't be given undue weight, they do merit inclusion. --Drevolt (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only for music reviews, and even then sparingly; his opinion is not a must-have in any given section on critical reception. Surprises me big time that I've come around to this way of thinking, but I'm swayed by some of the arguments put forward above. Binksternet's especially. I work pretty exclusively on music articles from the 1960s and early '70s, so I'd be surprised if there was ever a need for Fantano's opinions in those articles (he'd have to get in line behind dozens of critics and journalists – several dozen perhaps – going back decades). But Fantano's standing, at least as I understand it from this RfC, reminds of what I've read about Paul Williams when he founded Crawdaddy in the mid '60s. Williams had zero in the way of professional experience and for some time his (SPS) publication was just a fanzine, but it was immediately popular and highly influential; some music historians credit the Williams–Crawdaddy combination as the start of genuine rock/pop criticism. Fantano appears to have spearheaded a similarly revolutionary approach to how we view professional music reviews. I still think inclusion via secondary sources is preferred over directly citing his YouTube pieces, but then that's the approach I generally adhere to anyway – eg, by letting artist biographies, books on music history, etc, serve as the guide to what we include from contemporaneous (1960s) album and song reviews even if the entire review is now available online. JG66 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. I don't understand why other editors are ignoring the self-published requirement. You cannot, in my view, argue that he meets the expert criteria; that's a wilful misunderstanding of what its actual purpose, which is beyond even citing journalism—it’s for academics. An article in The New York Times about him is not the publication reproducing his work or his analysis. The NYT is actually kind of disparaging about his videos, calling them long-winded (maybe that's because he's self-published, and has no editorial oversight). Neither does it imbue him with any authority; the only person calling Fantano "an authority" in the article is a musician and college student whose [TWITTER] account does bite-size criticism. The NYT saying that he is a music critic that matters to people under 25 does not make him an expert; it makes him notable. Allowing YouTubers to be cited, selectively, is absolutely buck-wild. He's a notable, self-published source, who shouldn't be cited. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No The bar for critics should be fairly high. Many viewers may like him, but his reviews don't appear to be quoted or otherwise used in artist bios, music reference works, etc.[4] He may be popular, but otherwise doesn't seem to be an established expert, as per WP:SELFPUBLISH. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No – I agree with Ojorojo here. Even though Fantano can be considered influential on listeners of today, he's still self-published. – zmbro (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No – I've read the NYT piece and, if I had reservations from voting one way or another before, I don't now. Maybe I'm getting old :/
    talk
    ) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Note – Keep in mind that
      talk
      ) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No As many have identified this source as
    music journalist to have enough credibility. And please don't compare him to Robert Christgau--the latter is a true journalist, and the former is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight. The NYT piece is rather disparaging than complementing his views. HĐ (talk
    ) 07:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Robert Christgau ... is a true journalist, and [Fantano] is a self-proclaimed "critic" and a content creator on social media rather than a journalist whose opinions hold actual weight" is a silly
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Fantanos opinions clearly do hold weight, otherwise Daughter's tour wouldn't have sold out as mentioned in the nytimes piece. The NYTimes piece is pretty even-handed, only jabbing that his album reviews are "long winded" as they can be over 10 minutes, which is't really that long and by my account many of his reviews are substantially under that. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 08:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, Christgau is a journalist (at least perceived to be so), but I have yet to see any source regard Fantano as a journalist. If there is any source that says otherwise, I am happy to reconsider, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Christgau is now on Substack partly--or mostly--due to ageism (he's in his mid-70s, I think). He served for a time as an editor at the Village Voice; I have no doubt that he is paying close attention to whatever factual claims he makes in his criticism. I have no problem with Fantano using YouTube as a platform; I definitely don't have a problem with whether I "agree" with him, or anyone, about an album. I read many but not all of the references in his article--if anyone has more information about what his "managing" editor actually does, I could change my opinion. And, as an aside, RSs are always going to screw up--I remember a Too Short album where three or four RSs listed different release years--not different specific release dates, but years... Caro7200 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I see no issue with adding his reviews, as multiple RS have noted him as a prominent critic. YouTube being his outlet is irrelevant. It is a publisher, not a source. SK2242 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, for music reviews in agreement with SK2242. VERSACESPACE 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - As a prominent music critic, I don't see any problem with citing his opinions on Wikipedia with attribution. Self-published sources can certainly be used to cite an author's basic opinions.Eliteplus (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • He is obviously notable, if not notorious, as demonstrated by independent news coverage. But
      talk
      ) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No -
    WP:RS beforehand.--JBchrch (talk
    ) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note - And I literally subscribe to his Patreon to the tune of $5 per month. Cheers --JBchrch (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, for reviews. Regardless of whether you think he's a proper music critic, he is most definitely at least a professional music reviewer. We do not have a requirement that a review be written by a trained critic, as ideal as real criticism might be. We want professionals. Fantano doesn't work for a newspaper, but he's a professional. The requirement that someone be employed by a publisher is a good guideline, but this is one of those exceptional cases. I don't think we need to change the guideline in order to see that Fantano is a better source than many of the reviewers and critics that happen to work for a newspaper/magazine/website. Some local newspaper might have a couple paid reporters with no knowledge of film or music writing superficial film and music reviews in between the politics and sports, and because they technically work for a paper, we consider them reliable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should probably have posted this a few days ago, when there were a few comments about the NYT article and Christgau's opinions in the latter. There have been other articles published about Fantano's rise, of course, eg Jeremy Gordon's 2016 article for Spin. Gordon writes that "A new era of music critics has mostly given up writing about the art form to put their faces front and center on YouTube"; he says Fantano is not only the best known of this new breed but that TND "[nets] enough ad revenues to support his family". So Fantano is unquestionably a professional reviewer. Also, the scepticism in the NYT article shouldn't be a surprise, and there's mention in the Spin piece too of areas where Fantano's approach has attracted disapproval from the more traditional type of music critic. Again, to go back in time (further to comments I made above): Paul Williams at Crawdaddy! and
    Richard Goldstein at The Village Voice were both the subject of profiles in Newsweek in 1966 yet, so I gather from secondary sources, there was still a suspicion among the old guard that they weren't the real deal, partly because rock music wasn't yet deemed worthy of sophisticated criticism and appreciation by the culturally elite. A year later, it was, and Goldstein was lambasted by establishment sophisticates like Richard Poirier and Ned Rorem for his unfavourable response to the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album. (These middle-aged writers said that Goldstein and any other dissenting young "rock critic" lacked the ability to understand the Beatles' achievement.) ... As I say, this post's probably a day or two too late to be relevant. JG66 (talk
    ) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No He is not only self-published, but a NYT article about him doesn't make him reliable. I do enjoy some of his pieces and his notability is well known. However, until I see some proof there is an oversight review of his material and content I will stand my ground on this. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No I tend to agree with MarioSoulTruthFan and quite a few others. He's self-published per
    talk
    ) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No: no editorial oversight. I'm sure the man is more diligent, thoughtful and informative than many traditionally published critics but it's not right for Wikipedia without being published in a reliable news source. I think it takes a huge weight of information for someone to be such a significant critic that anything they say as self-published opinion is good for our reception sections—Roger Ebert springs to mind but there's not many people in this category. NYT is just a profile; if someone sees sources of this quality quoting or referencing Fantano's reviews in their music reviews or coverage then that's different. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Bilorv: Rodger Ebert always published his reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times and was never an independent critic, these reviews were also republished on RodgerEbert.com. How much oversight is actually expected of review content generally? I think the comparison to an influential fanzine made above are apt. From what I understand of reviews in professional publications work, there is generally little oversight even in high-profile outlets, because the views presented are largely subjective. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No per much of the above. In short,
    WP:ABOUTSELF purposes) for commentators who are renowned experts in their field; some vlogger kid with some opinions to share doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
     😼  08:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes because, as said by SK2242, "multiple RS have noted him as a prominent critic".
    talk
    22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Needle Drop)

Pinging previous participants to the discussion:@PDMagazineCoverUploading: @TheAmazingPeanuts: @Sergecross73: @Guerillero: @Rosguill:. Sorry for the repetition, but I think this is best resolved by having a well attended RfC. Feel free to simply re-add your thoughts, as I didn't feel comfortable altering peoples text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, I've been busy updating our 1925 book covers for
Angelic 2 The Core, but he should not be cited on the Corey Feldman article as a source for information about Feldman. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk
)

I'm disturbed at the number of editors who appear to be ignorant or completely dismissive of

WP:SELFPUB, a policy that has widespread consensus. Editor who believe that a self-published source cannot be considered reliable or used under any circumstances are encouraged to raise those objections at the Talk page of that policy; it's inappropriate to ignore or undermine that policy in this RfC. ElKevbo (talk
) 07:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: What part of SELFPUB do you think makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I know that they may be used about themselves, but nowhere in there does that part of the policy page suggest that it can be used about another person. The one exception I see there is if the reviewer is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Again, waiting to hear how Fantano's reviews meet the criteria listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A musical work is not a person so that doesn't seem relevant. "I don't think this person has met the bar of being a recognized expert" is a reasonable position to take but that's not what you wrote above in your !vote. What you wrote above - that this source is reliable if there aren't any other sources - doesn't actually make any sense at all. ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: What I wrote above and what I am asking here are not necessarily connected. I am asking you what part of SELFPUB makes it acceptable for a self-published music review to be used on an article about that reviewed work? I do not see a connection and I don't think you have any justification. I suspect you're using SELFPUB in a way that it is not written to support. In short, SELFPUB does not apply to a self-published reviews—whether they be on YouTube or their own blog—and you know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Why is a self-published review different from any other self-published source? ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you answer his question or not? Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no "YouTube exception" to
WP:SELFPUB so the burden is on those who are arguing for such an exceptional situation. ElKevbo (talk
) 18:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
(
WP:SELFPUB is an endorsement of using his reviews. (EK is making a really simple point, I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it.) --JBL (talk
) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people are pretending not to understand it. The more sources that are depreciated, the more subjects that can be found non-notable, and the more articles deleted. I wish observing Wiki behavior
didn't lead me to this conclusion, but it's unavoidable. - The Bushranger One ping only
23:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Yeah, why most of the editors are ignoring the guidelines on self-published sources. I understand Anthony Fantano is well-known but why are we giving him a pass since he still published his reviews on YouTube. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
What does publication on YouTube have to do with anything? ElKevbo (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: YouTube is a self-published source, which is unreliable. If we considering using him as a reliable source for music reviews, I suggest we use his blog instead of direct links to his videos. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This is just wrong -- per
WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." This is true regardless of the medium of publication (YouTube, blog, etc.). --JBL (talk
) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Self-published sources, including YouTube videos, are not inherently unreliable. If you would like to change the project-wide consensus on this, I recommend and request that you do so at the Talk page of WP:SELFPUB.
I have no opinion on whether this person's videos or blog posts are better sources except to note that blog posts are not inherently more reliable or "better" than videos nor are videos inherently unreliable or "worse" that other media. ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: @JayBeeEll: I understand what the guidelines says, but it seems like almost everybody in this discussion is given Fantano's YouTube reviews an exception, which we should not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CANVASSING
rules. Canvassing rules state that making notifications on the talkpages of users are allowed if:
  • They have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • They have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • They are known for expertise in the field
  • They have asked to be kept informed". I don't know enough about the opinions of users in question to know if this is an attempt at votestacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: I was making editors aware of this discussion, why you making a big deal about this? Let's stay on topic here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Because you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion, and thus altering the outcome of this RfC. I don't know enough about the people you have notified to know if that it is correct, but your notifications on users talk pages should be noted in this discussion for transparency. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: You are wrong, I did this before with past discussions to let editors (who work on music-related articles) know there is a discussion to avoid edit wars in the future. I don't care if they agreed with my opinion or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You directly notified 16 users, including: Drevolt, Kyle Peake, JG66, Zmbro, Binksternet, Robvanvee, MarioSoulTruthFan, Jennica, SnapSnap, Sock, BawinV, HĐ, Doggy54321, BillieLiz, Holiday56 and Isento. I'm not sure that counts as excessive under current canvassing rules, but that is a lot of users. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I recognize most as being editors who are or have been active in the music-related content area. And the notifications I spot checked were neutrally worded. And I don’t particularly view any of these editors as "buddies" with AnazingPeanuts who are likely to automatically side with him. (Not am I - AmazingPeanuts and I have clashed on numerous occasions.) This feels like another distraction... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe it's simply a case of TAP being the collaborative type and wanting to ensure as many regular or semi-regular editors as possible weigh in on each issue. That way, the outcome's a convincing one, whichever way it goes. (Looking at the list of 16 people, I wouldn't say we're all of one mind on most things, anyway.) I think it's an admirable approach. It's certainly better than when editors try to push something through before too many people become aware of the discussion, even though the outcome could well affect the whole project. Anyway ... JG66 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: @JG66: This is what I trying to do. I not telling other editors to disagree with Hemiauchenia, I just letting other editors (who work mostly on album-related articles) to know there is an discussion involving a popular reviewer. This topic is unrelated and should not even be discuss. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As an editor who was pinged, I can confidently say that it is not canvassing.
assuming good faith. As JG66 said, it was probably just because TAP wants as many editors as possible to have a comment in this discussion. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!
) 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I regret the accusation of canvassing, its just that the notification of specific users for RfC's is something that can easily be used to alter outcomes, which makes me wary. "you could be selectively notifying editors who you know agree with your opinion" was not accusatory, it was just a reflection on the nature on notifying specific individuals rather than Wikiprojects. TheAmazingPeanuts is a good contributor and I have nothing against them. Some of my actions during the discussions were too hasty, and I'm feeling in a strange, reflective move, and I regret the way I handled myself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah look, let's just put this thing to bed. It's quite understandable that you raised concerns re
WP:CANVASS, Hemiauchenia, just as it was very welcome when you subsequently withdrew the tags you'd(?) added to the relevant editors' ivotes. There's no hard feeling, and no one's acted inappropriately. Besides, as the voting shows already, there's a wide range of opinions among TAP's supposedly favoured 16. (I'm just slightly peeved that I appear to be fairly low down on TAP's list of party invites, judging by their contribs at that time ... [I'm joking – I'm JOKING!] There was a Seinfeld episode based on that theme, I think.) JG66 (talk
) 05:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@

ping}} or {{reply to}}.) D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!
) 03:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@
WP:RFCLOSE, where an uninvolved person makes the closing decision, based on the weight of the arguments presented. I will do this now. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is about. We do not vote, we discuss. And for the record, I said neither yes nor no. I indicated that the subject is not generally reliable. If an editor is looking for a source but can't find a reliable one, Fantano could be used. Of course, if that's the only source, then the subject does not merit a stand-alone article and could only be used in a larger article. Since the subject has not been cited by reliable sources, we should not even be having this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: Yes we do, we !vote and then discuss below. I agree with you when you say that the subject hasn’t been cited by reliable sources. I included you in the Yes category, per my comment above: Most of the yes votes have a disclaimer. It doesn’t matter anyways, because the uninvolved editor at WP:RFCLOSE won’t base the closing decision solely off of !vote count, but rather the points we have made and the discussions we have had. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting that you changed terms. No we
do not vote, because as we both know "the use of the words 'vote' and 'voting' might not be the best choice when describing Wikipedia processes. While technically correct, such references may contribute to the misconception that we use a system of majority or supermajority rule. Different terminology (e.g. 'seeking views', 'polling' and 'commenting') may be preferable." If you'd like me to change my opinion to fit your narrow view, I could change it to deprecate. Until I see proof the source is recognized by RSes as compitent reviewer I will not accept that the source is reliable for anything other curiosity. Walter Görlitz (talk
) 20:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: thanks for the clarification. I honestly don’t know why you’re making a big deal out of this. I was categorizing !votes into lemons and limes, you !voted an orange. I’ve changed my comments above, if that makes you feel better. As well, I wasn’t about to include every type of header everyone used, because that would take a long time. Instead, I gave a general view (for brevity’s sake) and asked for advice. As I said before, the uninvolved closing editor isn’t gonna care about !vote count, rather the comments people have made. Interestingly enough, you were the only one to not comment on your !vote. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm making a big deal about it because terminology is always key. What you have done is made it seem like each previous comment has been made with the same weight and merit, which is what "vote" implies. That's not the case. Those arguing against its use seem to have more policy-based rationale for exclusion than those arguing for its inclusion. If a new editor were to come along and simply want to be with the majority, they would bee given the wrong perception. The final judgment lies with the individual closing this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


gwulo.com

It sounds like a

WP:UGC
website. The site owner is the curator and seems he uploaded a few material and adding citations and captions. However, if he also allows upload then it cannot be a reliable source by the wiki guideline.

Also, some ip use the gwulo.com to cite in the article Ma Tau Chung and Talk:Sung Wong Toi Garden. Personally i may accepts map as a reliable source, if someone scanned the whole physical map which has expired copyrights , and upload to wiki commons (or Just like my uploaded File:Volonteri's map of the Xin'an County, 1866 (enlarged).png, you can crack the file from National Library of Australia and the copy from NLA should be genuine). However, it seems the maps in gwulo.com is snippet of the original map and does not even shown the map legend. Matthew hk (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And here is the interview . https://hk.appledaily.com/special/20210101/LHGIZHUHGJDJZKOWNCG2KEKIWE/ Matthew hk (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Iranica

I noticed extensive use of this source in Azerbaijanis article, with lengthy quotes such as in Azerbaijanis#Iranian_origin section. Is it a reliable source? I don't think it's as recognized as Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. Bogazicili (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Iranica is probably the most reliable source there is for topics related to the Iranian world. This is confirmed on Wikipedia as well, as we've been through this on numerous occassions. See list of perennial sources for earlier discussions and the overal verdict.[5] Britannica, on the other hand, is considered unreliable on Wiki, for good reasons.[6]-[7] - LouisAragon (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Much better than Britannica, which is for the average American reader. Iranica aspires to a more academic audience. GPinkerton (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied with this answer. It looks like Iranica could be biased with respect to minorities in Iran. Azerbaijanis are a minority there. p. 15-16 in this source [8] (author: Rasmus Christian Elling):
"In an eloquent, early example of the latter, Mehrzad Boroujerdi in 1998 argued that with Persian-centric, nationalist and ahistorical accounts of Iranian identity, Iranologists have, in fact, contributed to the marginalization of minorities.2 The same year, Richard Tapper, an eminent anthropologist known for his life-long work with Iran and Afghanistan, criticized the magisterial Encyclopædia Iranica for giving only “vague and very partial” coverage to non-Persian-speaking and non-Iranian communities and factors in both Iran and Afghanistan.3"
Bogazicili (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Bogazicili, the same source (writing in 1998, available here) is not nearly as negative as that quotation suggests:

But the ethnographic coverage of non-"Iranian" elements in both countries is vague and very partial. So far there has been systematic coverage of Azerbaijan, and of Turkic- and Arabic-speaking tribal groups under named entries; but in general, ethnographic/anthropological entries, such as those mentioned above, where they mention linguistic usages and cultural elements, rarely include those of speakers of Turkic languages or Arabic, or mention their vernacular terms. Even transliterations of Turkish terms, for example, are most commonly transliterations of Persian versions of them (throughout CASAYER, for example; or in Doerfer's BIGDELI, Begdeli and Bagdilu for a name best and most simply transliterated as Beydili). For Afghanistan, entries on DORRANI and many other Pashtun groups, as well as the BRAHUI and the Persian-speaking AYMAQ, are detailed; but again, general entries rarely mention the customs and terminology of most Afghan groups, of whatever language

This is constructive criticism which is akin to criticising the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium on the grounds that Greek names and transliterations are used where the addition of Armenian or Arabic forms might have been helpful. The author, Richard Tapper, has no intention of saying the work is unreliable or biased.

I must stress that, despite my carping, the EIr has established itself as a monumental resource for scholarship, which I have found enormously useful. If I had had this resource available to me in the 1970s when putting together a historical survey of "tribes in Iran," my task would have been more than halved, and the result, I am sure, would have been more than twice as comprehensive and authoritative as I managed to achieve. Now, the EIr has already become the first reference point for any ethnographic search—and for the tribes. Even if earlier entries are incomplete, cross-referencing, particularly to later volumes, can help. Above all, it is an endless pleasure to browse through, like being a child let loose in a sweet-shop: what a range of topics, what concentration of expertise, what fascinating detail!

GPinkerton (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Should MakeUseOf.com be considered a reliable source?

https://www.makeuseof.com/ MakeUseOf

  • Unreliable
  • A recent edit[9] had an advertising flavor, IMO, and the source[10] looked like a regurgitation of material found on a "foundation" website.
  • I've used it before[11]. It has been used in many articles, 259 times at this writing.[12]
  • I did not find previous discussion here.
  • Scanning a few recent articles, or posts, they mostly look like ad-infested click-bait, similarly based on regurgitating other "news" sources.
  • I found no bios of editorial staff, although editorial oversight is implied in a few places.
  • Their Partnership Disclaimer warns of using affiliate links and collecting lots of marketing data that will be "shared."
-- Yae4 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Borderline sources like MakeUseOf are frustrating to evaluate, since they straddle the line between a marginally reliable industry-specific publication and a less reliable
group blog. I wouldn't use MakeUseOf for controversial claims, but I wouldn't go out of my way to remove uncontroversial statements cited to MakeUseOf, either. — Newslinger talk
12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Use by other reliable sources, including Reader's Digest, Lifehacker (G/O Media), and Windows Central (Future plc), indicates that the source is usable for uncontroversial material. — Newslinger talk
12:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@
MindGeek, which focuses on pornography; and Brazzers, which is a pornography production company. Valnet also owns Screen Rant, which is an "Infotainment" website. Aside: I have not throughly read the Screen Rant RfC above[15], but "Infotainment" seems like a lesser form of journalism, at best. Anyway, So now these specialists in pornography also own and run MakeUseOf. To me these connections further decrease their "reliability" indicators, but your mileage may vary. -- Yae4 (talk
) 19:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that we should say a source is unreliable for claims not to with pornography, just because it is linked to companies which do pornography? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@
MindGeek discussing "secret investors." Why do you think those investors would want to be secret? -- Yae4 (talk
) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think they want to be secret because because of reputation of pornography. Anything more would have to be proven. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Car and Driver

How reliable is

WP:NEWSORG sources). Thank you, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs
) 02:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

C&D is a major American automotive magazine published continuously for 65 years. I'd say it's definitely a reliable source within the automotive field. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I certainly consider Car & Driver a reliable source, and that particular article is perfectly acceptable for the Benoit article. Fascinating stuff. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems reliable for automotive matters. Neutralitytalk 17:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I also support C&D as a source of what is notable in the automotive world. The same is true of Motor Trend, Road and Track and, Automobile Mag. I would be cautions about using comments in those magazines for technical claims. Over the years I've found quite a few examples of technical descriptions where it was clear something was lost in translation between the engineer explaining the thing and the writer (not an engineer) trying to describe it. Even worse is when the writer tries to make a connection between what they experience when operating the car and the technology/design of the car. Springee (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tubefilter

Which option best describes the reliability of Tubefilter.com, a site reporting on internet related topics?

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

I am asking as it is currently cited on 683 articles, and if it is deemed unreliable we would need to stop that number growing. SK2242 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See the above discussions closed by @Eggishorn:, you shouldn't be making these kind of proposals without a good reason. Is there a reason why you think this is unreliable? Listing this for discussion just because its used on 683 articles isn't really a convincing reason. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is a little bit better than the closed ones, since the two previous mentions of Tubefilter on this noticeboard (2012 and 2018) are dated and lacking in depth. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It is important that we discuss the reliability of sources where it is not very clear from the outset whether they are reliable or not, or there will be further confusion and disagreement on articles as to whether to use the source. SK2242 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture. — Newslinger talk 11:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If you might allow me to modify your statement slightly, SK2242, it would be better to say: It is important that we discuss the reliability of sources where... there is a articulable reason to suspect that the source's reliability may be in question. We don't start from an assumption that a source is not reliable until proven reliable, but the other way around. To attempt to pre-approve sources would be an impossible task so policies do not support prejudging sources. If there is a specific reason for the "...confusion and disagreement on articles as to whether to use the source...", then please add it here. Otherwise, this should be closed. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure you can modify my comment. If you think this is a bad discussion to start you are welcome to close it. The thing is I’m getting differing information on how reliable this is. In the 2018 discussion Nblund described Tubefilter as seeming more "like an industry publication, and a lot of their content is fluffy promotional stuff". However, Emir of Wikipedia points out below that it has been cited by Professor Cunningham multiple times, and the Tubefilter Wikipedia article states that it has been cited by reliable sources WaPo and Variety. SK2242 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Great. I'm happy to hear that. It is important to note that every discussion on this page doesn't require the format that starts this section. That format is what you see to start a lot of these discussions because of efforts to resolve a series of long-standing internal debates about sources that began about two years ago. That is to say, there's back office politics reasons for its use that don't appear to apply here. You are perfectly free to simply ask a question like: "I'm seeing different opinions about Tubefilter, what do people think of it?" Am I correct in rephrasing it that way? Do you feel that question has been answered? I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Tubefilter)

Google Books shows that it has been used as a source by Professor Stuart Cunningham multiples times over at least a six-year timespan, Screen Distribution and the New King Kongs of the Online World (2013) and Social Media Entertainment The New Intersection of Hollywood and Silicon Valley (2019). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

newsnowgr.com

Only being used in 11 articles, but is it reliable? What gives me concern is this article which was being used at Underwater Demolition Command. Obviously Google Translate doesn't always give perfect translations, but the first paragraph translates as.

From the dawn of January 31, 1996 until today, the patriots and accomplices of the traitors maintain and spread in Greece the Turkish propaganda that they say inside Turkey for internal consumption. This is how they maintain the completely false myth about Imia, which presents the Greeks as "losers", while the truth is completely different because that night, the Greeks captured the Turks and it was a clear VICTORY of the Greeks

That would suggest to me it's a highly partisan reference. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC on cryptocurrency site usability in Wikipedia, over at crypto talk page

An editor wants to use a crypto site on

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but someone's started a local RFC anyway. Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#RfC:_acceptability_of_a_source_&_should_an_edit_be_made? - David Gerard (talk
) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Webworm by New Zealand journalist David Farrier a reliable source

Now I think I already know the answer to this but wanted to double-check, New Zealand journalist David Farrier has his own website called Webworm. You can see the about here but there isn't anything else to really show that it could be a reliable source. The Terms of Use and content guidelines seem to more by the site it is hosted on Substack than for Farrier site. So I would like others thoughts on this page. Also note: that while some articles are free, others require a subscription to read.

Farrier does contribute to other news websites as shown here for The Spinoff and this opinion piece for Stuff. His investigative articles, that are often first published on his Webworm site, will end up on other mainstream NZ publications. Radio New Zealand used his article on Lonely as well as The Red Pilling of Billy TK Jnr. The Red Pilling was also picked up by the NZ Herald. He did a lot of stories on conspiracies during our COVID-19 locked down that were run by TV network 1 News, as well as on Newshub. Lastly his work alongside Dylan Reeve in tracking down the person that spread a rumour on Reddit, that an outbreak of a new COVID-19 cluster, was due to someone breaking in to a managed isolation facility to see their boyfriend. This ended up on The Spinoff, Stuff, Newshub, Radio New Zealand, NZ Herald and even over in Australia on News.com.au.

So I'm thinking that while it would be good if Webworm was a reliable source, I assume it doesn't meet the critera for it? However, if his article from their then ends up on one of the other websites, it can be used. NZFC(talk)(cont) 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lawfare Blog

Lawfare (a self-proclaimed blog) is being used as a reliable source without attribution on

Rusf10 (talk
) 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It's not a self-published source, it has editors[18]. It's also reliable and quite comparable to ScotusBlog which was recently ruled to be reliable at this noticeboard. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with buidhe. Lawfare may call itself a blog but it clearly exerts high quality editorial control (here, btw, is the link to their editorial board: [19]), and its contributors are typically established experts in the fields they write about. Generalrelative (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear from even a cursory inspection that Lawfare started as a three-person group blog but its now grown into a legal commentary site. I would now almost consider it a online law review except that it isn't run by students. The OP's objection to its use in this context is not supported by looking into the site itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The idea that someone saying "I looked at a bunch of data, here are the conclusions I drew from it" somehow becomes "just [an] opinion" because it is expressed using the word "judgement" is bizarre. --JBL (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just want to agree with what seems to be the general trend -- an expert blog with strong editorial control is something we should certainly regard as an RS. It certainly sometimes hosts opinion pieces, but nothing that our average editor couldn't spot. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a very reputable and well-regarded source with strong editorial control; your statement that the publication lacks "editorial oversight" is incorrect. This is also not "just [an] express[ion] of opinion" but rather the result of rigorous (and even empirical) analysis). Moreover, although Jack Goldsmith's analysis would be fine on its own, the sentence you are taking issue with is also supported by multiple other high-quality reliable sources also cited. Neutralitytalk 02:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
When he says a judgement we made, that's an opinion. Judgements are subjective. I don't care who made the judgement, but this need to be attributed as per
Rusf10 (talk
) 04:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Two minutes of googling would answer your question for yourself. E.g., FiveThirtyEight, Reason, The Atlantic, etc. etc. etc. It is pure stonewalling to pretend that Trump's pardons weren't transparently and openly self-serving. There was and open market in pardons in the last week of his presidency, for pete's sake. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgetown University Bridge Initiative - academic research project intended to discuss Islamophobia

Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative is an extensively staffed, permanent academic project intended to discuss Islamophobia in politics and society. User:Kyohyi and User:Springee have repeatedly contended on the talk page of the political commentator Douglas Murray that Bridge is "self-published" and have repeatedly removed any references to Bridge Initiative's fact sheet on Murray[20] from the page. I maintain that the Bridge Initiative is, to all appearances, an extensively staffed academic research project led by a major university that in no way meets the criteria for "self-publication". I believe that the contentions that Bridge Initiative is "self-published" are dubious, but given that Bridge has not been directly raised on the Noticeboard I thought it was necessary to bring it up first. This is from Bridge Initiative's "about us" page:

The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University. The Bridge Initiative aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia.[21]

The Bridge team[22] to whom all the articles are credited, includes professors John Esposito Farid Hafez and Susan L. Douglass, the human rights lawyer and commentator Arsalan Iftikhar and a host of others - those are just the ones with existing Wiki pages. The project puts out publications including editorials, factsheets, interviews, reports, videos, and more.

A link to Bridge Initiative at Georgetown's

School of Foreign Service - essentially their school of international relations - can be found here.[23]
Here are some references to Bridge in academic literature:

the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University, headed by John Esposito, is a permanent research project dedicated to the study of Islamophobia. The impact of the Runnymede Trust’s definition can be seen in the project called The Bridge Initiative, which was led by John Esposito at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

  • Khaled A. Beydoun, "Islamophobia: Toward a Legal Definition and Framework," in Columbia Law Review Online 116 (November 2018): 108-125[25]

The Bridge Initiative is a research project, housed at Georgetown University, established to monitor, research, and analyze Islamophobia in the United States.

The Bridge Initiative is being used as a source to support a claim that is backed by several other academic sources. I personally don't understand how this could not be seen as a prima facie reliable source, even for a BLP article. If it is indeed self-published, then any university research project including something as renowned as the Innocence Project, not to mention groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and really any kind of think tank, could also be described as self-published. Any help would be appreciated Noteduck (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". I will ask again, who are the reviewers independent of the bridge project that can validate the reliability of the content. If that condition is not met it's a SPS. Also per WP: V expertise is not justification for use on a BLP "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". --Kyohyi (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
reliable
, independent publications." Based on what Noteduck wrote above, this source seems to meet those criteria.
Your second point about
WP:BLP, however, does appear to be relevant. I wonder if that specific part of BLP needs to be revisited, however, as it would seem to mean that we cannot cite eminently reliable expert sources (e.g., SPLC) in BLPs when no editor would raise a reasonable objection. ElKevbo (talk
) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
You missed the relevant part of the policy which is here "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] " the [9] leads to note 9 on the bottom of the page which says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. ". The subject of self published sources and blps occurs almost yearly, and almost yearly it gets re-affirmed. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, many of the materials written by research projects and other groups such as the SPLC are self-published. That is does not mean that they cannot be considered reliable. Editors who object that a source is not reliable solely because it is self-published need to review
our relevant policy and note that it does not support their position. ElKevbo (talk
) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It is self published and should not be used to say disparaging things about a BLP subject without a RS giving the views weight. Springee (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Per our
WP:BLPSPS policy, we can "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." For better or worse, there is no carve-out for the number or level of educational degrees the author has. The initiative appears to be, more or less, a group blog. Its articles are not subject to independent peer review. It seems like a RS to me for non-BLPs, however, insofar as BLPs are concerned the policy doesn't give us much leeway. If there are other sources that say the same thing, though, I'm not sure what the issue is? Why can't those be used and this set aside? Chetsford (talk
) 01:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP article, does that mean that all material from these kinds of sources must be removed from a BLP article?

Let's take the example of the

WP:BLPSPS? If so, this is a serious hole in Wiki's policies related to source reliability and some kind of formal request for amendment should be made Noteduck (talk
) 01:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally they are usable if a RS cites the material. So if a university institute says A, B and C about MrX and the NYT mentions B and C we can say B and C with attribution and a citation to the NYT article. Springee (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"If non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" I've never heard of that policy before. I have heard of our
WP:BLPSPS policy which says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." But I'm not familiar with any policy that says "non-peer reviewed academic sources can NEVER be used for a claim on a BLP" so I'm not sure. Do you have a link to it? Chetsford (talk
) 02:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the specific excerpt from the Douglas Murray page, only one section of the body article has been removed:

Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia.

Everything else that has been removed are footnote references to Bridge Initiative. The claim that Murray is Islamophobic is one that I doubt Murray would accept but is well established in academic evidence - see these two sources listed in the article[1] This must be understood in the content of an ongoing debate on the page in which the frequent characterization in academia and journalism of Murray as being ideology proximate to the "far-right",[2] "alt-right",[3] "white nationalist",[4][5] linked to far-right conspiracy theories,[6][7][8] or Islamophobic, is relentlessly contested and frequently reverted without cause. Noteduck (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

sorry
WP:BLPSPS standards, notwithstanding the face that the contention Bridge makes - that Murray's work deserves to be scrutinized for Islamophobia - is extremely commonplaceNoteduck (talk
) 02:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"is extremely commonplace" So is this just an intellectual exercise or what? Why don't you just use the other sources then? Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was worth noting that an entire academic research project with multiple noted academics was willing to lend its name to a factsheet that discussed Murray's purported Islamophobia at length, rather than a pinpoint reference in an academic paper. Furthermore, this is not just a mere intellectual exercise - Springee has contested many different edits to controversial pages on the grounds that they are "self-published", especially in relation to pages on conservative public figures and organizations (note, Springee and I have an extensive history of disagreement on edits). For example, on the PragerU page Springee had this to say about this long and extensive report by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi:

While I think the contention that every academic or think tank source that does not explicitly mention an editor or peer reviewer should be excluded Agree that a subheading may not be correct. Also, we have to be careful that we don't say/imply PragerU is working with far-right groups. Some of the views expressed in PragerU videos overlap with far-right ideas. Also, both the Bridge Initiative and Tripodi papers are self published and the Tripodi framework was challenged by another academic in a self published paper. The connection aspect of the Tripodi paper has been widely reported but the individual characterizations in the paper are simply self published opinions. I think the other sources should be reviewed before assuming they are all valid. Springee (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Springee

The report can be found at:

  • Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices," Data & Society Research Institute 2018[26]

Springee may have hit on something important. Is there a lacuna in Wiki's editorial policies that essentially means that ALL academic, think tank and advocate material on a BLP or controversial topic that is not explicitly peer-reviewed or in a published book is precluded from inclusion on Wiki? Noteduck (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC, not other editors. Springee (talk
) 02:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee,an entire team of academics and the name of an elite university have attached themselves to Bridge, so I'm just trying to understand what the relevant evidentiary standard is here. Surely the "publisher" in question is Georgetown University? Noteduck (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
See also, just a few mainstream journalistic sources citing Bridge as an RS[27][28][29]. See also that there are FOUR references to the Southern Poverty Law Center in the footnotes of the Milo Yiannopoulos - another BLP article.[30][31][32][33] I'm not sure how the SPLC can be distinguished from Bridge Initiative in evidentiary terms, unless Wiki has gotten it wrong on Yiannopoulos' page Noteduck (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The first cites them for a rather small claim (According to BI X said Y), not an analysis. The second only mentions BI to say the person being interviewed works there so that isn't even citing BI work. The final one is an opinion article but it actually does the critical thing. It reports on BI report. It says we should pay attention to the contents of the report. That is an example of a secondary source giving weight to a self published report. In this case that secondary source is an Op-Ed article but we can ignore that for this example. The problem in the Murray case is we don't have RSs saying the fact that Bridge did an assessment of Murray is significant nor that Murray should be described by the contents of that report. Springee (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
those are three solid journalistic sources that treat Bridge as an RS. Here are a few more media sources that treat Bridge as a reliable source[34][35][36][37]. Can you address my point about the Yiannopoulos article? I'd like to know how you distinguish Bridge from SPLC, or whether you contend that Wiki got it wrong in that case Noteduck (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear on the exact source your asking about but something like: Doe, Jane. "Islmaphobia." The Bridge Initiative. (2002). has an author and a publisher. The author is a person and is not the publisher, which is a thing, so generally not self-published, on its face. See also, Doe, John. 'The Article'. The New York Times. (2015); or Doe, A. "The Book" HaperCollins. (2020). or Staff, "Another Article." Assiciated Press (2010). none of which need to be peer reviewed to be an RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


What is the disputed edit? I found, "Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia." That type of statement should not be in an article however reliable the source is. TFD (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what

WP:SPS says, it is often not easy to distinguish self-published sources from non-self-published sources. In this case, it seems to me that the professors are the authors and the university the publisher of the content. Who would be liable if what the professors write is libelous? Georgetown University. So Georgetown University should be seen as the publishing entity. ImTheIP (talk
) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This does raise a question that has come up before, does SPS only apply when the author(s) and publisher(s) are ones and the same or does it apply when the organization is in effect one and the same. A news room has writers and separate editors. If Bridge is like the academic institute I was part of the heads of the institute we essentially the editors/reviewers of all that went out but they were also authors on some of the work and as a group were involved with all publications. As another example, would we consider a report issued by GM which refuted Nightline's C/K pickup report[[38]] to be something other than self published by GM? Do we think GTU has an independent review department checking what Bridge is publishing or does the review occur within Bridge? Springee (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB page - again, I would contend that under Springee's definition, the Southern Poverty Law Center would be "self-published" despite its reputation and pedigree, which would render the page of someone like Milo Yiannopoulos in dire need of fixing (incidentally, SPLC have called Murray a "notorious Islam basher" and criticized his work before).[39][40] It may be the case that by an extremely narrow definition of "self-published", no material from any academic project or report (unless explictly peer-reviewed), think tank or advocacy group could be included in BLP pages unless it explicitly mentions an editor or publisher. However, perhaps Wiki's policy needs to be formally amended to clarify pedantic semantic arguments like this one Noteduck (talk
) 07:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

100% incorrect. Admins do not write nor control policy, and there is nothing pedantic the what a self-publisher is, although it is in each case a fact based inquiry, which is one of the reasons why we have this notice board. As far as I can tell, Springee has not provided a definition. They are making an argument from personal experience and it remains institutions who publish are on the line for what is published under their auspices, so it is not a matter of guesswork based on what someone personally experiences. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ImTheIP and Alanscottwalker. This is not an SPS. It is written by academic experts in their field (a relevant field for a discussion of Islamophobia) and published by a university which would be liable if the website was accused of libel. The university may not have day to day editorial control, but it will have a whole set of guidlelines and policies in place that the scholars will have signed up to. I don't see any problem with using this, particularly as one among many footnotes to show that a range of academic experts have expressed the same opinion. I can't quite see what the particular disputed claim is, but in general I think this is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, do you have any further rebuttals? I concur with BobFromBrockley and ImtheIP Noteduck (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we have not reached a cosensus and thus per NOCON we should not treat this as reliably published. Additionally I agree with the comment made by TFD. Springee (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure there is much to rebut, my original statement is we need to demonstrate that there is fact checking that is independent of the bridge initiative. Neither of their responses address that, and my statement is based in policy. Further, this example in WP: V "Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee." shows that we cannot just assume that the university is overseeing what's being published. Since we can't assume independent oversight, and independent oversight has not been shown, we treat it as no independent oversight. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Springee, that's incorrect and not how consensus works. Please read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling: it's putting the cart before the horse to simply assert that consensus doesn't favor conclusion without substantive debate. User:Kyohyi this is a source drawn from multiple noteworthy academics which has the name of Georgetown University attached to it. As BobFromBrockley has noted, that means Georgetown is risking liability if someone from Bridge mischaracterizes someone as an Islamophobe (remember, the SPLC has been successfully sued for flippantly adding someone to a list of extremists before[41]. If you want to dispute Bridge as a RS, you'll have to differentiate Bridge from Southern Poverty Law Center or Innocence Project, or make the case that both of those are self-published sources. Otherwise, given how protracted this is, a RfC at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be the last resort Noteduck (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not a source is self published has nothing to do with liability, and if you look through the archives and even at WP: RSP you can find discussions noting that the SPLC is a self-published source. Really this is becoming tendetious, and forum shopping to DRN isn't going to help. Demonstrate indpendent review as called out in WP: V or drop the stick. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, I don't think you want to go down the editorial behavior path. When half the editors here say "no", it's rather hard to claim the actual answer is "yes". Going back to an article and editing as if the answer were yes is likely to be seen as problematic. Springee (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Kyohyi could you link me to said discussions? At any rate it's not the same, since Bridge is maintained by Georgetown University and is not independent like SPLC. Springee, that's no answer. Consensus isn't unanimity, and "two editors disagree with you" is not an argument. Given that the Bridge Initiative is all over Wiki[42][43][44][45] it seems your stance is quite unorthodox

Noteduck (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This was originally brought up at WP: BLPN, Springee even announced on the talk page that it was brought up at BLPN. My edit removing the information made reference to the BLPN discussion. That discussion is in the Archive here: [[46]]. Now to make a comparison about the university being the publishing agent. Forbes is a traditional publisher, however Forbes contributors, which is a part of Forbes, is considered self-published. Forbes could very well be liable for what is on their contributors section, but the forbes contributors section is still self-published. As another example, the Wikimedia foundation is liable what is posted on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is still self-published. This is because there is no review by Wikimedia prior to hitting publish. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
It is an answer. I agree that consensus doesn't mean unanimity but experienced editors will tell you 50/50 isn't consensus nor should one of the involved parties decide consensus exists in their favor when the other half disagrees. That sort of editing historically ends up being reviewed as a user conduct issue. Perhaps we can raise this as part of the PraguerU mediation discussion since this RSN discussion applies there as well as here. Springee (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
School of Foreign Service - needless to say, this is an elite university with many renowned faculty members. I contend that this is no way meets the definition of a source where the writers and the publisher are the same. That said, I don't see how it can be asserted that think tanks and advocacy groups without explicit editorship can never be RS for BLP articles. This would exclude the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Innocence Project and a multitude of other sources that are used all over Wiki, including about controversial BLP subjects, note the ADL and SPLC used here[49][50] Noteduck (talk
) 00:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
In my experience, it would be highly unusual for university administrators to have any editorial control over faculty research publications. Faculty would scream bloody murder over that kind of perceived violation of their academic freedom. So anyone making that argument need to provide evidence that this instance is unusual in this regard. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The content is published on bridge.georgetown.edu, prominently uses Georgetown University's logotype, and has "Copyright © 2018 Georgetown University. All Rights Reserved." in its footer. This must mean that Georgetown University is the publisher of the content. The authors of the content is the individual academics. Since these entities are different, the source can't be self-published. The "editorial control" ought to be the Bridge Initiative. That academics enjoy academic freedom should, in my opinion, make them more reliable sources, not less. Otherwise we have the absurd situation where a student's bachelor thesis, which is both editorially controlled and not self-published, is seen as more reliable than what tenured professors write. ImTheIP (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, GU is the publisher of the content. Similarly, a newspaper is the publisher of a given newsblog. We don't use newsblogs for contentious claims about BLPs, though, because having a newspaper as a publisher is not enough to guarantee normal processes of editorical control and fact checking. (See
WP:NEWSBLOG.) For the same reason, then, we should not use Bridge for contentious claims about BLPs. Shinealittlelight (talk
) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, you have just admitted that the material is not self-published, and second you are wrong about NEWSBLOG -- news blog exists to make sure that news blogs are treated as reliable sources, and not as blogs. So the transferable publishing lesson there would be, publishing by academic organizations is treated as publishing by academic organizations in the reliable non-self-published analysis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm arguing that it is similar to a newsblog. In both cases, we have a venue associated with a publisher or institution, but where there isn't (or may not be) active editorial oversight and fact checking. Thus, as with newsblogs, per WP:NEWSBLOG, we should use such sources with caution. Using with caution entails not using Bridge as a lone source for a contentious claim about a BLP. That's my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight Even if Bridge Initiative is an SPS, it is Wikipedia orthodoxy to use advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center to establish claims about controversial BLP subjects. This includes the headers of articles. See the pages for Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer and Lauren Southern for example, which reference either the SPLC, the ADL, or both. Are you prepared to make the case that these references need to be removed from Wikipedia? It may be the case that there is a lacuna in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article, and it needs to be amended for clarity Noteduck (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear about
WP:NEWSBLOG, it says 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. If this is analogous, then the academics are obviously professionals and experts in their field, so we exercise caution but don't exclude a priori. The project is an academic project based at a heavyweight university, following all the policies that institution will have on research integrity. The factsheets are authored collectively by "the Team", which means that there is obviously editorial oversight within the team. Here is the team: https://bridge.georgetown.edu/about-us/meet-the-team/ headed by a professor who is a leader in this field. SPS is a completely inapppropriate policy here. BobFromBrockley (talk
) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
What makes it a self published source is lack of oversight outside the team. The team has an inherent conflict of interest with regards to it's research, and being self published is determined by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) reviewing content. If there only reviewers are the team, and the team has a conflict of interest, then the source is self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
What is the inherent conflict of interest? Whose interests are at stake here? The Bridge writers are independent of the subjects they are writing about. ("Self-published" does not mean "primary" or "non-independent"[51]) The idea of oversight outside the team is taking SPS to an absurd length. Many BBC articles, for instance, have a team as a byline (example), but clearly the editors within the BBC have oversight - internal, not external, oversight. The Bridge Initiative is smaller, but there is clearly editorial insight within it. At any rate, Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid: Acceptable use of self-published works [includes] 2. The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims.[52] Is this an exceptional claim? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Any research group has a conflict of interest with regards to it's own research, it's the same as any manufacturer having a conflict of interest with regards to it's own product. The difference between an news organization (like the BBC) and a research organization is that a news organization doesn't have a specific POV to sell. In the case of the bridge initiative it has an interest in "finding" islamophobia. The BBC has no particular interest in "finding" anything in particular. Unacceptable uses for self published works are BLP content, it does not need to be an exceptional claim. --Kyohyi (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Fundamentally, your claim is just false. The works of these academics is not self-published, they are published by a university.
And, no. A news organization has an interest in finding news -- what one news organization thinks should be written about is often different from what another news organization should be written about -- and partisans, of course, may call one or the other 'fake news'.
Your underlying assumption (your POV) seems to be 'Islamophobia' does not exist. But go out of your POV and assume there is such a thing as 'Islamophobia' and you will see that Bridge Initiative has every interest in not finding 'Islamophobia' as it does in finding 'Islamophobia' because the only way to have a expertise in 'Islamophobia' is to be able to identify when it is and is not (as, the only way to have an expertise in publishing news, is deciding what is an is not news). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
A claim that others in the university outside of this research group exercise editorial control over the group's publications is so far outside the norms how U.S. colleges and universities typically operate that it's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Whatever claim your making, it's still false to claim the university is not the publisher, however the university decides to exercise its publishing and its publishing rights. There is nothing extraordinary about a university publishing, including the work of academics in its employ. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Forbes is also a publisher, but Forbes contributers are considered self-published. That the university is hosting the content is not sufficient to believe that it has independent fact checkers verifying content, which is what we use to determine whether or not a source is considered self-published. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

One other consideration for reliability here would be use by other RSs (

WP:USEBYOTHERS). This particular factsheeet does not appear to have been cited, but we can see scholarly citations for other factsheets[53][54] and other publications by the initiative,[55][56][57][58] as well as citations from mainstream media.[59] BobFromBrockley (talk
) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kyohyi and User:Springee, I think the arguments against Bridge's reliability have been pretty thoroughly rebutted. Noteduck (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Given your POV I'm not surprised you feel that way. I don't see that a consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee, you've been on Wiki for ages and you know that it's not enough to simply assert that consensus hasn't been reached without substantive discussion, see Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling etc. In fact you've been instructed on the meaning of SPS since at least March 2018.[60] Please don't impede future edits without basis Noteduck (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
One admin's opinion on what SPS means does not override what is written in WP: V. Demonstrate independent reviewers as called out in WP: V and the point will be conceded. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate that failure to demonstrate "independent reviewers" implies that a source is "self-published" according to Wikipedia? ImTheIP (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Kyohyi thoughts? Noteduck (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
From WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." And per WP: V the responsibility to demonstrate that a source meets policy is on those who wish to include. In this case the point of contention is whether or not it's self-published. So demonstrate that the source meets policy by demonstrating the independent reviewers called out in WP: V. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's an overly narrow take. I think in the purpose of the SPS policy is to filter out material where the writer and publisher are the same individual. As per

WP:USESPS, "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same". It's worth reading the discussion here.[61] If a team of authors are responsible for material (and Bridge Initiative has a large-ish team, many of whom are renowned experts) that means individuals have the capacity to cross-check, criticize each other's material and act as a filter on quality. If your interpretation of WP:V requires formal "independent reviewers" or a formal editorship structure, how would you differentiate Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, which are widely cited in controversial BLP articles, from Bridge Initiative? Noteduck (talk
) 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If the author is an organization, and the publisher is the same organization, then the author and publisher are the same. Whether or not a source is self-published is not limited to individuals. And my take on the SPLC and ADL are that they are also self-published, and I have argued such in the archives. If they are being used inappropriately then they should be removed, but that is largely an
WP:OSE argument. That discussion you linked to included two people on an essay, that's not one that carries much weight. --Kyohyi (talk
) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
if groups like the ADL, SPLC and Bridge Initiative are self-published there's only two potential conclusions:
  • there is an ongoing pattern of non-adherence to editorial policy on Wiki, evidenced by the frequent use of these groups (especially the SPLC and ADL) as sources on pages related to controversial BLP subjects
  • there is a lacuna in the SPS policy, and the policy needs to be clarified to make it clear these sources are permissible

I've turned this over to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) which aims to specifically discuss Wiki policy. A policy clarification needs to urgently be made.[62] Noteduck (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References (Bridge Initiative)

Sources

  1. ^ Murray described as Islamophobic:
    • Ekman, Matthias (2015). "Online Islamophobia and the politics of fear: manufacturing the green scare". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 38 (11): 1986–2002.
      doi:10.1080/01419870.2015.1021264
      . Retrieved 3 January 2021. Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Niall Ferguson, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Diana West, Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011), Paul Berman, Frank Gaffney, Nick Cohen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray (Kundnani 2012b, 2008; Carr 2006; Gardell 2010).
    Murray described as 'Islamophobic':
  2. ^
  3. ^ Halper, Evan (23 August 2019). "How a Los Angeles-based conservative became one of the internet's biggest sensations". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 18 December 2020. Retrieved 5 January 2021. Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement's talking points. A video of Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views
  4. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12770
    . Retrieved 2 January 2021. In the post‐Enoch Powell era, the UK has evolved a broad, cross‐party consensus that maintains that British citizenship and identity is not defined ethnically. The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that.
  5. ^
  6. ^ Murray and the Eurabia conspiracy theory:
  7. ^ Murray and the Great Replacement conspiracy theory:
  8. ^ Murray and the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory:

Is this journal a reliable source? Would its use be a violation of
WP:MEDRS
?

At Talk:Hindutva[63] is being argued as a reliable source for the health benefits of cow urine. The article is form 2015 when the journal was called the "Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology", it's now the Journal of Complementary Medicine Research[64]. Looks fringe, fortunately we don't see to be using it. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Caligula_(film)

Specifically all material sourced to interviews with

WP:BLP violation regardless, but thought I would get some further views on that particular source in general. I do not think we can take as reliable the words of Guccione, published in the magazine he founded, as accurate regarding the events and people in the film. Only in death does duty end (talk
) 21:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable in my view as it is more or less
WP:SPS regarding third parties, imv Atlantic306 (talk
) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Only in death, it's reliable for Guccione's own account of that literal clusterfuck of a film, and possibly Penthouse's role in the saga, but comments about others should be attributed to Guccione and not stated in Wikivoice. GPinkerton (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Are these all considered non-RS or are any ok?

--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

HistoricalAccountings, why this selection of sources? Can't see what links them at a quick glance Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to find citation for different actors dob/birthplace and these are some that came up (though not all for every actor). Wondering if any are RS. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Moviedata: No [65]
Binged: No [66] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Historic England

Martinevans123 and I are having a cordial discussion at

Kablammo (talk
) 18:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading the discussion at that article's talk page, it seems to me that participating editors have misread the NE text, which is studiously neutral. It says only that there is a plaque on the wall about the poet. That's it. It doesn't say that NE vouches for its accuracy or otherwise, let alone that it was they who put it there. "Guilt by association"? --
talk
) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
And that is the issue. If the message is incorrect, there is no use for it in the article. I do not see how the tablet is a
Kablammo (talk
) 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Martinevans123 has provided an independent, reliable link on the talk page of Yeats' article so it is not necessary to determine whether this tablet would be a reliable source.
Kablammo (talk
) 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That does not resolve the question of whether Historic England is a reliable source, and if so, under what circumstances. But such a resolution is no longer needed for the W B Yeats article.
Kablammo (talk
) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's an official non-departmental government body that maintains the official heritage list for England, I would have to say yes it is reliable in all circumstances. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The C of E, I disagree that any government body, departmental or otherwise, can be considered so reliable that we have to take the word of an inscription as Truth. Since when did QUANGO epigraphy become infallible gospel? GPinkerton (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Our article on
Kablammo (talk
) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(The C of E here) That can be done easily. Just make a public FOI request on whatdotheyknow and we'll know for sure. Might take a few days but it will be definitive.
talk
) 16:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Very reliable source, they do inspect properties with expert guidance Atlantic306 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just from my point of view, we absolutely should not be using plaques and public monuments as sources, but any document produced by Historic England should be treated as a Reliable Source, or at least a reliable source for an attributable opinion.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on SCOTUSblog

GENERALLY RELIABLE
There is strong consensus that
opinion pieces and analysis articles. — Newslinger talk
08:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Should SCOTUSblog be considered a reliable source for law-related articles? Previous discussions for context: Archive 38 and Archive 301. 15:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Perl.com stolen

We have 92 links to perl.com. We don't want to link to malware, but on the other hand The Perl Foundation is very likely to recover the domain soon and we would have to go back and undo any removals we make. What's the best way to deal with this? Just change every perl.com link to perl.org? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I suggest disabling the links, till it gets resolved. May be comment out the links till the site is recovered. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This sounds like a perfect time to use the |url-status= parameter and mark them as usurped or unfit, this could be changed to live when the domain is recovered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Gale Encyclopedia of Diets

This caught my eye because I have seen a lot of pseudoscience sourced to the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine.

Used at: Nutrisystem#Efficacy and Criticism for the following claim:

"According to an entry on Nutrisystem in the 2008 edition of the Gale Encyclopedia of Diets, the average Nutrisystem customer uses the service for 9 weeks and loses about 20 pounds; however, a majority of these persons regain the lost weight, and therefore many are compelled to return to Nutrisystem within a year. Regarding the phenomenon of former customers regaining their lost weight and having to return to Nutrisystem, the company's president has stated: 'It’s a sad thing from the consumer’s standpoint; but it makes a very attractive business model.' "

I am no fan of expensive diet plans, but that section looks like it was written by a competitor. I strongly suspect that the quote was taken out of context, and I cannot find any other sources for it. Also, pretty much every diet stops working and you gain the weight back when you go off the diet and return to your previous eating habits.

But I digress; Is the Gale Encyclopedia of Diets a reliable source for the above claim?

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Reliable/reputable source ("content written by subject matter experts in collaboration with an advisory board comprised of nutrition scholars and scientists" is what we are after), but probably not
    talk
    ) 11:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

BGlobal Quoting Robin Mukherjee

Hi all @Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I’d appreciate some independent advice with regards to the reliability of the two sources referenced below. I am entirely confident they are credible secondary/tertiary sources that can be used within the body of an article according to Wikipedia’s guidelines (not to start a new article itself). Their omission from

WP:NPOV
.

The references, below, support the second clause in the following sentence (the exact content):

(Britannia)... was created by Jez Butterworth and Tom Butterworth, a fact disputed by British screenwriter Ben Krushkoff who has been supported by a growing number of academic and expert sources.

The two sources (one references the other) I’d like to be considered are:

a) An article written by a highly-respected EU based, IP/business journalist, which was published in the printed edition of a nationally/internationally distributed business magazine, BGlobal. A link to the scanned, three-page article (translated) can be found here:

An article about the writer and the case against Britannia, as featured in BGlobal

Please note the publication’s translated code of ethics.

b) An independently published letter by respected subject expert Robin Mukherjee: a screenwriter who has written for some of the UK’s most-watched shows and a film that was nominated by the Australian Academy for an Oscar. He has also had a book published on the craft of screenwriting, and is an academic who has peer-reviewed the two bodies of work in question. His open letter, about the case, has been made available to the public here:

Open Letter Regarding the Similarities Between Tribus and Britannia by Robin Mukherjee

Note his opinion, which has been referenced in the first article, is that the similarities between the bodies of work are ‘staggering’ and ‘non-coincidental’.

A third reference could be provided to support the notion that there are ‘a growing number of academic and subject experts’ who have independently published their views in support of the content, below, but I am not asking this to be considered at this stage.

Collated screenshots and links to other academics and experts supporting the content

I'd appreciate your views on the above, first two connected references, as I have read that they are ‘nonsense’ and ‘outlandish’ and that only one person’s views (the writer this case is about and not those being referenced) were reflected in the original edit. Thank you.2A04:4A43:417F:7366:0:0:676:5B3 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I find the source at http://www.britannia-news.org/bglobal/4595202887 dubious, as it is not the website for BGlobal Magazine but is a website that was just created this month (apparently to host content about Ben Kruschkoff's claims about the Britannia show). BGlobal Bulgaria has a website (https://bglobal.bg/), but site searches on the author of the supposed article and the title of the supposed article return no results. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Schazjmd although I was hoping for independent feedback on this (and not someone who I have noted through my research to have removed a previous, similar reference to expert opinions on this matter). In response, I can confirm that the article in BGlobal exists in printed form (I have seen it) and therefore meets Wikipedia’s guidance
WP:PUBLISHED. I'm sure the publisher would still has copies available. It has been written by a well-respected expert: a business and IP journalist, with many years experience, quoting a well-known screenwriter and academic about this matter. I just don’t see how it can be described as 'dubious' irrespective of whether or not you’ve read it, or whether the publishers decided to put it on their website.2A04:4A43:417F:7366:0:0:676:5B3 (talk
) 19:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Per
Biographies of Living persons policy. That policy applies to this article because an accusation of plagiarism has potential legal consequences for both the party making and the party target by the accusation. Please do not attempt to re-insert this claim unless backed up by a far better source than so far presented here. I suggest reading thoroughly the links I have given in this reply. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have read the links you posted, Eggishorn. Thank you. In order for me to better understand your position, though,and ensure only appropriate references are used, I’d appreciate your feedback with regards to
WP:SOURCEACCESS
states:
”Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries...If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)”.
In the first link to the magazine article (it’s not just me who is “sure it exists” but the tens of thousands+ of people who bought and read it), I understand that neither the publication itself or the journalist are being described as falling short of reliability. I have presented proof it exists in a reference to a translated version of the article and a link to the publisher via that magazine’s website. This is enough information for it to be verified. As is stated above, ‘do not reject the reliable source just because it is difficult or costly to access’: anyone who wishes to verify the article can do so using the information provided (by contacting the publisher in question and/or purchasing a copy of the printed version). There is simply no requirement for an editor to provide a reliable source that is a simple click away (such as many academic articles, published books and articles behind paywalls aren't). There is a digital copy of the entire edition of that magazine, which can be shared on the Resource Exchange
WP:REX
so long as it doesn’t infringe on any copyright. Would that suffice? If not, I would respectfully like to understand why.
In terms of any legal issue, the controversy surrounding this dispute is already very much in the public domain (as has been proved); it has the support of numerous academics and experts (as has been proved); and Sky (UK) Ltd have been served with initial papers (as has been stated publicly). The whole point of including a reference to this controversy in the body of the article is exactly due to the legal issues that are already well-known, supported and documented (other works of literature have had controversies relating to them, referenced in their pages - why shouldn’t this one?). The accredited creators and writers of Britannia have been accused of plagiarism, a view known by and supported by many (not a fringe theory).
Thank you, in advance, for your feedback. 2A04:4A43:417F:C227:0:0:696:974F (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This IP is likely a sock of SethRuebens who was blocked for sockpuppetry for similar claims in July last year, see Talk:Britannia (TV series) for details. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if I were to extend the GF to assume that this isn't a sock, the reply above is such an utter and complete hash of misinterpretations and meritless claims that it isn't worth responding to in any detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:DNB Apologies for not being au fait with all of the Wiki rules (yes, I did post on the subject before, as a newcomer last year, and hadn't realised I wasn't welcome back; I'd never heard the term 'sock puppet' before then, but bite away). Irrespective, I don't see how Eggishorn or anyone else can claim the content is a meritless claim, when it has been proved to be supported by a number of scholars and highly respected writers/experts in this field. Likewise, there has been no misinterpretatiom from my side regarding the guidance on verifiability: do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access speaks for itself. Yet this seems to be exactly what's being done with regards to the article which quotes the experts. 'There's no online version' does not mean it hasn't been published. It can be quoted in any academic paper, book or neutral online article about the subject. 2A04:4A43:41FF:1E41:0:0:705:16E9 (talk
) 00:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Point 1: you aren't a newcomer and DNB does not apply. Point 2: your claims are meritless because you provide no merit, that is, you have never provided a scintilla of supporting evidence. Please stop until you are prepared to follow the policies linked above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Your first point is subjective. A few months and a few actual article edits (when I have a lot going on IRL) doesn’t qualify me as someone with a lot of Wiki experience. Especially when compared to the many years and tens of thousands of edits of others on this site, like some of the ones so keen to stop the article having a NPOV.  Hence I’m here trying to learn. 
To suggest 'you have never provided a scintilla of supporting evidence’, however, is blatantly untrue. Supporting the content '(the creation of Britannia) is disputed by a growing number of academic and expert sources', I have referenced:
The three page article about the dispute, independently written by a well-respected journalist (Telegraph, Capital, Economist), and published (in print) in a reputable magazine with a strict ethical policy. This is verifiable (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611) and quotes the below.
An open letter, independently written and published by a highly respected subject expert and academic, who has reviewed the two bodies of work and described the similarities as staggering. There is no reason to believe this is fraudulent; the existence of the letter can be verified.
A positive reference to a lecture about the case and a link to the 'enlightening' video showcasing the similarities, independently published by a faculty of law, at a central London university, on their online newsletter. Academic and easily verifiable.
Irrefutable evidence that the 'world's leading script development consultancy' shared a link to 50,000+ subscribers, describing the case as 'outrageous'. This is significant and  verifiable.
A number of other quotes, made in public, from a number of academics who have reviewed the similarities and are in exclusive agreement that they cannot be the result of a chance coincidence. Can be verified.
Apart from being  'bold', 'all content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views'.  
The article isn't neutral as it stands. The above is more that just a scintilla of evidence that demonstrates the significant views in support of the content. Hundreds of thousands know about the case. The views of a  powerful media corporation and a few rich and influential people who have made millions from the show in question should not hold more weight than those of the independent and respected academics, scholars, journalists and experts I have quoted. Suppressing their opinion on this matter by removing a reference to them in the article is an affront to Wiki's principles and freedom of speech. IMHO. But what do I know, hey,I'm still relatively new here 2A04:4A43:407F:1689:0:0:7A9:2461 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you? Claiming that things exist, no matter how many times you do so, is not producing evidence. You are making these claims so you have to produce something that is verifiable. Until you do, everything you say is meritless. Go away and bother Facebook. Eggishorn (talk)
Please refer to my post below (02:03, 31 January 2021 UTC). Note I have proved that multiple academics and subject experts have independently stated their belief that Britannia's creation came about as the result of plagiarism. I have cited an article that can be proved exists, an independently published supporting letter from a truly respected expert in the field that is of major significance, a university’s law faculty newsletter (online), and numerous quotes in the public domain from scholars and subject specialists. These can all be verified, whether you chose to verify them or not. They have nothing to do with my own opinion as to what happened and what I post on social media. The article should reflect these facts, not only rely on churnalism, in order to have a
WP:NPOV: there is a dispute over who Sky claims has created Britannia, which is supported by numerous academics and experts. As I have proved this a verifiable fact. 2A04:4A43:417F:9A05:0:0:857:ED76 (talk
) 14:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(contrib) 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that their claims were conclusively rejected by editors last July as lacking reliable sourcing and being undue, and the coverage since then hasn't improved. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. Perhaps some of the other involved editors from July like @Schazjmd:, @Tvcameraop: and @IdreamofJeanie: would like to weigh in? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't see anything new being claimed by the IP user here - just as meritless as it was when last discussed. Fwiw, it was established last year that the involved user was, in all likelihood, Krushkoff based on a screenshot uploaded by the user having a Google Chrome "user image" identical to the profile picture on Krushkoff's website and social media. The image on Commons has been removed, but this is the diff. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. The editor and I had a brief discusssion re this edit last week when I removed the claim, which he had reinserted, presumably hoping we had all gone home and forgotten about last year's discussion. I am glad that he has followed my request and brought the discussion here for other editors to examine his claim as well. Personally I find suggestion that four separate brand new editors have appeared within days all suddenly aware of the same grave injustice, and all using identical phrases (and behaviour) as "Seth" as extemely unlikey. And the fact that he has now found a fifth friend to support his claim does not make it any more than the same soapboxing it was six months ago. Whatever the merit of his claim, he is not allowed to use Wikipedia to rustle up publicity and support. When he can produce court papers, then we can look at what is reported in court. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:BLPPRIMARY, producing court papers won't help document this position. We need significant coverage in independent sources which in practice means that a rS has to report on the court case. Until then, even court filings aren't acceptable. I hope that isn't me just picking nits. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
After the last huge discussion, I set up a google alert on "britannia tv series" so I get daily results of any new mentions in the news. So far, not one has mentioned any claims of plagiarism. If and when a reliable independent source does, we can discuss mentioning it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: yes, that is what I meant to say by "what is reported in court". Probably not expressed well though. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note it is unacceptable that one of the above users has attempted to out me in order to discredit my posts in this thread. Revealing what they've guessed to be personal information is an act of harassment within this forum, whatever they think of me and my edits.

I also note some key points are not being and have never been addressed here. I kindly ask that they are:

Why is the content of my edit being judged on the standards required for the creation of an entire article? 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'. This is one clause, in one sentence, in the body of an article, supported by internationally renowned subject experts.

Why is the reference for the magazine article (BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611) not being considered a reliable, tertiary and verifiable source? It doesn't need to be available online for it to be verified, afterall. It doesn't need to be in English. I have offered to share a digital version of the entire magazine via the Wikipedia Exchange Project.

Why is the scholarly opinion of those academics and subject experts who have reviewed the similarities and described them as shocking and evidence of blatant plagiarism not considered significant? They are from reliable, esteemed secondary sources. Is anybody here suggesting that they don't exist or have been fraudulently created?

Please answer those specific questions so we can move forward or end the debate. 2A04:4A43:407E:D8B9:0:0:82C:7404 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Double-checking paywalled sources

I am not sure to what extent this could be useful to other editors. I have quite a few subscriptions to various perennial news site, and I would be willing to double-check sources for you if you ever encounter a paywall. You can ping me if you want me to take a look at an article on the

Neue Zurcher Zeitung. If this can be useful, let me know if other sources are needed.--JBchrch (talk
) 14:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, do you want to add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request or Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Emir of Wikipedia, will do 👍--JBchrch (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The National Pulse

Which option best describes the reliability of The National Pulse founded by Raheem Kassam?

  • 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

There is an

One America News and Newsmax
, both of which are considered unreliable on English Wikipedia.

P.S. Generally English WP policies do not directly apply to other language Wikipedia, but I have 2 good reasons to initiate this RfC on English WP and reference the result on Chinese WP. First as a matter of citing only reliable source and not giving publicity to unreliable sources on Wikimedia platforms. Second there are much fewer Chinese editors actually knowledgeable about the sources from Western media, the discussion on Chinese WP inevitably suffers information asymmetry. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • thenationalpulse.com HTTPS links HTTP links Not cited anywhere on enwp except Kassam's article. I am skeptical to the least that this source has a reputation for factual accuracy as we require. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems to call its reports "Posts", thus seems to operate a blog model of news reporting. Either anonymous or by one person (their TV producer), or Raheem Kassam himself. No it all looks very bloggy and a bit SPSy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you'd want to use this obviously heavily biased source to cite information on the Sullivan story when plenty of RS are covering it as well? Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Unfortunately the Chinese Wikipedian who wants to cite this "press" in the storming of the Capitol article believes the (debunked) voter frauds from news outlets like
    Epoch Times whose editors/contributors vehemently supports Donald J Trump and his conspiracy theories. This should give you a good idea what represents this editor's POV. On Chinese Wikipedia, Epoch Times and its sister news outlets are considered unreliable only on Chinese affairs. The last such deliberation had happened before the 2020 US voter fraud claims dominated news headlines. Using the "English WP doesn't override Chinese WP editorial policies" argument, this gives any Trump supporters/apologists a convenient loophole to cite even Fox News, Newsmax or OAN on controversial topics in any Chinese WP articles to spread disinformation. So far no conversation regarding these 3 media outlets were ever held on Chinese WP. Doing another round of RfC about all the controversial English press would be extremely counterproductive. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.
    ) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, one Chinese Wikipedian insisted this source was generally reliable, and could be an
    not because they are easy, but because they are hard
     12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

What they do, not do, want to do, discuss on the Chinese WP have no impact here. It is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have already discussed on Chinese WP for about
not because they are easy, but because they are hard
13:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
And what we decide here has no relevance there, they have different policies and standards.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course,
not because they are easy, but because they are hard
13:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Kassam is an infamous bullshit merchant. Sceptre (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3-4: At best this would be just an opinion site, probably an SPS, edited by someone with a reputation for unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Here's an example of a grossly misleading and highly inaccurate headline [71] in which they conflate a "90-day suspension" with words like "revoke" and "rescind" when it is clearly not. - Amigao (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, thanks a lot! btw, could you please leave me some more samples like this? (this still looks somewhat unclear because there are no contradictory reliable sources. You could leave more samples on my talk page if there are too many of them and you are willing to do that, it would be better if they are followed by a series of contradictory reliable sources)--
    not because they are easy, but because they are hard
    16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Here's an example of the same publication failing a
    WP:SNOPES fact check. - Amigao (talk
    ) 02:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article by Professor Rindermann et al. be included, and if so in what context?

Here is a link to the article "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/

Should any content in this paper be included on the page

Race and Intelligence?--DishingMachine (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment –dlthewave ☎
04:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate question for this noticeboard nor is it a properly formatted RfC. I recommend withdrawing or rewriting it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Ths is another SPA dedicated to POV Pushing around the Race and Intelligence issue. And I though the "Lab Leak Theory" POV pushers were bad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Caution: Rolling Stone goes pay-for-play

Media Guardian yesterday morning:

Rolling Stone magazine is offering “thought leaders” the chance to write for its website if they are willing to pay $2,000 to “shape the future of culture”.

The storied magazine, which has published journalism by writers including Hunter S Thompson, Patti Smith and Tom Wolfe, approached would-be members of its new “Culture Council” by email, telling them that they had the chance to join “an invitation-only community for innovators, influencers and tastemakers”.

Emails seen by the Guardian suggest that those who pass a vetting process – and pay a $1,500 annual fee plus $500 up front – will “have the opportunity to publish original content to the Rolling Stone website”. It suggests that doing so “allows members to position themselves as thought leaders and share their expertise”.

The publisher said that Rolling Stone does not allow paid content to run as editorial in any context, and that all such content was clearly labelled - but I would previously have considered Rolling Stone a strong RS for music and cultural coverage, so we should take caution going forward.

Has anyone seen any examples of pay-for-play articles? How are they labeled? - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

They're marked at the very top with a large red Culture Council box, and the statement Content created by members of Rolling Stone Culture Council. Rolling Stone Culture Council is an invitation-only network of industry professionals who share their insights with our audience.[72] Any article labelled Culture Council should be considered equivalent to
WP:ABOUTSELF. Schazjmd (talk)
18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure it's wholly self-published if there's a vetting process and the source still has a reputation to hold on to; they probably won't publish just anything. The fact (or claim) that they're recruited also suggests some minimal, free range editorial oversight. Very dubious though. GPinkerton (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It's vanity publishing that claims to have a filter on. Forbes Blogs level of reliability, i.e. generally not a usable source - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably a fair comparison. GPinkerton (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say it is a lower level of reliability then that. Forbes "Blogs" are to share information, this is paying for promotion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The only difference between what RS is doing and what other magazines have been doing for ages is that they are upfront about it. Read The Submarine, it's an eye-opener. ImTheIP (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
self-published. — Newslinger talk
08:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@
ping
|Chess}} on reply) 20:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Find A Grave

At WP:RSP, the info for the Find A Grave section says The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. User-generated by the person in the grave, or user-generated similar to articles on Wikipedia? On a serious note, user-generated is not such a bad thing when you consider family members are quite often the ones adding the material relative to DOB and DOD, and place of birth. If it is known that a close relative added/updated material, it can probably be corroborated with a published obit - but guess who provides that info? Going directly to the Dept. of Vital Statistics would be OR but the published material can at least be corroborated if one doesn't trust the family to know when their grandparent, parent, spouse, or child was born and died. I think Find A Grave should be used with caution, but perhaps generally unreliable is a bit of stretch. Perhaps we should change it to use with caution because not all are verifiable? For example, the information at Eva Mae Campbell Roberts is as reliable as any obit or published article in most reliable news sources - it includes a copy of the birth certificate, and we know the write-up is customarily biased opinion. Agree or disagree? Atsme 💬 📧 10:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Find A Grave)

  • Assessment at RSP is correct, sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
    talk
    ) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say that information like dates of birth and death can be reputable, but only if a tombstone is included (which often only includes years of death and birth but no specific dates). Sometimes people include photographs of individuals, birth certificates, or other documents, but I'd have to agree with Alexbrn that it is generally user-generated and unreliable on its own. However, often people post text of obituaries on the pages, so that can lead you to the original source, which is often in a newspaper database like
    Newspapers.com or Chronicling America
    , among the many others out there. In terms of the profile you listed, I would say that on its own this information is unreliable:

parents john Campbell b. Jul 1889 and Annie Mae Candler b. 1892 d. 1913 [.] Married Walter J. Ring 25 Sept. 1928 [.] 2 children to this union: Lawrence J. Ring b 28, June, 1929 d. jan. 2009 and Annie Mae Ring b. 03 Nov. 1931 d. 10 Apr. 1976 [.] Love of horses lasted her whole life. Was a race jockey in the late 30's early 40's. Later a trainer of race horses and teacher of English riding. Her son Lawrence commented that she saved the family from starving when Walter had an accident and was disabled for several years. Her race winnings fed the family. Some of the horses she trained that won races were Pussy Boots, owner W. Little. Miss Rosetown,owner W. Little and Liberty Boy, owner W. Little. She divorced Walter in the 1950's and married Robert Roberts.

However, this information has to come from somewhere, meaning that searching FamilySearch, Ancestry.com, state, local, or national archives, would likely turn up records. While I see what you are saying that "family members are quite often the ones adding the material relative to DOB and DOD, and place of birth," this isn't always true. As a person who has used the site, I can say that there are individuals who manage thousands upon thousands of profiles, and they aren't related to the family, whether ancestors or whatnot. Some even refuse to transfer them to family members. Its pretty awful. I wouldn't say that everything on the profile is as "reliable as any obit or published article in most reliable news sources." The same profile you mention does include images of a birth certificate, a few newspaper articles, and various photographs, all of which look like they came out of a scrapbook. However, where these articles were published is not noted, unfortunately, but it is definitely possible to track down the original source. Historyday01 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I am of mixed feelings about Find-A-Grave. To give a specific example, I wrote, mostly, a Good article about a very interesting U.S. Civil War veteran Harry Yount and when it passed the GA review, it included a reference to Find-A-Grave, or more specifically to a photo of his gravestone. I quoted his epitaph in the article and another editor removed it in 2017. I did not revert because I had another source for his place and date of death, but it irked me a bit. Since he was unmarried and had no heirs, I thought the fact that he arranged to have his Civil War service inscribed on his headstone added a little bit to an understanding of the man. And it is exceptionally unlikely that there were two Union Army Civil War veterans from Missouri named Harry Yount who both died in Wyoming at that time. Someone else decided the gravestone photo was unreliable and removed it. Whatever. On the other hand, if the article was about a guy named Robert Williams who died in New York around 1930, I would be highly skeptical of a sketchy Find-A-Grave listing. There could have been dozens of guys with that name who died in New York around that time. This is an example where good editorial judgment on a case by case basis is required rather than a hard and fast ruling. At least in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Grave inscriptions and family written obituaries are not reliable since they do not undergo factchecking. While vital statistics records are reliable, they require analysis in secondary sources. Furthermore, if these are your only sources for information, then the information is not noteworthy and should be omitted. The only exception is non-controversial information provided by the person themselves, which excludes grave inscriptions. Incidentally I have been working recently on a project about people in the 19th century and have used Find a Grave. It's difficult to determine if the person in a cemetary is the same person I am looking for, since many people had the same name, spellings were inconsistent, birth dates are frequently wrong. TFD (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
TFD, you are right. I've seen some people assert the pre-1850 U.S. Federal censuses "prove" that a family member was in a household, even though censuses before then only indicate the head of the household and everyone else is only indicated by a slash mark. Definitely it is hard to determine if a person within a cemetery is the same one you are looking for, due to similar names and all. From researching my own family, I've definitely come across inconsistent spellings of names and wrong birth dates. Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think RSP is correct here, however the photographs of the tombstones themselves are probably as reliable as a Commons photograph (also issues) and probably count as a primary source for the image of tombstone.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Although I generally agree with the assessment at RSP, I believe it should be edited to note that images included there, such as cemetery headstones, may be used in appropriate cases as primary sources. John M Baker (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's "user-generated similar to articles on Wikipedia." If I recall correctly, anyone can go in and upload photos or change the metadata associated with them. The
    WP:UGC guideline says "content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable," and explicitly gives Find a Grave as an example. I think the rational is that such sites can have questionable or inconsistent editorial practices and fact checking, and there's too high of a likelihood that the data is either mistaken or deliberately inaccurate. For instance, if it could be used, a vandal could upload a photoshopped image for a grave to support a deliberately incorrect birth/death date in a Wikipedia biography. GretLomborg (talk
    ) 00:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
GretLomborg, you make a valid point. I think that editors can use the Find a Grave entries as a guide to find the appropriate sources, but should not cite them on their own, except only in the narrow instances that Eostrix and John M Baker pointed out when it comes to cemetery headstones / tombstones. There are other images on there, but generally they are either images of an individual or are images of records which can be found on other sites. Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
GretLomborg, certainly I agree that metadata would be user-generated data. For a headstone, however, the headstone itself is the primary source. If you're discounting photos of headstones on Fina a Grave due to the theoretical possibility that the photo could be photoshopped, I'm not sure how to apply the limitation. If the photo were not on Find a Grave but uploaded by an editor, would that be acceptable? What if there is no photo, but the headstone is in a large city where it can easily be seen by many people? It seems to me that a headstone typically would be citable and that a photo of a headstone on Find a Grave would be as good evidence of the headstone as most other sources. John M Baker (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue with find-a-grave and headstones is not that they might be photoshopped, its that the headstone may not be for the person its supposedly linked to at all due to the lack of corroborating information in many cases. The issue is the same for pictures uploaded to ENWP, "This is the headstone of George Smith buried b/d XXX and located in YYYY cemetary". Okay, so how do we know its the George Smith in our article? We dont without a reliable source to indicate it is. If there is a reliable source that states "Notable person George Smith is buried in xxx cemetary" then depending on the time and date, there is a reasonable chance the headstone is for that person. The issue ENWP has is that people dont have the former (a reliable source) and want to use the latter (a find-a-grave entry or headstone) to source an article. Functionally Find-a-grave is useless for referencing, except as a tool to locate better sources, or where we already have much better sources and it might contain a bit of extra information. The additional issue there is that headstones are bought and paid for by the family of the recipient, so if someone has been lying about their age their entire life, there is a good chance its repeated on the headstone. There isnt a headstone editorial board factchecking them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Only in death, you are right. As a person who has created various entries on the site, I can say there definitely is NO editorial board. There is a group of volunteers which manage the organization and can take control of memorials you create, but they never fact-check ANYTHING you say. You can really say whatever you want in the bio and no one can stop you. The only "check" against this is users being able to request changes to entries for dates, places, etc. I totally agree with you that it is "useless for referencing, except as a tool to locate better sources." Historyday01 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful input - there are certainly alot of valid reasons not to cite it, and I'm taking all of it into consideration, including the few exceptions when we can/should IAR. For example, if the cemetary is listed and there's a plot#, a verifiable photo of the tombstone or plaque with the name & date, then it can be corroborated either by the BVS or possibly by cemetary personnell. In the case I'm working on, the family has provided the necessary info, photographs, news clippings, etc. and some of it can be corroborated at Newspaper.com which helps sync things up for accuracy. But not having a published birthdate, or place of birth in one or multiple RS doesn't automatically indicate that a person is not notable. Having said that, I will add that a published birthdate doesn't automatically mean it is the correct date, as we have long since learned based on multiple OTRS tickets. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Daily Star

Hey everyone,

So, the Daily Star is now a deprecated source on Wikipedia. It was once owned by Northern & Shell who also owned Channel 5 and it produces television supplements about UK soap operas. It's actually reliable for soap opera information and soap opera articles don't make claims about BLPs and historic events. Therefore, can we request a carveout and that soap opera articles still be allowed to use this as a source?-- 5 albert square (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Or we could just use better sources, if it's significant not only the Daily Star will cover it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Slatersteven... no need for a carve-out. If the Star is the only source that covers something about a soap opera, that something isn’t significant enough to mention. And if there are other sources with better reputations that mention it, we can use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
There are instances a cast member will give an interview about their character. It could hold exclusive characterisation or casting details. Are we supposed to just ignore that? I also do not see what is controversial about using it as a source for critical analysis of television shows and characters. Reception sections quote journalist's opinions and include star ratings. It is a national newspaper, so why is a DS journalist's opinion not valid. As 5 albert square stated, it was owned by Northern & Shell who owned Channel 5 and would often use it as a hub to promote the soap operas on it's channel. It is basically comparable to any other primary source such as an official website used to cite something. It is difficult to accept the removal of a source when you know is fact because it reflects what you just watched on television. I understand we should not use it as a source for BLPs or a current event but this is different.Rain the 1 17:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Not for 5 years, so we are in fact talking about material that is five years old, coorect?Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Re: “There are instances a cast member will give an interview about their character. It could hold exclusive characterisation or casting details. Are we supposed to just ignore that?”... If no other source thinks this characterization or detail is important enough to repeat or comment on... I would say: yes, we are supposed to ignore that characterization or detail. It should be deemed too trivial to put into our article. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Raintheone: I wouldn’t trust the Daily Star with interviews either. SK2242 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
There is always going to be an instance where a journalist tarnishes their employer's reputation by fabricating an interview. It can happen across the board and even The Guardian has probably had to deal with that issue. If every Daily Star interview was fake there would be countless celebrities complaining just like The Rock did. As this conversation is related to the usage of the newspaper for television shows, I do not understand what they would gain by making an interview up. The show would be broadcast and their readers would then know what they read was untrue.Rain the 1 09:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Doable, but iffy. As the links say, it is
WP:WEIGHT venue. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
We've still got 39 BLPs cited to the Daily Star (as opposed to 1 for The Sun - with consensus, and 0 for the Daily Mail). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been going through these. The vast majority of the Daily Star content I see is reviews (prima facie
WP:UNDUE
), stuff sourced to "insiders" (i.e., it's functionally a press release - might exist elsewhere) or descriptions of plot (don't really need a third-party cite, the source is considered sufficient as I understand it - though sourcing old soap opera episodes might be a bit of work).
FWIW, for possible replacements, Digital Spy is not only listed in
WP:RSP as reliable for telly pop culture, I understand our soap opera fans think highly of it. I presume this means they don't have a track record of making stuff up, and have good content that fans can rely on. Though I have no familiarity with the site myself - David Gerard (talk
) 22:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Digital Spy doesn't cover everything though. The Daily Star, particularly when owned by Northern & Shell, covered the Australian soaps more often as they had access to the episodes and cast (for interviews). The content you removed from the Queen Vic Fire Week [74] article contained information from an interview with a cast member, so not a review, press release or plot description. It was likely used in place of another source because the actor didn't repeat that information anywhere else.
What I actually wanted to know is why the sources and content needs removing straight away? There doesn't appear to be anything about immediate removal at WP:RSP. Could The Daily Star sources be marked as depreciated, so that editors would have the chance/time to replace them if necessary? The instant removal often leaves sections with missing information and sentences no longer make sense, plus it can also be easily missed if the articles are not on an editor's watchlist. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The worst tabloid source I ever saw was this. I wonder if the preceding text should be revision deleted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
No, because that actually did happen, and it was documented in at least one RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Markbassett Thanks for that. It's discouraged if it's deprecated. Not blocked. None of the data that I've seen removed from the soap opera articles violates any BLP content. So why can't they still use it? Also, why do they need to be removed immediately? Why can't the articles be tagged as having a deprecated source? If they were at least tagged that gives us the chance to replace the source instead of just having information removed without someone even looking for an alternative source.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Not wishing to play wiki lawyer but
WP:ONUS, its on the inclusionists to find better sources.Slatersteven (talk
) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
ONUS covers the the dilemma of whether or not to include verified information in an article.
WP:BURDEN states those adding the information must provide a reliable source. It also states that information does not need to be removed immediately if the article is stable and not a BLP. I think that seems fair considering the information was added with a source.Rain the 1
19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those seem to cover the situation — the soap opera bits that *did* meet the policy
WP:DEPRECATED is discouraged, but addition of new cites might occur as reliability always depends on the specific content being cited. CONTEXTMATTERS — For a soap opera or someone’s birthdate there is no need for the London Times, and little chance the London Times would cover that anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk
) 05:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I am somewhat fed up I cannot find a better source for Lloyd Russell-Moyle's date of birth than the Daily Star reference that's already there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
​Buidhe cited this page from politics.co.uk in Special:Diff/1004581312, which states "Born‌ ‌on the 14th of September 1986, Lloyd...". In Special:Diff/1004796666, I added The Politicos Guide to the New House of Commons 2017 by Tim Carr, Iain Dale, and Robert Waller, which was published by Biteback Publishing and states "Lloyd Russell-Moyle was born in Brighton in September 1986". The piece from the Daily Star, which I have removed, only had the month and the year ("He was born in Brighton in September 1886"), so the birth date in the article is now more thoroughly and more reliably sourced than it was before. — Newslinger talk 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe this shows how bad this whole "deprecation" system is. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Penguin and Synodus Episcoporum Bulletin

Hi all.

It would be extremely helpful if the reliability of the following two sources could be established.

The article in question is Sword of the Spirit.

For a quick reference this topic describes an organisation, specifically a religious 'covenant community' association within the

Charismatic Movement
.

Some discussion of the relevant sources (quite extensive really) is available on the article talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit.

The first source [1] in question is one nominated for deletion.

The source is published by Penguin, who one user argues is reputable, and another argues is not reputable.

The article describes interview with

The Handmaiden's Tale
.

Relevance to the Sword of the Spirit article is Atwood's discussion of the records examined in the interview, with specific reference to researching sword of the spirit member communities and taking the name 'handmaiden' from the name sword of the spirit referred to women who served the communities. There is some further discussion of anti-feminist issues with the group.

It would be great to hear some opinions on:

  • Is this a reliable publisher?
  • Is this reliable specifically for the inclusion a verifiable reception opinion?

The second source in question is a Synodus Episcoporum Bulletin.[2]

This source is a self-published leaflet for the middle east bishops meeting within the catholic church.

The article provides some discussion of Sword of Spirit by Georges Bacouni, an archbishop in Lebanon.

Specifically the concern is regarding

WP:ABOUTSELF
.

The concern raised with this source is that the bishop in fact makes factual statement of the activities of a third party (sword of the spirit) and about how third parties (non-christians?) feel about this other third party (sword of the spirit) and there is little 'raw opinion' in this article. There is also some concern that, given the content of reliable publishing on this topic (which unfortunately is not wholly favourable) this may also represent a minority opinion. Given the Sword of the Spirit is a private organisation of a christian subculture, and has historically been intentionally kept at arms length by the vatican, there is some question as to the relevance of the bishops statement other than the publicism of the establishing of a christian community. Conversely some Sword of the Spirit communities are official lay communities (though not the Sword of the Spirit orginisation, which is more like an umbrella leadership division), so there is potential that the bishop does have some involvement with the group, however it is noted that there is no sources identifiable where any relevance can be reputably verified.

So again, to move discussion forward, the useful questions it would be really helpful if editors could weigh in on.

  • Is this a reliable publisher?
  • Is this reliable specifically for the inclusion of the content of this leaflet in the article?

Thank you for any input you can provide :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Margaret Atwood on the real-life events that inspired The Handmaid's Tale and The Testaments". Penguin. September 2019. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  2. ^ "SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN". http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents. the catholic church. Retrieved 4 February 2021. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  • Penguin is about as reputable a publisher as it is possible to imagine. The default position towards Penguin books should be that anything published in them has been through a rigorous editing process. So we have no reason to believe this is not RS due to the publisher. The source is therefore valid for supporting Margaret Atwood's opinion, as stated on the interview (which would have to be attributed to her in the text of our article). There may be questions around
    WP:WEIGHT, but Margaret Atwood is a prominent public intellectual who is much better known than the Sword of the Spirit
    so I'd want to see very well-argued reasoning for why her opinion is not relevant.
  • The leaflet is published on the Vatican website, which means it can be considered RS for the opinions of Archbishop Bacouni. Again, I don't know much about the topic so questions of
    WP:WEIGHT
    might be relevant. I would discuss the question of weight for this source on the talk page, I don't know enough about the topic to opine on whether including Bacouni's opinion might be a problem re NPOV. The opinion would have to be attributed if included.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: thanks for weighing in :)
So to make sure I am clear here: Penguin is solid. The leaflet would be RS for the bishops opinion ie 'I think evangelism is good'. It is not a reliable source if the article content includes statement of fact, ie. 'I think it is good...that (Sword of the Spirit/ third party)...did (x,y,z/factual statement)'. Is this correct?Linn C Doyle (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Penguin is absolutely fine, and there is no problem with using the article to support a statement of Atwood's opinion on the organisation in question.
The Bacouni source is ok only to state the opinions of the writer. It can't be used for factual statements in the voice of wikipedia, so it can't be used to support text in the article saying: "Sword of the Spirit makes people like cheese" but it could be used to support "Archbishop Bacouni [insert reason for relevance here] argues that Sword of the Spirit makes people like cheese".
That doesn't mean that both statements should be included, just that they can be as reflections of opinion. What should be included has to be decided according to
WP:WEIGHT. --Boynamedsue (talk
) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326&oldid=1085560958"