Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 349

• It seems pretty reliable. Abstracted/indexed by Scopus,
  NCBI, etc. High impact factor, high h-index (a higher h-index for the last five years than the Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine). A strong editorial board and a strong peer review process. No evidence of predatory behavior. Dr. Swag Lord (talk
  ) 09:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The book is by Henry Hazlitt and the statement is "However, in 1959 Hazlitt published The Failure of the New Economics, a detailed, chapter-by-chapter critique of John Maynard Keynes' arguments." The IP has now added two sources:^[1][2]

My issue is in part that we shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice (let alone the "However"). But the sources don't look reliable, being the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education. The reception section is basically sourced by using quotes from the Mises Institute or its supporters, with one mixed review from a blog by J. Bradford DeLong. Nothing from JSTOR. Four of the reviews in fact link to the Mises Institute which is flagged by the script at User:Headbomb/unreliable as a "generally unreliable source". See this discussion last October.[16]. Note that two of the editors there, Flickotown and Festerhauer, were socks of the same editor, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton/Archive. I'm not surprised, my experience is that these articles seem to be part of a walled garden (in part because there aren't many people who aren't fans of this brand of economics interested in them).

Given the state of the article, from the lead on down, once the sources issue is decided I may go to NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Mises and FEE are stupendously biased to the point of crank territory (or "heterodox", as they put it in economics). I would say, delete the claim and those terrible sources - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yea, these overly ideological sources aren't generally great and shouldn't be used without attribution. But someone like Chamberlain should be reliable enough to give an accurate summary of a book. You could instead use this New York Times article, The Labour Law Journal, this Reuters article, or this very brief summary from Foreign Affairs. Here are some additional sources you could use for the reception section for Economics in One Lesson: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't really source unreliability: regardless of the axes ground by the Mies Institute, I would trust them to the extent of getting Hazitt's publication history correct. Balance is another story. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hall, Ian. Modi and the Reinvention of Indian Foreign Policy. United Kingdom, Bristol University Press, 2019

Preview available on Google books

Would you consider it reliable source?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends. What is it being cited for? Do other sources contradict it? Context matters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bookku, an editor whose record on Wikipedia seems to be about showing how poor the status of women is in Pakistan, is attempting to show somewhat startlingly that the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi did not abandon his wife as has been widely reported in the international press, that Modi had a "child marriage," forced upon him by his family, and he thus stands absolved of abandonment or desertion. Bookku, in my view, is attempting to rope in Ian Hall in support of his quest. The RFC which Bookku has requested in this matter on Talk:Narendra Modi seems to be going near-unanimously against him. I suspect he is looking to use this paragraph from Hall (p. 64)

Soon after, other points of contention emerged. When Modi was about six, his father had made a preliminary arrangement for his marriage, as was customary at that time and in that community (Verma, 2014, pp. 9-10). By the time he was 13, however, he seems to have begun to protest against the idea of marrying (Mukhopadhyay, 2013, pp. 65-6; Marino, 2014, p. 21). Nevertheless, a ceremony was conducted at some point with Jashodaben, his intended spouse, either when Modi was 13 or 16 (his biographers disagree on the details) (Verma, 2014, p. 10). Another was performed to seal the marriage when Modi was about 17, at which point the couple were meant to live together, with his wife joining his parents’ household. This situation did not last long. Within weeks, he broke with both his spouse and his family. He left home and thereafter did not return, except very briefly, to either his wife or his parents."

In my understanding, Bookku would like to use this paragraph to reason that because Modi was "about 17," the marriage was a "child marriage," a term with much resonance in India, and many tragic tales of young Indian women being abused. India did have a "Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929," which after one amendment in 1949 (after India's independence from Britain) stated that a (heterosexual) marriage was not recognized (and hence a child marriage) if the bride (woman/girl) was below the age of 15 or the groom (male) below the age of 18. Jashodaben Modi, Mr Modi's wife was definitely above the age of 15. Mr Modi's age on the day of marriage is murky. In the RFC, ten editors have voted to support, "Mr Modi was 18 and his wife was 17" or words to that effect and in effect have voted against mentioning "child marriage." The Child Marriage Restraint Act, however, always had the girl in mind, not the boy. Its main concern was pre-puberty girls, often between the ages of 9 and 14, who had been abused in the institution of marriage in Hindu India for centuries. Bookku in my view is engaged in a rear-guard action in the last week of the RFC (which began on July 10 and which is) slated to close next week. Why he is taking a patriarchal stance in the instance of India, given his record of ostensible feminism in Pakistan-related articles, is a bit of a mystery. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not familiar with Ian Hall's work, but I expect that he is a good academic. His book is about foreign policy. His paragraph should be seen as art, not science, in other words, reliable on foreign policy, less reliable on the murky travails of Mr Modi's marriage; Hall has attempted to write a semi-coherent narrative there, given the all too few published books discussing the marriage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If a source states that someone was 'about 17' when something happened, one would generally assume that they are being non-specific for good reasons - almost certainly because they don't have the evidence to be more definitive. So regardless of whether Hall is 'reliable' on this particular matter (he would seem to be for the actual topic of his book) he can't be cited for anything more specific about Modi's age. As for what the article should say on the matter, without looking into it in further detail I'd do better not to offer any opinion beyond pointing out that policy suggests that if reliable sources differ on something they consider to be of significance, Wikipedia should generally say so, rather than trying to decide who is right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for digression, those users who feel that there is more scope of feminist encyclopedic discussion on South Asia are most welcome to expand Draft:Sexual politics in south Asia, in present status of draft I have taken note of criticism of Hindu Indian traditions but then others may ask why you target south Asia only, I have worked on women's rights on global level articles too like My body, my choice and users are most welcome to constructively expand those articles rather than passing condescending judgements. ( I have paid some attention on Muslim women's feminism since few among them are active and writing on Wikipedia.) I have worked on conservative muslims side articles too like Islamic advice literature. I did not start insinuation or digression from my side so I do not expect any rebuttals here, join in improving women's rights articles across rather that will be more fruitful. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You'd probably have got less digression if you'd included an explanation of what the source was being cited for in your first post, as requested at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit to the

MaxBrowne2, I don't think that issue was squarely confronted; the issue was more whether the conviction was a noteworthy event in that person's life. @Drmies: you were involved in that discussion but it's been a while, do you still consider it good law? Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen, it's a BLP issue still. A (now-retired) user, User:Doc2234, gave some pretty convincing arguments for why that paper (or at least that article) was questionable, but the bigger problem is this: a. apparently she was convicted on only one charge and served less than 30 days ("fewer"?), b. the thing is kind of like a magnet and has had a tendency for BLP-violating accretion, and c. if the Boston Phoenix is the only decent source for this, then what reason do we have to include this information? Drmies (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Well "Simon" was groovy, as is anything connected with Prince, and so is anything connected with Zappa... I'm inclined to like the woman. But isn't her animal welfare conviction sufficiently documented? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I confess that I spend less time with BLPs than others, but I'm unsure I buy the argument that we should exclude someone's criminal conviction from their biography because it's immaterial to their career as a musician. We certainly don't take that line with sportspeople, or actors, or even other musicians for that matter. A person's life is what it is, and we see them in the round. The repeated argument on the talk people that the publications could be sued for libel seems specious, at best, and makes me disinclined to take the user's other arguments seriously. This feels much like special pleading in this case and I'm at a loss to understand why. When we write about coaches and football players we include DUIs and speeding tickets, and we're arguing here about an animal welfare conviction? Either our standards need to come up or come down.

Anyway, main idea. The Boston Phoenix was an alt-weekly that apparently won some awards and like many alt-weeklies went under in the last decade. It is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, apparently without incident or comment. I see no real foundation for the attempts to undermine its credibility during this particular discussion; no one has disputed that they got the facts right. I would note that they are not the sole source for this story either. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

One could certainly argue that her brief prison sentence was unfair; it's not like she was a threat to the public or anything, despite her previous conviction for (gasp) marijuana posession. But it seems strange to omit a notable person's imprisonment from their biography. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not strange at all to think a 90-day stint in a county lockup on a matter that has no connection whatsoever to a person's career or notability, with a ony single source paying any attention to it, would be omitted. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Calton, though, to be clear, more than one source reported it, so that doesn't seem germane here, and that would seem to enhance the Phoenix's credibility if anything. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the Boston Phoenix is RS. However, if someone wants a source from a more established newspaper, wikimail me and I'll reply with an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader. John M Baker (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well right, and could you just cut out the middleman and add it? For a negative, contentious fact in a BLP you'd want either an AAA-level source (which neither the Union Leader nor the Phoenxix are, as they're both biased and both probably have mediocre fact-checking), or two sources.

As to the BLP issue, that's for the BLP board, but in a nutshell what I like to consider is these things:

• So, first of all, the Wikipedia is really big, and an obscure private person (like Dale Bozzio) is really little. We can say whatever we want about her, especially if it's probably true, and there's really nothing she can do easily do about it, is there. (Sucks to be her, but she could have chosen to be an accountant and not a singer and she wouldn't have come into our crosshairs, so that's on her.) Second of all, for most not-very-famous people, their Wikipedia article is their main public face. For Bozzio, as is not uncommon, our article is her first google result. And other sites copy from or look to us. Third of all, while the Wikipedia may not last long (or may), the database -- the articles -- may we be around in one form or another for a long time, and be passed on further. So it's not just "we create her public face" but "we create her public face -- forever".
• And then, I say to myself, "with great power comes great responsibility". And I remind myself that I'm just as aswim in the moral world here at my keyboard as when I trip an old lady or give a dollar to a crippled orphan. I remind myself that "punching down" is a real phrase because it describes a real phenomenon, and that I'm not here to make people sad, hurt their feelings, hurt their reputation, if I can reasonably avoid it.
• So then, I ask myself, is there any possible way to justify not writing bad things about this person, without being unfair to the reader or doing egregious violence to the project's mission. If the bad thing is central to understanding the entity and what they have accomplished (or suffered) such that they're worthwhile learning about, then it becomes a difficult decision to weigh. If a reader would justifiably feel betrayed that we gave her a false understanding of the entity by withholding the data, then it becomes a difficult question to weigh. If it's not, the answer is easy! I like questions with easy answers!Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable jumping into this BLP issue (especially since I edit under my real name), so I'm not going to edit the article myself. However, if someone else wants sources, I can provide them. The Union Leader article is a good one and gives a fairly balanced view, but there are additional sources available, including the Associated Press, so this definitely is not an RS issue. John M Baker (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard of her doesn't make her "obscure". She is well known to pop and rock music fans; I'm pretty sure Lady Gaga has heard of her. The suspicion is that if properly sourced negative information about a person is not included, the article is being whitewashed. I don't agree that there should be a presumption in favour of excluding such information. Problem is, when people tried to introduce the information, the quality of the sources was questioned, spuriously in my opinion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. Whatever it takes. I'm more concerned about the moral issue than worrying about being spurious on a website, see

WP:1Q

. She's obscure. Maddonna or Beyonce I don't worry too much about because they are big enough to not be hurt by anything we say. This gal, not so much. it's not that I haven't heard of her, it's that google hasn't, much.

And of course we want to whitewash articles about obscure persons. Holy shit why would we not. We are not the Tattler. Altho not everyone thinks that, apparently. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well that's weird. How famous does someone have to be before negative information may be included? Are there some objective criteria for this? Given that she has a fairly substantial article and quite a bit of discography, she can't be that obscure. If they're notable enough to have a wikipedia article, they're notable enough to have a prison sentence noted. And citing IAR is never helpful in discussions, it's basically a catch-all excuse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... from deciding these things, if that's all that's available, will have to do. IAR is a key pillar of this project, one of the Five Pillars, and if you don't like tough luck. We are not rulebound and we are not the DMV or anything like that. And of course it's subjective. Most things in life are... How expensive a shirt you want, whether you want to hang out with Tim, if you would rather have Thai or Mexican tonite, if you want to keep watching the game if the Sox are down 7-1... etc etc etc etc. This is life. Do you think there are rules written down for all this? Is not editing the Wikipedia part of life? Do you image that you remove yourself from the moral universe when you sit down to type? You don't. You never can, not ever for one moment.

We hopefully have the sense that God gave sheep and can use our wits to figure these things out. If I write bad stuff about Kim Jong Un or Barack Obama or Mick Jagger, that's not a huge deal, because they won't care and why should they. They have a public face way too big for use to do much damage. This person, not so much. Yes like most everything in this world it is subjective. My subjective opinion is that she's small enough compared to use that it's punching down to be on her case about a one-time thing that's not central to what we want to present to the reader.

My take is, given the choice between fucking people over and not, I choose the latter. Other people might feel differently, but I will hinder them if I may. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

in the face of the existence of people like you, Well a catchall excuse to stop someone who is... not a gentleman... I refer you to the reply given in the case of

Arkell v Pressdram. MaxBrowne2 (talk

) 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think the

WP:BLP policy is wrong there are places to effect that change. This isn't one of them. Do you have any views on the reliability of the Boston Phoenix? You've opined on the reliability of its fact-checking but I missed where you gave evidence of that assertion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk)

22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe, but the point is to keep the information out of the article, even in the face of the existence of people like you. That is uncalled for, especially since MaxBrowne2 actually removed the material in question from the article (in keeping with the previous RFC) and only then came here to ask for additional opinions. I think that as far as this goes, given that there's plentiful secondary coverage among reliable sources (which should be added to the article if we do include this, since we shouldn't rely on just one source), the hard requirements of
  WP:RS, at least, is satisfied. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fame/popularity" is not really a policy based argument. High/low-profile-ness is, and that subject seems to be high profile as per

WP:BLPCRIME either, not that it'd be particularly relevant since there's a conviction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 23:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I would add as a consideration (I don't know for sure) is if this something closer to just celebrity gossip rather than a "serious" conviction. We routinely do not post "everyday infractions" like speeding tickets, drunk driving, etc. unless that is a serious pattern for a public figure that merits enduring coverage in sources. It is hard (but not impossible) to find RSes about this conviction but there seems to be little more than news that she received and served the punishment for it, and it hasnt been brought up since 2009 that I can easily see. This question is far more subjective whether inclusion is merited, but we can state that it is not an RS issue that prevents inclusion since some quality RS sourcing exists. --Masem (t) 00:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, drunk driving is often covered in articles (eg Tiger Woods, Justin Bieber, Michelle Rodriguez). But in any case I don't think animal-cruelty conviction ... Bozzio was originally hit with 13 animal-cruelty charges, which stemmed from her failed attempt to "save" feral and sick cats from the New Hampshire woods. Two cats were found dead and 12 were put down following an indeterminable period of neglect falls into the category of everyday infractions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying its not a clear cut line. To take Bieber, he is well known to have a long list of confrontations with the law while younger, so it can been seen to make sense to talk about them that way. Here, there are sufficiently reliable sources to include it, and the baseline of PUBLICFIGURE is met, but its one singular case that seems isolated. I'm not saying it can't but there's reasonable arguments that could be made in a consensus discussion to omit. Just that saying we can't include because there aren't good RSes is not correct. --Masem (t) 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Phoenix (Boston/Providence/Portland -- they were very similar and shared a lot of material) is/was, as mentioned above, a pretty reliable alternative weekly paper. I'd put it about on par with the
  Village Voice? Editorial oversight, a mix of arts/entertainment, news, investigation, and opinion. As for whether it merits inclusion in the article, that's not really for this noticeboard. — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

https://freenews.live/terrorists-took-the-blame-for-forest-fires-in-turkey/

'Children of Fire' branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) claimed responsibility for forest fires. ^[1] The organization declared itself publicly responsible for the fire through social networks and explained its actions through a fight with the authorities. ^[2]

There seems to be a contradiction with another sentence in the article which says:

This was denied by the PKK, as well as the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK).^[3]

Incidentally the Turkish source for the first sentence is being discussed at https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/Duyuru_panosu#Albayrak_Medya_Grubu_bile%C5%9Fenleri

freenews.live cliamed to have fact checked it - but as they mostly publish USA news and seem to have a small staff I doubt they have the resources to properly fact check non-USA news. Unfortunately local factcheckers here in Turkey have published nothing in English on the subject https://en.teyit.org/advanced-search?topic=fire&page=1

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Army Recognition a reliable source? https://www.armyrecognition.com/ --BlackShadowG (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, it seems to consist of press release material only. Almost certainly not, for that. If there is something specific you are asking about, you'll have to say more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It would help if you indicate what you're looking to use it for, but I would say no. The editorial standards seem quite poor. Army Recognition essentially operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, billing itself as one of several online magazines that "provides online marketing and advertising solutions for the Defense & Security industries." A large part of its content is coverage that is copied, without attribution, from other sources, such as this article duplicating content from the United States Army's news service or this one duplicating content from the Australian Department of Defense. As such, I would generally prefer to cite the original piece in such instances, and would avoid citing Army Recognition directly if possible—certain uses might verge on contributory copyright infringement. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Most recently discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#armyrecognition.com. I see no evidence that anything has changed since then, and the 900+ uses (see armyrecognition.com  ) should be removed. FDW777 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Gawker is back, now owned by the same people who own Bustle. I've updated the RSP entry accordingly. Gawker was always a tabloid style publication, and this new incarnation appears to be no different. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Predonzani, Massimo & Alberici, Vincenzo (2019). The Italian Wars Volume 1: The Expedition of Charles VIII into Italy and the Battle of Fornovo, 1495. Helion & Company.

• Massimo Predonzani is not an historian. No mention of any academic standing.
• Vincenzo Alberici is a ?model builder? and not an historian.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Predonzani is described as a researcher, so I believe that he could have some knowledge maybe, but you are right he is lacking much info. Is there a dispute going on that led you to create a topic here? For the most part the work seems uncontroversial if they are advancing a revisionist history of the War maybe it could be a problem, but I don't think there is too much concern here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No dispute, a "new user" posted their opinion that the French casualties at the battle of Fornovo are not accurate(which are cited by Spencer C. Tucker). Their words, "The french certainly did not lose only 200 men." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I recently picked up a group of books pretty cheap at an auction. One of them is Borderland Rebellion, a older book about

Normally, I'd just ignore this as a source due to the obscurity of the publisher, but it's one of the most detailed sources available for the topic of the American Civil War in the Ozarks, which isn't frequently written on, so it would be very convenient for some articles I want to work on (Battle of Clark's Mill, Battle of Hartville) if this were a RS. Normally I'd find myself confident in judging the source's reliability, but when I'm finding myself really wanting the source to be RS, I think it's better to get outside thoughts. Hog Farm _Talk 02:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Go for it! 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Ammoland sufficiently reliable to make a negative/contentious claim on a BLP for someone who works in an ideologically opposed role? The page is Joseph Sakran, the edit is this, and the cited article is Virginia: Threat Against Anti-Gun Activist Is An Alleged Hoax.

ammoland.com  

I bring this to RSN because this source is used over 150 times (though a good hunk of those citations appear to be endorsements for elections), so it may have broader relevance. It is also cited on a number of pages about firearms, a domain in which its reliability may differ from political and BLP topics. Jlevi (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• My take: legitimately unsure, probably not reliable enough for this use, but unclear reliability for general use based on whate I've seen after a little poking around. Snope cites Ammoland twice as a source and it has not failed a factcheck on that site: [35][36]. On the other hand Media Matters describes an 2013 op-ed from Ammoland as a myth: [37] and has a big batch of other negative articles about the site (though it is clearly coming from its own bias). Jlevi (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if the source were reliable, the edit to the Sakran biography it is being cited for doesn't accurately reflect what it actually says. And if this is the only source, what it does say about what it refers to as an 'alleged hoax' doesn't seem sufficient to justify inclusion under WP:BLP. Sources basing content on Twitter speculation rarely are.

As to other questions of reliability, I'd have to suggest that they each need to be looked at in context. This is a source with a clear agenda, and one which seems to solicit content from supporters, on controversial issues. [38] It might be 'reliable' for technical issues regarding firearms, but beyond that, use would need care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly not reliable for the stated use, and generally unreliable for statements of fact. AmmoLand is comparable to the case of
  non-independent press releases and syndicated content (and it rarely lists when it is doing so, e.g. here) As such, we should generally apply the same caution to its mundane coverage that we would to most press releases. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk
  ) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable group blog, with a predilection for promotion of conspiracy theories, per the above - evidence against any meaningful editorial standards. At absolute best, no more citable in Wikipedia than any other blog - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• No comment on the site as a whole (haven't done my research), but it's rather obviously not appropriate as a source in the BLP mentioned in the heading. Hog Farm _Talk 05:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Ertuğrul#born_Possibly_c._1191–1193_in_the_infobox. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They appear to have some sort of editorial oversight and state they don't publish press releases but rather use them to create stories. Can it be used to prove notability of a business (see Draft:Moving Mountains Foods (company))? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Since Food Navigator is a trade rag, my personal sense is that it's not useful to establishing notability (

WP:AUD) but is otherwise reliable. Chetsford (talk

) 06:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m with Chetsford here, perfectly usable for most things in its niche but for notability purposes they don’t count for much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both! —valereee (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Two editors objected to the use of the Guttmacher Institute as a sourse for the Abortion article, so I started an RfC on this question, see [39]. Your participation is welcome. NightHeron (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an IP edit-warrior on Elections in Cuba who is scrubbing content such as:

1. Hyde, Susan D. (2011). The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Cornell University Press. p. 123.
2. Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2019-10-03). "Who wins the most when everybody wins? Predicting candidate performance in an authoritarian election". Democratization. 26 (7): 1278–1298.
3. Domínguez, Jorge I.; Galvis, Ángela Fonseca; Superti, Chiara (2017). "Authoritarian Regimes and Their Permitted Oppositions: Election Day Outcomes in Cuba". Latin American Politics and Society. 59 (2): 27–52.
4. Domínguez, Jorge I. (2021). "The Democratic Claims of Communist Regime Leaders: Cuba's Council of State in a Comparative Context". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 54 (1–2): 45–65.
5. Smyth, Regina; Bianco, William; Chan, Kwan Nok (2019-04-25). "Legislative Rules in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Hong Kong's Legislative Council". The Journal of Politics. 81 (3): 892–905.

from the article because the content is "published by American universities, or co-written by authors at American universities"[40] and "western journals are hardly neutral"[41]. When the content is not being scrubbed, it's being described as being by "western academics" and juxtaposed with content sourced to sources such as the "Cuban Solidarity Campaign". This leads me to wonder: are peer-reviewed studies published by scholars who are affiliated with US universities unreliable on the subject of Cuba? Are university presses and journals located in the US unreliable on the subject of Cuba?

Can't you simply revert for sake of vandalism?Rastakwere (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The IP edit warrior is currently on 4 reverts within 24 hours and has been at it for the last couple of weeks.

talk

) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and no. It depends on who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends on who they are and what the publications are, obviously, but content in peer-reviewed journals by professors at accredited universities are not just fine, they are probably the best we can find. This seems a matter for admin intervention more than RSN. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hold a minute Western academics unreliable? Isn’t Cuba a Western country?

My thoughts exactly. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, the IP editors stance is a too-large generalization to be useful. I also think what they're complaining about is more about bias than reliability. Towards a possible answer: I think it would depend on funding sources for the publication. If a researcher has received grants or runs a center in collaboration with US government agencies, then, yes, I think that might reduce the reliability of the source. —Wingedserif (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If they had a slightly different attitude I might agree, its clear (even by their use of the word western) there is far more to their objection than meets the eye. I agree with ht above this is a matter for Admins, and not RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly here to POV war. Bump it to Admins. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. Snoogans has not exactly been good at hiding their POV that Cuba is not a democracy. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not POV, any objective standard would say Cuba is not a democracy. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I am not scrubbing content, in my edits I have not removed any sources (yet you continue to accuse me of this) and have in fact expanded on your sources by elaborating on their content. My issue is with your insistence to include the phrase "Elections in Cuba are not democratic", supported only by your sources. I have never sought to remove them or their claims from the lead, but presenting those claims as objective fact and suppressing the inclusion of dissenting sources (even when they are present in the main article) is my objection. I have never sought to argue that those sources are unreliable, but they are biased and must be presented in their proper context along with opposing sources (that are also, yes, biased). I'll admit to my own biases, I believe Cuba to be democratic, but I'm not the one trying to remove sources I disagree with here. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing I see from these sources to indicate that they should not be used. If IP repeats recomendmeing that an admin make it some only members can edit would be a reasonable next step. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not suggested they shouldn't be used, I've suggested that they are biased and shouldn't be the only sources used in the article lead, when the article already contains other sources that disagree. Snoogans et al are suppressing sources that don't conform to their own POV.

You are missing the point… there are multiple editors telling you that the sources you have challenged are reliable, and that the sources you want to add are not reliable. When multiple editors tell you the same thing, you need to accept that consensus is against you. Edit warring (which is what you have been doing) is not the solution. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Advice to 82.33.72.42 - first, become a true Wikipedian and not an IP number; second, do a thorough literature review (Scholar Google or Researchgate) with key words "Cuba" and "elections". Third, from those results discard any opinion and action committee papers. Discard also US sources if you do not trust them. And then, fourth, write a honest review of the remaining scientific papers (with DOI). Fifth, now you are ready to try and edit Wikipedia pages on the topic.Rastakwere (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• In my experience “western academics” populate both ends of the spectrum of opinion about Cuba, so not really sure what we think we’re getting out of this. If you want a full throated conservative condemnation of Cuban Communism you’re most likely going to get it from a “western” academic and the same is true if you want a fully fledged Marxist defense of the perpetual anti-imperialist revolution... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

US State Department report on human trafficking in North Korea

The article Human trafficking in North Korea is almost entirely sourced to a report from the US Department of State: https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-trafficking-in-persons-report/

Is a single document from a state-run propaganda outlet really a sufficient source for content on an ideological enemy? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• The US State Department is not a “propaganda outlet”. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me refrain from that emotive phrasing. It's undeniable that material published by the US Department of State is intended to promote America's ideological interests. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope… try again. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If I presented a North Korean source that disputed these claims, would you accept that as having equal weight? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The US is not a one-party dictatorship with an extreme cult of personality that engages in terrorism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean the US absolutely does engage in terrorism. During the Korean War they attacked civilian targets in the north indiscriminately, levelling around 85% of its buildings. To then turn around and say that they are a reliable source on North Korea is laughable. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats not terrorism. No they did not target them indiscriminately. Even is that was true it still would have not baring, since it was more than 70 years ago. By your logic the State dept can't be used to report on Germany because world war II. This is clear POV pushing on your part and not only that reeks of communist apologism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The clear difference is that Germany is no longer under Nazi rule, while North Korea is under the same administration as it was during the war, and the US has maintained a hostile foreign policy towards them since then. And yes, deliberately targeting civilian targets during a war is terrorism. You can't honestly believe bombing 85% of all buildings was proportionate and that was a legitimate military response. This reeks of imperialist apologism. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately targeting non-dual use civilian targets during a contemporary war would be a

terror bombing?). Lets all cut the hyperbole, we can come to a consensus without calling anyone a _______ apologist. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 18:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

How exactly a UN mandate to protect a country from an unprovoked act of aggression is "imperialism" does not exactly ring write to me. Second as noted above the actions as you described them would be war crimes not terrorism and even then your reading of it as even being a war crime is hardly a settled matter. [42]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• The issue the OP is raising does not concern our personal opinions about the US vs North Korean governments, but rather sourcing. Certainly it should be possible to find more reliable sourcing for that article than a report from a rival government. The article Human trafficking has many RS listed in the references. There are international NGOs and UN groups that are devoted to the trafficking problem, and there are scholars who study it. There is no excuse for sourcing the article almost entirely to the US Dept of State. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone asking that we replace a source with better sources. But the State Department doc is certainly reliable enough that the article should never have been prodded for deletion. That, combined with the IP’s other edits, makes me question whether 82.33 is editing in good faith or just here to POV war. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I second Blueboar. Furthermore tend to downplay the fact that government civil servants tend to be strong professionals who regardless of the view of the country in question can still perform task without bias. My issue with the IP is that seem to be pushing a false equivalency between multiparty liberal democracies and one party dictatorships and treating them as though they are the same level of reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Given this and their same POV about Cuba, it's time to report this IP to ANI per

WP:TE. Maybe try to get the articles semiprotected too. Also, have any banned or blocked editors acted like this? Could be a sock. Crossroads ^-talk-

23:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I wasn't questioning the professionalism of people who work for the US govt, which publishes reliable information on many subjects. But reliability depends on context. When the context is accusations against a bitter rival, reliability goes way down. Would the government of India (which is a multi-party democracy) be a good source for a claim about human trafficking in Pakistan? The issue here is not democracy vs dictatorship. Allegations made by a political enemy are low-quality sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That depends on the relative reputations for fact checking and accuracy of the political entities involved. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Would the government of India be a good source for a claim about human trafficking in Pakistan?" I would for the most part say yes although not as completely as say the US or Japan given India's corruption and other issues, but I imagine most civil servants maintain enough professionalism to be somewhat credible. However this is also a false equivalency since Cuba and the US aren't pointing Nukes at the others, engaged in border skirmishes or in the case of India compared to the United States have large sections of the country under either martial law or "emergency" as India does.3Kingdoms (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Our personal opinions about India's failings as a supposed democracy or the US's failings as a supposed democracy are irrelevant to this discussion.

Aeschylus said that "In war, truth is the first casualty", and that can certainly be extended to cold wars (that were once hot wars, as between the US and N Korea or between India and Pakistan). If the only source that could be found for a claim of human trafficking in Pakistan were an Indian government source, then the claim would not be credible. Analogously for N Korea. I'm not at all defending N Korea on this issue, just saying that the article needs better sourcing than the US State Dept. NightHeron (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "supposed democracy" to you not consider the US one? Also I don't understand your point I simply explained why considering India's reports on Pakistan can be credible, but should be treated with caution, why the US can be treated higher for reasons explained above. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If one wants to add more than they are free to, that does not mean the State Dept is not reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I wrote "supposed democracy" because the term democracy is a loaded and emotional term whose definition is a matter of opinion. Clearly both India and the US fall far short of what many people consider democracy. The NY Times (not an anti-American newspaper) recently ran some videos contrasting the obstacles to voting in the US with the ease of voting in many other countries. The court system in the US allows the Republican Party to pass voter-suppression laws in many states. Two of the six most recent US presidential elections resulted in the candidate with fewer votes becoming president (because of the antiquated and undemocratic electoral college system). Running for national office requires huge investments of money, and gives the donors (usually big corporations and PACs) disproportionate influence as lobbyists. I won't go into India's failings, since you have already acknowledged them.

I never said the US State Dept is "unreliable". I said that its degree of reliability depends on context (as is true of many sources for Wikipedia, even the NY Times). Reliability goes down when it writes about a country with which it is in a cold war. NightHeron (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the US State Department is a mirror for the (current, political) US viewpoint, it's not the UN. By way of example, look at what happened with Israel/Palestine reporting by the State Department under the Trump administration, mostly reverted by now but still.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree this is a primary source, and so should be used with care, if at all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2019 Canadian federal election also had the candidate who lost the popular vote become head of the country. What you have posted is POV and not relevant to the discussion. Democracy is not a loaded term. Finally if you want to add more sources that's fine, but that does not mean the state dept is not reliable, which is the whole point of this talk. 3Kingdoms (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't start the irrelevant discussion about the pros and cons of the US government; you and other editors did before I entered the discussion. Any government information source, no matter how virtuous and democratic the government happens to be, needs to be used with great caution when sourcing an allegation about a country with which it is in a cold war. NightHeron (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You continued the discussion and brought in issues that did not concern this topic, I simply countered some of your reasoning, either way I'm dropping this since it is getting off topic.

This (however) is a separate issue from the use of academic sources and should be separated out, they are not linked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because sources are not neutral does not mean they are unreliable. And in fairness, Western academic publishers publish works covering a range of views including in support of the Cuban government. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

True but this RFC is about North Korea and US state Department sources, not Cuba or academics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

First, this isn’t an RFC… just a discussion. Second, this isn’t just about one article or one source… there is a pattern of editorial behavior by the IP that links the two discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As Blueboar said the bigger issue if the IP clearly pushing the idea that Western nations either by private or public sources can not be considered reliable on communist countries like North Korea and Cuba. This is a view not shared by wikipedia or the rules and the IP and pretty much reads a simple "I don't like" by the IP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It had been headed as an RFC, so I assumed that is what the OP intended it to be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

If we can agree that the sourcing of the article on human trafficking in N Korea is inadequate, we should at least put templates such as "More citations needed", "One source", and "Primary source" at the top of the article. NightHeron (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the sourcing is inadequate, however if someone wanted to add more than go for it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This article from Haaretz claimed Haredi divorce rates were increasing and claimed its source from the IDI. when looking at its claimed source: Which is apparently the IDI 2016^[1]. The IDI makes no claim that Haredi divorce rates are increasing. I am not (yet) saying that Haaretz in general is an unreliable source, but this article in particular needs investigation into its reliability. Can I have more eyes looking into this particular articles reliability?155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify in which context you or other editors want to use this article? JBchrch talk 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Full context on Talk Haredi Judaism.

tl;dr There is wikipedia voice which states Haredi divorce rates are increasing. This is sourced to 2017 Haaretz article. It seems that articles from that time on do not make that claim. In fact there appears to be isolated reports of Haredi divorce rate dropping.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will not have the time to take a look at this today but other users can take a look at Talk:Haredi Judaism § Divorce section. JBchrch talk 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks for taking the time to look it over!155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging IZAK Debresser Pipsally.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Haredi divorce rates have been climbing steadily for many years. That is a fact. However, this is not mentioned in the source cited above. However, there may be other IDI sources out there that the HaAretz article might have been referring to. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For example: this article says: "Over the years, we can see a rise in the percentage of single, divorced and widowed among the ultra-Orthodox, from 15% in 2003, to 17% in 2017." Now notice that that is not yet saying that the divorce rate went up (rather the total of singles + divorced + widowed), but it might have been misinterpreted. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

First, per wp:V, statements must be verifiable to a reliable source. The IDI source is from 2018. The Haaretz article was from 2017. Haaretz could not have cited an IDI report from 2018. There was no mention of divorce in the IDI's 2017 report. It seems that the Haaretz article is more unclear as we go on.

Second, the IDI did not claim that Haredi divorce was rising, it explicitly said that the rise from 2003-2018 from 15-17% of single, widowed, divorced may be due to marriage at later ages. We still have no reliable source that claims Haredi divorce is increasing, except for the increasingly unreliable Haaretz article. Thanks for looking into this Debresser, your research is extremely helpful!155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Divorce rates are rising among Haredim, not sure if anyone knows for sure what the percentages are. Not sure what this discussion is about. IZAK (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about a sources reliability. Is the given Haaretz article reliable? The Haaretz article claims to have been sourced in the IDI, yet on further investigation, its claimed source seems a doubtful source of its data. Do you believe the given Haaretz article is a reliable source?155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Although this is not part of the RSN discussion and belongs on Haredi talkpage, several sources claim that in certain predominantly Haredi cities, divorce rates are dropping. Maybe (feel free to ignore this, as this is just a personal conjecture of a non-expert) this belief that divorce rates are rising is anecdotal? If it is just anecdotal, it does not belong on wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this IZAK!155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think divorce rates are dropping, anywhere. In the Haredi communities in America they are definitely rising to my anecdotal knowledge. You are not going to find reliable Haredi sources for this taboo subject. They don't talk or publicize this subject. Just as they don't talk or publicize suicides, or sex abuse in the Haredi communities. So I guess, for now, we can go with Haaretz with the proviso that Haaretz is a secular news organization not sympathetic to the Haredi POV, so take it with a lump of salt. IZAK (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz cites the IDI. It doesn’t claim that specific report, that’s just your assumption. There’s no real reason to question a generally reliable source herePipsally (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just spent a few hours checking the IDI website for haredi divorce rates and could not find the alleged Haaretz statistic. We have had at least 4 wikipedians look over the Haaretz article, yet none of them have found the source in the IDI. If anyone could find the alleged data which Haaretz claims to be from the IDI, this whole report would be wrapped up. Can we have more eyes looking into the Haaretz article to examine its claim of data coming from the IDI?

Here is the contested quote from Haaretz:

"According to the Israel Democracy Institute, the ultra-Orthodox community’s divorce rate is catching up to that of the secular Jewish community. While the divorce rate in the general population has remained steady at 13 couples per 1,000 since 2002, it has spiked in the Haredi community."

Useful links:

https://en.idi.org.il/

https://en.idi.org.il/haredi/2020/?chapter=34272 155.246.151.38 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz is currently considered a reliable source. Engaging in primary research to attempt to disprove Haaretz is not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing, per

I agree, we do not second guess sources, either an RS has said they are wrong, or we have to accept they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would add that given that quote from Haaretz, it does not necessarily imply it was from a published work by the IDI - the reporter in their investigation could have called IDI and asked what's the current stats over the phone, which would be otherwise difficult to document. If the quote led "According a report by the IDI..." and we couldn't find any sign of that report, that would be an issue. Otherwise, as above has said, Haaretz is generally reliable, and unless there is a conflicting report from another RS, I don't think we can doubt it. That said, I would simply make sure that the "fact" is attributed to the IDI in WP's prose. --Masem (t) 14:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem is exactly right. Haaretz is generally reliable so we can just attribute IDI in text. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

But in this case there is a reasonable doubt whether the claim they make is true and nobody seems to be able to find their source. That seems reasons enough for me to make an exception and not mention this claim in our articles until it can be corroborated by additional, independent, sources. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Policy question about OR on RSN

Based on the above comments, it seems that the way to go is contacting the IDI directly and asking them about this statistic. If they agree that they said it, fine. If not, then Haaretz's reliability in general is under question. Does this makes sense?155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Here is link to contact them: https://en.idi.org.il/about/contact/. Anyone else who independently contacts them is much appreciated!155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that would qualify as

original research. The organization telling someone something is not directly verifiable. --Nat Gertler (talk

) 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:OR "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source". The OR policy only covers adding material to articles. This is not about adding material to articles, this is about challenging a given sources reliability on RSN. The verifiability issue only takes play when it comes into articles, not RSN discussions. Any wikilawyers want to weigh in on this? 155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The idea that we would disregard a reliable source because you were unable to get a third party to specifically state for you that they had provided a certain statistic is not reasonable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In this case, we are not talking about any random third party. We are talking about the source of the data! If they did not provide the data, the only conclusion is that the Haaretz article is incorrect due to either accident or malicious intent.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Nat Gertler is correct. You are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Contentious Claims

The best approach would be to follow

contentious claims. See if other sources make this claim. If not, then it is either false or too insignificant for inclusion. Per OR, there is nothing to stop you from checking divorce rates over the years and seeing if they are in fact increasing. TFD (talk

) 22:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification TFD! The issue is that no other reliable sources (that I have found) make that claim. If I am understanding you correctly, that means if no other RS is found for that claim the contentious claim should be removed?155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it fall into "contentious claims"? It's not surprising, it's not challenged, it's not out of character, and a bit of an uptick in the rates for this one group is not so major that one would expect broad mainstream coverage, yet it is of interest for something tightly on the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course it falls into redflag territory! It is the only source which claims Haredi divorce rates are increasing, and its claimed source of the IDI has not yet panned out. A highly questionable claim of data is a big redflag!155.246.151.38 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The second source was checked and removed because it did not claim Haredi divorce rates were increasing.155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's contentious because it is saying that divorces are increasing among a religious group that doesn't recognize civil divorce and is restrictive on religious divorces. If, as NatGertler says, it might be a slight uptick that is not reported in mainstream coverage then either the article should say it is a slight uptick or ignore it altogether. Weight says that facts largely ignored in sources should not be included. OTOH if there has been a substantial increase in divorce rates, one would expect that the reasons for the increase would be included. Has there been a change in policy such as recognizing domestic violence as grounds for divorce or are members increasingly acting against their stated religious beliefs? TFD (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

All this comes back to that if we added "According to the IDI in YEAR, ...", then we remove what may be a contentious claim (here based on editors' somewhat expert knowledge that this would seem to go against the norm) that we take the statement out of Wikivoice and its inclusion wouldn't be an issue until any other either corroborating or conflicting source came along. Or alternatively, if the claim seems odd, it can be ignored until some type of collaboration comes along. Failure of the IDI or Hareetz to go into the reasoning why this may be true isn't an aspect we consider from a sourcing standpoint, but we can recognize that if a claim is thrown out there, without any relevant context/backup and which seems unusual, we can treat the claim factor itself with some dubiousness. But from the RS aspect, we can't doubt (unless proven otherwise) that Hareetz is repeating something the IDI told them, whether from a yet-published report or over a phone call. --Masem (t) 14:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TFD and Masem for the explanation! Based on the two scenarios you laid out, scenario one involving us giving an in text citation to the IDI, there is one problem. We don't know what year the alleged IDI statistic came from and Haaretz was not kind enough to let us know. It appears we are left with scenario two where we ignore the source until other RS comes along. Is this user making any sense?155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If the information feels like it needs to be included, you could say "According to the IDI via Hareetz in YEAR, ..." as to date that statement. --Masem (t) 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A report called "Alternative Influence" has been used as a source on the pages Carl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, and the Social impact of YouTube, among others. The report was also picked up by some media outlets[43][44]. However, the report was written by only one person and doesn't appear to have been peer-reviewed, so it might not be a reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Academic sources treat it as reliable in these contexts. Its categories and methodology have been used in subsequent papers by others in a peer-reviewed context [45][46]. It had quite wide coverage in popular media [47][48][49] and in relevant academic subdomains from a variety of angles, so most statements in it are probably DUE.

Caveat: arguments this report makes about YouTube are based on the nature of that platform at time of publication in 2018. The author has stated subsequently that YouTube has changed, so it would be worth making clear the publication date in these contexts.

At this point, I've talked mostly about this specific publication, and I have argued that its treatment by other sources may mean it is reliable and due in most related contexts. I will briefly discuss at the level of publisher and author as well:

Publisher: Data & Society is a nonprofit research org that concentrates on technology. I have not found a specific statement about their fact-checking process. However, their publications get quite a good amount of media coverage, and their reports and personnel are often treated as experts in interviews and media outreach.

Author: Becca Lewis is an early-career academic getting a PhD at Stanford. She has a handful of peer-reviewed publications and has been treated as an expert on analysis of online phenomena and the online right in mainstream media publications [50]. Her peer-reviewed research is highly related to the topics in the Data & Society report.

In conclusion, this specific source shows a lot of signs that we can treat it as an RS. It has received significant media coverage, has been used and cited in subsequent peer-reviewed academic articles, its publisher seems to have a good reputation, and its author is an early-stage academic with peer-reviewed work in the same field. Though early-career, she has been treated as an expert on these topics in mainstream media.

For noncontroversial statements and statements referenced in outside RS, this report can probably be referenced without attribution. For statements that are controversial and not covered by outside RS, it may be worth attributing in some contexts. Jlevi (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Jlevi on all of this. Important and impactful report, carefully assembled by respected researcher - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

also agree with Jlevi. It's a reliable source where other sources have relied upon it, and a quotable source where they have not.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think how it gets used is something to consider. If a independent RS cites part of it I think we should consider it as something like the opinion of an expert that has been given weight due to others citing the opinion. However, if we are just pulling out something that no RSs have covered when discussing the report then we need to consider that it was not peer reviewed and thus becomes the opinion of a group. I don't see that the group is widely, generally cited like say CATO or ADL. I'm also not sure it's DUE when this study is used to say something like [Youtube person] is a gateway to alt-right ideas. In that case the real news is that Youtube algorithms were linking people. That doesn't mean [Youtube person] is expressing any ideas that should be considered controversial nor that they have tried to associate with (etc) the far/extreme-right groups. It also shouldn't be used to say "Mrs Y is far-right" citing a classification list used in that paper. Springee (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that this site was used as source for an article on Robert B. Spencer. While the article was from what I saw was reasonable "That most American Muslims are not radical" its a pretty clear case of a broken clock striking right once. When one of the head articles has titles like "Jew York Times" and other racist and ant-Semitic articles, not to mention just reading Ron Unz's page makes its pretty clear to me that this should be Deprecated. Wikipedia:Deprecated sources Does anyone oppose doing that to this site? 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate it. Thanks 3Kingdom for your work in improving wikipedia!155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Their "About" page makes it clear that the site doesn't even necessarily stand behind the batty stuff their writers espouse. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• As much as I think The Unz Review is an unreliable source, Unz.com   shows that it is also being used as a source for old journal articles. For instance This copy of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' by John Speirs published in Scrutiny, Winter 1949 is being used in the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In fact having a look through the duses, links to old journal articles seem to be the predominant use, and I don't think their use is problematic unless there are copyright issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Deprecation doesn't seem like the best solution. I am unsure of current or historical reliability. Jlevi (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a terrible source, dodgy enough that I'd be reluctant to use it even as a source for third-party material in this manner, as this might encourage its use in other contexts - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. There is no way in which using this source is good for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • this should prrrrrobably be a proper deprecation RFC, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. A lot of the bloggers are random racists or anti-semites who aren't expected to be reliable primary or secondary sources by whatever editors the site has. There are a few people where this domain is a useful source for their own views, so it's not a domain that should be blacklisted, but it is just about the last source I would want to see on any controversial topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I say we take off and deprecate the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. Unz is platform open for to any crank seeking to promote the very fringe of the fringe of racist and pseudoscientific beliefs; it should never be used to support statements of fact and views published inside it are almost always
  WP:COPYLINK. There's really no compelling use of the source I can see. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk
  ) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

- Wp:Deprecated sources: Deprecation "primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. ... Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability." So, the normal reason for deprecation is to prevent frequent discussions of questionable sources. However, as far as I can determine, this is only the third time that The Unz Review has been brought up at the RSN. Exactly how often have its articles been cited on Wikipedia?

- I think that it's a fairly poor idea to suggest that a Wikipedia article "makes it clear" that a source should be deprecated.

- Although a site may generally be regarded as a poor source, there may be particular situations where it has value. For instance, it may be used to show when its writers have been misquoted or misrepresented.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This is used in 4 articles and a draft.[51] It was hard to find anything about it but I did find this which says "FB Publishing is a niche imprint for bringing new and established authors writing about Islam and other non-western topics and beliefs. Primarily a POD and eBook publisher, we leverage these technologies and a network of proven contractors to offer a full suite of publishing services and share all profits with our authors. We know this works, as our authors are extending their contracts for longer terms. Our company has also started a new imprint- ClearSky publishing for more main stream titles."

Anyone disagree that we should treat this as a self-publishing house? Doug Weller talk 13:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The print-on-demand mention and the various published titles I see strongly suggest that it's indeed self-publishing... —PaleoNeonate – 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I am currently doing a cleanup of the YouTube suspensions page, and for some of the entries (mainlly Roosh V's) I could only find articles from We Hunted the Mammoth as verified proof. For those who don't know, it is a website that is dedicated to monitoring activities in the incel and so-called "Manosphere" communities, and was actually featured in a New York Times article on this topic, and a cursory glance shows it is cited in some Wikipedia articles. However the website has a very blog feel to it, and does have a informal, borderline-irreverent tone to its articles. My question is based on these factors, can this website be used as a citation? I couldn't find any mention of it in the archives. Mount Patagonia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• So, definitely a blog, as it is usually classified, but its author, David Futrelle, has appeared in the New York Times, as noted, has authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post[52] and a review on NPR[53] both on the same broad topic of misogyny, and has been noted on Vox as a journalist with some expertise in the area[54]. As such, I think we should basically treat it as an expert blog, per
  WP:BLOG. I know that's not much for helpful guidance, but I think yes, we can use it with caution, but better to back it up for contentious claims. Just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk
  ) 20:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely think that whether someone was banned from YouTube has to be treated as
  WP:BLP sensitive, unless the channel isn't linked to a specific individual. So I don't think we can use a blog for that, regardless of the author's reputation. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 06:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• We Hunted the Mammoth is a self-published blog. It should be never be used for claims about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, per
  WP:BLPSPS. Given the blog's purpose is to mock right-wing individuals, particularly those that are part of the manosphere per it's tagline: Misogyny, tracked and mocked, it is entirely unusable as a source. There are better academic sources that discuss manosphere groups. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 20:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the blog's purpose is to mock right-wing individuals Its purpose is to mock misogynists; these are not identically the same thing as right-wing individuals. I see that the first version of your comment just said "right-wing individuals" without the expansion, suggesting you see the source in party political terms first - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • David, I dislike Manosphere groups as much as you. I was using the term "right-wing individuals" due to Futrelle's blog also covering American conservatives/far right figures. Some of that coverage goes outside the strict realms of mysogyny. Obviously mysogyny and the manosphere are Futrelle's main focus, but not exclusively. My concern is
      WP:BLP, we should not be using self-published blogs for claims about living people. Hemiauchenia (talk
      ) 20:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • On that I concur - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• It's a blog. The author is a freelance journalist, as noted, and writes in RSes on the same topics. That said, it's a blog - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would very largely avoid it. It's arguably 'an expert blog' in the sense of 'no-one else documents a particular strand of thought quite as well', but also it's heavily biased and has a strong agenda (one I agree with, but hey!). We definitely definitely can't use it for BLP articles and in other circumstances I would be very cautious. Struggling to think of occasions when its use would be appropriate. The Land (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)