Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 355 ← Archive 357 Archive 358 Archive 359 Archive 360 Archive 361 → Archive 365

Bart Van Loo

User:Kansas Bear wants to delete Bart van Loo, spefically his work The Burgundians: A Vanished Empire from the Mary of Burgundy article. I don't think that source is a top academic source or something like that, but I think it deseves some mention because of the following reason, that I've posted on the Mary of Burgundy Talk page:

Just because someone is not a trained historian, that does not mean they don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia, which does accept even journalists's works and commentaries. I don't see anywhere the requirement that one must only cite trained historians. If we had a lot of sources on the subject to choose from, and the writer in question happened to have a controversial opinion, I would agree that we should move to a better choice. Van Loo's work definitely has an unorthodox, unacademic structure, but I don't hear anywhere that the basic events he describes are contested. Hans Cools, who is certainly a serious historian, thinks that the work does a good job in providing a Netherlandish/Flemings' take on the stature of its dukes, rather than the more known but propaganda-influenced of French (great!) historians like Jules Michelet, and that it provides good psychological portraits of personalities involved. I think the work is notable enough. Deamonpen (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A link to that discussion would have been helpful; Talk:Mary_of_Burgundy#Pregnancy has some stuff. I don't understand Kansas Bear's "it's not in Google Scholar argument"; indeed, many things are not in there. The question is whether Head of Zeus is worth its salt as a publisher, and it's odd that this is the second time in two days that I ran into that publisher here on Wikipedia, both times with the same question: what kind of outfit is this? The document you linked is not helpful at all, since it does not appear to have been published, its origin is unclear, and it's even a translation from Dutch? No, that does not move me. What this needs is serious reviews; the Dutch and Belgian papers are full of stuff about the tour, the popularity, etc., but I have not yet found any reviews that judge it on its historical merits. I also find nothing for the author in JSTOR. So, for now, I do not see a good reason to accept it as a serious historical source. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Head of Zeus is a formerly indie publisher which is now an imprint of Bloomsbury. I'm sure it's non-fiction publications are perfectly fine by popular history standards, but as far as I know they don't make any claims to be an academic press. Given that they aren't an academic press, and van Loos isn't an academic historian, I don't see any compelling reason to use him in the article: if a fact is worth reporting in our article, we should be able to find a better source for it; if there isn't a better source for it, I'd be concerned about
      due weight. Mary of Burgundy is the kind of topic which there ought to be serious academic sources for (and I'm no medievalist, but glancing at the article it seems that at least some of the cited sources absolutely are Proper Academic History), so it's not one of those cases where we are forced to use less-than-ideal sources because nothing better exists. All in all, I pretty much agree with Drmies: I don't see any particularly compelling reason to use van Loos. Caeciliusinhorto (talk
      ) 21:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the Dutch review that corresponds (it seems revised) to the French translation is here. When I said that the sources on Mary of Burgundy were few, I thought primarily about English sources. I have not run across a biography of her in English, and while there are articles/essays etc about her, it usually focuses on her image (as represented by her or by others), from a scholar whose focus is on art/art history etc., even though they do get published by notable publishers. The sources with more details tend to be from the 19th century. The French side has a bit more but it's pretty hard to access. Her latest scholarly French biography is G. Dumont, Marie de Bourgogne (Paris, 1982). The others are very old (the novels etc are more numerous it seems). The German/Austrian side certainly mostly tells the story from the perspective of her influence on Maximilian's life - And he has no proper English biography either, despite being a huge European figure; the old ones carry a lot of recently (ab. 40 years) corrected propaganda-influenced errors, which affect Mary as well; to be fair, the many fields her husband was involved with are hard to grasp (but inextricably linked to each other) and compiled into a single work with a normal chronological order, so basically only Wiesflecker's (five-volumed, and huge) and Holleger's works are usually noted. And to German-speaking historians, the sources related to his last wife Bianca Maria are nearer. From Karaskova's and others' works, it appears that once Mary of Burgundy got married, the chroniclers stopped reporting on her political actions, so what we know is either from Maximilian, or side commentators, or information deduced from propaganda images/artworks. Another problem is that the Burgundian Netherlandish court tried to build a mythology around her, who had a short life and a short reign, so Marie as a human and her earthly actions tended to become obscured.--Deamonpen (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

TWENTYSIX publishing company

  • Schoßwald, Volker (30 November 2016). Rebellen der Reformation: Glaube, Eifer, Terror (in German). TWENTYSIX.
    ISBN 978-3-7407-0715-6
    . Retrieved 7 November 2021.

TWENTYSIX appears to be a self-publishing company. Does this source fail

WP:SPS? --Kansas Bear (talk
) 12:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

How reliable is Bubbleblabber as a source?

Currently, Bubbleblabber is used on 137 pages. But, I have questions about its reliability and think it may be be a self-published source per

WP:RS. Although Daniel Kurland, who has wrote for Den of Geek, is on the site's staff, as was Noelle Ogawa who wrote for Crunchyroll, as noted here and here. I am not sure about the site's other staff and if they can be considered reliable. I've never posted on this noticeboard before, so please let me know if this is the wrong place to post this, but I felt it is necessary to discuss this on here. I look forward to hearing from you all.--Historyday01 (talk
) 01:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure as to its reliability (tv shows/movies are not my area of expertise) but a quick DuckDuckGo search does not seem to see them mentioned in any prominent sources. The description of the link (the site is under maintenance) to Rotten Tomatoes' description of the source says BubbleBlabber is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer ® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Daniel Kurland. Note that
ScreenRant's author bio on Kurland does not mention Bubbleblabber at all
.
In conclusion,
Talk
22:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A._C._Santacruz, thanks for responding! I was beginning to think that no one would respond to my question (and was even considering proposing a RFC on Bubbleblabber), but I am glad you did. I am not surprised that they are not "mentioned in any prominent sources," to be honest or that Kurland's profile on
ScreenRant doesn't even mention it. I'll definitely take a look at that Manual of Style link and will follow that guidance to only use them for articles written by Daniel Kurland, which does seem like a sizable amount. I'll also try to use other critics, assess the use of it on a case-by-case basis, and add a better sources tag when needed. Historyday01 (talk
) 15:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

La Voce delle Voci

Although

conspiracy theories[1]. Hope that fellow Wikipedians who are proficient at both Chinese and Italian can spend some time verifying my claim and discussing the reliability of this website. Thank you!--RekishiEJ (talk
) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 實錘！中共的腳，已被官媒搬的石頭砸爛了！ | 馮睎乾十三維度 | 立場新聞 (thestandnews.com)

Center for Inquiry sources on CFI-related articles

I believe that:

and other

Talk
20:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Make situational—As I brought up in a previous thread, there's serious issue with these articles being heavily reliant on ultimate independent or primary sourcing, especially when the publications themselves don't have a clear editorial policy or rigor in their publishing methods. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I am far more concerned about their use to insert negative information in BLPs, especially when an article or sting is done by a fellow or member, as that essentially makes it a
WP:DUE it would be covered in independent reliable secondary sources. Using them as sources to puff up the articles of members is certainly a COI issue, but the BLP issues stand out to me as a much larger problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk
) 21:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Per
    WP:INDEPENDENT
    :
It has been noticed, however, that some articles are sourcing their content solely from the topic itself, which creates a level of bias within an article. Where this
vanity pieces
, although it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate this within certain topic areas.
If Wikipedia is, as defined by the three key content policies, an encyclopaedia which summarises viewpoints rather than a repository for viewpoints, to achieve this goal, articles must demonstrate that the topic they are covering has been mentioned in reliable sources independent of the topic itself. These sources should be independent of both the topic and of Wikipedia, and should be of the standard described in
vanity
guidelines.
the use of the sources in the BLPs I mentioned is a problem due to COI, which goes against
Talk
16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
If there are no independent sources, the topic is non-notable and should be sent to AFD. That's not a reason to ban the use of a source for noncontroversial
MrOllie (talk
) 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
COI sources are not the same as SPS sources, so I ask you to clarify how ABOUTSELF applies here.
Talk
 16:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hope that didn't sound passive aggressive, just want some clarification on this as it seems nuanced.
Talk
 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this some sort of trick question? You wrote above 'should not be used as sources for BLPs of those affiliated with the organization'. Either they're affiliated (and the org is writing about itself) or they're not (and then there is no problem).
MrOllie (talk
) 16:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I accidentally assumed you meant something else, apologies
Talk
16:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In general, this seems fine, per
    talk
    ) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the book "A History of Kafferistan" reliable?

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZoH2oQFIhWIC&q=chitrali+cap&pg=PA33%7Ctitle=A History of Kafferistan: Socio-economicand Political Conditions of the Kaffers

Its a book about Nuristan province in Afghanistan. Nuristan was Back than named Kafferistan. Is this book reliable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:69b5:4300:ddb7:4a4c:f11f:37d9 (talk • contribs)

  • Give appropriate weight - To be honest the weight you should give to this work should not be very high, if more modern histories contradict it then go with what they say. The publisher appears to be a well-established publishing house so it does appear to at least be an RS. You appear to be looking at it in reference to the clothes people wear/wore there? I see no reason why it would be particularly unreliable for that. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Asia journal

Is this journal regarded as a reliable peer reviewed published source? Can it be used on Wikipedia?

https://www.ancient-asia-journal.com/

Metta79 (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It states the following on its main page: "Amongst its goals are to bring forth the research being conducted in areas that are not often well published such as... [list of countries]" If fact-checking isn't a problem, and the information they are publishing is based on facts and scientific evidence, then I can't see why not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
They say that they are peer reviewed, and they list an editorial board apparently made up of academics. I would assume that they're a reliable source unless there's a particular reason to believe they aren't. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems to have been assessed as a legitimate academic publishing venue by both the Finnish and Norwegian national publication venue ratings boards as well as by ERIH PLUS (link). I'd go with "reliable" unless there's some actual evidence to the contrary. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

PinkNews needs to be reevaluated

The consensus is that PinkNews remains "generally reliable", per the 2020 RfC. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 14 November 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.

In light of recent events, I think the use of PinkNews as a "reliable source" needs to be reevaluated:

It was also forced to apologize to MP Joanna Cherry and pay for the legal costs of the lawsuit against them: Correction, PinkNews, July 3, 2019.

Then there are the barrage of yellow journalism headlines for "news" articles:

It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it. The editorial decisions by PinkNews proves that it is nowhere near to being a "reliable source" for use as a citation in accordance with WP:RS. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yellow journalism? That's at least a bit contentious. I highly doubt "anti-trans" is the equivalent to little but spurious propaganda, unless you've a view to push. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Looking on your Talk page, I see the following:

99g: 'Never known a female to "womansplain" anything to me or anyone, but "mansplaining" is a condescending entitlement of which the meaning isn't changed because those who do it wrap themselves with a multi-colored gender flag. Pyxis Solitary (yak)

So if that's not the blueprints to a red flag factory, I'm not sure what is. Stock is pretty reliably considered to have undertaken transphobic actions by more than just PinkNews. Yes, it was forced to pay the costs of a lawsuit against Joanna Cherry; I don't see this as a reason alone to discredit them as a source. It is true that they're not exactly The Times, and that for serious matters you'd want more than just one citation from PinkNews alone credited, but I see no reason to deprecate them on the same level as the Daily Mail, for instance. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
And you're using my response to a comment left in my talk page ... because _____. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What did actual reliable sources have to say about this? Did it get coverage at all? Because English defamation law is awful and shouldn't be used to determine reliability. And speaking of awful, I read those 4W and The Critic articles and wish I hadn't. Maybe we should consider them unreliable instead? Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not in the UK, but I found this barristers source: Julie Bindel settles libel claim with PinkNews, 5RB, 26 October 2021 Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a "news" piece from the law firm that worked for Bindel. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Pyxis, I don't think you have really addressed the
WP:BIASEDSOURCES issues in this filing. For WP purposes, the relevant question is accuracy - and headlines are not relevant in this context, since they can't be used for factual claims. And on the Bindel issue, I don't see how settling a defamation suit has anything to do with the source's reliability - if WP deprecated all sources that had ever settled a defamation suit, we wouldn't write very much about current events at all (which might be a good thing in some sense, but it would certainly be a major policy shift). Newimpartial (talk
) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: what exactly is the reliability issue you’re trying to highlight here? The headlines appear technically accurate and nothing I can see substantiates the claim of yellow journalism. If in fact "It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it.” then you can obviously provide reliable third party sources which say as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
4W is an anti-trans activist blog, and The Critic is an openly astroturfed culture war paper, whose backer backed it because he wanted "culture wars content" (as noted and cited in The Critic (modern magazine)). If sources of this calibre are against Pink News, this is in Pink News' favour - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary has been all over Wikipedia arguing in support of anti-trans viewpoints. And they're angry that PinkNews is one of the few reliable sources out there accurately covering anti-trans activity by groups like LGB Alliance and people like Kathleen Stock. That's the reason why this section was created. They don't want to have accurate media coverage criticizing the anti-trans subjects they like. Regardless of that, Pink News is a reliable source, Option 1 as we say around here, and has proper editorial background and vetting of articles and the information contained therein. Being biased in terms of being pro-LGBT doesn't alter their reliability status. SilverserenC 18:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
They do seem to be pretty heavily focused on a number of feminism articles that definitely brush shoulders with trans rights topics;
WP:SPA, and their edits in Wikipedia mainspace seem pretty reasonable, but it is a contentious area that editors should be cautious within. Their edits in Wikipedia's Talkspace, however, seem a bit more contentious, and at times pointed. I don't think this post on PinkNews as a reliable source has been raised in good faith, and while their conduct isn't the worst I've seen, I can see things going over the line in the future. This isn't ANI, but when an editor raises something like this on RSN and has a history of involvement in radfem-adjacent articles, it feels like something to be considered. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk
) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think it would be long until the culture warriors targeted PinkNews, and I don't think it should be too long until they are politely told that it won't be happening, either. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:ADMINCOND Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sweet6970 (talk
) 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, but I don't believe that labelling editors who come to Wikipedia to edit with a certain POV on a subset of articles (whether that be cultural, political, religious or anything else) to be derogatory, merely factual. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m surprised that you say that. In my experience, when people with different views call each other ‘culture warriors’, they are intending to insult each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's a reliability issue here. It is inevitable that a news source will make a mistake, and given the state of UK libel laws it is inevitable that someone with sufficient cause will file and either succeed or settle in a court case. To give a tangentially relevant comparison, the BBC were forced into making a rather significant edit to an article that was
heavily criticised for being transphobic, after one of the people who provided quotes posted some rather extreme comments on her personal blog. Should we now deprecate the BBC as a reliable source because of part of this article not meeting their content guidelines? Or can we accept that a reliable news source will occasionally drop the ball, and produce problematic content as a result without that affecting its wider reliability? Sideswipe9th (talk
) 20:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
This complaint doesn't have enough oomph to justify any change to what we're doing, but a disturbing portion of the commenters are saying (roughly) "PinkNews supports the liberal political line so we have to keep using them". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
That's plain conjecture and you know it. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I mean the start of the discussion itself effectively says "PinkNews calls this person who I don't believe to be anti-trans 'anti-trans' and therefore we have to stop using them", which amounts to "this source is unreliable because I disagree with it." Underlying this is a fundamental reason why the topic area has become so tricky - there's such a sharply-divided view on sex and gender issues, especially when it comes to trans rights, that things some people think are unobjectionable will be viewed by others as so obviously wrong that it's seen as impossible to disagree in good faith. But at the very least it is well-established that we cannot declare a source unreliable solely for their views unless those views are plainly
    WP:FRINGE or unless there's reason to believe their views are interfering with the accuracy of their reporting in a systemic manner. I'm not seeing any serious argument for that here - there's extensive mainstream coverage of the view that Stock is anti-trans, enough that it can plainly be considered a widespread and mainstream position, even if there's competing mainstream positions and many more people who would disagree. (See eg. [4][5][6][7][8][9] - I specifically chose sources that are generally favorable to her; even those acknowledge that she's considered anti-trans by some or that her views are considered transphobic by a significant number of people.) Covering her from that perspective is not enough to affect a source's rating on its own. --Aquillion (talk
    ) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A news outlet publishing apologies - i.e., admitting it got something wrong - is hardly evidence of anything. Every news source that's been around for a while has a record of doing the same. PinkNews continues to be a reliable source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, correcting errors is a positive criterion for being considered a reasonable
WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk
) 23:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Only if this were "par for the course" for the publication would that be an issue, which does not seem to be the case for PinkNews. --Masem (t) 00:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A lot of HIV focused papers and reports appear to cite it, too. For instance those of the
UNAIDS(1), and AIDS and Behavior(1). --Chillabit (talk
) 06:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

With a source with a strong editorial bias like this one it is important to be careful about how the source is used. This would come in two forms. First, we need to be very careful when something PN reports is actually treated as fact vs commentary/opinion of the reporter inserted into an article that isn't called "opinion". For example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion. Second, if PN uses an appeal to authority ("Many consider X to be Y") we should consider how much weight should be given to that information. This is doubly true when evaluating the claim is inherently subjective/shades of gray. Being cited in academic work is a step in the right direction but we have to ask what they were cited for. Were they cited for hard facts or for as an opinion of some type? Were they cited for things they got right or wrong? I can see why concerns are being raised and even if they don't rise to yellow journalism the concerns point in that direction. With any source with such a strong POV it certainly makes for a "use with caution" in cases where the views expressed or the weight given views are subject to PN's editorial bias. Springee (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that Springee's first point, that (f)or example, claims that a person or group is anti- or pro- something that don't reference an external source should really be treated as opinion, doesn't actually carry consensus on Wikipedia. Some editors argue that we should expect RS to provide evidence when they make a judgement about the applicability of a label, but most editors do not agree, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Generally, if only one or two sources are labelling a topic pro or anti, we should be attributing that. If a significant proportion of all sources that talk about a topic in-depth about a topic use that terminology, attribution is unlikely to be needed. I think given Pink News here, we'd have more cases that fall into the first situation, but that doesn't change anything with their reliability. --Masem (t) 14:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the "balance of sources" argument is logically completely different from the "sources should supply their own evidence" point. The former reflects WP policy; the latter is an additional standard to which a minority of editors is strongly committed (IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, though I'd read the "provide own evidence" reflecting on if there's a lack of any other sources making the same statement. There's various levels of gray here, but as long as we know its coming from an RS, we don't expect RSes to provide their own sources, but for us, its applying the concepts of RS to know whether we attribute it or simply cite it in consideration of other sources if they are corroborating similar positions/information. --Masem (t) 15:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion (PinkNews)

1. My response to those who question why I think PinkNews needs to be reevaluated:
The PinkNews of today bathes in headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages. It is laser-focused on creating controversy against subjects it disagrees with or does not approve of.
Legitimate news sources do not sensationalize nor feed frenzied crowds with biased stories.
Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail.

2. For those who are indulging personal attacks in this discussion: do you need to be reminded of Wikipedia policies -- or are you going to cry ignorance about them?

Because in case anyone has forgotten ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where the latter are headed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Only commenting on #1, but every major RS today, perhaps outside of the NYTimes and BBC, engages in "headline hysterics" as well as less objective tones in writing as to draw and maintain readership. Fortunately, headlines are not part of a reliable source, and we have capabilities under YESPOV to extract what we know is factual info from more subjective tones (or place subjective stuff in attribution), as having bias is not the same as being unreliable. What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material (the Daily Mail's problem), or such adherence to misinformation and little regard to the editorial process to address that to make them unreliable for that (the Fox News situation around politics). --Masem (t) 14:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
"What needs to be shown is either outright fabrication of material". To wit: the articles by PinkNews that resulted in lawsuits from MP Joanna Cherry (in 2019) and Julie Bindel (in 2021), which forced PinkNews to publicly apologize for publishing defamatory allegations about them (in the case of Cherry, it also included monetary agreements). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
My read of the case is that they did not create deliberate misinformation, but used innuendo and exaggeration, which said individuals asserted was defamation and thus took legal action and had courts rule in their favor. They did also redact these articles. --Masem (t) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Innuendo and exaggeration + news source = zero credibility. If putting PinkNews on the same level as the Daily Mail is considered hard to swallow -- okay, I hear you. But it isn't far-fetched to put it on the same level as The Sun. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The thing is: When PN engages in innueondo and exaggeration against certain people or targets, it seems pretty obvious, while when they are reporting on news relevant to the LGBTQ community, its clear they keep a more level head (though clearly with a pro-LGBTQ slant). Whereas with works like other Brit tabloids, the lines between the tabloid reporting and any serious work are impossible to delineate, which makes it hard as a WP editor to determine what we can use for referencing in a serious nature. And of course in the Daily Mail case, falsification could happen anywhere, making the entire work suspect. As others have said above, there's reason to keep the current flags on RS/P related to PinkNews about some of their coverage, but that's easy to spot and keep far at bay from WP. We can excise the bad part of that apple and keep the rest to use, something we simply can't do with most tabloids. --Masem (t) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
'Still think PinkNews is an LGBT cousin of The Sun:
"PinkNews publishes stories removed from Google under 'right to be forgotten'", The Guardian, 2 February 2016; "James Charles Slams LGBTQ+ Media Outlet Pink News for Releasing “Ugly Edited Photos” of Him", Seventeen, January 16, 2020 (which resulted in: "An open letter to YouTuber James Charles", PinkNews, January 16, 2020); "UK outlet mocked for describing statement 'only females get cervical cancer' as 'transphobic lie'", Fox News, July 14, 2020; "Pink News Lied about J.K. Rowling’s Book ‘Troubled Blood’ – Without Reading It", Uncommon Ground, September 16, 2020; "WPUK, Lush and Pink News", Woman's Place UK, 2 December 2020. Just a handful.
Because if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I just read through all of those... None describe the outlet as "an LGBT cousin of The Sun” which article did you think said that? Also just FYI Fox, Uncommon Ground Media, and WPUK are not
WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk
) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
A disgusting and outrageous comparison. Remind me which 94 victims of a disaster PinkNews openly taunted, lied about and denigrated in the same week that they died. Or is it
just The S*n that did that? — Bilorv (talk
) 01:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Second Masem's comment. There is nothing here that casts doubt on the general reliability of PinkNews as a source. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
General reliability yes, but subjective commentary and weight should be treated with caution. As Masem said above, if the only source making the controversial claim is PN then we should be very careful with how it is used. Springee (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
What you say is accurate enough, but it is also reflected in the status quo RSN entry for PinkNews. Presumably the filer wants to change this, or we are all wasting time. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Related to PinkNews entry on RSN, while we're discussing it here could/would it be appropriate to more clearly define what exactly the additional considerations may apply and caution should be used are against this source? Both @Crossroads: and I have had disagreements in the recent past as to the scope of those considerations, and spelling it out more clearly may help either or both of us when it comes to disagreements as to this source's reliability for certain statements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Concerning the first comment, Whatever "news media" PinkNews may have been years ago, today it is a sensationalist tabloid. It is the LGBT version of the UK Daily Mail: this has not been substantiated in any way by Pyxis, and, for anyone who has actually followed the Daily Mail controversies, is quite obviously a false and absurd statement.
Concerning the second point, I would simply point out that personal attacks - especially, unsubstantiated ones - are no more appropriate on this page than they are elsewhere on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
indeed, were Pyxis to try to press this point it may be
WP:BOOMERANG material. In any case, this is not in any manner collegiate editing - David Gerard (talk
) 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
"Headline hysterics, drum beating, and fomenting outrages" - sorry, but calling someone "anti-trans" is not headline hysterics. Nor is it drum beating, nor is it fomenting outrage - not when the subjects of these articles are the ones creating said outrage through their actions.
"Laser-focused on creating controversy" - again; PinkNews doesn't need any help in this department, nor does it "create" controversy. Seemingly everyone's favourite pastime in the UK is coming out as transphobic. Just reporting on it doesn't make it worse or create something new, it just reports on it.
My conclusion is that these things only seem like they're creating controversy if your intention is to then ask "Please explain to me how their actions are transphobic?" - and I have run into enough bad faith
WP:SEALIONing
online in regards to trans rights to even consider that as a viable thing to present at RSN. The actions of Stock, Cherry, and a number of others have been reported on reliably as transphobic. Reporting on someone being called anti-trans is not biased or opinionated.
This RSN is based on nothing, going nowhere, is clearly against consensus, and only seems to be prolonged so far in a bad faith war of attrition. I think we all have better things to do with our time than this. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
off-topic rant by likely sock
What actions, Ineffablebookkeeper? Instead of parroting buzz-word attacks launched on these BLPs like "transphobic" and "anti-trans", why don't you actually say for what these people are being called so? In this Kathleen Stock case, they're clearly engaging in an all-out media campaign to wreck this woman's career, as an example to anyone that might dare express a similar viewpoint. What is transphobic? Apparently according to Pink News it's both "transphobic" and "a lie" to say that only females can get cervical cancer. That any source that makes a claim like that can even be entertained as "reliable" is worrisome. So please tell us, what are anti-trans actions? Since you throw around that language, explain what makes someone anti-trans? And, while doing so, take into consideration: only one biological sex is at risk of being forcibly impregnated. Only the other biological sex possesses the ability to forcibly impregnate (i.e., rape). Is it anti-trans to protect the former from the latter by having segregated spaces? Or is anything other than allowing males full access to females wherever they are at all times, rape and unwanted pregnancy be damned, transphobic?
I'll also mention that homosexuality itself gets called "transphobic" now. Gays and, especially, lesbians, being shamed and threatened with rape and murder for...being what they are.
So what is reliable anymore, on this subject? It seems clear to me that our business as usual approach is failing, here. This venue isn't the place to have this discussion. I would ask whomever evaluates the consensus here, the roughly 2/3 of the participants who show up at every single gender-related battleground and act as a monolithic bloc, echoing one another in discussions, and self-declaring their side as "consensus" ought to be given as much weight as one editor acting as a warrior in a battleground and know that they will say "this souce is reliable" unconditionally, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is provided, because it supports their POV. The POV of the OP doesn't matter, because she still has an burden of proof: she must provide proof that they are unreliable, she cannot just say "I just don't like it" like the other side can do without any repurcussion whatsoever (other than having their comments given minimal consideration by the closer). Therefore the attacks on her like the one below by Black Kite are out of line IMO. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not gonna justify that with a response, lmao. I don't have to, neither do I want to, nor do I think it'll help or go anywhere. Please hash these points out elsewhere with someone who cares to take this bait. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's cut to the chase here. The OP does not want PinkNews marked unreliable because they actually beliee it's unreliable; they want it marked unreliable because it is being used to source material that they find objectionable. More than one admin has already suggested that certain editors on both sides of the transgender issue may need to be removed from the area; filings like this are only likely to make that result more likely. This should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It is perfectly reasonable, when a publication has had to settle a libel action, to raise the question of whether the publication should be treated as a reliable source. (That is why I am following this discussion.) And if you have been following this discussion, you will know that there is a serious question which has not yet been answered. So this discussion should not yet be closed. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is that perfectly reasonable? I don’t see it being reasonable unless the question has been raised by a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Because having to settle a libel action indicates incompetence on the part of either the publication’s staff, or their lawyers. In this particular case, I would have expected Pink News to be particularly careful over the possibility of being sued by Julie Bindel, because of the embarrassment if Ms Bindel won. If they can’t even get that right, what else might there be to come out of the woodwork? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we can ascribe anything to what happened within the litigation aspect - only how they handled the matter as a result of the legal recourses that were made after the fact. That is, there's simply no way to predict if a lawsuit would be filed (defamation is generally a high threshold to prove malice, though I don't know the specifics of UK's laws here) nor whether they could settle or have the judge rule in their favor. But if/when ruled unfavorably, taking the steps to remove the offending article and issuing any redactions the like are all responsible steps expected of a reliable source. --Masem (t) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
UK's libel laws are much more strict that the United States, "acutal malice" for public figures is not a thing here. English defamation law is so strict in comparison to US law that the US specifically passed the SPEECH Act in 2010 to make UK libel judgements unenforceable in the US. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
… there’s simply no way to predict if a lawsuit would be filed I disagree. A competent journalist should know when to take legal advice as to whether an article is libellous, and a competent libel lawyer should be able to give a good assessment as to whether it is or not. I’m not saying that the outcome of a defamation case will always be predictable, just that in general, if a publication loses, the question of competence arises. But I agree with you that the action taken afterwards to correct the situation is important and highly relevant to whether the publication should be considered reliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in England and Wales. See our articles on libel tourism and English defamation law. Lawsuits are routinely used to punish speech that one doesn't like. The defendant bears the burden of proof and has to show that no harm was committed. The only way to avoid retaliatory defamation suits is to never write about people or businesses or organizations—essentially anything involving a person—and still hope that you don't get sued. It doesn't even matter if you're a UK citizen or wrote/published the piece there. Woodroar (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on English defamation law does not support your statements Lawsuits are routinely used to punish speech that one doesn’t like. and The only way to avoid retaliatory defamation suits is to never write about people or businesses or organizations—essentially anything involving a person—and still hope that you don't get sued. But this is turning into a discussion on English libel law, and it’s getting off the point. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)  
Sweet6970, are you aware of any contemporary UK publications that have not had to settle a libel action? I am not. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I have never suggested that having to settle a libel action means a publication is automatically unreliable. I was responding to the apparent suggestion that the reliability of this particular publication should never be questioned, because (apparently) questioning its reliability is not allowed, and constitutes some sort of wikicrime. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Questioning the reliability of this or any other particular publication isn't a wikicrime. Questioning the reliability of a particular publication because an editor disagrees with its POV might be, however. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, but I don’t actually agree with it. I think that if you agree with a publication’s POV, you are naturally disinclined to question its reliability. That means that those who question a publication’s reliability are likely to be those who disagree with its POV. If there is a reasonable doubt, it should not be dismissed just because you disagree with the questioner’s views. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, if there is a reasonable doubt is doing a lot of work here. I haven't seen any grounds for "reasonable doubt" in this instance - the only grounds given for posing the current question are the settled lawsuit, and some headlines with which the poster disagrees. That isnt grounds for "reasonable doubt" IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I haven’t made any comment about whether I think Pink News is reliable, because I am not in a position to do so. That’s why I have been following the discussion – to see the views of other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Per consensus, it doesn't seem there is a reasonable doubt amongst Wikipedia editors. "If there is a reasonable doubt, it should not be dismissed just because you disagree with the questioner’s views" reads as if agreeing with its views is tantamount to being NPOV, which implies that agreeing with a publication's views discredits what would probably be a large number of editors from even commenting on and contributing to a discussion.
As it's been explained and evidenced by others in this thread, there's no evidence of a reasonable doubt existing that anyone can seemingly put a proper, supported finger on; per time of writing, the request of Horse Eye's Back for reliable, third party sources supporting a reasonable doubt for PinkNews' non-neutral POV has been unfulfilled, and a general, vague claim to unreliability does not substantiate a decent stake on the matter. No point raising that point unless there's something in it; if you don't support a claim to unreliability yourself, then that leaves maybe one person in this thread that thinks it holds water. Either we find a decent source on its unreliability and prove we have something to consider, or otherwise we settle for the seemingly obvious fact that we don't. "The views of other editors" means nothing if they go unsupported by reliable third-party sources. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the reputation of libel law in the UK particularly good among those interested in maintaining a free press with integrity. As Donald Trump proposed that US libel law should look more like the UK's, it was pretty widely taken as a threat to the freedom of the press (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10). In Columbia Journalism Review, it has even been said that suing the media is so common for political figures in England that to not do so is taken as an admission of truth in whatever was written. Regardless, PinkNews being based in the UK as they are, in their joint statement with Bindel they did say the outlet has "revised its editorial processes". --Chillabit (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: in the original discussion section I asked "If in fact "It's obvious that PinkNews is more dedicated to creating a bandwagon effect narrative about a subject -- instead of pursuing neutral reportage about it.” then you can obviously provide reliable third party sources which say as such.” yet you do not appear to have responded to my request. Would you mind taking a moment to help me (and presumably yourself as well) by doing so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No. Not after what you did. I don't believe your question is sincere and no Wikipedia editor is obligated to satisfy another editor's demands. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
WP:AGF and I have given you no reason to do otherwise. If no such source exists thats fine but can you at least answer whether or not such a source exists even if you have no intention of supplying it? Horse Eye's Back (talk
) 07:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: when challenging the reliability of a source, you need evidence from other RS. At the moment you have said the source is unreliable, but you've not satisfied any editors bar maybe Crossroads. Horse Eye's Back has made a reasonable request for evidence to back the assertion that PinkNews is unreliable, and I'll reiterate it. Either provide evidence backing the claim that it is unreliable, or the conversation could/should be closed as no change required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Also note that the Guardian story is addressing an issue between PinkNews and the EU's "right to be forgotten" legislation that does not raise questions about the source's reliability, while Seventeen is drawing attention to an apology PinkNews issued concerning a Snapchat "story" - neither source casts any doubt on PinkNews's actual published journalism. This looks like a witchhunt via Google search, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
They settled a legal action – this means that they retracted the article because they thought they would lose if the matter went to trial. They were not forced to do so by a court, but they did so under a legal threat. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thats not the only reason to settle a case, do you have reporting which supports your assertion that this is what happened in this case? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: there is a big difference between a source voluntarily retracting articles when it finds out it got them wrong, and being forced to by a court of law - that is as may be, but what PinkNews did in both these cases seems to be somewhere between the two, that is, settling out of court. PinkNews has expressed in the past that it has rather shallow pockets, so it is not surprising that out of court settlements have been attractive as a way to resolve these suits under UK libel law. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic rant by likely sock
I don't know how long ago we are talking about, but "in the past" they very well may have had shallow pockets, though I doubt if they still do. They've become a mouth piece for big pharma and its multi-billion pound gender industrial complex that "by the time [they're] finished there won't be any gay people left in England", I'm sure Pink News gets plenty of compensation in donations for towing the industry line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A8CB:964:7EDE:ED03 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I echo
not a suicide pact: several editors arguing against the reliability of PN don't try to hide their personal views on trans issues, and it's perfectly fine to gently advise editors that their own views might be compromising their editorial judgment. Likewise, personally I think it's pretty obvious that the Times' and the Telegraph's (and recently, sadly, the BBC
's) coverage of trans issues is clearly written to help push this culture war nonsense being pushed by CCHQ, but I'm not going to say that those publications should go below a "be careful because of the editorial line" advisory.
Also, with regards to defamation law in the UK, I'm sorry to say there is no correlation between how often a publication gets sued and their reliability; Ian Hislop is the most-sued man in Britain but as far as investigative journalism goes, Private Eye is probably the world's gold standard. Indeed, the reason why the most prolific child rapist in British history was also a beloved national hero with the ear of Prime Ministers until his death was precisely because he had incredibly deep pockets to shut people up. Sceptre (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
After four days of discussion, no reliable source on the unreliability of PinkNews has been produced; we've discussed that libel actions cannot be considered to count towards unreliability here; and editorial consensus seems to overwhelmingly support that PinkNews can be used as a reliable reference on Wikipedia. Discussions on its unreliable nature seem to be circling the same drainpool of unsupported points now. Am I too hasty in considering this discussion pretty much closed? I don't see it going any further than allowing the same unsupported points to be repeated ad nauseam. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Aside from one issue, where I tried to seek clarity on before per PinkNews' RSP entry but is currently unanswered, I don't think there's much else to discuss here. If that issue is perhaps better raised at another noticeboard, I'd appreciate directions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 11 November 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.

Lecture by an academic

al-Khwarizmi
's birthplace.

Can this lecture be considered as a reliable source? Editors argue that while David A. King is reliable, the video is not since it is hosted on Youtube. Hence his views might not be inserted, even with attribution.

More

here. TrangaBellam (talk
) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  • If that's the case it's a red herring as we cite copyrighted sources all the time, books, journal articles, websites. A comfortable majority of sources cited in Wikipedia are copyrighted. There could conceivably be an issue with linking to it if the video was uploaded by someone who doesn't have permission, but that doesn't mean the talk itself can't be cited. However, the organisation will have permission from the speaker to share the talk so that shouldn't be a problem either. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Moderate yes. Should be ok based on a number of editors vetting for both the speaker's and the institution's reputation as reliable/respected. However, if it is true that he has a long track record of publications on the subject I highly encourage you to find a non-video source, especially when the discussion on the value of the source started ~8 days ago. I don't particularly remember what the principle was, but in general it is best to avoid sources that are "easy to link, hard to examine" when possible.
    Talk
     19:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • For some reason I assumed you had started the section on the Talk thread
    Talk
    19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • For example, there would be not much of an issue citing
    Talk
    19:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it would be considered something like a SPS by an expert with a few additional considerations. As XOR'easter notes, what is said may be the chain of words that popped into the speaker's mind at the exact moment and may not reflect how they would wish to state something if given the ability to revise the statement. The most obvious example might be simply misstating a date or day of the week or name of a participant. The concern about accurately hearing the speaker is also true. Much of this I think speaks to WP:V rather than RS. For example, if we cite a YT video of a presentation and the video is taken down. The citation may be true (cites the actual performance rather than YT as the source) but how can we verify the claim if challenged? As others have said, this is less a concern if the source appears to pass copyright concerns. In summary, use only if nothing better is available and even then use with caution. Springee (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Salaries for university administrators

Samford University, like many other private schools, doesn't seem to publicize their paychecks. Is this an acceptable source? It's based on primary (IRS) info, I assume, but can we rely on their correctness? Drmies (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Does IRS info publicly available? Shrike (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Although salaries are not explicitly mentioned in
    WP:BLPPRIVACY, I don't think Wikipedia should be publishing people's salaries even if they are a matter of public record. --SVTCobra
    21:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do we need to include salary info in articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hemiauchenia and SVTCobra above. Additionally, one could make a case for including information such as "x university is amongst the 50 best paying universities in the USA" with a reliable ranking list, but the actual people's salaries should probably not be included and the total salaries paid seems unnecessarily detailed for an article.
    Talk
     21:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't see that as problematic at all, certainly not for public universities, where we have sourcing like this--I was more interested in the principle of it--the sourcing. Anyone familiar with academia knows that administrative pay is a huge thing, in public as well as private systems. If hedge fund managers and business people can have their fortunes listed, then this is no more an invasion of privacy. Drmies (talk)
It certainly seems like
WP:OR if other sources haven't given any significance to it. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 23:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Would it be OR to use a primary source that explicitly states the salary of the employee? I don’t read
talk
) 01:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe not original research, but the comparison with the net worth of billionaires is inappropriate. The net worths are calculated by reputable newspapers. I don't think we should be mentioning individual staff salaries unless reliable sources deem it significant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Not OR if the salary is simply listed, but it would definitely violate
WP:CALC.) Nil Einne (talk
) 08:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless someone's salary has been discussed, not just mentioned, in several reliable sources, it doesn't belong in an article. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Doug; I think it needs to be discussed in a reliable source, ideally with context demonstrating the number's accuracy. This is different from coaches at public universities in the United States--their salaries are public and widely discussed. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don’t really think this is a reliability issue, as others have implied or stated the question here is whether there is
    WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk
    ) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Joy of Satan Ministries

Joy of Satan Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could anyone help untangling the sourcing at our article on Joy of Satan Ministries? I'm really not sure where to start. At a glance, the citations look impressive and possibly academic, but this falls apart when I start to look at individual sources. The second source, for example, was published by CESNUR, a pro-new religious movement and anti-anti-cult non-profit organization. I'd argue such a source is not reliable. However, the same author wrote the seventh source, published by Brill Publishers, which at least appears to be academic—though I'm not sure if any of their journals are reliable. Source #15 was published by Punctum Books, which (according to our article) is "scholar-led" but also print-on-demand, which seems sketchy to me. Then we have source #9, The Divine Province: Birthing New Earth by Jaemes McBride and Ed Rychkun, published by Ed Rychkun, who's also authored books on fly fishing.... After that, a Master's thesis that isn't widely cited in academia, plus all kinds of primary sources.

About the only sourcing that doesn't immediately fall part is cited to Jesper Aagaard Petersen, an actual, bona-fide academic. Is anyone able to determine if Petersen is reliable here? If he is, there's another concern that we're relying on his views for much of the article. Several other sources (Contemporary Esotericism, The Invention of Satanism, The Occult World, The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II, and probably more) appear to be journal articles by Petersen but we're citing the editors instead. We're also frequently using Petersen to repeat primary claims from the Joy of Satan Ministries rather than for his own views.

I realize that this borders on a few other issues, V, NPOV, possibly N. But I wanted to unpack any sourcing issues before moving on to those concerns. Woodroar (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A few quick observations:
  1. Yes, Brill absolutely do publish high quality reliable scholarship. I have no particular view on Satanism: A Social History, but in general Brill are an academic publisher with a pretty good reputation.
  2. Per
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    , masters' theses are not generally reliable unless it can be shown that they have had a "significant scholarly influence".
  3. Our pages on CESNUR and Massimo Introvigne certainly give a few reasons to question their general reliability
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I went thru the lot, here are my notes:
  1. The following venues were found either in the Finnish or the Norwegian national scientific publication venue ratings systems (or both) with classifications that indicate they are acceptable scientific publication venues: Brill, Brill Esotericism Reference Library, Routledge, Punctum Books, International Journal for the Study of New Religions, Equinox Publishing, Palgrave Macmillan, Oxford University Press. Based on that, I'd retain #4, #7, #11, #12, #15, #18, #21, #22, #23 unless there are concerns about the specific works themselves. Also, #26 seems to be fine per
    WP:RSPADL
    .
  2. #5 and #6 are
    WP:PRIMARY
    .
  3. #1 is a PhD thesis, and #29 is a master's thesis, so
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    applies. It seems #29 can be removed without losing much of value from the article, but #1 is used a lot. It does have a few citations to it according to Google Scholar, but I didn't check what those citations were.
  4. The following appear to be SPS: #9, #14, #24, #28. Similarly, #10 is just a blog post, despite being listed under The Economist, see end of the text. #13 and #25 are from the websites of "Italian Satanist Union" which seems less-than-neutral for the topic based on the title. #8 is from History, which
    WP:RS/P
    says is "generally unreliable". I think all of these should go.
  5. #16, #17, #19 are Italian language websites that I can't make much sense of. I suppose they could be reputable news sources, but I'm not struck with that impression. On the other hand, I know approximately 2 words of Italian.
  6. #20 is by a publisher I can't even find a website for, but the google books page doesn't fill me with confidence. At the very least it doesn't give any kind of a scholarly vibe.
  7. #3 is tricky. It's supposedly been presented in an academic conference, but the conference seems largely unaffiliated with any larger organization. The publisher seems to have only ever organized two conferences (one co-located) and has been inactive for a few years now. There's no indication of whether there was a peer review process, any fact-checking, or anything like that. Not found in any of the scientific publication venue rating systems I surveyed. I'm inclined to view as unreliable unless evidence to the contrary is found.
-Ljleppan (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. Corrispondenza Romana (#19) seems of heavy catholic bias (as can be seen in this article on vaccines, anti-islamic, and of inflammatory character from a cursory look on their site, so I would heavily heavily discourage their use. Their information page does not seem to establish a reputable editorial policy, either.
    Talk
     22:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  2. Consul Press (#16) is most certainly not reliable based on their editorial policy. At all (quite an entertaining read, if anything).
    Talk
     22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  3. Heroic Phoenix (#17) is probably reliable only when it comes to Neapolitan cultural news (especially theater). No mention of them by reputable sources based on a google search also indicates that their opinions do not merit inclusion based on notability of source.
    Talk
     22:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I agree with
    Talk
    22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Consul Press? If I remember correctly they’re old school fascists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I got that impression, yeah.
Talk
 08:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the American Political Science Review a reliable source?

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.
There is almost no concern about the reliability of the source as far as I analysed the comments, and the majority of editors convincingly argued that the research paper constitutes secondary research per the definition of "secondary". As this is a request for assessing reliability and not whether the paper's conclusions are
WP:NPOVN, which is better equipped to deal with such questions. Szmenderowiecki (talk
) 22:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the Mass shootings in the United States article that said the following:

  • A 2021 study in the American Political Science Review found that "the vote share of the Democratic Party increases by an average of nearly 5 percentage points in counties that experienced shootings—a remarkable shift in an age of partisan polarization and close presidential elections."[11]

The content was removed by the editor 'Springee' who claimed that a study in the leading peer-reviewed political science journal was a "Primary source" and that the content needed a "secondary source". The editor claims that a "recent" discussion on this board justifies the removal – the discussion is more than a decade old and on the issue of race and intelligence[12]. The "this is

WP:RS guidelines clearly identify peer-reviewed publications as "usually the most reliable sources". While we would ideally want to use comprehensive literature reviews by the National Academy of Sciences, Annual Reviews (publisher)
or something along those lines, there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that advises against the use of other forms of peer-reviewed publications. This leads me to ask two questions:

  1. Is the American Political Science Review a reliable source?
  2. Would it be wise to clarify
    talk
    ) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note while primary is a concern, per the talk page discussion DUE is a bigger concern in this specific instance since an entire subtopic of the article was cited to this single paper. Springee (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (1) It is obviously reliable. (2) I do worry about citing individual studies: a study can be published in a reliable publication but not replicated elsewhere, or an individual study may be
    WP:UNDUE because it prioritizes a single result over scholarly consensus. That said, I think they way you presented it ("a 2021 study found …") is the best way to approach this. The information is relevant and peer-reviewed. It should just be contextualized—as an individual study—and not as consensus. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!
    ) 16:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No, an experiment requires control. This is a secondary source on the election in that it analyzes the results and provides an interpretation of them. nableezy - 03:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you think an experiment requires a control? What was the control for the Trinity test? Are you suggesting the statistical interpretation of the results was done by others? If so what was the novel contribution of this paper? Springee (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a little off topic but the Trinity test actually did have a number of preceding conventional control tests. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do I think that? Because without controlling it is an observation, not an experiment. And observations are secondary to the action. Your way of claiming a source is primary would make any historian examining primary historical records and reporting on them a primary source, and only usable when some other source reports on their findings. nableezy - 01:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but it is also a secondary source for the other studies on the same topic that it cites that have reached the same conclusion. Q.v. my previous discussion of this distinction as "scholastic" in many cases. The key questions should be (1) is this peer-reviewed scholarship? and (2) is it consonant or dissonant with the general consensus of scholarship on the topic? If yes and yes, then we should bypass the whole primary/secondary distinction that is based on practices in other fields (such as ones that actually conduct experiments, that maintain a clear distinction between reports of new findings and review articles, etc., etc.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
        • A background section of a paper might be considered a 3rd party review but that wouldn't mean we would consider the paper itself a review paper. The authors in this case conducted research and reached a novel conclusion. We are sourcing the paper to report on it's novel conclusion, not it's background discussion. As such it's primary source. I would be very uncomfortable with editors trying to answer question 2. For a lot of subjects, this one included, there may not be much information out their from which to conclude one way or the other. Regardless, I don't see any way we could read this paper to be anything other than a primary academic source with the limitations on how we might use it per WP:RS. Springee (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes; I get that you don't see any way not to bracket off this APSR piece as primary. But with many other editors, I think you are wrong not to see, at a minimim, that statements in this article about prior literature are SECONDARY (and relevant to its use in the diff provided above) and at a maximum, that the distinction you are trying to impose between "review papers" and "novel conclusions" is unhelpful in this domain and counter to the intent ot
            WP:RS
            .
          • Also, when we have reliable, academic sources that state, X, Y and Z studies have reached conclusion A and no reliable, academic sources that support conclusion not-A - then, without SYNTH, we can conclude that A is the academic consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
            • It's probably better to say, per WP:RS, this is a primary source. If we are citing the background section of the paper then you can make the claim that we are using this non-review paper as a review paper. However, that isn't the case here. As to your second point, can you show where policy or guidelines support that? We don't have a 3rd party academic source that says this paper is consistent with existing research in this area. I think most of us would agree the general conclusion isn't surprising but again, how does that move the paper from primary to review? Springee (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
              • Spribgee,
                WP:RS doesn't say that primary academic sources are not reliable; it says that secondary sources are often better. And the second bullet of RS:SCHOLARSHIP is not at all limited to secondary sources such as review articles: Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. My point was never that the paper was "secondary" and not "primary". My point is that secondary v. primary is not a bright-line distinction, outside of MEDRS, and that policy requires us to interpret studies not in isolation but in relation to the literature in the field. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. Where meta-analyses are not available, on subjects that are not "complex and abstruse", editors are precisely expected to place weight on single studies, or not, based on their relationship with mainstream academic discourse - in the words of WP:RS itself. Newimpartial (talk
                ) 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable and generally secondary (if that matters), here this secondary article analyses primary information which is, inter alia, reported violence events, registration, and votes in counties, together with other secondary sources (cited). The existence of those primary pieces of data were not in any way the creation of the scientist/author. The author is interpreting the exogenous primary data and secondary sources and is thus making secondary interpretation. This is not a situation where an author/scientist controls their laboratory conditions and says what happened in their lab. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable (seems to be rated on the same level as e.g. Nature on both the Finnish and Norwegian publication venue rankings) and at least insofar as the quoted sentence is concerned obviously secondary. It contains the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, where the primary source in this case is the data on voting behavior and shootings. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable peer-reviewed article in eminent journal. I've often opined that our rules about sourcing would be greatly improved if the primary/secondary notion was almost entirely expunged. It never did us any good in the past and it won't do us any good in the future either. However, though I believe it is irrelevant to reliability, the primary source here is the election results, and the authors' analysis of them is a secondary source. We aren't allowed to add our own analysis of the election results to articles, but we aren't allowed to add our own analysis of the authors' conclusions either. We are perfectly entitled to report the election results without adding our own analysis, and we are perfectly entitled to report the authors' conclusions without adding our own analysis. Same rule for both. Zerotalk 04:28, 15 November 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.

Post-RfC comment: I have to disagree with users saying this is a secondary source for this specific content, according to

other research papers to cite it. Using it in a Wikipedia article seems a bit premature. The paper is definitely a primary source regarding "a remarkable shift in an age of partisan polarization", which is simply the author's opinion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk
) 00:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The struggle for Transcaucasia, 1917-1921

I would like to propose that

WP:UNDUE to include on Wikipedia. Because of this, he is very popularly cited on webpages dedicated to denying the Armenian genocide.[15] Kazemzadeh writes, "the Armenians in Turkey were by no means an oppressed and miserable people" (page 8), an odd thing for a historian that should be aware of the Hamidian massacres and Adana massacre to claim. He also writes, "already in the nineties they were preparing armed uprisings in Turkish Armenia, for they hoped to provoke conflicts which would attract the attention of Europe to the national struggle of Armenians" (page 10). Kazemzadeh frequently refers to "Armenian bands" (page 10), something that frequently appears in Turkish sources denying the genocide. Michael Karpovich criticized the book for containing false information, and wrote that Kazemzadeh had a background with the Turkish "points of view".[16]

Being over 70s years old now, it would be fair to suggest Kazemzadeh's book is outdated (

WP:AGEMATTERS) at least on Armenian subjects. The Armenian genocide hadn't began being extensively researched until over a decade later (Until the mid-1960s, a “conspiracy of silence” cloaked the issue, which served Turkey’s interests). This means Kazemzadeh's book was published before much material about the Armenian genocide was available. ZaniGiovanni (talk
) 07:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Firuz Kazemzadeh is a top source on the history of South Caucasus, and remains one of the most cited sources on the subject in scholarly literature. This is obvious even from a quick search at Google books. Scholarly publications as recent as the last couple of years refer to Kazemzadeh. Kazemzadeh was one of the most distinguished US scholars, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard, and a professor at Yale. His works received generally positive reviews, and not a single reviewer advised against Kazemzadeh being a useful read on the subject. Regarding genocide, Kazemzadeh never wrote on that subject, and is not an expert in that field. If someone selectively cites Kazemzadeh to advance a certain agenda, it is certainly not Kazemzadeh's fault. And Armenian bands did exist, and some of them were very violent, attacking civilians. Kazemzadeh's work is based on archival research, and the activity of such irregular groups is well documented in Russian and other sources. Karpovich did not write that Kazemzadeh "had a background with the Turkish "points of view"". The review was by Hugh Seton-Watson, and not by Karpovich, and he actually wrote that "Mr Kazemzadeh is however well aware of Turkish and Persian points of view." That is a totally different thing. And Seton-Watson praised the work of Kazemzadeh, by writing that Kazemzadeh "produced a book which will be of value to all concerned with Russian empire in the 20th century". It should also be noted that the book in question earned Kazemzadeh a PhD from Harvard, which speaks for itself, and Karpovich was his mentor. The PhD dissertation was so good that it was published as a book that remains one of the top sources on the history of Transcaucasia in the beginning of the 20th century to this day. I don't think such an important source could be disqualified. Also, please note that the proposed use of Kazemzadeh's work is Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict related articles, covering the period from 1905 to 1920. Grandmaster 10:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
According to professor Anna Geifman, Armenian Dashnaktsutiun was the foremost terrorist organization in the Caucasus at the beginning of the 20th century: [17] So Kazemzadeh's works on the topic do not contradict what other researchers say. Grandmaster 08:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
She wrote an article advocating for stronger ties between Azerbaijan and Israel. She even talks hostilely toward Armenia for being Iran’s trading partner. She actually further proves that Kazemzadeh had personal biases. Her work regarding the subject or at least in relation to Armenia seems to be partisan and unreliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
How is this related to her book on terrorism in the Russian empire, which received very good reviews? And she never showed any bias against Armenia. Even the article that you quoted mentions Armenia in a very neutral manner. And smuggling of weapons and technologies by Armenia to Iran is officially confirmed by US authorities, it is nothing new. Grandmaster 10:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The TCA, formed in 2007 with $30 million from Turkish-American businessman Yalcin Ayasli has made the “academic controversy” project a major focus, funding publications that attempt to undermine the historicity of the Armenian Genocide, supporting a major project at the University of Utah (the Turkish Studies Project), and repeating the existence of "a scholarly debate". A section of its website is headlined,“The Ottoman Armenian Tragedy Is a Genuine Historic Controversy / Many Reputable Scholars Challenge the Conventional, One-Sided Anti-Turkish Narrative and/or Refrain from Alleging the Crime of Genocide.” and that “The notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history does not reflect the truth and must be utterly rejected.”  Excerpts from the writings of some 34 scholars meant to illustrate this point are provided.

The citations for this excerpt are “Firuz Kazemzadeh,”Turkish Coalition of America, http://www.tc-america.org/scholar/kazemzadeh.html (accessed 10 Dec 2014). and Firuz Kazemzadeh, “The Slaughter of the Armenians,” New York Times Book Review, 25 April 1993,13. If an somebody used "Slaughter of the Jews" instead of "Holocaust" would they not count as Holocaust denier? --Armatura (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The fact that someone refers to Kazemzadeh to advance a certain point does not make Kazemzadeh unreliable. And Mamigonian does not mention Kazemzadeh. The quote is totally unrelated to the topic. We are not discussing reliability of TCA. Kazemzadeh had no connection with that organization. Grandmaster 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fox News

lmao feminist (+) 02:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

On a more serious note, do people think that Fox New's reliability has changed since the 2020 RfC closed? The 2020 close happened before major events such as the 2020 election, and I know that Fox received a lot of criticism for their coverage of the big lie, though obviously a lot of that was from television pundits and not the news coverage itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking whether we should explicitly mention "COVID-19" as part of Fox News's coverage of politics and science at RSP. feminist (+) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
From just two days ago, MSNBC video, Fox News caught red-handed deceptively editing Biden speech. Platonk (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not "deceptively" edited in the slightest. They just focused on the part that was the "oopsie" rather than burn airtime with irrelevant material. MSNBC also took only part of his remarks and focused solely on what FoxNews omitted.
Full context (What was omitted/What MSNBC also omitted): "And I just want to tell you, I know you’re a little younger than I am, but you know I’ve adopted the attitude of the great Negro at the time, pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher in the pros — in Major League Baseball after Jackie Robinson. His name was Satchel Paige"
It was a mistake and he corrected himself. Politifact pointed that out as well "Biden used the phrase “the great Negro,” but then corrected himself to describe Paige as a great Negro Leagues pitcher." and added punctuation to his verbal remarks to help distinguish it.
It clearly wasn't intended as calling him a Negro, but it was said. Calling it a "gaffe" vs "mistake" is little more than spin. Buffs (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd think COVID-19 would obviously count as science coverage, is it not being treated as such? - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The tweet I linked isn't really about science, it's more on the side of politics (i.e. culture war). Lots of topics adjacent to coronavirus (e.g. lockdowns, economic impact) have more to do with politics than science. (Now that I think of it, maybe "culture war" is a better term than "COVID-19" if we are including one at RSP.) feminist (+) 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
loyalty tests (like the refusal to withdraw support of TFG even after he correctly(!!) said he could shoot (murder) someone on 5th Ave and not lose any voters), and if any GOP politician doesn't toe the line of TFG, they lose his support and get hacked on by the others. It's cultish, and Fox News is a large part of the reason. -- Valjean (talk
) 18:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid Fox News isn't reliable news. Like Valjean said, it divorced from reality and I suggest that the editors steer clear from citing it as a reliable source. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Given Fox News' slide down the reliability scale, is it worth doing a full RfC on this?
WP:FOXNEWS is in green, minus politics and science. Arguably this incident is current events, and not either of those two other categories. Sideswipe9th (talk
) 01:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Border control ... sounds like politics to me? feminist (t) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
A piece about the non-border related death of a border control agent is not a piece about border control, especially when other sources say he died of Covid complications. It's a tangential reference at best. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Believe me, I’m no Fox News apologist but at the same time, they are a major news network whether people like it or not (makes me nauseous saying that); editors should simply use neutral discretion. Trillfendi (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree and I have personally used Fox News (the website) quite a number of times on articles about GOP politicians and election primaries. Hence Fox News on politics is placed in the yellow column, i.e. additional considerations apply but can still be used as a source in many situations. feminist (t) 01:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering
their status on RSP, foxnews.com is currently used in over 16,000 Wikipedia articles. Platonk (talk
) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
...used in most of them before the new downspiral, if I may add to this. If no better source exists, then cite them with caution. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This may be funny but while Fox News clearly has problems, I'm not sure this example is really particularly meaningful in terms of RSN concerns. The link there is https://fxn.ws/3ndi0Jd which goes to [18]. There's nothing in the source which mentions the border migrant crisis not even the headline. Unless you count that stock photo which I'd argue barely shows anything and the caption "The back of a U.S. Border Patrol working at the border wall between Juarez, Mexico and Sunland Park, New Mexico in the United States. Shot at a rally on 1/29/2011 protesting the violence in Mexico. (iStock)" seems more random than politicised.

I went through all 7 archives in in the Internet Archive and none of them do or seem any different [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. I can't rule out there is some version perhaps only shown to certain audiences that wasn't captured, but I think there's a good chance the headline was never in the actual article. (Note 2 of the archives listed here with slightly different dates end up sending you to the older version, and the most recent one at the time I wrote this was from me.)

Yes the article doesn't mention anything about COVID-19 but nor does this from the AP [26] or this from Az Central [27]. And if we look at those that do like [28] [29] they talk about "Border Patrol sources". So I think it's not unreasonable for Fox News to exclude such information. Whether it was a conscious choice because they felt it unnecessary to speculate on someone's private information based on "Border Patrol sources", or they simply never uncovered this in their limited research.

That headline on Facebook [30] (maybe other social media?) is clearly horribly misleading. But there's a good reason we

never take headlines in otherwise reliable articles as reliable sources themselves, whoever puts them out. While some sources are worse than others and they perhaps provide a small amount of clue how much we should trust said source, ultimately I think misleading headlines let alone misleading headlines on social media are a bit of a wash.

Nil Einne (talk

) 10:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: It's an AP News story, word for word. Platonk (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Prabook.com

Prabook.com is an openly editable wiki that describes itself as a place to make a encyclopedic profile for any person, not just those notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It’s content is a mix of automatically scraped details from other sources, and contributions from anonymous editors. It allows individuals to “lock” a profile, but has no mechanism to ensure it is only locked by the subject of the profile.

This iteration of Prabook.com appears to be founded in 2018 (per Valery Tsepkalo#Prabook), but there are earlier posts at RSN about a similar-sounding website.

How should we list it on

WP:RSP
?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply. For example, do not used to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, only for Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false, fabricated, or unverifiable information, and should be deprecated

I have already removed it from several articles where I’ve found it used as a source, but would like to formally propose deprecating it per

WP:USERGENERATED. Thanks, Politanvm talk
23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because the nominator removed it from all the other articles. I removed it from the last article after someone reverted nom's edit. Platonk (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Well how many articles was it in originally? If it's only a handful it was removed from, why not just move straight to blacklist? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I removed it from ~10 last week and it appeared on a few more since then, so not too many. I wasn’t sure if the formal RfC was needed to blacklist/xlinkbot/edit filter, but I’m happy to withdraw the RfC if it’s overkill. Politanvm talk 00:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that a full RFC is necessary, since I don't think blacklisting it as a source will be contentious. I'm firmly on team blacklist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Love Reading Website

I have been informed that Love Reading is a user generated site. It looks like a 'reliable source' to me but I'd be interested in another opinion. Thanks.--Joenthwarls (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific statements would you want to cite from a specific page of Love Reading for a specific Wikipedia page? -Ljleppan (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
*Unreliable No it's not a reliable source for literary (book) reviews. Firstly, it's an affiliate internet bookshop and a commercial enterprise so the primary intent of the site is commercial, which is a red flag. Notice the "compare prices" link to *eight* different affiliate marketing platforms on each book page. Secondly, LoveReading is a "vanity" review site. There's no editorial process. *Anyone* can get their book (even self published books) reviewed packages starting at £120. See here: https://www.lovereading.co.uk/your-book-reviewed . Also, most of the "reviews" are appear to be based significantly on the publisher's blurbs, or press releases, to the extent that much the content of the "reviews" can be found on other sites and Google searches will reveal the "review" content is not unique. On many pages, much of the "review" content is actually derived from and quoted from other more credible literary review sources. See here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/book/17739/The-Midnight-Guardians-by-Ross-Montgomery.html and here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/book/9781912650828/isbn/No-Said-Rabbit-by-Marjoke-Henrichs.html. This is a good indication that WP editors should be using these quoted sites and/or authority sites in children's literature such as "The School Librarian", " The Bookseller", "Books for Keeps", "The School Reading List", "Booktrust" or significant national press sites such as "The Spectator", "The Guardian" or "The Sunday Times Book Review". Finally, there's no evidence that the "reviewers" have any authority in the field of literary criticism, and in most cases, the name of the "reviewer" is not even detailed on the "review". There is further evidence on the various "LoveReading" sites, that the reviews are in fact unsolicited and user generated content. No editorial process or authority checking is detailed. See here: https://www.lovereading4kids.co.uk/review-panel Tonyinman (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Slovenski Narod newspaper

Note: this is the second re-listing.

source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev.

article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted).

content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. --Local hero talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:
  • Journalism
  • Opinion pieces by non-scholars
  • Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
  • Any primary source, etc.
Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
  • Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
  • "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
  • Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
  • Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.
That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. --Local hero talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary
WP:RS cited in the same article (Hristo Tatarchev).Jingiby (talk
) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I somewhat concur with Jingiby here. Newspapers are hardly a good source about history anyway and such news stories are presented without context (an invitation to OR). We do not know, if this newspaper was reliable sources for this topic even back then (ethno-nationalistic POV pushing was one of the main reasons for existence of such local newspapers). In any case, if the only source for this information is this newspaper, it is certainly an undue information and should not be included in the article. If this information is mentioned in higher quality source (eg. history book), then use that source (discussion about due weight applies here, but that is out of scope of this noticeboard). Note useable sources are not restricted to English language, which is preferred, but not required. Pavlor (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the input, Pavlor. I can't think of a POV that a Slovenian newspaper would have to push in 1904 Ottoman Macedonia. Slovenski Narod was apparently the first daily Slovene newspaper, in print for over seven decades. Another user had originally added this source to the article but was reverted by Jingiby. I took a look and it seems legit, but hoping to get guidance here as to whether it is RS.
With regard to your other point, I am not able to find it in books. I was only able to find it stated in places like the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle's website (link). --Local hero talk 00:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis incident

Hi,

the other day, I followed a citation in an article to a published work, which in turn cited "WK 2011", which turned out to refer to a 2011 version of the article in question. Based on what I've found in the meantime, it looks like this involves dozens of other articles as well. Your username appears in the Wikipedia:list of citogenesis incidents, so I'm hoping you can deal with this in an appropiate way, or notify the appropriate person. Here's the overview:

Between about 2007 and 2013, a series of books authored by Peter Baofu was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. The titles follow the general pattern The Future of this: Towards a New Theory of that: [31]

The publisher is a bit dodgy, according to their article; and these books are dodgy by the standards of that publisher, I think: Quite a lot of the prose was copied verbatim from Wikipedia, paying no heed to whether that content was cited or not. The only upside is that this author does credit Wikipedia.

Later on, people started citing those books in the articles they'd been cobbled together from. A Wikipedia search for the author currently yields 35 hits: [32]

I've only checked a handful, but I'd be very surprised if the pattern described above doesn't hold for practically all of them. I did wonder whether the citations might have been intended as product placement, to steer Wikipedia readers to the books. Across the ones I checked, this does not seem to be the case, though; the responsible editors and the timestamps are quite different for each one. So the likelier explanation is that occasionally, someone applies a [citation needed] tag to one of the passages appearing as-is in one of the books, and then someone else coming across the tag, and googles the former, and finds the latter at google books, and fails to wonder about the "WK" attribution there, and adds it as a ref... and voila, circle closed.

So this seems to be more benign than many of the listed citogenesis incidents, in as far as there's no deliberate fabrication at the root of it all, only originally uncited content. Let me know if you need any extra information, or if I can be of any further help with this issue.

- 2A02:560:42E7:3600:A538:6E0A:4565:830F (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm reposting this from my talk page - I don't get on as much as I was able to in the past so this could benefit from someone who can take more immediate action. In any case, this is definitely something that needs to be looked into. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Easy enough to see how this can happen. Almost every day I get an email from academia.edu telling me that I have been cited in a publication. Which is strange, as I haven't published in a scholarly journal in more than 45 years. Some of those notices result from one of the academic authors who share my name. Many of them result from an "author" following the attribution rules, and listing me as a contributor to a Wikipedia article they have incorporated into a book. Maybe an essay on what to watch for in sourcing would help. - Donald Albury 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Donald Albury: I get similar emails. Probably for the same reasons - my only article on Academic.edu is one published in the UK Skeptic Magazine. There also seem to be quite a few Doug Wellers. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't feel too flattered – emails keep arriving saying my name "is mentioned in an Early tetrapods paper uploaded to Academia", to find out what it's about they want me to "upgrade" i.e. pay money. My guess is a rather rough 2006 illustration, much improved by Pixelsquid in the current article, has been re-used by them. Since I'm no expert, rather surprised they couldn't do better, but am not paying to find out more. . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, these look like benign instances of {{
    talk
    ) 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I've gotten the list down to
    talk
    ) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I've rewritten the relevant section of
    talk
    ) 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Anyone feel like tackling the last three? I don't know when I'll get the time.
    talk
    ) 14:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Wuxia has been debaofued.
- (OP) 89.183.220.246 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!
talk
) 18:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Carriages have four round wheels but now zero circular citations, leaving only Deforestation.
- (OP) 2A02:560:421E:4400:60C4:A40A:3BA3:7860 (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Great!
talk
) 15:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Cambridge Scholars is not known for strong editorial oversight. It does not surprise me that they would do this. (t · c) buidhe 04:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
To expand on this, they seem to have been flipping in and out of the various publication ranking systems I have easy access to. For example, the Norwegian system classified them as level 0 (not a proper scientific publication venue) in 2020, but level 1 (meets basic criteria) in both 2019 and 2021. The spotty track record makes it pretty difficult to make any general statements beyond "consider every work carefully and in isolation". -Ljleppan (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Just don't use anything by CSP ever. They're garbage vanity press/predatory publisher.
b
} 22:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is
Tank Magazine
a reliable source for archaeology and religion?

It's being added a lot by

WP:FTN because some of the material is fringe, but there may also be a COI issue and of course refspamming. Doug Weller talk
10:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

According to our article,
Tank Magazine
is a fashion and culture magazine. In fields with such an abundance of academic sources like archaeology, I can't see why we would ever want to use Tank Magazine when we can use academic journal articles and books published by academic presses.
Looking in particular at Timeismotion's edits, this seems like a deeply questionable use of Tank Magazine, for instance. Why are we citing a review in a fashion magazine by an author with a BA in journalism as a source on the "scholarly reception" of a work of history, archaeology, and anthropology? Tao Lin isn't an academic and doesn't have relevant expertise, and the review isn't in a scholarly journal. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it self-evidently isn't RS for such subjects. Blatant promotional refspamming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto: the editor is clearly promoting Tao lin as well, eg Kmart realism sourced to what seems a blog.[36][37]. Mentions of him in articles here. Interestingly enough, his article says "The Atlantic described Lin as having a "fairly staggering" knack for self-promotion." He's obviously very notable, but is being promoted by this editor and at times inappropriately. As an aside, I see Gawker is used several times as a source in his article. Looks like he may have been editing the article himself in the past.[38] [User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] talk 16:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Unz as an external link or a source for a quote?

Here is a search for Unz. I haven't checked many, but the first few are all ELs to people's works, while at

H L Mencken it's a source for a quote. Doug Weller talk
14:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there is concensus for UNZ that a major issue was
WP:COPYLINK and that their reprints weren't authorised, so probably not. Hemiauchenia (talk
) 16:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It depends. The Unz periodical archive (which is separate from, and predates, the controversial
WP:ELYES if no other "official" links exist. --Animalparty! (talk
). 20:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bates, Stephen (Spring 2012). "The Periodical Table" (PDF). The Wilson Quarterly. 36 (2): 15.
  2. ^ Wood, Mike (April 18, 2012). "Learning about our tradition". Solidarity. No. 242. p. 10.
  3. Reason.com
    .

AJ+ (operated by Al Jazeera)

As described on Wikipedia, AJ+ is an online news and current events channel run by Al Jazeera Media Network. I have recently observed this channel to publish, via its Twitter account, a three minute propaganda piece regarding the Kenosha unrest shooting which tells outright falsehoods. In particular, it explicitly claims that Rittenhouse brought a semiautomatic weapon across state lines - a statement known to be false and which has been acknowledged in RS to be false for over a year (1 2) and which is currently treated as a particularly important myth to debunk (e.g.). This is, after all, the entire basis for Dominic Black facing charges.

Given this egregious disregard for truth, which appears to derive from a strong partisan bias, I urge that AJ+ cannot be treated as a reliable source. I further argue that incidents such as this reflect negatively upon the parent organization, Al Jazeera. 174.93.70.56 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah. The weapon across state lines talking point has been mentioned all over by journalists of all kinds of media outlets that we consider generally reliable, and I don't think we should do any mass deprecation based on this single issue. MarioGom (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
AJ is hardly the only media source to repeat this particular claim (it has, unfortunately, been repeated by a LOT of news sources that we consider reliable). So let me ask… are there other situations where AJ has misstated facts to this extent? If not, then I would suggest we call it “unreliable for reporting on the Rittenhouse story” … without calling it “generally unreliable”. The same would be true for the other outlets that repeat the claim. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
From what I can tell, their written coverage hasn't repeated the claim in question.
talk
) 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This is in general why
WP:NOTNEWS is a thing, breaking news is *always* going to be wrong to some extent. Horse Eye's Back (talk
) 01:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but that statement about
Wikipedia is not a newspaper is simply not correct, at all. "Not a newspaper" is about... what WP is not; it makes no mention of the reliability of newspapers nor anything else of the kind. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk
) 02:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." is the language you are looking for that says we should avoid including breaking news stories and wait for that to filter to something that has had time to get the facts right. --Masem (t) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Have other outlets continued to spread this lie (not a "talking point", as it is not in an way a justified description of reality, and not something they have any real excuse to get wrong) after the dismissal of the gun charge, indeed after the trial? If it were up to me, I'd deprecate all kinds of media outlets instead. They ought to know better. I agree in principle that this sort of thing can reasonably be tailored to the topic; but it comes across to me that when other sources have been deprecated generally, the people voting against those sources have had at most one example to point to. 174.93.70.56 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Um.....I very sincerely doubt that any source has ever been deprecated here because of one single instance of misreporting. As for "they ought to know better" - perhaps, but how does any news organisation acquire 95+% of their information? By tapping into the reporting by the "top level" news agencies. Once a false story gets into circulation and widely repeated, it's very difficult to stop its propagation. As for your railing accsations of "lies", it is clearly an honest error that resulted from a commonm sense assumption...and really, whether you've carried a gun across a state line and killed two people with it, or whether you get your buddy that lives on the other side of said state line from you to buy the gun for you, then cross over into that state, pick up the gun and then kill two people with it...I know it makes a difference to the courts, but to everyone else in the world that is a petty detail. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This relates to the point I made about Fox News a few days ago. Although this is a talk point in a video on Twitter rather than simply a headline which is clearly not an RS, I think generally we should be careful about stuff posted by RS on social media. In a lot of cases the standards tend to be more lax. And especially for Twitter, TikTok or Instagram, the medium is more tailored for brevity which can lead to excessive simplifications etc. (Although I acknowledge this is simply an error.) If AJ+ only posts content on social media, I don't know if we quite have to deprecate them but I don't think we should use them much anyway and should take particular concern with stuff that only seems to be mentioned by them especially if there's no reason to. (If it's a story that hasn't received much attention elsewhere then maybe.) And I don't think it tells us much about the standards at Al Jazeera in general. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Nil makes a very good point… We tend to consider social media accounts and postings unreliable for facts (except in rare SPS situations). And I could see an argument that AJ+ is really a social media account rather than a news outlet (or perhaps it is the social media account of a news outlet). It blurs the lines. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not the social media account of Al Jazeera; the content seems to be created separately and AJ+ appears to have its own website that seems to very intentionally create short-form videos as its core "news and storytelling" purpose. I have no prejudice against news organizations that primarily use video as their form of communication, but I do think that they should be evaluated for editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. —
talk
) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In some ways, it would appear that AJ+ and

talk
) 21:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In the broad picture I think it makes sense to avoid using anything posted to social media even by a verified RS as absolutely reliable since these may not have the editorial scrutiny of published works. That said, most good RSes when they use social media usually include a link to a their story with more details, and that's what we should be using. --Masem (t) 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I think that this Video from 60 Minutes unquestionably has the same reliability as 60 Minutes that's hosted on its own website. I don't think that we should be using tweets from news organizations; there's something analogous in reasoning to
talk
) 22:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, long-form videos on YouTube are fine, and I agree that treating social media like Twitter or Instagram (which are meant to be short, concise messages, not long-form works) should be treated like HEADLINE. (But that's a broad statement, not specific to the AJ+ situation) --Masem (t) 22:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Should the text that appears alongside YouTube videos be considered reliable?

Recently, a large number of citations have been added to Led Zeppelin song articles with links to YouTube song videos as the sources.[39] The videos are accompanied by supplemental text, which is being used as sources for "Personnel" sections in song articles. The videos (actually only audio) themselves appear to be "official": the upload information includes "Provided to YouTube by Atlantic Records" and "℗ 2012 Atlantic Records", but also includes the disclaimer "Auto-generated by YouTube".[40] (click on "SHOW MORE" right below "Provided to YouTube by Atlantic Records")

The problem is, sometimes the information is incorrect. For example, the linked video text includes "Unknown: Andy Johns", but the actual album liner notes indicate "Engineers: Andrew Johns, London; Terry Manning, Ardent Studios, Memphis, Tennessee".[41] It seems that an "official" upload by Atlantic Records should at least contain the information that the record company itself lists on the actual album. So, although the video may have been provided by Atlantic, it appears that the supplemental text may not have been, or, is something less accurate than the album liner notes. Should the text that accompanies YouTube videos be considered reliable? Pinging 80s Sam, who added the citations, for their input.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

As it is "auto-generated" I suspect ita not reliable, as it obviously is not being either fact-checked or has any editorial oversite.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Good heavens no. In theory, if some YouTube account were to say "all our comments are checked and edited by these known people, who stake their good reputations on the accuracy thereof," then maybe there'd be a hint of a possibility. But just good heavens no. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
No, it's frequently wrong - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, these are auto-generated based on AI, similar to Google Knowledge Graphs, and subject to numerous unchecked errors. Personnel should only be sourced either to liner notes (in many cases) or to reliable published material otherwise (i.e. something like Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions). There is no evidence this text is reliable, even if it is posted under "official" videos. --Jayron32 14:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • My instincts tell me they are about as reliable as the CC captions. As everyone else has put it, no way.
    talk
    ) 02:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like all this user is adding to those songs is the names of the band members and their instrumental/vocal contributions under "Personel." It's an odd way of going about sourcing it, but...does this particular info really NEED a source? That Robert Plant sang, Jimmy Page played guitars, John Paul Jones played bass, and John Bonham drummed in Led Zeppelen is kind of a BLUESKY thing, ain't it? And if it does need a cite, the albums themselves could be used as sources, right? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:515:ADE:B2DC:BDFA (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Things sometimes get more complicated, with specific types of keyboards, guitars, Page or Jones on mandolin, who sings backup, etc. To go with the standard "A on vocals, B on guitar, C on bass, D on drums" may give an incomplete picture or actually be wrong (I was surprised to find that the instruments on several Beatles songs were played by different members). If it's worth adding to an article, it should be properly referenced (bios, reviews, album notes). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It also isn't always, or even often, true. I mean, officially in the
Beach Boys Brian Wilson played bass, Carl Wilson and Al Jardine played guitars, Dennis Wilson played drums, and Mike Love played random other instruments. In reality, on the recordings they mostly just sang, and the Wrecking Crew recorded most of the instruments. Similarly, while we all know the Beatles official instrumentation, there are plenty of times when Paul played drums or guitar; when John or George played bass, when any of them or someone like Nicky Hopkins or Billy Preston played keys, etc. Recording is a complex process, and we shouldn't assume that the convenient roles of band members necessarily plays out in the recording process. --Jayron32
12:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ignatievka Cave

On Ignatievka Cave, another user has aggressively pushed the citation of a newly-published (but I believe reliably published) reference on the dating of the material of the cave, has removed other sources stating that the dating is less well agreed upon, has rewritten the article to state that the cave material definitively has the date given in the new reference, and has refused to answer questions on their behavior on talk, instead casting wild personal attacks. More experienced eyes on this article would be welcome. I'm bringing this here both because I think this board has people with the appropriate experience of sourcing and because the dispute concerns the removal of prior sources and the appropriate use of sources (although not the reliability of the newly added sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Would this not be better solved at
    Talk
    21:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It concerns the removal of other sources in the same edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the issue you are bringing up here is not the reliability of those sources, is it,
Talk
22:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Re-open Forbes discussion

WP:SNOW close: proposal has been unanimously opposed. JBchrch talk
00:44, 23 November 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.

The current distinction of Forbes print copy being reliable and Forbes.com being unreliable does not appear to be a useful guideline for most Wikipedia editors. Especially since all of the articles (print copy version or dot-com version) are generally accessed through Forbes.com anyway. My own experience is that the articles are almost always reliable and match one-for-one on numbers reported with other reliable sources. This leads to what appear to be unhelpful edit challenges about reliable sources. This results in editors needing to mechanically redo sources which match up one-for-one with other reliable sources, and then switch them for no other reason than this "red light"/"green light" policy on Forbes.com being red-light and Forbes print edition being green-light. Many editors are losing much edit time in re-doing sources apparently for no reason. If Wikipedia editors are losing their contribution time to this odd distinction of a red-light and green-light policy for Forbes, then should the distinction be re-evaluated? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree with
    Talk
    22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with Forbes is that two contributors in the same topic area can have drastically different reliability, for example in defense/security with HI Sutton (very high quality) and David Axe (very low quality). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Your failure to understand the difference between Forbes Staff and Forbes Contributor content is the issue, not Forbes.com vs Forbes print. You have been repeatedly told this yet you appear to not understand it at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you are being confused by the titles of the redirects
WP:FORBESCON does not stand for "Forbes.com" (it's spelled with an N rather than an M, for one thing), it stands for "Forbes Contributors". Hemiauchenia (talk
) 23:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
No failure to understand this on my part. My GAN for
WP:RSP#Forbes. ErnestKrause (talk
) 00:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well you're not very good at communicaton your ideas clearly. Fortune is a separate publication from Forbes, not even published by the same company, so again I am confused. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, there's nothing "ambiguous" about the advice given at
WP:FORBESCON
; you just don't agree with it. Secondly, the fact that a particular source gets facts right does not make it reliable. If I write a blogpost, it doesn't matter how right my facts are – as I am not an expert with a history of publications in the field, I'm not a reliable source.
Thirdly, if your particular Forbes contributor is an expert with a history of publications in established reliable sources in the field, then per
BLP
issues.
(Fourthly, if you think the advice given at Forbescon should be changed, it might help if you proposed a change!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I concur with all four of these points.
talk
) 15:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are both asking for a response to item four just listed above, then it can be presented in short form. A better and more consistent policy for Wikipedia would be either to designate both the magazine and its website as reliable, or to designate them both as unreliable. The current 'mixed' policy used by Wikipedia leads only to lost contributor editing time for Wikipedia editors who develop edits from Forbes sources, only to be asked to remove their edits after being told about caveats about some bad apple editors at Forbes. Either designate both the magazine and its website as reliable, or designate them both as unreliable. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a problem at Wikipedia's end, but at Forbes' end - they deliberately confused the Forbes magazine and staff content with blogs by random bozos. Wikipedia editors can distinguish them easily: if it says "staff" or "from the print edition", it's the RS; if not, it's blogs - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not some bad apple editors; it's a bad barrel. If people didn't add bad sources in the first place, we wouldn't have to waste time replacing them.
talk
) 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand in what sense it would be either better or more consistent to have a specific exception to
WP:RS in the process – is, it should be obvious, a non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto (talk
) 15:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Both David and XOREaster seem to be saying that the editorial board at Forbes showed very poor judgement about allowing their website to accept contributions by non-experienced editors. To some Wikipedia editors, such poor judgement by the Forbes editorial board would be enough to justify opposing the use of both the print version of Forbes and the on-line version containing their non-experienced contributors. Others will still say that many of the non-editor contributors are still top writers, such as Hugh McIntyre who also writes for Billboard magazine, and therefore both the print copy and the on-line copy should both be allowed for Wikipedia editing. I would support either of these last two options as being a consistent Wikipedia policy which will not confuse well-meaning Wikipedia editors, who put together their edits in good faith, only to be told about the caveats which require their edits to then be deleted or switched out to other sources causing lost editor contribution time. Wikipedia policy should be consistently one or the other, either call Forbes reliable or unreliable, and not a combination of polar opposites stating that Forbes is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable. It should be one or the other. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree on establishing such an absolutist judgement on Forbes. As forbes explicitly states when an article is written by staff and when it is written by contributors, being forced to choose both or neither as sources is an unnecessarily extreme measure from my perspective.
Please tag me!
 00:12, 23 November 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.

Gothamist caught copying text from Wikipedia

The New York Times reports that four articles from Gothamist, a news site owned by WNYC, used language from Wikipedia entries and articles in Salon and The New York Times without credit, according to a comparison of the pieces and the original sources.. The articles were, per the NYT, all published by the same individual. The four articles are enumerated in the NYT article and have all been pulled offline at this point. No Wikipedia articles appear to have referenced them.

The individual accused of plagairism served in several roles, including senior editor of WNYC’s race and justice unit and as host of National Public Radio news program "All Things Considered", according to the NYT report. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this; editorial oversight at WNYC seems to have failed to a good extent in editing one of its senior editors if the NYT report is true, though the eventual issuing of a retraction indicates that there is editorial oversight. I'm a bit skeptical of the remainder of the individual's reporting in that unit. The only partial analogue to this I see on

WP:RSP
would be the listing for Der Spiegel, but that was for fabrications rather than copying from Wikipedia.

How should this reflect on reporting from WNYC and its affiliates more generally? Are there additional considerations that should be taken for articles that come from its race and justice unit more broadly, or should additional considerations only apply to articles created by former senior editor whose articles now face retraction? —

talk
) 06:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I suppose I don't see a broader issue here given that the articles weren't referenced here, which would have created a circular referencing problem. People and institutions make mistakes; WYNC appears to have done the right thing, editorially, albeit after the fact. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Copying from WP should certainly lower the reliability of Gothamist as a news source. After all, we don’t consider WP reliable, so how could a source that copies from us be considered reliable? Correcting the mistake after the fact is good, but not enough to off-set the negative. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If it was a problem with one writer, as seems to be the case, I'm not sure that it should affect how we treat the organization more broadly. An infraction by one individual isn't the same as an institutional dedication to fabricating claims. Make a note of it and see if Gothamist has more problems down the line, I suppose.
    talk
    ) 16:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding An infraction by one individual isn't the same as an institutional dedication to fabricating claims, I agree. The senior position that the individual held within the editorial structure of WNYC, however, bites me a bit more than if this were simply a lone journalist on the ground. Would this indicate something along the lines of diminished editorial oversight under this particular individual, which could then affect the reliability of articles that the editor reviewed? If this were a mere
      talk
      ) 17:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I understand the concern, but it still seems too grand an inference from the information we presently have available.
        talk
        ) 01:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We had a similar situation in the video game area where one writer for a major site otherwise deemed reliable was found to be plagarizing. However, the site helped in that they redacted all of their articles, leading us to also redact the articles that had been used on WP. The site otherwise maintained its editorial reliability and hasn't changed how we used it. I think checking to see if work was plagarized is not something usually done by the editor's desk most of the time, but a good reliable source when caught will do all the necessary redactions and similar steps to eliminate the problem article. --Masem (t) 19:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Isolated problems require isolated solutions, if one author was the problem then we proscribe the Author not the source. If however future reporting on this case suggests that the issue is more systemic than this we can have a broader discussion at that time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Reliability doesn't mean infallibility and even the most respected publishers will have this type of problem which they will then go on to correct. No action is required. TFD (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Like most one-off incidents, this doesn't say anything about the source's general reliability, especially since they immediately issued a retraction; as
    WP:RS says, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections... I also broadly disagree with the argument that we can / should focus on that individual - doing that sort of thing extremely unusual and would require more serious, sustained indications of a problem than this. No source is flawless, but part of the general trust we have in a source's reliability is that they will look into issues, generally discover them, and take appropriate steps; digging into individual contributors starts to get messy. Unless there's a reason to doubt the Gothamist in general, in other words, we can trust them to review the author's other contributions, and to stop using them if there is a reason to believe there will be a problem going forwards. --Aquillion (talk
    ) 05:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Expertscape a reliable source?

An IP wants to add the claim that this researcher is the third ranked zebrafish researcher worldwide, sourcing it to Expertscape. An article on this company was deleted multiple times and is currently protected from being created, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these rankings are not reliable. However, I find it difficult to figure out exactly how Expertscape calculates its rankings. Any guidance is appreciated. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

1) No it isn't a reliable source. 2) Even if it were "third ranked zebrafish researcher" is beyond
WP:TRIVIA and doesn't bear mentioning in a Wikipedia article; I don't care if the BBC itself published the information, just no. --Jayron32
13:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359&oldid=1143725194"