Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460
Additional notes:
- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RFC: Electronic Intifada
What is the reliability of Electronic Intifada?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
The last discussion was in 2018 and can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2: The previous discussion on the Electronic Intifada (EI) was not a particularly sophisticated discussion and needs revisiting: it was not a formal RFC, and the opening statement was somewhat rambling, but one key takeaway is that EI does not appear to have generated serious concerns about its adherence to factual accuracy. Media bias fact check is not a reliable source, but is a usefully indicative resource, and it
"could not find any instance where EI directly failed a fact check from major fact checking sources"
. The site goes on to note that only rates "Mostly Factual" as opposed to "High" in terms of its reporting"due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, as well as strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading
– so again, pertaining to bias, not factual error. EI is distinctly biased (as all media sources are) – this is certain – and this was the principle charge laid against it in the previous discussion, but bias ≠ unreliable, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, but merely demands attribution. In the case of EI, the direction of its bias, and its specificity to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning, but option 2 allows for the formal caveating of the source and noting the attribution requirement. I would note that the first naysayer in the last discussion was the now notorious sock puppeteer User:Icewhiz wielding a Huffington Post opinion piece as the only evidence of factual issues, and, per WP:HUFFPOCON, Huffington Post contributions have themselves been deemed unreliable (in a subsequent 2020 RFC). Many of the following votes merely cite the source's bias, which again, should be addressed through attribution, but does not relate directly to reliability. There are a couple of editorial issues that are drummed up, including a piece from 2008 with a misleading quote that has since been caveated at the bottom of the piece, and another quibbled-over piece regarding a statement and its attribution dating to 2002. However, that in 2018 the best evidence of EI's unreliability that could be drummed up are some relatively isolated poorly attributed statements from 2002 and 2008 suggests to me that the evidence of factual inaccuracy is very threadbare indeed. WP:GUNREL means "generally" unreliable, not demonstrably unreliable once every decade or so. I'm not sure I've seen a bar as high as this applied to any source. To maintain the GUNREL rating for EI, a more serious discussion is required, and some significantly more substantial and damning evidence needs to be provided sustaining the charges of factual inaccuracy or manipulation, as opposed to merely lambasting it for its bias, which is utterly transparent – if only in its name alone, with which it really wears its heart on its sleeve about its leaning. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- MBFC is not a useful way of gauging source reliability. It is the opinion of one random guy, no different to the opinion of the average Wikipedia contributor. That said, I have no opinion on the reliability of this publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 If they have no history of retractions or corrections then I would assume there are factual accuracy concerns. Even the best publications make mistakes due to the nature of publishing quickly and issuing corrections after publication. Since no one has disputed Markowitz's important point that the publication has a poor reputation for fact checking I would consider EI not reliable for statements of fact, but potentially citable for expert opinions per Nableezy. Cornsimpel (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4: Existing consensus is that the source is generally unreliable for facts, as discussed, for example, in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Electronic_Intifada_(Again). This source is not only extremely biased but also has a very poor reputation for fact-checking. There were plenty of examples brought up in previous discussions. The fact that the website is cited in existing articles, usually for opinions with attribution, has no relevance to its tendency, or lack thereof, to provide accurate and trustworthy facts. Citing these kinds of sources for matters of fact would compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy reference. There is also strong consensus that The Electronic Intifada is a partisan source, although this is independent of its reliability. If something is worthy of publishing in Wikipedia, then there will surely be better RS options. Marokwitz (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Al Mayadeen and Press TV are very similar to Electronic Intifada. In comparison, the tabloid Daily Star (UK), though not a top-tier source, is considered more reliable. These three have been deprecated due to their one-sided reporting and loose approach for fact checking. Examples I saw recently in EI include coverage of Israa Jarbis where Electronic Intifada fails to mention she has seriously injured a police officer; relying on a debunked community-noted tweet by Twitter user SyrianGirl as a source in a recent article; and reporting on helicopters shooting at Nova partygoers based on a Haaretz article, while failing to disclose the police's rebuttal of this claim that was published on the same day.
- Overall, evidence shows that the site has a non-existent approach to fact-checking and publishing formal error corrections. Publishing the truth doesn't seem to be a priority compared to advocacy of a specific narrative, thus I believe it should be deprecated to save our editors' time. Marokwitz (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Evidence stands taller with some actual links for verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Marokwitz: If you are saying it is generally unreliable, why have you said option 4, which is deprecation - something else. To deprecate a source, you need to provide some justification, not just your impression based on old, very outdated evidence, part of which was countered in the prior discussion, and which was further discussed in my statement. You have not progressed the discussion on the detail in and way, but merely opined in it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- No consensus. No statements made by the source have been given by the opener of the RfC. What are we supposed to evaluate here? jp×g🗯️ 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 3 - it publishes mostly opinion, and where that opinion is by an expert in the field it should be able to be used. But for its news reporting, it is reporting on other outlets reports. I would say, as I did in the last discussion, that when they report something it will usually be found in other sources, otherwise I place it basically on the opposite end of Arutz Sheva and would not use it as a source for facts. nableezy - 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4 - A) Electronic Intifada is a partisan news site that has a recent and long history of biased partisan reporting and appears to be pursuing political goals through its newspapers.
- It also appears that it seems to support armed struggle and removal of organizations deemed terrorist by Western countries from terror lists.
- In August 2020, Electronic Intifada published an article by Samidoun coordinator Khaled Barakat, there they wrote “Association with the Palestinian armed resistance and its political parties is not a cause for shame or a justification for repression…boycott campaigns and popular organizing are not alternatives to armed resistance but interdependent tactics of struggle. Any meaningful defense of the Palestinian people must clearly uphold the right to resist colonialism by all means, including armed struggle – and support efforts to remove Palestinian resistance groups from lists of ‘terrorist organizations.’”
- Ali Abunimah, the site’s co-founder and current executive director, stated the following regarding Zionism : “one of the worst forms of anti-Semitism [sic] in existence today” and claims that it is the “continuation in spirit” of the Holocaust. Abunimah has compared Israel to Nazi Germany [1] , he also commented the following on a Holocaust survivor (called Elie Wiesel a “moral fraud and huckster”).
- Furthermore, from an article in 18 January 2023 it appears the EI supports the incorporation of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, considered terrorist organizations by US, EU... into the PLO.
- "But for that storm to sweep away the old, it needs direction. So far, Palestinian discontent with their leaders has not thrown up any clear alternative strategy behind which parties and new political forces can agree to unite.
- Any such strategy needs to answer several crucial questions, notably what outcome to seek and how best to get there, how to unite the main factions behind a new vision for Palestinian liberation and how to ensure that Palestinians in occupied territory can endure under different political conditions.
- It will also need to find a way to incorporate Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions considered “terror groups” in the west into the PLO while managing the diplomatic and financial fallout."
- In November 2022, EI hosted a podcast called “How Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.” in the podcast, “Zionists during that time not only were not bothered about the Holocaust, they actively tried to stop anyone who wanted to provide a refuge from doing so.”
- In August 2022, Abunimah has said the following in an interview : “Israel always has to kill Palestinians because it is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime that faces constant resistance from the people whose land it is occupying, colonizing and stealing…the regular shedding of Palestinian blood is a necessary component of maintaining the existence of Israel.”
- In June 2021, EI Associate Editor Nora Barrows participated in a conference, “Challenging Apartheid in Palestine: Reclaiming the Narrative, Formulating A Vision,” hosted by the Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. It was reported that sponsors, participating and conference , were linked to various terror groups, including, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
- In conclusion, Option 4 is the most relevant, considering EI's published content both historically as concluded in previous Reliable Sources discussions as well as recently as shown above; therefore one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This editor has been topic-banned for having most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area
- @Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability.
"one assumes that this source meets the criteria of Deprecation."
- don't assume: assumption was the problem with the prior discussion, and now you're copy-pasting the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)- Agreed. All the above shows is that EI's ideological leaning is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Opinions are always a matter of debate and can't be used for fact anyway (given WP:RSEDITORIAL) and you haven't shown any evidence of getting the facts wrong. VR talk 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Homerethegreat: I'm sorry. What is the point behind the quotations above? You just quote passages without making any points about how they relate to reliability.
- Option 2 Features section only, anything else only if it is a subject matter expert, and always with attribution. I don't believe that this source is guilty of falsification but some material is fairly heavily biased, so use with due care and attention.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Clarifying that means 2 and then 3 (not 4).Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3. They don't seem to do much original reporting. I give them 3 rather than 4 for the odd story that might serve as a useful justification for a statement, but I cannot see that happening very often. Most of their articles seem to be either one-sided reinterpretation of the news reported elsewhere or personal opinions. Epa101 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bad RFC Where is the prior discussion? Why is this going to a RfC without a recent discussion or a discussion of how this source is being used? We need examples of misuse before starting a RfC.
- Option 3 (possibly 2): There are a number of major issues with EI, which it is better to see as a group blog rather than a news site. First, it does not adequately distinguish between opinion and news (it has a category "features" which has /news in its URL and a category "opinion and analysis" with /opinion in the url; both of these are mainly opinion).The simple additional consideration would be to treat all articles as opinion pieces and therefore attribute. Second, it rarely presents new factual information. The "features" pieces by guest contributors in Palestine count as reportage, which are the most useful and fact-based articles, but the "features" pieces by their own (mostly US-based) team are second-hand analysis of material reported elsewhere. I would say that this secondary material should not be used citing them but rather that the original source should be used if and only if it's reliable (many of its sources are very unreliable, e.g. deprecated Grayzone), and that EI is not sufficiently reliable for it to count towards assessing noteworthiness. (Unsurprisingly, disinformation and conspiracy sites also republish EI articles. E.g. David Icke's website carried an EI article "How the Israel lobby fakes anti-Semitism" by Asa Winstanley.[2]) Third, I think that this is one of those cases where bias and reliability bleed into each other: EI frequently goes into conspiracy theory territory (this is especially true of its associate editor Asa Winstanley).[3] For instance, its support of antisemitic conspiracy theorist David Miller has led to its reportage being described as antisemitic by the Community Security Trust (CST),[4] and CST and anti-fascist researchers Hope Not Hate have described its reporting of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party as conspiracy theory.[5] Winstanley frequently appears on Iran's PressTV, on a show produced by David Miller dedicated to antisemitic conspiracy theories.[6] Fourth, I think there might be instances where it can be seen to have been actively dishonest. In 2011, along with the Guardian, it falsely claimed that the CST had made up some quotes; the Guardian corrected their story but EI didn't.[7] Several right-wing monitors (CAMERA, HonestReporting, etc) have presented further examples, but I'm reviewing those as I don't see them as reliable sources either. I'll come back here when I have, and if these claims are compelling I'd say option 3 for definite, otherwise option 2 might be fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Couple more data points. 1. Here are three biased (right-wing), probably unreliable and slightly outdated sources itemising several issues with EI: NGO Monitor,[8] HonestReporting,[9] CAMERA.[10] It's hard to disentangle political criticisms from exposing inaccuracies there, so I'll leave these for other editors to review themselves. 2. I hadn't realised the extent to which EI is integrated with sources that we deprecate. For instance, it heavily uses Al-Mayadeen as a source,[11][12] it is in turn hosted by Al-Mayadeen,[13] it gives a frequent platform to Max Blumenthal of Grayzone,[14] its staff also contribute to Sputnik, ZeroHedge, Russia Insider, MintPress, etc,[15] and are used as talking heads by Sputnik.[16] In this PolitiFact fact check of a fake news story circulated in the current Gaza conflict, by a far right anti-vaxxer, EI was one of the sources he shared, but the fact check does not actually describe the EI article as false. 3. On the other hand, I've found a couple of instances of its use as a source by reliable sources: Columbia Journalism Review from 2010,[17] Associated Press from 2013,[18] and India Today recently.[19] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
😮💨 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm mainly interested in if EI has been guilty of false reporting or antisemitism, and I tried following your first few links and I didn't get the sense. First, I'd take CST's allegations against EI with a grain of salt; given that CST believes anti-zionism=antisemitism they are the ideological opponents of EI. And as you correctly pointed out, HonestReporting, CAMERA etc also have an axe to grind against EI. VR talk 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 per Nableezy and Bob above, and Alaexis below. While not outright lying (as far as I'm aware), and while yes, all sources are biased, EI's partisan to the point that its usefulness can be heavily questioned (see exaggeration, loaded language, reliance on questionable sources, omission of certain details, and so on) and most if not all of its factual reporting can be found in far more reliable, less-outright-partisan sources. I'm also not sold by the proposer's usage of MBFC, which they themselves bluntly state isn't entirely reliable. The Kip 08:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Would also like to emphasize the latter bits of what Bob's written - the heavy reliance on already-deprecated sources such as Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen is worrying, and I could probably be convinced to vote for deprecation here as well. The Kip 05:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3, see my comments below re the lack of separation between opinion and news and various outrageous claims made by the source. No evidence has been presented that changed my opinion in either direction. Alaexis¿question? 08:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3
- EI is an overtly biased outlet and as pointed out by other editors, it deploys conspiratorial websites as its sources. This makes that website unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4. Mostly-opinion sites that cite debunked tweets should not be used in WP. All the true info EI has is better reported by other sources. It should not be used. Zanahary (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- One debunked tweet has been mentioned - if there are others; perhaps you could make mention of them. However, one embedded (not even voiced) debunked tweet alone does not demonstrate repeat inaccuracy and is far from approaching cause for deprecation. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- 4, unreliable and slanted beyond repair. if EI is the only source where someone can find something covered, it has likely been fabricated. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3. The outlet has the word "intifada" in the name. That alone makes it clear this is an option 3. Cursory reading of the sources provided by Homerethegreat makes it obvious this is far too biased to be trusted. Citing it in an article would be like citing Stormfront. The reason why we don't cite biased websites that support violent terrorists is because they have a very strong incentive to lie. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2. Per Iskander323's discussion point below it seems like at least some of the content EI publishes is well-sourced and journalistic and given that reputable journalists publish with EI it seems unlikely that they publish outright fabrications as if they are news. The organization overall has a clear agenda, but it is important to recognize that that many other sources taken as reliable are likely either to lack coverage of Palestinian issues or to (intentionally or not) have coverage slanted against Palestinians. Groceryheist (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 based on publishing stuff like this. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since this isn't a discussion on Mondoweiss I'll avoid encouraging the tangent further, but EI lied that it was the Israeli govt that did October 7th. [20] [21] There's also the borderline Holocaust denial where EI lauds a book that blames Zionist Jews for the Holocaust. [22] EI also supported the October 7th attacks. [23]
- IMHO it's pretty simple. This is an identical situation to The Daily Shoah or The Daily Stormer. EI pushes conspiracy theories, deny well-evidenced atrocities (mass rapes), engage in Holocaust inversion (especially by saying the Jews brought it among themselves), and even supported October 7th on that very day. That makes it an unreliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is far closer to a misrepresention of those pieces than it is to an accurate summary of their contents. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Compare like with like. Mondoweiss is fine with attribution (they don't make stuff up) and your links do not support "mass rape" (and are in addition hedged about with one caveat and another) which is what M. is saying there is a lack of evidence for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss (your link) isn't a reliable source either. The mass rape claims are agreed upon by all the reliable sources I could find. The BBC, NBC news, The New York Times, AP news, and The Washington Post agree that there is evidence that rape happened. When extremely pro-Palestinian biased sources such as Mondoweiss or Electronic Intifada construct fictional realities where Palestinians didn't rape Israelis, because that is inconvenient for their POV, that's when we consider those sources unreliable due to their ideological bias. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- What is the specific point of inaccuracy that is being pointed to here that is indicative of unreliability? An uncommon, but by no means isolated headline take, regardless of the level of controversy is not – in of itself – anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 at least and probably Option 4. The specific falsehoods mentioned above aside, EI has a long reputation of providing misleading coverage, and if used, needs to be used with caution if at all. There's nothing, if at all, that EI would report on or cover that a more mainstream RS, even one that is biased, would not. When called out the outlet does not reliably issue corrections, but in some cases doubles down. For example, misquoting a misleading and incendiary quote from an Israeli official, then claiming others misquoted first instead of doing basic journalism and seeking to verify [24], mistranslations of Hebrew interviews that make exceptional claims [25] (then portraying it as reported fact instead of opinion on its Twitter [26]. It frequently relies on conspiracy rags like The Cradle and The Greyzone for single-sources and misleading reporting. There are many other examples. Editors voted to deprecate another activist outlet MEMRI for similar malpractice, even though EI pruportedly holds itself to a higher journalistic standard. I have no problem with biased sources, but there are far more and better ones than EI, which is more activist than journalist and misleading at best. Longhornsg (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can you cite any RS that have accused EI of false or misleading reporting? VR talk 15:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Longhornsg. It's too biased and unreliable to be used. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Per @Marokwitz. Dovidroth (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)This editor has been banned for having most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor in this topic area
- Option 4 Biased, unreliable, advocacy website. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Hell no, for the reasons expressed above. Neutralitytalk 23:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 per @Nableezy. Yr Enw (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Option 4: Biased website with blatant activism. Let'srun (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 One of the last American sources defending basic human rights. Fakecontinent (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't really a good argument for its reliability. We don't use sources just because they're perceived to be on the right side by some. — Czello (music) 12:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just realised this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet – striking comment consequently. — Czello (music) 12:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Had an edit conflict doing the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 for being quite obvious activism. As one of the comments in the article's reception section says, it "is too biased to be of much use to mainstream publications". That includes us. — Czello (music) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 3 per the arguments given by @Nableezy and @Selfstudier. Where they are only publishing opinions of non-experts then we should consider that they would be WP:GUNREL, but don't we already have Wiki policy on that already? Where they are publishing the the words of subject matter expert, I think we shouldn't limit ourselves from being able to use the source with attribution. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 as I may be the resident 'expert'(if that is a positive or negative may be in the eye of the beholder), I have some thoughts:
- The good
- a) rarely, there are genuine subject matter experts writing for them, and there may be an argument to be made to exemptions in those cases (most notably, Ilan Pappé, who is certainly a controversial historian, but also definitely an expert in his field) if the source is depreciated (credit goes to @Nableezy who mentioned it first)
- b) rarely publicise orignial content, such as No Search, No Rescue
- The bad (in no particular order):
- a) an effectively minimal standard for media reviews, making it only not significantly more selective that a blog. As mentioned by others, it is effectively a blog and should not be used as way of establishing notability.
- b) poor quality of research, reporting, failure to correct or retract stories that did not substantiate, poor sourcing, and aggregation of information from other unreliable sources as facts
- c) other issues discussed at length above, particularly by @Longhornsg, @Chess (who voted 3, but I would consider this to be an argument for 4), and @The Kip), @Homerethegreat@Bobfrombrockley, @Marokwitz and others, to whose expertise I will refer for the sake of length.
- The ugly
- a) aggressive advocacy
- b) associations with people who can reasonably be described as antisemitic under some modern definitions
- c) lack of an apparent editorial process or failure thereof
- d) not used by RS for Bias (per @Czello)
- Recommendation
- 1. Depreciate the source, but potentially allow an exception to be made for experts in accordance with common sense
- 2. If it is found to ‚only‘ be unreliable, it should not be used for anything even tangentially related to Israel-Palestine, Jews/Judaism/Antisemitism, contentious topics and generally not be used for facts except in very limited circumstances governed by common sense with the exception of 1.
- Additionally, using them to establish notability is not appropriate and should be avoided at all costs. FortunateSons (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Electonic Intifada spreads truther conspiracy theories, like denying the Oct. 7 attacks. The Washington Post recently covered it: "An Electronic Intifada article from November also argues that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army, basing the story, in part, on a YouTube clip of a man who describes himself as a former Israeli general." Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- While the claim you mention seems implausible, it should be noted that given that the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box, the objection here is simply to an assertion that the burden of proof is yet to weigh. Reliability arguments with a view to deprecation must be based on demonstrable and repeated misleading factual errancy, typically in combination with evidence of a source's lack of repentance when the truth comes to light. I see neither aspect in evidence here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note that the Washington Post doesn't link to any article on EI that actually argues "that “most” Israeli casualties on Oct. 7 were perpetrated by the Israeli army". That is because they can't. To put it bluntly: WP lied. The closest is an article [27] that claims "The latest revelations confirm The Electronic Intifada’s reporting since 7 October that many – if not most – of the Israeli civilians killed that day were killed by Israel itself". Which is quite different.
- And I agree with Iskandar: "the events of October 7 remain an uninvestigated black box": EI have asked for an independet international investigation, but Israel vetos that. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 3. We don't really have an option for this, but I'd support not using it anywhere for anything except WP:EXPERTSPS and for sources that are cited by experts in scholarship (which I think would all be EXPERTSPS anyway but I'm not 100% sure). I think that means "not reliable, except for exceptions," which could be categorized as 2 or 3, I'm not sure which is more appropriate.
- As for reasons: first, scholarly contributors. Ilan Pappe is a contributor to E-I, for example: [28]. That's the only name on the list I recognize (because I'm not that well-read), but I bet if we went through the list one by one we'd find Pappe was not the only bona fide historian on that list.
- Second, it seems to be well-cited by historians. I searched my little pile of scholarship, and E-I is cited by: Pappe, of course, also Nur Masalha, Rosemary Sayigh, Nadim Rouhana, Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, among others.
- So in sum, I see the problems that are raised by others as legitimate problems, but the fact that this publisher is contributed to and used by so many scholars convinces me that we should not deprecate. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good solution. The list of contributors actually includes a lot of experts who we might want to cite (e.g. Refaat Alareer, Joseph Massad and Steven Salaita, as well as respect commentators (e.g. Budour Youssef Hassan, Patrick Strickland). However, (a) I suspect the material they publish at EI is lower quality than that which gets published at other outlets, and (b) it's noticable that this list is extremely old: most of these names have not published there for years, and practically none of the commentators on the front page now are listed there. Looking at the front page now, I see for example Bryce Greene, a Substack blogger whose career highlight to date was giving a Russian propaganda pitch about Nordstream at a UN meeting;[29] or Mohamed Elmaazi, who worked for Sputnik until recently and also writes for TheCanary.[30] So we need a solution that enables us to cite genuine experts when puplished at EI, while excluding the conspiracy theorists and fringe bloggers. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: I am persuaded by Iskandar323's comment; the 2018 RfC had some irregularities, and attribution is the existing policy and more appropriate solution for managing the citation of biased sources. As TarnishedPath comments, non-expert opinions are already handled by other policies. Articles from published subject matter experts need not be marked against by an over-broad GUNREL assessment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. "Intifada" in the title is a dead giveaway. The reasoning above by Marokwitz and others is persuasive. Not a hard call, especially for a source that will be used for contentious topics. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Figureofnine: Sorry, what exactly is it, persuant to source reliability policy, that having "Intifada" in the source name is a dead giveaway of? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3. None of the arguments presented for deprecation make the grade. Arguments on the basis of bias misunderstand the relationship between bias and unreliability in wikipedia policy. Of course this is an advocacy site and it should be treated with the same caution that all advocacy sites are treated. Zerotalk 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. Reviewing this source it has habitually published falsehoods, from when it was first created. For example, they repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4) claimed that Palestinian officials had not claimed that 500 people were massacred at Jenin; this is demonstrably false.
- Below I have also presented a separate example, where it claims that every Jew has two citizenships, one Israeli and
one in their own country
- the level of falsehood in this claim is staggering, ignoring both the long-term sustained presence in the Palestine region of Jewish people prior to the formation of Israel, and the plight of the Mizrahi Jews who lost their citizenship to countries like Syria and Iraq when they fled or were expelled. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- That is not what the article says. And your personal outrage about some column is not and has never been a criteria for deprecation. nableezy - 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not what the article says.
Assuming you are referring to the second article, it saysevery Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine
. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- And you wrote
it claims that every Jew has two citizenships
. And that is about the Law of Return. nableezy - 02:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- That's splitting hairs; you're right I mistyped, but the difference between "eligible for two" and "having two" is effectively irrelevant in this context, with neither of them making her claim any more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It kind of is relevant because you only really have dual loyalty if you are a citizen of two countries. It's a clear misrepresentation either way (many countries don't allow dual citizenship and it implies Jews in Israel have a country of origin they can go back to), but it's not the blatant anti-Semitic canard it would otherwise have been if it said all Jews do have dual loyalties. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it weren’t accurate it’s an opinion piece and nobody is inserting that opinion as fact in our articles, making that another example of cherry picking opinion pieces the cherry pickers don’t like to attempt to remove the articles by experts in the field they cannot otherwise challenge. nableezy - 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if it weren’t accurate
? Are you saying that it might be accurate?it’s an opinion piece
That's not clear to me. It's not labeled as an opinion piece, and while it reads as one so does every article on that site. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- A leading question is an odd way to reply to somebody saying your point is entirely irrelevant and need not be examined past its irrelevancy. nableezy - 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it weren’t accurate it’s an opinion piece and nobody is inserting that opinion as fact in our articles, making that another example of cherry picking opinion pieces the cherry pickers don’t like to attempt to remove the articles by experts in the field they cannot otherwise challenge. nableezy - 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It kind of is relevant because you only really have dual loyalty if you are a citizen of two countries. It's a clear misrepresentation either way (many countries don't allow dual citizenship and it implies Jews in Israel have a country of origin they can go back to), but it's not the blatant anti-Semitic canard it would otherwise have been if it said all Jews do have dual loyalties. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's splitting hairs; you're right I mistyped, but the difference between "eligible for two" and "having two" is effectively irrelevant in this context, with neither of them making her claim any more accurate. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- And you wrote
- These are rather weak examples to support deprecation, which is a very severe classification.
- "The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering" Really? The full paragraph reads: "Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us [the Palestinians] to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine [Palestine]."
- - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, any reader with a base level of understanding could be reasonably expected to understand that the writer in the bit you quote if referring to the law of return. A claim that "The level of falsehood in this claim is staggering", really is hyperbole. TarnishedPathtalk 23:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what the article says. And your personal outrage about some column is not and has never been a criteria for deprecation. nableezy - 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Per BilledMammal and others. This extremely slanted source has no value whatsoever here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Options 2/3.'I occasionally read EI, but have never used it on wiki. I read it because quite often its articles cover that extensive terrain of the otherwise extensively unreported realities of the conflict studiously ignored by the 'mainstream', and this alerts one to what is missing in articles. Very occasionally I find incisive articles, some written by its founder, which turn out to anticipate what has been diligently ignored, but which emerges in mainstream reportage after weeks or a month. I don't use that, but I think the option for such selective citation on those rare occasions, should be allowed. In this conflict's general mainstream coverage, glossing over or passing over in silence an abundant number of facts relevant to Palestinian perceptions of these realities means the facts we prioritize are those that tend to lend greater weight to the Israeli narrative' experience of the conflict. Newspapers are not very factual except in the kindergarten sense of the word. One should remind oneself at times that in the undertow of any fact, one will find the gritty shingles of a theory implied by it, to misquote Keynes.
- So one duly, on such occasions, digs deeper to find a glimmering of more authoritative sources following up a trail you often cine on EI. Deprecation is ridiculous. Reliable source arguments are very tricky here. We privilege the factual, yes, and advisedly that is our priority. But mainstream sources don't cover much of what goes on. One could not write a neutral and balanced article on this conflict, for example, by using our dominant RS here The Times of Israel,Jerusalem Post,Ynet and even Haaretz mostly, for the other side to the conflict has been, if we are to believe critical Israeli analysts, virtually disappeared. Elisheva Goldberg,What the Israeli Public Doesn't See Jewish Currents 7 February 2024. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 per Levivich, exceptions to unreliability for subject matter experts used on the website means we should not deprecate, plus it is used by historians, so clearly it has value, and per Nishidani, it offers a valuable POV which is easily absent given systemic bias here. starship.paint (RUN) 08:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are biased, one has to be careful with that and attribute them. But I don't see them as particularly manipulative which can cause real problems with biased sites. To see what manipulative means see [31], that inclines me to give them an extra green flag for the service they did for Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 (secondary: Option 3). A problem with Wikipedia's reliable sources-criteria, is that they are absolute. IMO, how reliable a source is, is connected with how close its POV is to what it reports. And reporting their opinions, is different from reporting their actions. Ie., I would never take Arutz Sheva reporting on either Hamas opinions or actions to be 100% correct. But if Arutz Sheva reported that such and such an Israeli settler leader said "whatever", I would take that to be probably correct. However, if Arutz Sheva reported on Israeli settlers actions, well, at least to me it seems as if AS' premise is that all Israeli settlers actions are justified, and/or harmless. (Same for, say Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not.).
- Since EI is used as a source for many academic scolars (see above), Option 4 seems draconian. If wikipedia chooses option 4, well, then "Being more Catholic than the Pope", is an expression that comes to mind, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. There is obvious bias and the normal considerations about such sources (e.g. attribution, better sourcing, BLP) apply, but there isn't evidence of publishing outright falsehoods or similar issues that would require deprecation. Subject matter experts are an obvious exception that should be allowed, which they would not be under deprecation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 - The source is biased, but it also publishes the opinions of subject-matter experts, scholars and researchers, which are useful for WP. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2-ish. First of all, EI is very clearly biased. That oughta be taken for granted by everyone just based on the title. Second, their list of contributors is linked in an above comment, and it includes respected experts like Ilan Pappe and Joseph Massad alongside cranks like Max Blumenthal. So I think that in addition to a note for bias we should say that reliablility should be determined mainly by the author, because it appears that while EI absolutely do publish respected subject matter experts, and I'm convinced by the above evidence that they are doing some sort of editorial fact-checking, I'm less convinced that they're doing enough of it to qualify as fully reliable even given their biases. Loki (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I should also say because this was an issue in the first closing: I'd be fine with Option 3 but I explicitly oppose Option 4, and see it as worse in this case than Option 1 (which I also don't see as acceptable). Loki (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Terrible title for an relatively new on the block organisation and seemingly gets worse from there. scope_creepTalk 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: The title is not a policy-related reason for anything, and your note only gets worse from there. What do you mean 'new on the block'? EI has been around since 2001. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources in context. What kind of content do you want to use and for which article? Alaexis¿question? 20:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- The regular discussions are about the sources in context, but the RFCs are general and a simple neutral question with the four options. See the other RFCs further up the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The previous discussion was not a formal RFC with the four normal choices; Option 2, i.e. a halfway house was not presented; and the discussion was swamped by accounts now blocked as sock puppets/puppeteers. It was a not a level of discussion that should stand as the bar for this source. Obviously being labelled as GUNREL has a long-term impact on whether the source is deemed usable, with or without caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- The point stands. EI is cited as a source in several hundred articles, so its status at RSP has not presented an obstacle to its use. Is there an actual, live issue about its use or misuse as a source? Otherwise a new RFC is not in order. Banks Irk (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
One more thing, is there a way to distinguish opinions from news published by the EI? E.g., is this article an opinion piece or news [32]? Here are some of the quotes from it (a) But we are to believe the Israelis had no idea [of the October 7 attack that] was planned right under their noses? They probably knew. And they waited for it.
, (b) The vast network of Zionist organizations acts as appendages of the Israeli state that extend into all our lives around the world.
Alaexis¿question? 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not in the url from what I can tell, but other than by style, each piece has a short author bio at the end. The example you've shared has a conversational tone that betrays it as clear opinion, but beyond that it is attributed to an external party - the director of a literature festival. This analysis, on the other hand, is attributed to various contributors and
"Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist and associate editor with The Electronic Intifada"
, so we know it's in-house. This colour piece appears to be not in-house, but from a journalist and presumably commissioned, but it's a colour piece, so not news. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)- So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights
- Non-sequitur bordering on fake news. How is an opinion of a retired officer who did not take part in the fighting becomes a confirmation that Israel killed most Israeli civilians?
- So I assume that the analysis is the kind of content you'd like to use on Wikipedia. It's long and uses all kind of sources which range from very reliable to complete garbage, but these are some of the highlights
“ | A retired Israeli army major has admitted [sic] Israel probably killed some of the 1,200 Israelis the government claims Hamas murdered on 7 October. The confession, discovered by The Electronic Intifada, is one of the highest level confirmations to date that Israel killed many, if not most, of the civilians that died during the Palestinian offensive. | ” |
- Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece:
[Josep Borrell] had no regard for the dead women, children and elderly of Palestine, not to mention the men.
- Extreme bias: the hostages are described as
detainees in the custody of Palestinian fighters
- Usage of dodgy sources: they mention an anonymous letter published by Mondoweiss
- Opinion-piece-style statements in the supposed analysis piece:
- I wouldn't support deprecating the EI, unless there are proven examples of publishing deliberate falsehoods, but it falls far short of reliable source standards. Alaexis¿question? 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the
"one of the highest level confirmations"
statement, while clearly leaning into a viewpoint, is still couched. Any exceptional claims also remain covered by WP:ECREE. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I set out by noting that its bias is clear. The question remains not one of its opinion, but one of factual inaccuracy. And, e.g., the
I have reopened this discussion per my closure at WP:AN here. The original close was There is a consensus in favor of deprecating this source, as most all participants voted options 3 or 4, those who voted 4 strongly advocated their position, and few option 3 voters differentiated their position from those favoring deprecation Mach61 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- There have been multiple attempts to claim the title of the source makes it supposedly obvious that this cannot possibly be a reliable source. Im sorry, but is it the Arabic or the fact that the word used is "uprising" make it so obvious? EI obviously has a perspective on the Arab-Israeli conflict but when exactly did Wikipedia become about suppressing significant views that people dont like? And when did claiming the usage of an Arabic word make it so that a source was by that virtue alone unreliable? nableezy - 23:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it's the fact that the word is "Intifada", in a context which connects it to events such as the Second Intifada - it would be like naming a source "Electronic Stürmer". BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- And there it is. Thanks for that. Intifada means uprising. The first and second Palestinian uprisings are among the more well known, and they absolutely are not codewords for anti-Semitic propaganda. But thank you for laying that bare for all of us. nableezy - 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- For a source to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least. In addition, I question your comment about anti-semitism having briefly looked at the comments by some of the contributors to EI, both on and off the site.
- For example, Susan Abulhawa has spoken in support of the antisemitic Boston Mapping Project, and she has denied that the Second Temple existed on Temple Mount.
- On the site, meanwhile, we see what I interpret as her expressing antisemitic tropes when she says
Everything — home, heritage, life, resources, hope — has been robbed from us to atone for Germany’s sins. To this day, we languish in refugee camps that are not fit for human beings so that every Jewish man and woman can have dual citizenship, one in their own country and one in mine.
- Here, she assigns collective guilt - and not to Israeli's but to Jews generally - and she raises the specter of dual loyalty. Further, it is factually false; for example, those Jews who fled or were expelled from countries like Iraq and Syria lost their citizenship and have only Israeli. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
to closely associate with mass terror attacks against civilians raises questions at the very least
what an absolutely absurd claim. Again, intifada means uprising. The first intifada was largely nonviolent civil disobedience, the second had that and violence on both sides. Your claim that EI closely associate[s] with mass terror attacks against civilians is risible and any closer should discard any vote that relies on such bogus logic entirely. Your BLP violation that a living person is expressing antisemitic tropes is likewise risible, and no she does not raise the specter of dual loyalty, nor is she assigning collective guilt to Jews but rather singular guilt to Israel (in fact a few sentences later she writes "Israel is not Judaism"), she raises the fact that Jews from anywhere in the world are entitled to citizenship in the land that her father was expelled from, at the point of a gun at that. Your BLP violation should be redacted, and if it isnt you should be sanctioned, and your argument should given the weight it deserves. That would be approaching 0. nableezy - 00:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- If EI had been founded prior to the Second Intifada, I would agree with you - but it was founded during the second, which was predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians - that raises serious questions about the nature of the source.
- If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes - for it to be so would effectively prevent us from ever discussing whether a source expresses such tropes.
- Further, regardless of whether that article expresses antisemitic tropes it is indisputable that it contains false information. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
predominantly characterized by mass terror attacks on civilians
- false. Doubly so at the time of Febuary 2001 when it was founded as a regularly updated website, having existed less formally from at least December 2000.If I had said she was antisemitic then that would be a BLP violation, but my understanding is that it is not one to raise concerns that an article she wrote expresses antisemitic tropes
- false. You wrote, as a statement of fact, that a living person expressed antisemitic tropes. I see no reliable source that backs up that claim, and your tendentious portrayal of the source to claim she does do that does not justify you accusing a living person of a racist act. You are misrepresenting a living person's words to claim she said something racist. You do it with no source backing you up at all, and you do it in an attempt to claim that having a pro-Palestinian name is the equivalent to having a Nazi one. nableezy - 01:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)- This is a stretch of the BLP policy. If we require reliable secondary sources to identify a source as being racist, we'd be unable to critically evaluate fringe sources on those grounds as most reliable sources don't spend their time covering publications such as the Electronic Intifada. Arguably, designating an article by someone as "unreliable" is a contentious label applied to a living person by this standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- He’s identifying a specific living person for having supposedly made a racist statement when they aren’t even accurately portraying that statement. And yes you need reliable sources to make claims of serious misconduct by living people. nableezy - 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is a stretch of the BLP policy. If we require reliable secondary sources to identify a source as being racist, we'd be unable to critically evaluate fringe sources on those grounds as most reliable sources don't spend their time covering publications such as the Electronic Intifada. Arguably, designating an article by someone as "unreliable" is a contentious label applied to a living person by this standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- 2nd Intifada started Sep 2000, EI was launched in Feb 2001, what mass terror attacks on civilians occurred in between? Levivich (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point; I hadn't considered when during the Second Intifada the publication was created - I consider that to address my concerns over the name chosen. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- And there it is. Thanks for that. Intifada means uprising. The first and second Palestinian uprisings are among the more well known, and they absolutely are not codewords for anti-Semitic propaganda. But thank you for laying that bare for all of us. nableezy - 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest that it's the fact that the word is "Intifada", in a context which connects it to events such as the Second Intifada - it would be like naming a source "Electronic Stürmer". BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Guys if an electronic intifada breaks out in the Electronic Intifada thread, arbcom might start passing "resolutions". Levivich (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Billed Mammal. Since the issue is whether or not to deprecate EI in terms of the issue of factuality, you should get your facts right. You correlate EI's foundation with mass terror attacks on civilians, assuming that the civilians here are Israeli.EI arguably was indeed established in the wake of mass 'terrorist' attacks on civilians. So I refer you to the 2nd para of the section 'Post-visit Palestinian riots' (a hopeless pointy header) on our Second Intifada article, the judgment by HRW on who were being shot at from helicopter gunships, the bullet statistics re Israeli 'crowd control' techniques in the first five days, and Jacques Chirac's outraged remonstration to Ehud Barak about the extreme violence employed by Israeli forces against demonstrators, all captured on video, on that inchoate occasion. In short, the word 'civilian' can, you know, occasionally refer not only to Israeli victims but also to Palestinians, the overwhelmingly majority of whom belong to that unarmed category.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Two branches of the same tree: OW-JP-AH and WCE-WRD/WCD
Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest
Asia Harvest (https://www.asiaharvest.org/) is an American Christian missionary organisation focusing on Asia and especially on China. They produce extremely detailed (and overestimated) fantasy statistics about Christians for each one of the smallest administrative divisions of the country.
Let's take, for example, the purported 2020 statistics for Shanghai (https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/shanghai). As you can see, they extrapolate absolute numbers on the basis of the very same percentage values for the total population numbers of most of the districts, and then the resulting numbers are divided according to the various statistical subcategories. Amongst the numbers in the tens of subcategories, they cite sources for only three of them, and they are some journals (probably missionary journals) dated to 1990, 1991 and 1992, while the general data are presented as being dated to 2020. The source for some of the totals is, otherwise, Operation World (https://operationworld.org/), "the definitive volume of prayer information about the world", associated with the Joshua Project, which is already classified as unreliable in the WP:RSP list.
I propose that Asia Harvest and Operation World be added to the Joshua Project entry in the WP:RSP list. Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023, and listed in WP:RSP. Æo (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I ping Erp who raised doubts about the extreme precision of WCD/WRD data in the abovementioned 2022-2023 discussion, since the same argument applies to this case. Æo (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Besides, on the Wikipedia article about Operation World it is written that the subject is related to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the predecessor of what is now published as the World Christian Database and World Religion Database, themselves thoroughly discussed in 2018 and 2022-2023
- The meaning of this point is somewhat lost on me. According to the close of the linked 2023 discussion,
There is no consensus to deprecate these sources
(bolding added). If consider Asia Harvest or Operation World is/are affiliated with/comparable to the WCE as a source, that would suggest not deprecating them, but instead merely advising editors to use them with prudence while favoring, where available, stronger, more certainly reliable sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- They are clearly not the very same as the WRD/WCD (which is nonetheless questionable, and this is why it is in the perennial sources' list and the closing statement also says that there is rough consensus to attribute it and prefer better sources), at least according to what I have been able to find, although they cross-reference to each other (it is unclear to what extent). Asia Harvest and Operation World are on the other hand directly related to the Joshua Project, which is classifed as unreliable in the perennial sources' list:
The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.
. Æo (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) - Addendum:
- In The Ethos of Operation World we can read the following statement:
We pray that these statistics and prayer points present a reasonably balanced account of what God is doing in our world and of the challenges facing us as we press on to complete the Great Commission. Apart from Operation World, only the World Christian Database/World Religions Database shares our ambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches, as well as to the progress of the Great Commission.
. Here, Operation World and the WRD/WCD are clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together for the "progress of the Great Commission", which is unclear whether it refers to the doctrinal concept or to the American fellowship of evangelical groups which disbanded in 2020. - In this paper by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, some of whose members are also the editors of the WRD/WCD, on pp. 16-17 the methodologies of the latter are compared to those of Operation World.
- In The Ethos of Operation World we can read the following statement:
- Æo (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for this, but you seem to be saying two different things simultaneously. First you say that
They are clearly not the very same
(bolding added); then you say theyare clearly defined as confessional, evangelical entities working together
(bolding added). Are they together, or are they not; and in either case, why is that a reason for depreciation of Asia Harvest (which is the source I thought was under discussion). - In any case, it is not so clear to this reader as it is to you. The Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration. Rather, it reads as an observation that they share a field of study: both are attempts at
compiling a comprehensive body of data relating to the world’s religions, denominations, and churches
. To use another example, both Michael Burlingame and Ronald White shared theambition (folly?) in attempting so massive a task as
narrating the life of Abraham Lincoln in single-volume biographies. But they were not collaborators. - As for the "Christianity in its Global Context, 1970–2020" document, the comparison drawn is moreover a contrast, pointing out how Operation World's definitions of "evangelical" inflate their numbers compared to the World Christian Database.
- Finally, simply as a note, you emphasize connections between GCTS faculty and the World Christian Database but have left out how World Christian Database is published by Brill, an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review. (Likewise, World Christian Encyclopedia was published by Oxford University Press, also an academic publisher that employs editorial and peer review.) That, plus their relative contemporaneity (as both were published in the twenty-first century) instills a great deal of confidence in WCD and WCE as sources.
- In any case, this has been a digression. The posted discussion at hand pertains to Asia Harvest and Operation World, which have different publishers and different traits. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is ascertained that WCE and OW originated as two branches of the same tree, and that they maintain some connections, as hinted to in the statement above about the "Great Commission" and underlined especially in the sentence in that paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background which I have quoted below (17:04, January 2 addendum):
There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World ... and the World Christian Encyclopedia
. This is what I meant, and I am still investigating to find further, clearer evidences. Besides, AH and OW appear to be related as well, given that the few references showed by AH are mostly to OW statistics, and in turn OW is clearly connected to the Joshua Project (they are authored/edited by the same person, Patrick Johnstone), which is acknowledged to be a completely unreliable source. - Amongst the many discussions about the JP, read this 2008 one, which was particularly animated (and which highlights that already back then there were strange waves of spamming of this type of sources, as I myself noticed more recently); some quotes:
[JP is] a very aggressive evangelistic project. ... Linking or even mentioning this project on this kind of scale should be considered as fundamentalist Christian spam.
(Jeroenvrp);All links to the Joshua Project should be deleted immediately and without question. The information on the site is often original research and totally incorrect. It is not a reliable source at all. The fact that someone can't find alternative information on Google is no excuse: get out of your chair and head to a library.
(Caniago);Here is another example which illustrates the sort of disinformation they are spreading. They invented a whole range sub-ethnic groups of the Javanese ethnic group, yet there are no published academic sources (in books or peer reviewed papers) which mention these sub-ethnic groups at all. There are a plethora of other examples of their disinformation if you compare their website against reliable sources.
(Caniago);The project site is not an academic source. ... The Joshua Project has an religious agenda. Anyone should agree on that. This is very clear on the site and not even that, it is also very offensive. Not only for people of these ethnic groups, but for anyone who condemn these kind of aggressive evangelisation practices. I even find it very scary how they present the data (e.g. see the column "Progress Scale"). It's like: "evangelism meets the Borg". ... The data on the Joshua Project is unreliable, like others before me have proved. ... Information from the English Wikipedia is easily translated to other Wikipedia projects. Although people who translate should double check these kind of sources, unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus to those other projects. That's why I am here now, because I noticed the Joshua Project was listed as a source on the Dutch Wikipedia and learned that they came from here. So know your responsibility! ... To conclude this: I am not accusing individual Wikipedians for "fundamentalist Christian spamming". No, what I mean that on a larger scale it's "fundamentalist Christian spamming".
(Jeroenvrp);There are no cases where there Josuha project is the best source of data. A bunch of evangelical missionaries are the last people who can be trusted to present non-biased reliable ethnic data; the examples we have given proven the case.
(Caniago). - Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations). Take for instance the paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background that I quoted below: it was written by D. A. Miller, peer reviewed/edited/co-authored by Patrick Johnstone of the WEC International, and published on the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion founded by Rodney Stark (known for his publications which were very supportive of Christianity); the journal's editorial board includes Massimo Introvigne, whose CESNUR and related publications are themselves currently listed as unreliable in the WP:RSP list (and I personally consider CESNUR, or at least some of its publications, as much more reliable than the sources we are discussing here). Regarding the fact, and the problem, that the WCE and its successors have been published as seemingly academic resources, there are some further considerations expressed in a recent critical essay which I will cite and quote in a separate section below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree that CESNUR and its related publications are more reliable than the assessment listed on Wikipedia's current Perennial Sources page would suggest. I think the generally unreliable characterization is inaccurate and that the academic field of religious studies has a much more favorable impression of CESNUR than Wikipedia's Perennial Sources page does.
- Patrick Johnstone was not a peer reviewer of "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census". Blind peer review means the reviewer is anonymous. Johnstone and Duane Miller are listed co-authors of the paper. The two peer reviewers would have been two other scholars whose identities neither of us know.
- Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that.
- That information is shared between World and WCE does not necessarily make one unreliable merely because the other is. Different sources can use the same raw data to arrive at different conclusions, such as how WCE and Operation World arrive at quite different total numbers, projections, etc.
- In any case, I think that an earlier comment in this discussion from Erp rings true: for this particular discussion,
we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable
. There is not a consensus between us about WCE or WCD or WRD. Maybe there can yet be a consensus between us about Asia Harvest and Operation World. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- Yes. I agree with P-Makoto: "Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that." There is no evidence that the process is somehow compromised and is just speculation. Borders on conspiracy theory actually. In fact they show divergence of data too per already quoted differences in numbers in the sources. They are not equivalent or the same. I also agree that
we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable
. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC) - P-Makoto, I never wrote about "a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus" and are trying to subvert academic publishers. Apart from this, you wrote that
the Ethos statement does not seem like evidence of organizational collaboration
, but the statement in the Miller & Johnstone paper clearly tells us abouta long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information
. Also re-read Erp's comment below, with an excerpt from the Operation World book (2010 edition, p. 25) telling us that... the Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information, which is both fuel for prayer and data for mission strategy
, and on that page the discourse of the author is general, about the shared project in which OW, the JP and the WCE are all actors. In my opinion, there is enough evidence to affirm that the WCE and the OW, and their affiliated projects, are still closely related. The discussion about the WCE and its successors, however, continues below (cf. #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database). Æo (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- Regarding
P-Makoto, I never wrote about
: - You wrote that
Regarding the fact that some of the sources we are discussing here (WCE and its successors) have been published by renowned publishing houses, this does not make them reliable. This was already pointed out in the 2022-2023 discussion. The "peer review" and "editorial process" is very often carried out by people belonging to the very same agenda and organisations (those American evangelical organisations)
(bolding added). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding
- Yes. I agree with P-Makoto: "Your impression that renowned publishing houses like Brill and Oxford University Press are somehow being subverted by a conspiracy of Evangelical authors who defy the consensus of the field of religious demography stretches this editor's credulity. The peer review process is more robust than that." There is no evidence that the process is somehow compromised and is just speculation. Borders on conspiracy theory actually. In fact they show divergence of data too per already quoted differences in numbers in the sources. They are not equivalent or the same. I also agree that
- It is ascertained that WCE and OW originated as two branches of the same tree, and that they maintain some connections, as hinted to in the statement above about the "Great Commission" and underlined especially in the sentence in that paper Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background which I have quoted below (17:04, January 2 addendum):
- Apologies for this, but you seem to be saying two different things simultaneously. First you say that
- They are clearly not the very same as the WRD/WCD (which is nonetheless questionable, and this is why it is in the perennial sources' list and the closing statement also says that there is rough consensus to attribute it and prefer better sources), at least according to what I have been able to find, although they cross-reference to each other (it is unclear to what extent). Asia Harvest and Operation World are on the other hand directly related to the Joshua Project, which is classifed as unreliable in the perennial sources' list:
- The next question is the reliability of "Operation World", multiple editions by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk with the latest being the 7th edition, published 2010, plus a web site. It is explicitly a prayer guide and does not seem to be peer reviewed. I note in reference to the Joshua Project that Operation World's website states: "The Joshua Project is our default site for people group information." https://operationworld.org/prayer-resources/helpful-resources/ Looking at the google preview of the book has "...Joshua Project List, the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information" Given the dependence of "Operation World" on Joshua Project a "Generally unreliable source" and lack of peer review for the work itself, I would say Operation World must also be listed as "Generally unreliable source". Erp (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed as well, given its connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World. In Darrell L. Bock (2013), The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith, A Call to Action: Bibliographic Resources, p. 32, we read:
These two books come from the same stable. While up to the mid-1990s the databases behind Operation World and the World Christian Encyclopedia were virtually identical, they began to diverge in the 1990s, partly because Operation World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million...
. On the same page, the World Religion Database/World Christian Database and the Atlas of Global Christianity are identified as the continuations of the World Christian Encyclopedia, while The Future of Global Christianity is identified as built on the database of Operation World. Other minor publications associated with them (listed on the same page) are: World Christian Trends – AD 30-2200, World Churches Handbook, Global Religious Trends 2010 to 2020, Megatrends and the Persecuted Church, Global Restrictions on Religion, Global Pentecostalism, The New Faces of Christianity, The Next Christendom, Barna Updates (https://www.barna.org), and Global Mapping International (https://www.gmi.org). Ultimately, they are all affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, the same who launched the 10/40 window concept. Æo (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- The assessment of the World Religion Database and World Christianity Database strikes me as a separate question. If they are re-assessed, I would encourage re-assessing them "upward" rather than "downward". The source you cite, Cape Town Commitment, even identifies how the two sources are different:
Operate World took a more generous definition of the word 'evangelical'. In 2010, World Christian Encyclopedia said there were 300 million evangelicals worldwide, whereas Operation World said there were 550 million
. You speak of WCE/WRD/WCDs'connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World
; however, what seems to be demonstrated is their disconnection; if Operation World and Asia Harvest are overstating, WRD/WCD/WCE apparently are holding back in comparison. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)- I don't think that the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed "upwards"; their problems, which are still different from those of the AH/OW discussed here, were pointed out and thoroughly discussed with extensive quotes from critical sources in the specific 2022-2023 discussion. AH/OW and WCD/WRD are ultimately two branches of the same tree, dedicated to "the progress of the Great Commission" (cf. above), and this does not mean that if one of the two branches is unreliable the other is reliable, and vice versa. Both of them have problems, albeit differentiated. Æo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- There appears to not be consensus between us. The specified 2022-2023 discussion also had extensive references from laudatory sources which reviewed the Encyclopedia positively. I developed an impression that the listing of WRD/WCD/WCE as "additional considerations" may have been excessive and not the right call.
- But that would be a discussion different from that of the present one about Asia Harvest. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Given that Operation World depends on the already listed as generally unreliable, Joshua Project, and Asia Harvest depends on Operation World that both should also be listed as generally unreliable. In addition neither seem to be peer reviewed. Does anyone disagree? Erp (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Before leaping to "Generally Unreliable", may I ask whether "Additional Considerations" would be appropriate, and if you do not think so, why not?
- I would note that peer review, while a gold standard, is not Wikipedia's only standard. Many sources subject only to editorial review and not peer review (newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses) are accepted on Wikipedia, so the lack of peer review is not itself necessarily a point against. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- P-Makoto, True. Your observations are accurate with respect to the additional comments you have brought up. Indeed the jump to generally unreliable is why the RFC for WRD/WCD/WCE failed depreciation petty badly across the board. The academic sources did not support such a claim. Context matters to what Asia Harvest is being used on. Also numbers on China are hard to pin down. All polls are estimates for that. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Erp that AH/OW should be classified as "generally unreliable" given the precedent represented by the related Joshua Project. The latter was the subject of eleven discussions on this noticeboard, and it was decidedly assessed as unreliable; just read how editors commented here and here, for instance:
...some argue based on the idea that they wouldn't have any reason to give inaccurate figures. This isn't a useful argument. There's also strong opposition to using them as a source. According to their list of data sources, a solid majority of their sources are just other evangelical groups... They shouldn't be ranked beside census counts as equivalent... They should be considered unusable due to a lack of verifiable methodology and recognition for statistical or academic contribution, even when setting aside all questions of advocacy and bias.
(Elaqueate);We have no idea where they get their data, it's not part of their primary mission, and there's no significant penalty to them for errors, so I see no reason to consider them as a reliable source for population statistics.
(Mangoe);I looked at the source, and I believe you. It's a hobby site by three random religious enthusiasts. Certainly not a reliable source for population data.
(Alsee). Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia. Besides, other considerations apply in this specific case, given that we are dealing with a field of information, statistics, for which there are official censuses and statistical institutions which provide "hard data" — i.e. precise numerical results which constitute "facts" subject to minimal interpretation —, and even in the case we need "soft data" — i.e. unofficial and not always accurate data —, there are still impartial and reliable survey agencies to rely upon. In said field of information, we do not need WP:SPECULATIONs produced by organisations with blatant agendas of evangelism, proselytism or propaganda through unclear methodologies (in our case the methodologies are declared, indeed: word of mouth from priests, pastors and other church staff). Æo (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC) - Addendum: Here other users expressed other clear evaluations of the quality of the JP:
Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources.
(PaleoNeonate);Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude.
(anonymous IP);Very obviously unreliable. Attempting to use it as a source is absurd.
(Tayi Arajakate). The use of the Joshua Project on Wikipedia even caused the creation of an article about a non-existing ethnic group: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawa Pesisir Lor. Æo (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Regarding the use of non-academic sources ("newspapers, magazines, nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses"), P-Makoto, yes, I think they should be eschewed and I always try to eschew them when I contribute to Wikipedia.
- As individual editors, we all I suppose have the option to hold ourselves to higher standards than Wikipedia's; however, it is not consensus to, as a project, eschew newspapers, magazines, and nonfiction books published with non-academic but still reputable presses for being such. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should concentrate on whether Asia Harvest and/or Operation World are reliable. Given that Operation World depends on the already listed as generally unreliable, Joshua Project, and Asia Harvest depends on Operation World that both should also be listed as generally unreliable. In addition neither seem to be peer reviewed. Does anyone disagree? Erp (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed "upwards"; their problems, which are still different from those of the AH/OW discussed here, were pointed out and thoroughly discussed with extensive quotes from critical sources in the specific 2022-2023 discussion. AH/OW and WCD/WRD are ultimately two branches of the same tree, dedicated to "the progress of the Great Commission" (cf. above), and this does not mean that if one of the two branches is unreliable the other is reliable, and vice versa. Both of them have problems, albeit differentiated. Æo (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The assessment of the World Religion Database and World Christianity Database strikes me as a separate question. If they are re-assessed, I would encourage re-assessing them "upward" rather than "downward". The source you cite, Cape Town Commitment, even identifies how the two sources are different:
- I agree, and the WRD/WCD should be re-assessed as well, given its connection with Asia Harvest/Operation World. In Darrell L. Bock (2013), The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith, A Call to Action: Bibliographic Resources, p. 32, we read:
- Looking at https://www.asiaharvest.org/christians-in-china-stats/china Multiple sources, I initially thought the TSPM and CPA figures were accurate since they are possibly official government sources (these are registered and recognized churches) except notes 3 and 4 indicate that the registered protestant number is from a 2010 survey that found 23 million registered protestants and that the numbers were adjusted to include non-adults and presumably the decade since. The number has been adjusted to 39,776,275 for 2020. In addition the table apparently took the 2010 Operation World figures of 86,910,600 protestants in 2010 (unregistered House Church and TSPM) and apparently projected forward to 2020 and got 109,650,630 (split between the 39,776,275 registered and 69,874,355 unregistered (note the increasing specificity during the data manipulation). I decided to look at what might be the overall source "2020, Hattaway, The China Chronicles, no page number given" which seems to be a 7 book series "The China Chronicles" by Paul Hattaway and published, by as far as I can see, "Asia Harvest" an organization Hattaway co-founded with his wife. I'm guessing he or his organization is also responsible for this table published on their website. Both count as self-published and not at all peer reviewed. They might accurately cite other sources. Erp (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Here we can read that the book Operation China by Paul Hattaway has
<...a foreword by Patrick Johnstone, author of the best-selling Operation World, who "I have relied much on the information in 'Operation China' during compilation of the section on China for the latest edition of 'Operation World'. May this unique book go a long way to focus prayer on the need for the gospel among these peoples.'>
. Patrick Johnstone is mentioned in your comment above (20:13, January 1). AH and OW are definitely related. Æo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Here we can read that the book Operation China by Paul Hattaway has
- I found 54+ references to "Asia Harvest" in Wikipedia. A lot have to do with descriptions of people/languages where Asia Harvest in turn is citing another source (I suspect the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Chinese Linguistics" for at least some which is a 1991 work in Chinese [Zhongguo yu yan xue da ci dian 中国语言学大辞典]). My guess is that Asia Harvest was used by wiki editors because it has translated some of the information into English. I suspect editors would be better off for a comprehensive work relying on Ethnologue (which has some faults but is generally accepted by scholars) though it does require a subscription. Glottolog is also useful especially for references to works on a language (less so for numbers of speakers).
- Operation World is also cited (oddly enough mostly in articles about Baháʼí such as Baháʼí_Faith_in_Nigeria) which has "Estimates of membership vary widely - a 2001 estimate by Operation World showed 1000 Baháʼís in 2001 while the Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Encyclopedia) estimated some 38,172 Baháʼís." Another source had about 15,000 in 2000 (Lee, Anthony A. (2011). The Baha'i faith in Africa: establishing a new religious movement, 1952-1962. Studies of religion in Africa. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22600-5., page 107, itself citing an unpublished article). I'm inclined to go with the peer reviewed book. Erp (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Duane Miller's Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census (n.b. edited by Patrick Johnstone, WEC International), questioned on this noticeboard in 2017, was built on Operation World and Joshua Project data. On pp. 3-4 we find further details about their parent organisations (as of 2015) and author:
The results of this massive, multidecade data collection effort were eventually made available in the form of the religious data on the Operation World website, which is hosted by Global Mapping International, and the ethnolinguistic data on the interactive website of the Joshua Project, for which Johnstone was a senior editor. Therefore additional details on the sources of our information can be found at the website of the Joshua Project, which is currently managed by the U.S. Center for World Missions.
. If my understanding is correct, based on our previous findings, Johnstone was ultimately behind both Operation World and the Joshua Project. Æo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) - Addendum: Let's keep this secondary, as suggested above, but on the same p. 3 we read:
There has been a long history of close collaboration and mutual sharing of information among Operation World, the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and the World Christian Encyclopedia.
. Æo (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)- The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Johnstone is the editor/author of the OW and JP themselves. Therefore, that paper is a completely unreliable source. Besides, in the 2017 discussion one of the commentators correctly pointed out that the study misused the word "census" (which has a very precise meaning) in its title, misleading readers to think that the statistics presented were really from a census, when they were not:
The author declares that he has published "a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc.". So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from that.
(AlessandroDe). Æo (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC) - Heartily disagree, you can't point to a walled garden as evidence of reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Johnstone is the editor/author of the OW and JP themselves. Therefore, that paper is a completely unreliable source. Besides, in the 2017 discussion one of the commentators correctly pointed out that the study misused the word "census" (which has a very precise meaning) in its title, misleading readers to think that the statistics presented were really from a census, when they were not:
- The Miller and Johnstone source clearly supports that Operation World is a reliable source by the way. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Duane Miller's Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census (n.b. edited by Patrick Johnstone, WEC International), questioned on this noticeboard in 2017, was built on Operation World and Joshua Project data. On pp. 3-4 we find further details about their parent organisations (as of 2015) and author:
- Agreed with AEo and Erp, these publications should really just be grouped together in one GUNREL entry here. They're all interdependent and interrelated using the same evangelical propagandizing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: I agree that they should be grouped as a single WP:GUNREL entry. Would you also support a deprecation? I decided to open this discussion since a few days ago I noticed that the OW-JP, through AH, is still being spammed throughout various articles without attention to its problematic nature and classification as unreliable in the perennial sources' list. This has been ongoing since the 2000s, unfortunately, and even on other Wikipedias, as the user Jeroenvrp from the Dutch Wikipedia complained in the comment quoted above from 2008:
unfortunately sources like the Joshua Project are spreading like a virus
. This is why I think that, perhaps, it is time for the further step of deprecation. - Also, what is your opinion about the related World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database discussed below? Æo (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay: I agree that they should be grouped as a single WP:GUNREL entry. Would you also support a deprecation? I decided to open this discussion since a few days ago I noticed that the OW-JP, through AH, is still being spammed throughout various articles without attention to its problematic nature and classification as unreliable in the perennial sources' list. This has been ongoing since the 2000s, unfortunately, and even on other Wikipedias, as the user Jeroenvrp from the Dutch Wikipedia complained in the comment quoted above from 2008:
- Grouping all three together under a single GUNREL entry seems straightforward enough, its a compact ecosystem and all of them are generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is worthwhile to open a new RfC for the deprecation of the OW-JP-AH datasets. Back in 2021, Alaexis, who opened that year's RfC, which resulted in the classification of the JP as "unreliable", complained that it was
still being used
. Things have not changed since; just take a look at these September 2023 additions (of OW-JP data via AH), complete with a map (and this is not the only case).--Æo (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
RfC: OW-JP-AH
- 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.
The #Operation World, Joshua Project and Asia Harvest are databases of religion demographics related to the Christian missionary movement. OW and the JP are both edited by the Christian missionary Patrick Johnstone, while AH, which reproduces OW-JP statistics for Asia and China, is edited by the Christian missionary Paul Hattaway. The JP has been the subject of more than ten discussions on this noticeboard, with almost all comments finding it completely unreliable. The latest discussion with RfC in 2021 decided its inclusion in the perennial sources' list as a generally unreliable source. Despite this, it is still widely used throughout Wikipedia (cf. 1), and its associated projects OW and AH are also widely used (cf. 3, 4), and this was already a matter of complaint in the previous discussions.
Should the JP, and its associated projects OW and AH, be WP:DEPRECATED? Answer yes or no.
Æo (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's time to deprecate them. The JP was categorised as unreliable in the perennial sources' list with a 2021 RfC, after more than ten discussions on this noticeboard in which comments were almost universally unanimous on the serious unreliability of the source. Despite its classification as unreliable, it, and its related projects OW and AH, continue to be used uncritically in various Wikipedia articles.--Æo (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, unreliable sources, frequently discussed. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:A050:6C5A:A34E:91A2 (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RfC -- also, it seems like from the timestamps that it's been snuck in through the back of an existing RfC thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RfC per SamuelRiv. GretLomborg (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database
Our latest discussion about the World Christian Encyclopedia and its successors, the World Religion Database and World Christian Database, currently also presenting their statistics through the platform of the Association of Religion Data Archives, was in late 2022-early 2023. As demonstrated in the section above (see comments 20:13, 1 January by Erp; 20:16, 1 January addendum by Æo; 17:04, 2 January addendum by Æo; 18:39, 3 January by Æo), the WCE and its successors have some connection and/or collaborate and share information with Patrick Johnstone's Operation World and Joshua Project and their network (incl. Paul Hattaway's Asia Harvest, et al.), and ultimately the WCE and OW branched out around the mid 1990s from the same statistical database, and they all seem to be affiliated with the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (see comment 21:17, 1 January by Æo).
A new critical essay about the WCE and its successors, which adds to those already mentioned in the foregoing 2022-2023 discussion, was published right last year: Adam Stewart's Problematizing the Statistical Study of Global Pentecostalism: An Evaluation of David B. Barrett's Research Methodology, in Michael Wilkinson & Jörg Haustein's The Pentecostal World (Routledge, 2023, pp. 457-471). It criticises the methodologies of David B. Barrett, a Welsh Anglican priest and the creator of the WCE, which were used to compile the WCE itself. Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, who are also mentioned in the essay and are the theorists and directors of "Global Christianity" studies at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, are otherwise the continuators of the WCE in the form of the WRD/WCD.
Within the essay, the author elaborates: <... what I call the “Pentecostal growth paradigm,” initially promulgated by David B. Barrett, and now ubiquitous within the field of Pentecostal studies, as well as four common critiques of the paradigm ... the complicated typology conceptualized by Barrett in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in order to classify and measure Pentecostals around the world ... the – very limited – information that Barrett provides regarding the data collection techniques that he used to gather the data contained in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia ... the construct validity threats contained within Barrett’s typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques, which, I argue, provide sufficient evidence to substantiate previous claims that the Pentecostal growth paradigm lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results ...>
(p. 457).
Other quotes:
- pp. 457-458: Stewart explains that some Christian authors have pushed for:
<... a trend of steadily increasing estimates of global Pentecostal adherence ranging anywhere from 250 to 694 million ... The genealogy of this authorial ritual can be traced back to David B. Barrett’s original attempt to enumerate all of the various forms of global Christianity published in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia in 1982, which, he argued, revealed the substantial numerical growth of Pentecostalism between 1968 and 1981. This is confirmed by Johnson who writes that “virtually all estimates for the number of Pentecostals in the world are related to Barrett’s initial detailed work”. Barrett persisted in this project for another two decades, which was continued by his closest academic successors, namely, Todd M. Johnson and, more recently, Gina A. Zurlo, who continue to record the ostensibly boundless growth of Pentecostalism around the world, a perspective which I refer to here as the Pentecostal growth paradigm ...>
; - p. 458: He explains that such a paradigm was adopted and fueled by church leaders:
<... who flaunted estimates of Pentecostal growth in an attempt to legitimate their particular religious organizations, proselytistic efforts, beliefs, and/or practices. Non-Pentecostal scholars of Pentecostalism, of course, also played no small role in reifying the Pentecostal growth paradigm. Estimates of the dramatic numerical growth of Pentecostalism served “to legitimate their work among their disciplinary peers who largely understood Pentecostalism as either a social compensatory mechanism for the poor, uneducated, and oppressed or – from the opposite perspective – an oppressive form of cultural imperialism that homogenizes vulnerable poor and uneducated global populations” ...>
, and explains that<Some scholars of Pentecostalism – even when sometimes citing the continually ballooning estimates of global Pentecostalism themselves – are critical of the Pentecostal growth paradigm, and, especially, of Barrett’s contribution to this discourse. In my review of the academic literature, I detect four common critiques of the Pentecostal growth paradigm. First are concerns that Barrett’s early research methodology might not have been sufficiently sophisticated to provide valid results. Second is the charge that Barrett’s use of the three waves metaphor carries an ahistorical, Americentric, and teleological bias ... Third, is a more specific critique closely related to the more general second critique, which asserts that, although the increasing prevalence of Pentecostal adherence around the world is not seriously debated by scholars of Pentecostalism, a significant portion of increasing Pentecostal growth estimates are the result of definitional sprawl rather than an increase in the actual number of adherents ...>
; - p. 459: He cites, amongst others:
<Allan Anderson, who has characterized Barrett’s estimates of global Pentecostalism as, variously, “wild guesses,” “debatable,” “inaccurate or inflated,” “considerably inflated,” “wildly speculative” “controversial and undoubtedly inflated,” “inflated wild guesses,” and “statistical speculations” ...>
; - p. 463:
<Barrett’s description of the data collection techniques that he used in order to gather the data contained in the frst edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia was incredibly short – just two paragraphs ... Another notable characteristic of the data collection techniques employed by Barrett is a very liberal approach to estimation. He wrote, for instance, “The word ‘approximately’ is the operative word in this survey; absolute precision and accuracy are not to be expected, nor in fact are they necessary for practical working purposes. This means that although the tables and other statistics may help readers who want specific individual figures, they are mainly designed to give the general-order picture set in the total national and global context. To this end, where detailed local statistics compiled from grass-roots sources have not been available or were incomplete, the tables supply general-order estimates provided by persons familiar with the local statistical situation.” Barrett even admits to extrapolating estimates of the total national populations of those Christian organizations that largely recorded only either child (e.g., Catholics who mainly record baptized infants) or adult (e.g., Baptists who mainly record confessing adults) adherents. He explained, “the missing figure … has been estimated and added either by the churches themselves or the editors.” Barrett explained, for instance, that he estimated the total number of Catholic adherents within a country “by multiplying total affiliated Catholics (baptized plus catechumens) by the national figure for the percentage of the population over 14 years old”.>
; - p. 464: Stewart comments that:
<... his [Barrett's] cavalier approach to data collection and estimation raise significant red flags regarding the validity of his work.>
; - p. 467:
<The presence of significant monomethod bias represents a catastrophic failure of Barrett’s research design, which, as a result, does not meet the minimum standards of valid social scientific research. In addition to this more fundamental construct validity threat, the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia also contains evidence of five other threats to construct validity relating to data collection techniques, namely, reactivity to the experimental situation, experimenter expectancies, attention and contact with participants, cues of the experimental situation, and timing of measurement.>
; - p. 468, Stewart concludes:
Unfortunately, the research methodology employed by Barrett – specifically his typology of Pentecostalism and data collection techniques – was simply too flawed in order to provide valid social scientific research results that can be trusted and longitudinally or geographically compared. My analysis confirms Anderson’s claim that, “Scholars should no longer assume that there are some 600 million pentecostals in the world without further qualification”>.
I have also found further older papers containing negative critiques of the WCE and its successors:
- Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo's A Theory of Religious Conflict and its Effect on Growth (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, 2000). On p. 10 we read: <For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980. However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. ... Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. ... The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians ... Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution.>.
- Andrew McKinnon's "Christians, Muslims and Traditional Worshippers in Nigeria: Estimating the Relative Proportions from Eleven Nationally Representative Social Surveys", Review of Religious Research, 63(2): 303-315 (Sage, 2021). In it we read: <... those assessments that make use of multiple sources of data, such as the World Christian Database (WCD), have not tended to make their calculations publicly transparent, nor clarified how they have squared the differences between contrasting indicators.>; <Figures in the most recent edition of The World Christian Encyclopedia (Johnson and Zurlo 2020) draw on figures assembled and updated as part of the World Christian Database (WCD) ... None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible.>; <... they also note that the Database does seem to overestimate the Christian identification, and expressed concern about what appears to be uncritical acceptance of figures provided by religious groups of their membership. With reference to one denomination in Nigeria McKinnon (2020) has recently found evidence that supports the criticisms offered by Hsu et al (2008). WCD estimates for Anglican identification in Nigeria were found to be dramatically over-estimated due to The Church of Nigeria's un-evidenced membership claims.>
--Æo (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see that Wilkinson & Haustein argue there are meaningful flaws in the methodology of Barrett and WCE. This criticism in a reliable source of the demographic methodology and technique is the first indication to me that there is substantial reason to be cautious about using these sources. (I remain unconvinced that the socioreligious affiliations of certain authors and editors is as much reason for alarm as you have seemed to imply.)
- With Wilkinson & Haustein's detailed criticism focusing on Pentecostal demographics, would we say that additional considerations must be taken when citing WCE for specifically Pentecostal demographics?
- For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations". I would suggest the description in the table be changed to emphasize that the reason for such an assessment is that reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require "further qualification". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Context matters here.
- These databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have. All major undertakings like this will have some methodological issues and no survey or census is immune to it. No survey or census is definitive on religion. All provide pieces of the puzzle. Two examples one on another global demographic attempt and another on a country:
- Actual estimates on the "atheism" demographics show how multiple surveys do not agree on the numbers or method per each country or globally. There are many reasons why this would be the case - countries vary in understanding of religion and diverse methods each one contains. For example you would think that determining atheist rates is easy (yes/no) but its more complicated. Zuckerman's study (Cambridge Companion to Atheism) [33] states "Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God – or doesn’t -- is fraught with methodological hurdles. First: low response rates; most people do not respond to surveys, and response rates of lower than 50% cannot be generalized to the wider society. Secondly: non-random samples. If the sample is not randomly selected – i.e., every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen -- it is non-generalizable. Third: adverse political/cultural climates. In totalitarian countries where atheism is governmentally promulgated and risks are present for citizens viewed as disloyal, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they do believe in God. Conversely, in societies where religion is enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as non-believers, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don’t believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is “guaranteed.” Even in democratic societies without governmental coercion, individuals often feel that it is necessary to say that are religious, simply because such a response is socially desirable or culturally appropriate."
- At the end he had to sift through a grip of surveys his estimate ranges from 500 million 750 million atheists worldwide from this paper. Pretty wide range. His country by country ranges are complex in p. 15-17 using numerous databases. WCE and even Operation World are used in a few without issues by Zuckerman.
- Even the census data can show wide divergence with other surveys in other countries like Britain. Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [34] state "Results from the 2001 population census suggest that nearly 72% of people in England and Wales may be identified as Christian. This figure is substantially higher than the proportion found by the British Social Attitudes survey and other national studies. It is also higher than the broad estimates of the size of the ‘Christian community’ previously produced by the Christian Research Association, the leading source of religious statistics in the UK (Brierley, 2003:2.2)." And even note issues with census data collection ”Another problem seems more serious. Unlike opinion polls which ask questions directly of respondents, census forms are generally completed by one individual on behalf of the entire household. There is no rule about who should take responsibility, but typically it is the head of household or at least a senior member of it."
- On the WCE, The Andrew McKinnon's source does state The editors of the World Christian Encyclopedia provide reasonable methodological reflections on the different sources upon which scholars may draw in order to estimate the different religious populations of the world, as well as some of the issues that crop up as one tries to reconcile sources that disagree (Johnson and Zurlo 2020: 897–914)."
- And the Marta Reynal-Querol & José G. Montalvo source does say ”For the sake of comparison we also collected data directly from the World Christian Enciclopedia (WCE) using its division of groups. This data set has the advantage of being a time series, providing information for 1970, 1975 and 1980.”
- Other sources like Hsu et al. 2008 deal with methodology directly and state [35] state "Scholars have raised questions about the WCD's estimates categories, and potential bias, but the data have not yet been systematically assessed. We test the reliability of the WCD by comparing its religious composition estimates to four other data sources (World Values Survey, Pew Global Assessment Project,CIA World Factbook, and the U.S. Department of State), finding that estimates are highly correlated....Religious composition estimates in the WCD are generally plausible and consistent with other data sets."
- For WRD "Given the limitations of censuses, including incomplete and irregular global coverage, potential political bias swaying the findings and the absences of many religious groups from censuses, any religious demographic analysis must consult multiple sources.[36] They state their sources which include census and surveys as well and say they are transparent to the scholarly community p. 1. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ramos,
- Regarding your claim that
these databases are global debases from academic publishers and they provide useful data that others simply do not have
: this is simply false; there are statistics produced by national censuses, national statistical institutes, and independent reliable survey organisations. Regarding your claim thatno survey or census is definitive on religion
: censuses are official countings of the characteristics of the whole population of a country, and in the case they have any shortcomings there are other surveys produced by national statistical organisations or independent reliable survey organisations. "Independent reliable" organisations necessarily means non-confessional, non-missionary, non-evangelistic, while "survey" organisations necessarily means that they actually conduct polls among populations. The WCE/WRD/WCD, given the evidence, is neither the first, nor the second thing. - Regarding Zuckerman's study of worldwide atheism, I do not understand what it has to do with the case being discussed here: Zuckerman does not claim that his study is a census, and in any case I would not use it in Wikipedia articles in place of census statistics. Regarding Voas & Bruce's research, I also don't understand what it has to do with our case: statistics from the British Social Attitudes Survey and the Christian Research Association have never been given precedence either in Wikipedia or elsewhere over census statistics. I think that the 2001 British census finding that 72% of the population identified themselves as Christian was correct, and in any case their number has shrunken to 59% by the 2011 census, and to 46% by the 2021 census; I trust that these are the correct proportions of self-identifying Christians within the British population in the three census periods.
- Regarding your excerpt from McKinnon's paper, it continues with the sentence that I already quoted above:
None of the particular calculations are provided, nor is there any accounting for methodological decisions in any particular case; neither transparency nor replicability are in evidence, which makes social scientific evaluation of how they reached their conclusions impossible.
. - Regarding your excerpt from Reynal-Querol & Montalvo's paper, it continues with the following conclusions, also already partially quoted above:
However, as we pointed out before, this source has several shortcomings. First, and probably the most important, the data does not consider the possibility of double practice, very common in Sub Saharan Africa and Latin America countries. Comparing to the other source of information we realize the data is biased towards Christian religion. A clear example is the case of Kenya in which the distribution of religions is considered to be similar to Spain or Italy. The distribution of religious groups between 1970 and 1980 does not change in many countries. There are only about seventeen countries that present change in proportions. But those changes occur in countries where there is double practice and they usually imply an increase in the percentage of Christians and a reduction in the size of animist followers. Because of these reasons we take the data coming from the WCE with a lot of caution.
. - Regarding Hsu et al., their full paper can be read here, it was already widely quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion and it is mostly critical of the WCE/WRD/WCD. I hope it is not necessary to repeat the same findings already explained in the 2022-2023 discussion. However, your quote is missing the following parts:
... however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. ... we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... the WCD counts tiny religious minorities, classifies some Muslim groups within the neoreligionist and ethnoreligionist categories, and has higher numbers of nonreligious.
(p. 680); the conclusions about correlation with other datasets:... the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world.
(p. 684); and the final conclusions:We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. ... we find the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions. ... Data on percent nonreligious are not highly correlated among the five data sets.
. - Regarding the WRD's own methodology paper, it is a self-published source (n.b. Brian J. Grim is another member of the Gordon-Conwell team) and it is quite simply false that they use census statistics; their data definitely do not correspond to the statistics provided by censuses. This is obvious and anyone can demonstrate it, given that census statistics are public and accessible to anyone. Stewart's paper (p. 463) also mentions census statistics dated 1900 to the 1970s, which are obviously obsolete, and some improbable
unpublished data from “unprocessed” or “incomplete” national censuses
. Æo (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC) - Addendum: We must also remember and underline another important, critical point, which is that WCE/WRD/WCD data are speculative projections (WP:CRYSTAL) ranging from 1900 to 2050, not even survey outcomes, actually. Æo (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- P-Makoto, I would agree with your proposal to add that "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table.
- I would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism alone, however, owing to the fuzzy definition of Pentecostalism itself (cf. Stewart) and to the fact that its alleged 600+ million adherents, purported by the sources being discussed here, add a lot to the overall number of Protestants and Christians worldwide, and also owing to the fact that (cf. Stewart; Reynal-Querol & Montalvo; McKinnon) this demographic "athorial ritual" (as Stewart calls it) apparently originated among Anglicans and also involves the overestimation, and often self-overestimation, of the populations of other Christian denominations, including Anglicans themselves and Catholics, and therefore of Christians as a whole.
- I would also agree with your proposal that the source be kept in the "additional considerations" category; otherwise, if other users think it would be more appropriate to downgrade it to the "generally unreliable" or even "deprecated" category (given the continuous spam campaigns of which they are, and will likely continue to be, the subject), I would agree with them. Æo (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would not agree with downgrading the sources under discussion to "Generally unreliable" or "Deprecated". I have proposed neither, and I oppose both.
- You would not restrict the scope of the source to Pentecostalism. But why then does the author make Pentecostalism and the "Pentecostal growth paradigm" the scope of the argument? I would be more comfortable being cautious about how far we extrapolate those conclusions.
- To clarify, I do not mean to simply add "reliable sources have criticized the sources on methodological grounds and that the demographic conclusions require further qualification" to the description in the table. Rather, I would propose replacing the present description in the table with such a sentence. The current description of editors considering the source WP:PARTISAN etc. is based on editor assessments, rather than reliable secondary sources. There is not consensus on whether or not the sources are partisan. But perhaps there can be consensus that a reliable source has said that the projections require further qualification and have methodological flaws. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- P-Makoto,
- I agree the depreciation is unreasonable. But I certainly would question the Petacostal paper when Hsu et al. 2008 [37] clearly does an actual wider assessment and concludes "To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers, but on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu; however, the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries." and "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.”
- Additionally, Hsu 2008 also explicitly says "We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable.
- Also I think that there are methodological issues with other sources like census data as is exemplified with Britain. Many countries do not even have religion questions on the census either. But no one tries to depreciate those sources. It seems too much to require more from WCE than other sources when the evidence shows it is reliable and consistent with other databases on the whole.
- I think removing partisan and leaving the wording as is for in text attribution makes more sense for middle ground on the table.
- Also these databases are respected by diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022)
- - Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable" [38] - "Despite these criticisms, we can appreciate the editors’ achievement in applying a relatively consistent methodology across the world. Furthermore, the WRD estimates are highly correlated with other cross-national estimates of religious distribution, a conclusion supported by an article by Becky Hsu and others." and also "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group."
- - Brierley, Peter. (2010). "World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!" [39] - "The WRD is a truly remarkable resource for researchers, Christian workers, church leaders, religious academics, and any others wanting to see how the various religions of the world impact both the global and the local scenes. It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."
- If it is good for demographers it certainly good for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ramos1990 Those are old sources. Have you evidence the situation is the same 13 or more years later? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, not sure if you looked at the Handbooks I linked, but some are from the 2020s. For example here is an extract of an authoritative source The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020):"The 2010 Pew Report is notable in terms of its comprehensive research design. Pew utilizes demographic sources from the World Religion Database as well as extensive survey data for nineteen African states. This mixed methods design of both quantitative and qualitative sources is important because it provides a substantive way to ground truth our understanding of religious affiliations and attitudes. Published demographic data alone on religion is usually drawn from censuses which can be fraught with design problems, but Pew utilizes field tested, empirical observations." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realise that that book is discussing the Pew Research Center, and that the WRD is just mentioned in a note about the sources upon which the Pew builds its estimates? The book is neither citing the WRD directly nor discussing it. And the Pew's own criteria about its use of WRD data have already been quoted in my <19:44, 6 January> comment below. Æo (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It does not need to. It merely incudes it as part of its positive assessment of the quantitative (WRD) and qualitative (survey data) combination. It certainly does not support your view at all (that is its worthless and useless). Pew's methodology page does not either. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do you realise that that book is discussing the Pew Research Center, and that the WRD is just mentioned in a note about the sources upon which the Pew builds its estimates? The book is neither citing the WRD directly nor discussing it. And the Pew's own criteria about its use of WRD data have already been quoted in my <19:44, 6 January> comment below. Æo (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, not sure if you looked at the Handbooks I linked, but some are from the 2020s. For example here is an extract of an authoritative source The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020):"The 2010 Pew Report is notable in terms of its comprehensive research design. Pew utilizes demographic sources from the World Religion Database as well as extensive survey data for nineteen African states. This mixed methods design of both quantitative and qualitative sources is important because it provides a substantive way to ground truth our understanding of religious affiliations and attitudes. Published demographic data alone on religion is usually drawn from censuses which can be fraught with design problems, but Pew utilizes field tested, empirical observations." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ramos1990 Those are old sources. Have you evidence the situation is the same 13 or more years later? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- P-Makoto,
- In my opinion the outcome of the previous community consensus should not be altered, and Firefangledfeather's closing summary should be kept, with its reference to WP:PARTISAN, or WP:BIASED, and WP:CRYSTAL, and just altered to add your new sentence, possibly also adding Stewart's conclusion that the source
lacks the methodological rigor required to provide valid research results
, and a reference to the fact that these results systematically overestimate Christianity (as found by all the critical papers quoted above) and underestimate other religions (as found by Hsu et al.). Regarding WP:BIASED, I think that it is important to keep it because in my view it is quite clear that the source is biased; for me, the relationship that it has with the OW-JP, its origins as a Christian missionary project, the fact that it is edited by the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (which, by the way, is itself directly related to Billy Graham and his Lausanne Movement), are all indicators of a clear bias, and in any case, this is clearly stated by Reynal-Querol & Montalvo where they wrotewe realize the data is biased towards Christian religion
. - Moreover, in his essay, p. 459, Stewart further explains that
Barrett directly addresses and emphatically rejects what he calls the “folly of triumphalism” ... Despite this assurance, Barrett’s occupation as a missionary, stated belief that all of the world would be evangelized by the end of the twentieth century, and, not least of all, his development of a “theology of Christian enumeration” that explains the purpose of his work as helping “the followers of Christ to discern at what points to commit their resources in order to implement their commission” serve to make this, probably, the least debatable criticism ... The particular strength of this last critique might also possibly explain why, in his recent dismissal of the critiques commonly levied against Barrett’s work, Johnson [of the GCTS] elects not to address the accusation of triumphalism.
. - The previous quote adds to both the problem of non-neutrality, bias, of the source and to the question of the scope of the source. In his own words, Barrett theorised a "theology of Christian enumeration", not of Pentecostal enumeration. Furthermore, Stewart on p. 460 is clear when he writes that:
To describe Barrett’s enumeration of Pentecostals – let alone of Christians as a whole – in the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia as confusing would be a drastic understatement. Guiding the entire work is Barrett’s conceptualization of Christianity ...
; and again on p. 466:Barrett's ... collection techniques in order to enumerate Pentecostals and other Christians around the world
. Therefore, Barret's project affects Christianity as a whole, and not merely Pentecostalism. Stewart clept it "Pentecostal growth paradigm" apparently because such a paradigm was... adopted and more widely disseminated by Pentecostal clergy and scholars – mostly in the Global North ...
(p. 458). This is probably a reference to the OW and its affiliated networks; I remind that the book Operation World (2010, p. 25) declares that... the World Christian Encyclopedia and a handful of other resources are at the heart of this information ...
. - Of course you have not proposed to classify the source as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated", I did not mean that, but I would propose it if any other users agreed, since this would help stem the ongoing spam of this source throughout Wikipedia (which has continued despite its addition to the perennial sources' list last year). Æo (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If it is good for demographers it certainly good for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Considering the discussion here, which is very quite long, I concur with the original 2022-2023 consensus against depreciation of these sources. They are definitely used by academic researchers and the sources presented do verify that they are good for use in Wikipedia. Robert D. Woodberry's confirmation of Hsu findings of general reliability across 4 datasets are certainly notable here as multiple sources converge on overall reliability. Keeping in mind that there are many problems with all sources including census data (WRD methodology states that only about half of the world's censuses even ask about religion and that this is declining further) certainly means that many other sources need to be used by default. This is verifiable in the US, which has nothing on religion for so many decades. And numerous other nations have removed such questions for privacy and expense reasons.
I do see room for BOTH (World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database) and numerous other databases to be used on Wikipedia. After all, these are all just estimates at the end and the Pentecostal and Atheism examples here exhibit the need to use multiple sources to make some sense of adherents (upper and lower estimates). I will say that polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections [40] so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics.
I think a good median on the perennial table is to keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL." since these pass on comparison with multiple other datasets. Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO. The wording would sound neutral, very basic, inclusive, and not too specific. "Preference" does not mean "removal" or "prohibited". It allows coexistence of sources. Thus I think this is reasonable. desmay (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
After all, these are all just estimates
– No, there are precise statistics from censuses and national surveys, possibly integrated by other good-quality statistics from independent neutral survey organisations, for most countries. We do not need speculative projections from non-neutral organisations of Christian evangelism. But this has already been widely discussed. The WCE/WRD/WCD are regularly spammed on Wikipedia and this causes a lot of nuisance for editors in the field of religion statistics like me, Erp and others (see here, here, etc.).... polls, surveys, etc also fail to predict verifiable things like political elections so I can only imagine the difficulty in religion demographics
– Actually, I think that a cultural identifier such as religion is much more verifiable and measurable than fleeting opinions such as political votes.Twice with this noticeboard by the same proposer AEO
– I did not open the 2022-2023 discussion myself, and, in any case, what is the problem? I also opened a discussion about WP:STATISTA last year, which resulted in its categorisation as WP:GUNREL. I read a lot, I noticed that the WCE/WRD/WCD were still being spammed throughout Wikipedia, I found new evidence of their problematic nature (the new papers presented in this discussion), and therefore I decided to open this new discussion. Æo (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Taking in what has been said so far, at this time, for WRD/WCD/WCE, I am inclined to support user desmay's recommendations. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Me too. I think it is a balanced recommendation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have to partially correct what I expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> previous comment, given that the clause with a reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL was not present in Firefangledfeather's original closing summary, but was added by Folly Mox when they created the entry in the perennial sources' list. Yet, the new evidence (Stewart et al.) introduced with the present discussion fully justifies Folly Mox's addition, and I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence as expressed in her <10:25, 4 January> comment, and my own proposal of further additions and of category re-assessment as expressed in my <00:08, 5 January> comment, rather than desmay's proposal to return to the original closing summary. Æo (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I placed the entry at the RSP table because I had to do some citation repair regarding these sources, I think at List of religious populations. I've found that most places these are cited in articles seem to be infoboxes and tables, which don't lend themselves easily to additional explanations about methodology etc. My sample may not reflect the total citation population.The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion. I have no objection to the wording being changed if I've misconstrued the conversation or the close. I'm not sure if I see Firefangledfeathers bluelinked above, so courtesy ping in case they have input. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I continue to support P-Makoto's original proposal to add a further sentence
- I believe this misrepresentation is accidental on Æo's part, but it is a misrepresentation of me. It was never my original proposal to add a sentence. It was my proposal that the description in the table
be changed
(bolding added), which I later clarified toreplacing the present description in the table
(bolding addeed). Any proposal which merely adds a sentence about a reliable source identifying methodological flaws while retaining thereference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL
would be contrary to my original position in this discussion. Such a proposal originates from someone other than myself; I suppose it would be best described as Æo's proposal, inspired by an inadvertent misunderstanding of my proposal. - Additionally, my current position (as I expressed in this diff), is support of desmay's proposal:
keep the wording as is minus "The methodology of these sources has been questioned as WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL."
- I think the reference to WP:PARTISAN and WP:CRYSTAL in the table as it exists is not a consensus assessment by editors. See statements in the above discussion from myself, desmay, and Ramos1990 for examples of editor expressing consideration of the WRD, WCD, and WCE to be academically valid.
- It is also not consensus that the sources are unquestionable; Æo and Erp have made clear their impression of the sources as unreliable.
- "Additional considersations" seems to be an appropriate assessment, inasmuch as there is not consensus for "Generally reliable" or "Generally unreliable". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that the close of the RFC by Firefalgledfeathers did not include partisan and crystal phrase. Since Folly Mox is ok with restoring the close wording. We can remove that phrase. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not rush things. The discussion has only been open for a few days, and few people have taken part in it as of today. Moreover, Folly Mox has written that they would have
no objection to the wording being changed
if they hadmisconstrued the conversation or the close
. And I think they have not misconstrued the essence of the 2022-2023 conversation. Æo (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Folly Mox: "The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion." and pinged closer Firefalgledfeathers. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not rush things. The discussion has only been open for a few days, and few people have taken part in it as of today. Moreover, Folly Mox has written that they would have
- P-Makoto,
- Apologies. I originally misunderstood your use of the word "change" as implying a change by addition and not by replacement, but your clarification in your <21:22, 4 January> comment was already very clear. What I meant with my previous message is that I would support the addition of the
clause formulated in your original proposal
, together with other critical considerations, to the current description formulated by Folly Mox, keeping the latter as it is. Also notice that other users took part, and expressed their opinions, in the 2022-2023 discussion. - I opened the present discussion to provide further evidence, from new critical essays, about the questionability of the sources under discussion; let's focus on the merits of the new evidence provided, rather than on quibbles about the current description in the perennial sources' list. Æo (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have considered the new evidence presented. Seeing the new evidence presented prompted my earlier expressed decision to withdraw my suggestion to re-assess WRD/WCD/WCE as "Generally reliable" to instead support their assessment as "Additional considerations" (see my comment containing
For now, I will pause my earlier musing that WCE/WRD/WCD could be re-assessed to "Generally reliable" and would consent to them being left listed as "Additional considerations"
. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have considered the new evidence presented. Seeing the new evidence presented prompted my earlier expressed decision to withdraw my suggestion to re-assess WRD/WCD/WCE as "Generally reliable" to instead support their assessment as "Additional considerations" (see my comment containing
- Agree that the close of the RFC by Firefalgledfeathers did not include partisan and crystal phrase. Since Folly Mox is ok with restoring the close wording. We can remove that phrase. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest:
There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.
- The order and tone matches many other "no consensus" RSP listings. The partisan issue was discussed more thoroughly than the point about their projections, but I wouldn't strenuously fight against including a short mention of the latter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Firefangledfeathers, I am not sure this captures everything form both sides because multiple editors are also not convinced of partisan and multiple editors think the methodology is appropriate and consistent with multiple databases (sources and quotes for those provided too). Even in the original RFC you closed, the same thing happened (most said "No" to depreciation 10 vs 5). Ramos1990 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- As you look through RSP, you don't see a lot of "... but others disagreed". I think we just briefly state the most impactful concern, so that it's considered in future discussions when evaluating the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'd support including a brief statement about one strength of the sources. The one that stands out the most to me in the prior discussion is that these data sources are so commonly cited by high-quality sources. Something like:
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)There is no consensus on the reliability of these data sources. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. Some editors noted that data from these sources is commonly used by high-quality publications, while others questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan.
- Thank you for that! I support this balanced version. It captures both sides and the sources that were used in this discussion and the RFC you closed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to hear out some thoughts on this, and to reword the description. This version has improvement that I appreciate. I am inclined to suggest rephrasing "commonly used by high quality publications" to instead say "numerous high-quality publications"? It's a subtle difference, but there are high quality publications in topics unrelated to religious demographics that don't use these sources, so to say a source is commonly cited in high quality publications feels not quite on the mark. Saying that editors have noted that they are used in numerous high-quality publications, that seems fair and demonstrably true. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. Not looking to make this change too soon, so you (and any others) should feel free to suggest changes or propose alternatives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- P-Makoto, works for me too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: I continue the discussion, with an alternative proposal, further below. Æo (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. Not looking to make this change too soon, so you (and any others) should feel free to suggest changes or propose alternatives. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to hear out some thoughts on this, and to reword the description. This version has improvement that I appreciate. I am inclined to suggest rephrasing "commonly used by high quality publications" to instead say "numerous high-quality publications"? It's a subtle difference, but there are high quality publications in topics unrelated to religious demographics that don't use these sources, so to say a source is commonly cited in high quality publications feels not quite on the mark. Saying that editors have noted that they are used in numerous high-quality publications, that seems fair and demonstrably true. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! I support this balanced version. It captures both sides and the sources that were used in this discussion and the RFC you closed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'd support including a brief statement about one strength of the sources. The one that stands out the most to me in the prior discussion is that these data sources are so commonly cited by high-quality sources. Something like:
- As you look through RSP, you don't see a lot of "... but others disagreed". I think we just briefly state the most impactful concern, so that it's considered in future discussions when evaluating the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Firefangledfeathers, I am not sure this captures everything form both sides because multiple editors are also not convinced of partisan and multiple editors think the methodology is appropriate and consistent with multiple databases (sources and quotes for those provided too). Even in the original RFC you closed, the same thing happened (most said "No" to depreciation 10 vs 5). Ramos1990 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I placed the entry at the RSP table because I had to do some citation repair regarding these sources, I think at List of religious populations. I've found that most places these are cited in articles seem to be infoboxes and tables, which don't lend themselves easily to additional explanations about methodology etc. My sample may not reflect the total citation population.The words I used in the entry at RSP (the only one I've ever added) were probably intended to be a summary of the close of the lengthy enormous discussion. I have no objection to the wording being changed if I've misconstrued the conversation or the close. I'm not sure if I see Firefangledfeathers bluelinked above, so courtesy ping in case they have input. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm leaning in agreement with AEo here, that the summary by FFF should be retained and editors cautioned about using these as sources. The issues over methodology are compounded by the real concern of religious advocacy/promotion/bias raised by Stewart and others. I'm also of the opinion that the very limited use of WRD by Pew Research is rather telling: they opt to cite it (as one among several databases) only in circumstances where basically no census/survey or granular data exist, rather than incorporating WRD reports into all of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pew uses WRD for 57 countries at least. That is a good chunk. Considering that they use "large scale demographic surveys" for 43 countries, and "general population surveys" for 42 countries, it is quite useful to complete the picture for their global estimates. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look at which countries though... It is a rather limited use. I would not lean on Pew to establish reliability for this source, I'd find someone who actually endorses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I have multiple academic sources in purple and stuff like recent Handbooks above on it. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- But those 57 countries comprise only 5% of the population covered. JoelleJay (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Religious demography is about studying different countries and the beliefs of the people there. I am sure you will agree that each country is a different culture with diverse beliefs and histories and that these people matter - no matter how much on a global scale they are. Approximately 4.6 billion people live in ten countries, representing around 57% of the world's population [41]. I don't think that looking at only 10 out of 232 countries are representative of the cultures of the the remaining 222. China and India alone are 38% of the world population (~3 billion). Besides if you you calculate 5% out 8 billion, its 400,000,000 people from 57 nations with diverse cultures, histories, and beliefs. That is substantial and researchers do not just throw their hands up and ignore them. Most of nonreligion research focuses in Western nonreligious populations (Europe (12%), North America (5%)), but the overwhelming majority of the nonreligious are in Asia and in particular China alone (76%) from Pew. I don't think North America should be ignored just because it is 5% of the global nonreligious population. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's 5% of the population because for that 5% Pew couldn't find any other sources besides WRD and some other databases. If WRD was being treated as completely reliable by Pew they would incorporate WRD data into the other 95% of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pew does not go by % people. It goes by Countries (25% of their countries used WRD, whereas large surveys (18%), general surveys (18%), and census (38%)). Good coverage. Each country has different understanding of religion and instruments of measure are diverse. You can read Pew's methodology to see that they say they used multiple quantitative and multiple qualitative sources for each country. Its inevitable because all sources are limited. Pew says "variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results". So adjustments need to be made (e.g. one source may have some data and but another source may have the missing data, but needs a third source to refine everything). In general there are 3 broad categories for religion (belief, belonging, and behavior). Some sources may have affiliation data, but not belief, or they may have belief data, but low sampling or poor wording. To keep it short, see Zuckerman in purple text, where he shows examples of massive hurdles to get a usable count on the number of atheists in any given country. Sometimes researches use more math to standardize (weighted or non-weighted). In any case, WRD is a database and it collects sources and is just one tool, among others, that researchers of every stripe do use. You can see the WRD methodology. It is available, not hidden. Also it used on continental Europe [42] by others. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the methodology you linked previously, Pew says
Together, censuses or surveys provided estimates for 175 countries representing 95% of the world’s population. In the remaining 57 countries, representing 5% of the world’s population, the primary sources for the religious-composition estimates include population registers and institutional membership statistics reported in the World Religion Database and other sources.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)- Pew breaks it down further "Censuses were the primary source for Pew Forum religious composition estimates in 90 countries, which together cover 45% of all people in the world. Large-scale demographic surveys were the primary sources for an additional 43 countries, representing 12% of the global population. General population surveys were the primary source of data for an additional 42 countries, representing 37% of the global population." With 57 countries for WRD, they covered more countries than large scale demographic surveys (43 countries), and general population surveys (42 countries). Population wise, large scale demographic surveys (43 countries) was 12% of the global population, which is very comparable to WRD. Of course % of people covered is irrelevant because each country has different practices and beliefs, histories (religious beliefs from China and India do not reflect most of the world despite them being 38% of the global population.) It would be odd to dismiss 57 countries out of 232, 43 countries out of 232, 42 countries out of 232, or 90 out of 232. They also state "Pew Forum researchers acquired and analyzed religious composition information from about 2,500 data sources, including censuses, demographic surveys, general population surveys and other studies – the largest project of its kind to date." Though I can see where you are coming from, I am afraid the view that there should be 1 magical super source that applies to all 232 countries is not quite possible. They had more than 10 times 232 sources analyzed and mathematically adjusted to come up with their final product for just 232 countries. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the methodology you linked previously, Pew says
- Pew does not go by % people. It goes by Countries (25% of their countries used WRD, whereas large surveys (18%), general surveys (18%), and census (38%)). Good coverage. Each country has different understanding of religion and instruments of measure are diverse. You can read Pew's methodology to see that they say they used multiple quantitative and multiple qualitative sources for each country. Its inevitable because all sources are limited. Pew says "variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results". So adjustments need to be made (e.g. one source may have some data and but another source may have the missing data, but needs a third source to refine everything). In general there are 3 broad categories for religion (belief, belonging, and behavior). Some sources may have affiliation data, but not belief, or they may have belief data, but low sampling or poor wording. To keep it short, see Zuckerman in purple text, where he shows examples of massive hurdles to get a usable count on the number of atheists in any given country. Sometimes researches use more math to standardize (weighted or non-weighted). In any case, WRD is a database and it collects sources and is just one tool, among others, that researchers of every stripe do use. You can see the WRD methodology. It is available, not hidden. Also it used on continental Europe [42] by others. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's 5% of the population because for that 5% Pew couldn't find any other sources besides WRD and some other databases. If WRD was being treated as completely reliable by Pew they would incorporate WRD data into the other 95% of their estimates. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Religious demography is about studying different countries and the beliefs of the people there. I am sure you will agree that each country is a different culture with diverse beliefs and histories and that these people matter - no matter how much on a global scale they are. Approximately 4.6 billion people live in ten countries, representing around 57% of the world's population [41]. I don't think that looking at only 10 out of 232 countries are representative of the cultures of the the remaining 222. China and India alone are 38% of the world population (~3 billion). Besides if you you calculate 5% out 8 billion, its 400,000,000 people from 57 nations with diverse cultures, histories, and beliefs. That is substantial and researchers do not just throw their hands up and ignore them. Most of nonreligion research focuses in Western nonreligious populations (Europe (12%), North America (5%)), but the overwhelming majority of the nonreligious are in Asia and in particular China alone (76%) from Pew. I don't think North America should be ignored just because it is 5% of the global nonreligious population. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look at which countries though... It is a rather limited use. I would not lean on Pew to establish reliability for this source, I'd find someone who actually endorses it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with the proposal put forth by Firefangledfeathers and P-Makoto. It is neutral and on point. desmay (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pew uses WRD for 57 countries at least. That is a good chunk. Considering that they use "large scale demographic surveys" for 43 countries, and "general population surveys" for 42 countries, it is quite useful to complete the picture for their global estimates. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In her comments, Ramos quoted the abstract from Brierley's World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief! (2010) emphasising the author's seemingly positive evaluation of the source. However, reading through the essay one finds that in the conclusions the author points out that: ... This illustrates the dilemma for the compilers of the WCE and WRD. The Church of England may claim 26 million people, roughly the number living in the UK who have been baptized in the church either as infants or adults. The WRD treats this as their official source. However, not all of these now regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England and so did not tick the "Christian" box on the census form. Result? The WRD puts the Christian percent as 81 percent, the census as 72 percent, with the difference virtually entirely in the group of people who have left (as other research has shown). Which source should the WRD trust or use? This is their statistical nightmare, and the WRD in this instance opts for denominational information and does not judge between the two (though perhaps it should). This perhaps explains why some highly erudite commentators, such as Philip Jenkins, whose books on the world Christian scene have been so powerful and helpful, criticize the numbers in the WCE (and doubtless will those found in the WRD). Jenkins sometimes uses the CIA data instead, but there is no guarantee that that is more reliable.
. This was written in 2010 with the data from the 2001 British census in mind; fourteen years later, things have not changed: compare WRD UK 2020 data with the 2021 UK census data.
The strength
of the database, according to Brierley, merely consists in its unprecedented ... attempt on a worldwide basis to compile numbers for the different religions in a broadly compatible manner for each country.
. Moreover, Brierley also concludes that: ... Christian and religious commentators have no option but to use it, despite hang-ups on definitions and individual numbers. ... These figures are not just for academic reflection and analysis but for strategic use and application.
"Strategic use and application" refers to Christian mission, since Brierly is a Christian minister and/or missionary himself.
Ramos also quoted from Woodberry's World Religion Database: Impressive—but Improvable (2010); on the first page of the paper (unfortunately, I can't access the full text) we read: ... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals. Denominations, however, typically overestimate the number of members they have, and liturgical (and state-sponsored) denominations generally count anyone who has ever been baptized as a member—even infant baptisms of people who no longer claim Christian identity or attend church.
.
There is also another paper of the same series, Arles' World Religion Database: Realities and Concerns (2010), but I can't access its full text.
Brierley's, Woodberry's and Arles' papers were all published on the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, and Brierley, Arles and probably Woodberry as well, are/were Christian ministers and/or missionaries, and therefore I think it is important to underline that these papers belong to the Christian missionary environment to which the WCE/WRD/WCD itself belongs. Such papers are missionary sources which recommend the use of another missionary source, highlighting its strength as an unprecedented attempt to quantify the world's religious populations, while at the same time criticising its flaws. Other "high-quality publications" might be uncritical in their use of the WCE/WRD/WCD, and indeed essays like those of Brierley, Woodberry, Arles, and also Hsu et al., Stewart, and the others already discussed, were published precisely to warn against the uncritical use of such sources.
Liedhegener & Odermatt's Religious Affiliation in Europe (2013), already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, pointed out that (p. 9) the WCE/WRD/WCD ... is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism.
.
As pointed out by JoelleJay hereabove, the Pew Research Center itself is very cautious in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data, also considering that Pew mostly bases its studies on its own (real) surveys. On p. 53 of Pew's The Global Religious Landscape (2010) we read about their criteria for their use of WRD data: In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves.
.
Folly Mox, in their <18:55, 5 January> comment, correctly warned that the WCE/WRD/WCD are still widely cited throughout Wikipedia in a great number of articles, mostly in infoboxes and tables and without further explanation about their nature, methodology and probable bias. This has been going on for years: many articles still uncritically report WCE/WRD/WCD data referenced to the ARDA or Gordon-Conwell websites; many of them are articles about countries and the data are reproduced directly in the country infobox, passed off as 2020 data despite the fact that they are speculative projections. Therefore, I think that it would be important that WP:CRYSTAL be mentioned in the description in the perennial sources' list.
That being said, my proposal for the description in the perennial sources' list is the following one:
There is no consensus on the reliability of these sources of data about religious populations, and concerns have been raised that they may be WP:BIASED and that they are WP:SPECULATIVE projections. Rough consensus developed that the sources should be used with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources (e.g. censuses and national surveys). While these data sources have been used in some high-quality publications, others have questioned their methodology and consider them to be partisan, and especially prone to an overestimation of Christianity.
Æo (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The RFC that Æo opened on this in 2022-2023 already had all of this commentary and MORE, and after all of that Firefangledfeathers was able to come up with a balanced closure wording to take into consideration ALL sides. I would say that Firefangledfeathers proposed wording, and P-Makoto's adjustment, is certainly very balanced and NPOV again and to the point. We should go with that as Firefangledfeathers is an uninvolved editor.
- I also would just like to note that AEO seems to be an aggressive POV pusher against WCE/WRD/WCD sources. Seems to have an obsession to get these removed from wikipedia at any cost. To the point that he opened the 2022-2023 RFC and attempted to close it himself after the results were not in his favor (10 "No" vs 4 "Yes" - his count) with such biased wording emphasizing his view point and the minority and ignoring the majorities views (see here [43]). I thought that this opening and closing was unethical (conflict of interest) and requested an involved editor (see here [44]), which turned out to be Firefangledfeathers. His closure was much more balanced and at least took into consideration everyone's views (majority and minoirty) (see here [45]). As such, I do not trust AEO's POV pushing biased wording.
- Based on this, I trust the uninvolved editor Firefangledfeathers balanced NPOV wording and P-Makoto's adjustment.
- Addendum: Plus all of these quibbles were taken into account in Hsu 2008 - the only source to empirically assess these databases with 4 others: the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department) and found "The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Also about half or less of all countries in the world even ask about religion at all in any census. With inconsistent wording and on voluntary basis too. You have to use other sources by default to compensate. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the only quote in my comment above that I have recovered from the 2022-2023 discussion is the quote from Liedhegener & Odermatt. Brierley's and Woodberry's texts were not quoted directly back then, except for their abstracts, and therefore my argument above provides new evidence and perspectives. Everything else in your message constitutes an ad hominem WP:PA (and I already forgave you for last year's identical one). What I have written hereabove is just my proposal building upon Firefangledfeather's one, takes into consideration all the views which have been expressed by both critical essays and editors in our discussions, and in any case I am not going to close the discussion myself. Æo (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum regarding your addendum with the quote from Hsu et al. and the consideration about census data: the WVS is not a survey specifically about religion, and it is a survey of relatively small samples (of few thousands in about 100 countries); the CIA and the US SD are not survey organisations, they collect data from some other sources (cf. Brierley himself where he states that it is not guaranteed that the CIA website is reliable); the Pew's own views are quoted in my comment above.
You have to use other sources by default to compensate
— yes, there is plenty of neutral statistical sources to fill gaps where we don't have data from censuses and surveys from national statistical organisations, and therefore we don't need the WCE/WRD/WCD or any other sources produced by Christian missionaries. Æo (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)- I also noticed the following recently. The ARDA page for the Republic of the Congo https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=58c#IRFDEMOG has the WRD estimates as Christians making up 89.32% of the population and then breaks the Christians down as unaffiliated 9.97%, Orthodox 0.01%, Catholic 61.62%, Protestants 11.42%, and Independents 10.87%. Unfortunately adding the subdivisions up yields 93.89% which is considerably more than 89.32%. Also 89.32% fits better with the figures for other religions so it is the 93.89% that is wrong probably at least in part by overestimating the percentage of Catholics (other sources claim Catholics at 32% or 55% [taken from the State Department religious freedom report https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-the-congo/ which also states which 2012 government sources it got the figures from [a census and a survey]). The 2022 State department report had 47.3% Catholic and used a 2010 Pew Research Center report. The WRD database itself, which I have access to, lists 89.32% as Christian. Finding the subcategories took some work but it shows that the Christian subdivisions overlap (i.e., some people are counted in two or more Christian groups though not which groups overlap, my guess is many of those who were baptized Catholic and became something else later are counted in both which would explain why the Catholic figure is so high). However this is a guess because nowhere I can find does WRD describe their methodology (And ARDA dropped the overlap category). The list of what I assume is the sources for WRD for the Congo includes the 1960 and 2007 censuses and a 2005 survey but not apparently the 2012 government census and survey. A check on Angola also shows the double counted category missing on the ARDA listing of WRD results though it does show in the actual WRD database; however, most wiki editors do not have access to the latter. Note stuff like simple pie charts require no overlap in their data. This is even when assuming the WRD data is otherwise good data which I don't. So one can make a pie chart for the Congo using WRD data for the major religious categories (Christian, Muslim,...) but not one trying to show Catholic, Protestants, etc as well because the numbers will add up to more than 100%. Erp (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Erp. Hope you are doing well! Glad you were able to use WRD data on the Religion in Republic of Congo page. Yep, that is demography. Did you see Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [46]? According to them, the British census may have overestimated Christians (71.7%) vs a common British Social Attitudes survey (54.2%). Aren't they all British who took both? Why the difference? The way a question is asked, the way a person interprets and responds play a role in differences we see in the numbers. Its more complicated with sub-divisions like denominations like "Catholic" or "Pentecostal". So I expect the variation on "Catholic" you mentioned (61.62%, 47.3%, 32%, 55%). Makes sense. With all of these numbers, it is best to let experts do the calculations than us wikieditors. They know how to use these databases better than us. In particular, sociologists of religion. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I used it in the Congo article only because the previous editor used it and I didn't want to make too radical a change in one step. First show that the WRD data is inconsistent with itself so drop the Christian subdivisions which at least removes the inconsistencies. Then look for better sources. I'm not sure there is any really authoritative source in this case so it might be better to remove the pie chart (pie charts look nice but they lend the patina of authoritativeness which may be misleading) and discuss the different sources in the article (note some editors use multiple pie charts but that clutters up the article).
- And yes how the questions are asked will affect the answers and how the survey or census is done (only resident citizens, all residents, only those with land lines...). However, the WRD isn't doing surveys or taking a census instead it is more a meta study using multiple sources (surveys, censuses, self-reported numbers, other projections) then projecting. My objections to it are several. First, it isn't clear what its sources are. The actual WRD data has a section called "Survey List" which I'm assuming is the list of sources; I have noticed in some cases that later sources than those on the list exist. Second, nothing describes the methodology it is using for a particular country; how is it calculating the projections when did it last update the projections (one can take a stab by looking at the latest item in the "Survey List" for when it likely last updated). Third there is no indication of how accurate they feel they are. Every percentage is to 4 significant digits (or counts to the individual person even when the sources aren't that precise, such as 386 people practicing Chinese Folk Religions and 237 Buddhists in the Republic of the Congo but no Daoists or Confucionists) even when that level of precision is impossible given the sources (projections should not become more precise then the sources). Another fault though common to many other sources is little account for religious syncretism such as in countries like Japan where many practice both Buddhism and Shintoism. Less important there are the oddities of definitions which make them seem not exactly neutral (for instance Confucianists have to be non-Chinese which might explain how they only get 1.8 million Confucianists in China). On another note given the use of the World Religion Database in Wikipedia for better or for worst, it is high time it had its own article complete with critiques from reliable sources so the reader can have some chance of evaluating it. Erp (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know what the standard is in social science but in my field metastudy results should be reproducible by others, not shrouded in methodological mystery. That's another big knock on the WRD. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Erp. Hope you are doing well! Glad you were able to use WRD data on the Religion in Republic of Congo page. Yep, that is demography. Did you see Voas and Bruce (2004) "Research note: The 2001 census and christian identification in Britain" [46]? According to them, the British census may have overestimated Christians (71.7%) vs a common British Social Attitudes survey (54.2%). Aren't they all British who took both? Why the difference? The way a question is asked, the way a person interprets and responds play a role in differences we see in the numbers. Its more complicated with sub-divisions like denominations like "Catholic" or "Pentecostal". So I expect the variation on "Catholic" you mentioned (61.62%, 47.3%, 32%, 55%). Makes sense. With all of these numbers, it is best to let experts do the calculations than us wikieditors. They know how to use these databases better than us. In particular, sociologists of religion. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also noticed the following recently. The ARDA page for the Republic of the Congo https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=58c#IRFDEMOG has the WRD estimates as Christians making up 89.32% of the population and then breaks the Christians down as unaffiliated 9.97%, Orthodox 0.01%, Catholic 61.62%, Protestants 11.42%, and Independents 10.87%. Unfortunately adding the subdivisions up yields 93.89% which is considerably more than 89.32%. Also 89.32% fits better with the figures for other religions so it is the 93.89% that is wrong probably at least in part by overestimating the percentage of Catholics (other sources claim Catholics at 32% or 55% [taken from the State Department religious freedom report https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-the-congo/ which also states which 2012 government sources it got the figures from [a census and a survey]). The 2022 State department report had 47.3% Catholic and used a 2010 Pew Research Center report. The WRD database itself, which I have access to, lists 89.32% as Christian. Finding the subcategories took some work but it shows that the Christian subdivisions overlap (i.e., some people are counted in two or more Christian groups though not which groups overlap, my guess is many of those who were baptized Catholic and became something else later are counted in both which would explain why the Catholic figure is so high). However this is a guess because nowhere I can find does WRD describe their methodology (And ARDA dropped the overlap category). The list of what I assume is the sources for WRD for the Congo includes the 1960 and 2007 censuses and a 2005 survey but not apparently the 2012 government census and survey. A check on Angola also shows the double counted category missing on the ARDA listing of WRD results though it does show in the actual WRD database; however, most wiki editors do not have access to the latter. Note stuff like simple pie charts require no overlap in their data. This is even when assuming the WRD data is otherwise good data which I don't. So one can make a pie chart for the Congo using WRD data for the major religious categories (Christian, Muslim,...) but not one trying to show Catholic, Protestants, etc as well because the numbers will add up to more than 100%. Erp (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum: Plus all of these quibbles were taken into account in Hsu 2008 - the only source to empirically assess these databases with 4 others: the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department) and found "The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Also about half or less of all countries in the world even ask about religion at all in any census. With inconsistent wording and on voluntary basis too. You have to use other sources by default to compensate. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Erp,
- The problems you have encountered regarding the "double counting" and "inconsistent estimates" in WCE/WRD/WCD data are addressed in some of the papers we have discussed. For instance, in Hsu et al.: p. 688, analysing WCE/WRD/WCD data about US Christians:
The WCD reports the total adherent count within Christian denominations and movements is 226 million, of whom 20 million are estimated to be doubly affiliated, leaving 206 million unique adherents. An additional 46 million claim to be Christians but are not affiliated with a church, for a total of 252 million affiliated and unaffiliated Christians. The 2005 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches’ tabulation of official church membership is 163 million. In contrast to the WCD, the Yearbook does not count members of independent churches or adjust for doubly affiliated adherents. This difference of 43–63 million adherents between the Yearbook and the WCD warrants further examination. ... The WCD adjusts for “doubly counted” adherents, who may be on multiple membership lists, when aggregating up from denomination level statistics to religious blocks and total religious adherents. However, we do not know how the WCD derives its estimate of 20 million doubly counted U.S. adherents. Current WCD estimates of American Christian populations are generally higher than those based on survey evidence and denominational statistics. The WCD estimate of the total Christian population does not sufficiently reflect the recent downward trend in the percentage of Americans professing Christian identity in surveys.
; pp. 689-691, analysing inconsistent estimates of Christians in other countries:We find two major groups of countries with inconsistent estimates: African countries with religious syncretism or a history of social disorder, and formerly Communist countries. ... African countries with very inconsistent estimates for percent Christian (Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) have some populations that mix religious practices. ... For India, which others have cited as problematic, the WCD has a higher estimate for percent Christian than the other data sets ... the difference comes from Christian believers in high and low castes identifying themselves as Hindu for various reasons, ... and the existence of “isolated radio believers” who do not affiliate with particular denominations. The WCE does not explain how it estimates the number of isolated radio believers, presumably a particularly difficult population to measure.
. Æo (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Further criticism of the WRD is expressed in the following paper:
- Christopher Claassen & Richard Traunmüller's "Improving and Validating Survey Estimates of Religious Demography Using Bayesian Multilevel Models and Poststratification", Sociological Methods & Research, XX(X): 1-34 (Sage, 2018). On p. 4, we read:
A number of data collection projects have arisen to meet this demand, including the World Religion Database ... Although the scope and comprehensiveness of these databases are admirable, and while they provide perhaps the only source of data for some regions and periods of time, there are nevertheless a number of limitations with their estimates. ... Although these databases rightly respect the adage that some data are preferable to none at all, we have no way of ascertaining the degree of uncertainty attached to any particular estimate because none are provided. Without uncertainty estimates, analysts are led to treat census measures and expert opinions as equally valid. Second, the methods used to adjust sample survey data, combine data, and obtain estimates when no data are available are less than fully transparent. Adjusting, combining, interpolating, and extrapolating data require modeling. Yet neither the assumptions underlying the model nor the exact methods for doing so are fully specified. In addition, the uncertainty induced by modeling is again ignored.
. --Æo (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
RfC: WCE-WRD/WCD
- 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 was a strong argument that the sources should be assessed as generally unreliable based on the methodological critiques. Birdsall and Beaman 2020 was cited for a general concern around carefully defining religion, religiosity, restrictions on religion, and religious hostility in conducting surveys on religious affiliation. McKinnon 2020 was cited for its finding that WCD significantly overestimated the percentage of Anglicans in Nigeria over other surveys. Stewart 2023 was generally cited in the discussion by one editor without analysis, and it is not the closer's role to parse the source and evaluate the strength of its argument.
Despite general agreement that these concerns are legitimate, there was consensus that the sources are used with caution by reliable sources, including the Pew Research Center, Oxford Handbooks, and Cambridge reference works (some postdating the methodological critiques), and that they are published by reliable publishers—Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Brill. There was no effective counterargument to the point that Wikipedia should do what other reliable sources do: proceed with caution. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
The #World Christian Encyclopedia and World Religion Database/World Christian Database are currently used in many Wikipedia articles (cf. 1, 2, 3, 4) to cite statistics on religion demography, and finding a consensus on the reliability of these sources in the discussion above has been difficult. Foregoing discussions on the same sources include one in 2018 and one in 2022-2023 (with RfC).
In this request for comment, it is possible to:
- Option 0: Express a comment without choosing any specific option on the reliability of the sources.
- Assess the reliability of the sources by choosing from one of the following options:
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Æo (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3: There is abundant evidence, especially since the publication of Stewart's 2023 critical essay, but also in previous critical essays, that these are problematic, biased sources originating from a Christian missionary environment, and they have been questioned on methodological grounds. Moreover, the data they produce are based on speculative projection. Secondary sources that recommend their use often come from the same environment, and these secondary sources express some negative criticism themselves. Secondary sources that actually use them tend to be either outdated or uncritical in ther use, often merely citing them in footnotes and/or in lists of multiple sources.--Æo (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. Even if somewhere there's an unresolved discussion of the use of a cite, that still would not justify a 4-way template with options including a blanket ban. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: What do you suggest as an alternative to the four options? Æo (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- "[Name of source] has been used in [reference to Wikipedia article] for a cite of [fact], and attempts to resolve on [name of talk page thread] have failed, please comment here." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, both are possible. I am going to integrate the two formats. I think it is important to clearly assess the reliability of these sources, and in any case, as the rule says, "consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments". These are not votes and the closer will judge based on the merit of all the comments here, in the discussion above, and in the previous threads as well. Æo (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- "[Name of source] has been used in [reference to Wikipedia article] for a cite of [fact], and attempts to resolve on [name of talk page thread] have failed, please comment here." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is the standard format of RFCs on this noticeboard. The inclusion of an option shouldn't be seen as any kind of endorsement for that option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: What do you suggest as an alternative to the four options? Æo (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt that anyone has authority to declare what is "the standard". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. Regarding World Christian Encyclopedia (1st and 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1982, 2001; 3rd ed., Edinburgh University Press, 2019), World Christian Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly), and World Religion Database (Brill, 2007, updated quarterly): When I first saw it brought up on this board, I was inclined to encourage reassessing the sources as "Generally reliable". They are published with highly reputable university presses and have been improved across multiple editions and updates. However, after seeing the conversation between Ramos1990 and Æo, I concluded that these sources' current assessment as "Additional considerations" is fairest. Scholarly assessments of the sources evidently vary, with different perspectives about the extent to which the estimations and assessments can be depended on. As such, it makes sense to attribute these sources' projections and surveys and to be mindful of countervailing sources. However, I am not persuaded these sources should be considered "Generally unreliable". I recognize that Æo in their characterizes these sources as "originating from a Christian missionary environment". From what I have seen, that understates how the sources have emerged from an academic religious studies environment. Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Brill don't publish just anybody, and that the editors, authors, and demographers involved met those academic standards remains meaningful. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1, Bad RFC, WP:FORUMSHOP These sources were assessed last year with the majority not supporting the same RFC poster Æo using the same arguments. I believe this may be WP:FORUMSHOP. He even tried to close the RFC himself with his own views highlighted over the majority. In any case, these databases come from academic publishers (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Brill). And have been independently empirically assessed too, taking into account any criticisms, with 4 other common databases in demography (the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department)) and found to be generally reliable and highly correlated (very comparable) with correlation of .9 (note: a correlation of 1 would mean perfect correlation which never happens among demographic datasets) Becky Hsu et al :"We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable". Furthermore, they note that "on the whole we find that WCD estimates are generally consistent with other data sets. The WCD is highly correlated with the other data sets, estimates for percent Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu" and even give a positive overall recommendation "In sum, we find that the WCD religious composition data are highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates. For cross-national studies, the WCD may be more useful than other sources of data because of the inclusion of the largest number of countries, different time periods, and information on all, even small, religious groups.” No sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale. And the WRD methodology is available: "fully transparent to the scholarly community...based on best social science and demographic practices." It has census, surveys, polls too. Furthermore, these sources are notable for their data being commonly commonly used by high-quality publications. They are respected by a diversity of scholars and authoritative sources such as scholars of Islam (e.g. The Oxford Handbook of Politics in Muslim Societies (2022)), scholars of nonreligion / irreligion (e.g. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion: Volume 7 (2016)), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007)), Pew Research Center's uses it in own methodology and database (see Pew's methodology, The Palgrave Handbook of Islam in Africa (2020)) and also Oxford Handbook of Mission Studies (2022), Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (2011), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022). If it is good enough for independent demographers, Oxford University handbooks, Cambridge University handbooks, Palgrave Handbooks, Pew, Sociology of Religion, it certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I respond to Ramos' argument, which I find to be misleading and which once again relies upon personal attack, in the #Additional commentary below. Æo (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 I was originally between option 1 and 2, but after looking at some points further, I looked around and found additional high quality sources that use WRD/WCDWCE data without any issues. For example, Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe [47] pages 793–798 uses the databases to summarize European demographics overall. I also found the same thing for summarizing demographics of Asia overall in Oxford Handbook of Christianity in Asia [48] at the very end pages 598–605. Two continents is quite good from my simple search. I think that the Becky Hsu paper on comparing WRD/WCD/WCE with 4 other secular databases with global statistics provides as good test of reliability for any given source. I was surprised such an empirical test was even done for any database at all. A .9 correlation is like an A grade for a student in school. That sociologist Robert Woodberry acknowledged Hsu's general conclusion of high correlation is a good second opinion by an expert, which is as good as it gets for global demography because demography is full of imperfections. I see no good reason for not seeing them as generally reliable at this point. Oxford, Cambridge, Pew and other unquestioned sources don't seem to either. I will lean on their expertise. After all, if WRD/WCD/WCE were unreliable, they would not even be used by them (Oxford handbooks are "Authoritative and state-of-the-art surveys of current thinking and research, from leading international figures in the discipline." [49]) The few clear criticisms I saw were minor and not significant enough compared to the positives and they were mostly Wikipedian opinions, not scholarly assessments. Pentecostalism is an informal denomination and it is hard to even get clear numbers for denominations across countries. Phil Zuckerman's struggle with atheism shows that censuses and surveys, may not be able to capture all religious groups evenly across countries and so any complaints about WRD/WCD/WCE seem to just be problems faced by demography in general, and not unique to WRD/WCD/WCE. I find it odd that the same editor opening this RFC is the same editor that opened the 2022 RFC with seeming repeat intent to depreciate again (WP:RSP entry). desmay (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 I'm mostly going on methodological grounds and also because in my last deep dive (from the previous discussion) I found very few peer reviewed articles using the WRD as a source that were not connected with the project itself (e.g., authored by someone in WRD). Even Pew uses it only when no other sources exist. Where we know it does correlate, other better sources exist which they are probably using. One article mostly on Pew though it also applies to WRD (Birdsall, Judd; Beaman, Lori (2020-07-02). "Faith in Numbers: Can we Trust Quantitative Data on Religious Affiliation and Religious Freedom?" (PDF). The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 18 (3): 60–68. doi:10.1080/15570274.2020.1795401. ISSN 1557-0274. Retrieved 2024-01-12. notes that "Numbers are not neutral. Behind any quantification of religion or FoRB there are a range of qualitative assumptions and decisions as to what constitutes religion, religiosity, a restriction on religious belief or practice, or a social hostility involving religion. It’s both an art and a science" and goes on to state "Pay close attention to what an organization is actually measuring and use the correct terminology when citing its data. As we have seen, religious “identification” is not synonymous with faith, belief, practice, or even formal affiliation" (page 6 of the pdf). Pew almost always gives us the methodology for their figures; WRD just presents the data but not what type of religiosity they are estimating (formal affiliation, self-identification, practicing). We should also be upfront that in some cases precise numbers just aren't there so, for instance, not use a pie chart which privileges one source well above others when no source is great. (As an aside I just looked at the WRD info on the United Kingdom, I suspect it would come to a shock to many in Scotland and Northern Ireland that the UK's state religion is Anglican [it is the state religion only of England].)
- Erp (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Deep dive. Looking at an article that is comparing the WRD/WCD and several other sources (note WRD and WCD overlap on who is running them, in particular Todd Johnson) (McKinnon, Andrew (2020). "Demography of Anglicans in Sub-Saharan Africa: Estimating the Population of Anglicans in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda". Journal of Anglican Studies. 18 (1): 42–60. doi:10.1017/S1740355320000170. ISSN 1740-3553. Retrieved 2024-01-14., btw the article goes into depth about why the numbers can vary including why censuses and surveys can vary). Broadly they match other info until they hit Nigeria. "Relative to any of the other cases we have considered here, WCD estimates differ most dramatically from any of the four surveys in terms of the proportion of Anglicans in Nigeria. The WCD estimates a dramatic proportional increase in Anglicans in the 45 years leading up to 2015, from 5.2 per cent to 12.1 per cent. The highest proportion of Anglicans on any of the surveys is found in the R5 Afrobarometer survey, where Anglicans comprise 5.3 per cent of a nationally representative sample". The author continued "The WCD has arrived at its estimate for the proportion of Anglicans in 2015 by taking the last reported figures provided by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) itself to the WCD.... In correspondence with the author, Todd Johnson of WCD has noted that, collectively, the churches and denominations of Nigeria claim 25 million more members than the best estimate of the Christian population would allow". After evaluating all the information the author concludes that there is at least 4.94 million self-identified Anglicans in Nigeria and no more than 11.74 million (the Church of Nigeria claims 18 million). BTW the ARDA report of the WRD figures (https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/national-profiles?u=166c#RELADH) which most Wiki editors likely use does not include or mention the subtraction (under the guise of multiple affiliations) that WRD uses in its own database to make the various percentages add up; the WRD total percentage of Christians is 46.18% but adding up the WRD subtotals as reported by ARDA yields 56.29%. Erp (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Ramos1990 who makes a compelling argument. Nemov (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 or at least 2. Like Erp, I am concerned with the methodology used in compiling these databases, particularly the opacity in what questions are even being asked of respondents. Pew uses WCD and other databases for only 5% of the population. That that 5% is divided into a larger number of countries than the percentages allocated to surveys etc. is about as meaningful as the observation that Trump won 2,497 counties while Biden "only" won 477. The only utility would be when discussing religious representation in the particular 57 countries that Pew used "a database" for, but in those cases we have a better source in Pew itself, which has secondarily filtered and interpreted these data. Perhaps professional demographers can extract the substantive information from WRD, but given how uneven it is in reliability and all the special considerations that one must make for given groups, we should treat it as essentially a primary source. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1: Demography of religion is very sophisticated and imperfect. If it were a simple matter, or if there was a one-source solution, there wouldn't be as much debate among sociologists/demographers on religion (adherents and belief are not the same and hard to capture), and certainly not the thousands of sources that Pew needs to use to estimate religion in 232 nations. The sources in the RFC are used in quite a good number of tertiary sources from experts and reliable publishers of high-quality resources. For Wikipedia's purposes, we go by what reliable sources like these use, not if a source can solve what so many sociologists/demographers of religion have been unable to solve and continue to debate about, the number of adherents. Sociology of religion is full of debates on the estimated numbers of religious adherents. ---1990'sguy (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: I'm fine with keeping it at option 2 but being more explicit about how it can be used. The methodology is really unclear, it is also unclear whether some numbers are predictions for the future. That the data is a lot of the time cited to ARDA instead of the real source doesn't help. WCD should never replace census data, reliable polling data or reliable membership statistics (e.g. Germany). It should not be used in religion/country articles that have better sources, the approach Pew takes essentially. If we add those other sources then I think it would violate WP:NOTSTATS and WP:UNDUE to also add the WCD. In religion/country articles where there are no better sources, it can be used but only with attribution and a disclaimer that they generally overestimate the number of christians. In the best case scenario, also an explanation of their methodology (this will be difficult). If it is used in infoboxes there should be a note with the same information. The data should not be put in a pie chart because people are far more likely to mistake it for census data or polling data (with conventional 3% error margins). --2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:A050:6C5A:A34E:91A2 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised by some comments here. For instance, "The sources in the RFC are used in quite a good number of tertiary sources from experts and reliable publishers of high-quality resources"--well, that may be so, but if the argument against is "a lot of academic studies are highly critical of the source and the organization funding them is biased" and the argument for is "there are scholars that use it", then these two are not on equal footing, and it seems obvious to me that we should value those that actually studied this and other databases higher than those that simply use it/them. No, I don't find Ramos's argument compelling here, because (besides all the other problems) they are simply explaining who uses it--"If it is good enough for independent demographers..." But that, while not invalid, is simply not as strong as the counterargument, and I think the last thing we should do here on Wikipedia is use data that is published by biased organizations and questioned by scholars. So I'm actually going to go with 4: deprecate, because of its problematic source, rather than 3. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- A request for the closer: there have been some instances of at least borderline WP:CANVASSING and there are allegations that more may have occurred, potentially off-wiki. I'd recommend adhering especially to WP:NOTAVOTE when assessing consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: It may be usable depending on context. Path2space (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Ramos1990 and Desmay. It's trusted by extremely high-quality sources, and that means it's good enough to be used on Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Additional commentary
Ramos' argument is opened by an ad hominem WP:PA (in which she falsely accuses me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, manipulates the facts of the 2022-2023 discussion as she already tried to do in January 2023 and on 6 January 2024 in the discussion above, and accuses me of using the same arguments whilst I have presented plenty of new evidence, starting from Stewart's 2023 essay), which would be enough to make her argument fallacious. Then, she builds upon a few lines, already reiterated again and again in the discussion above, excerpted from the 2008 Hsu et al. paper which, however, is overall mostly critical of the source under discussion. Regarding the CIA and the US SD, they are not statistical institutes, and they collect statistics about religions from other sources, often from the WCE/WRD/WCD itself (e.g. US SD 2022 India report)! The Pew's very restrictive criteria in its use of WCE/WRD/WCD data have been thoroughly explained by JoelleJay and by myself in the discussion above, and once again by Erp in her comment hereabove. Then, Ramos continues by stating that no sources have been presented showing the opposite on such a multiple global datasets scale
, which is misleading: various scholarly sources presented (even Hsu et al. itself!) found a systematic overestimation of Christianity and underestimation of other categories in WCE/WRD/WCD data, and various other problems, but Ramos chooses to completely ignore all the critical problems highlighted by such scholarly sources. Anne-Marie Kool's Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation (2016), another essay which is highly critical of the source under discussion, already quoted in the 2022-2023 discussion, warns that: widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data
. Æo (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Questions of forum shopping or any other editor behaviour should be taken elsewhere, equally editors comments should be centered on sources not each other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure about Kool. She is not a demographer and she even says on the sources, "I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades." The Becky Hsu et al. source was not a source I found. It was Æo that cited it in the 2022 discussion and tired to use it as a main source against reliability. But after I read it, I noticed that it said the opposite and even included Christian data in the list of generally reliable data (see my blue text for quote). She is explicit on this. Furthermore, Table 2 has correlations on Christians among the 4 data sets and WCD correlates with the 4 datasets better (.9188, .9251, .9581, .9346 - all above .9 correlation) than how the other 4 datasets correlate with each other (.9146, .8979, .9365, .8468, .8538, .9408 - some are below .9 correlation). On overestimating, it is not unique [50]. Plus I found another authoritative source explicitly saying "A scholarly analysis of the World Christian Database was conducted by sociologists at Princeton University in 2008, confirming its reliability. See Hsu et al., 2008." (Bloomsbury Handbook to Study Christians (2019)) and in p. 23 acknowledges that these are "the best scholarly resource we have for documenting religious affiliation in the world today". For Pew, see my responses above. WRD is the second most used primary source after censuses, by country. Population size wise, WRD usage was comparable to large scale demographic surveys (12% of the population) - but Pew used 2,500 sources overall so it was never one source per country. Seeing that China and India alone account for 38% of the world population and all of Europe is only 7% of the global population, objections based on population size are not convincing not carry any weight. Pew goes by # of countries instead. See Palgrave handbook link for more info. Pew would simply not use WRD if it was so unreliable. Period. Numerous other authoritative sources that are commissioned specifically to leading experts in their fields (Oxford handbooks, Cambridge handbooks, etc) easily use these. Net positive, all things considered. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- You continue to manipulate facts, potentially misleading readers and commentators, probably expecting them not to read the essays and the past discussions. The full paragraph of Kool (2016) in which the line you excerpted is contained is the following (underlined: your excerpt):
It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors (footnote 65: Except for a not very convincing study: BECKY HSU et al.). The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.
. It is a statement of repentance for having used the highly problematic WCE/WRD/WCD data in her past works. - Similarly, Hsu et al. (2008) itself (n.b. my links are always to the full paper, while Ramos' ones are always to the paper's abstract only), from which you continue to quote a few selected and decontextualised lines, is actually very critical of the sources under discussion, and I provided relevant quotes from it in the 2022-2023 discussion and others in the discussion above. It is also true that Hsu et al. is from the mid 2000s, and age matters in this case (as Doug Weller correctly pointed out in the discussion above), and therefore the excerpt you keep quoting about "high correlation" may have been true for the data of the 2000s, but no longer be true for the data of the 2010s and 2020s.
- The full paragraph of Hsu et al. from which your excerpt is taken is the following (underlined: your excerpt; highlighted: critical parts):
We ran correlations of the five data sets with each other on the percentage of adherents to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) as well as the nonreligious (Table 2). The WCD is highly correlated with the other four data sets, with most correlations near 0.90, which suggests that its data for percent Christian, percent Muslim, percent Buddhist, and percent Hindu are generally reliable. However, the other data sets often do not have information for all countries, so the correlations only represent the countries where other data sets record percentages for those religious categories. Most notably, the nonreligious data are not highly correlated between most of the data sets. While all of the data sets have mostly complete data for percent Christian and percent Muslim, data on percent Buddhist, percent Hindu, and percent nonreligious are incomplete in various data sets. The nonreligious category has few observations in State Department and CIA data and is best represented in the WCD, WVS, and Pew. The estimates for Hindus and Buddhists are especially problematic in the CIA data. Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y - x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD.
- Regarding the handbooks that you keep citing, they are not written by statisticians and demographers and are not essays about statistics/demography and its methodologies. They are just "handbooks" that uncritically use the WCE/WRD/WCD among many other sources. Æo (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Key word in Hsu - "Slight". Nowhere does she say significant, nor does she isolate Christians away from the list of "generally reliable". Table 2 shows WCD had higher correlation (greater than .9) with all 4 datasets than the other 4 datasets with each other (some were below .9) on Christians as well. High correlation verifies general reliability. Overestimates/underestimates occur all the time in demography because all sources are limited. Example on census overestimating Christians too [51] and also some censuses like Soviet or Albanian censuses underestimated Christians. If WRD was as unreliable as you keep saying, high quality publications obviously would not use them even on Christianity at all, and yet they do. Among other recent ones I cited above (in my vote), here is one someone else found on summarizing Christianity in Asia [52] (btw Asia is ~60% of global population). These publications use experts in demography. Neither you or I are experts. I will leave it here. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hsu, whom in any case wrote
although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians
, is not the only one to have found such an overestimation; almost all the other papers cited have highlighted it. For instance, Liedhegener & Odermatt founda systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity
. It is "systematic" and "consistent" throughout all countries, which means that even if the percentage of overestimation for each country were low (e.g. 3%), the overall result on the world population would be significant. The evidence suggests that in some cases the percentage of overestimation is very high: e.g. Australia WRD 2020 ~57%, cfr. Australia Census 2021 ~44% — overestimation of 13%; Canada WRD 2020 ~63%, cfr. Canada Census 2021 ~53% — overestimation of 10%; Czechia WRD 2020 ~35%, cfr. Czechia Census 2021 ~12% — overestimation of 23%; Hungary WRD 2020 ~87%, cfr. Hungary Census 2021 ~42% — overestimation of 45%; Isle of Man WRD 2020 ~84%, cfr. Isle of Man Census 2021 ~55% — overestimation of 29%; and there are many other examples. Æo (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)- Your analysis: WRD vs census, is not reliable or convincing. Liedhegener & Odermatt themselves use at least a dozen sources from different time periods and adjust censuses to get their numbers for Europe. They use aggregate analysis, not single source basis (i.e. they do not just use census and that's it). Plus they admit that the quality of census can be problematic and are variable. "Even recent censuses pose sometimes serious, probably unsolvable problems to statistics on religious affiliation at a subnational or regional level. Micro censuses especially share to a certain extent the problems of survey research because the number of respondents is higher, but still restricted. The latest Swiss census is an example of the limitations to producing reliable regional, not to mention local, statistics on religious affiliation. But even traditional population censuses may cause problems which also affect regional comparisons. The British census of 2001 may illustrate this. Its results on religious affiliation where not only restricted by a missing distinction between the major Christian traditions. Moreover, the questionnaire differed substantially between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland." Some census are good for sure, but obviously not all the time. Plus less than half the countries around the world even ask about religion in their censuses. And the ones that do are inconsistently worded country by country. That means half the world is missing such data by default. Liedhegener & Odermatt themselves admit "Moreover, for Europe as a whole, as for important European countries such as France and Great Britain, it is currently impossible to give reliable figures on the religious affiliation of its population." Britain has census data on religion by the way, so what happened there is interesting. Also they do say that "For Europe the SMRE data show that the WCD provides plausible data for a number of countries, but not for all." Definitely different than your analysis above. This is an interesting admission and find it interesting that they incorporated WCD to their SMRE, it means it is indeed a valuable demographical database for SMRE. And OMG they even acknowledge historical significance as former "international “gold standard” of comparative statistics on religious affiliation, the World Christian Database". Understandable with other global datasets available than in the past. Anyways, this is not unique, "To illustrate this: The two well-known international surveys EVS and ESS use a two-stage process of questioning. In comparison to other sources this technique leads frequently to much higher results on the proportion of persons with no religious affiliation. In addition, due to different wording, the ESS produces even higher figures in this category than the EVS." Each source is limited obviously. They even say "Statistics on religious affiliation in France are a prominent example. It depends on the data you choose to either name France a catholic country or to declare it to be a highly secularized nation. However, comparing the different data on France collected by the SMRE, it becomes clear that it is virtually impossible to come up with reliable figures for this Western European country today." I like their admission that secularized countries "are countries with a lack of data or with contradicting data".
- Hsu, whom in any case wrote
- Key word in Hsu - "Slight". Nowhere does she say significant, nor does she isolate Christians away from the list of "generally reliable". Table 2 shows WCD had higher correlation (greater than .9) with all 4 datasets than the other 4 datasets with each other (some were below .9) on Christians as well. High correlation verifies general reliability. Overestimates/underestimates occur all the time in demography because all sources are limited. Example on census overestimating Christians too [51] and also some censuses like Soviet or Albanian censuses underestimated Christians. If WRD was as unreliable as you keep saying, high quality publications obviously would not use them even on Christianity at all, and yet they do. Among other recent ones I cited above (in my vote), here is one someone else found on summarizing Christianity in Asia [52] (btw Asia is ~60% of global population). These publications use experts in demography. Neither you or I are experts. I will leave it here. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- You continue to manipulate facts, potentially misleading readers and commentators, probably expecting them not to read the essays and the past discussions. The full paragraph of Kool (2016) in which the line you excerpted is contained is the following (underlined: your excerpt):
- Not sure about Kool. She is not a demographer and she even says on the sources, "I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades." The Becky Hsu et al. source was not a source I found. It was Æo that cited it in the 2022 discussion and tired to use it as a main source against reliability. But after I read it, I noticed that it said the opposite and even included Christian data in the list of generally reliable data (see my blue text for quote). She is explicit on this. Furthermore, Table 2 has correlations on Christians among the 4 data sets and WCD correlates with the 4 datasets better (.9188, .9251, .9581, .9346 - all above .9 correlation) than how the other 4 datasets correlate with each other (.9146, .8979, .9365, .8468, .8538, .9408 - some are below .9 correlation). On overestimating, it is not unique [50]. Plus I found another authoritative source explicitly saying "A scholarly analysis of the World Christian Database was conducted by sociologists at Princeton University in 2008, confirming its reliability. See Hsu et al., 2008." (Bloomsbury Handbook to Study Christians (2019)) and in p. 23 acknowledges that these are "the best scholarly resource we have for documenting religious affiliation in the world today". For Pew, see my responses above. WRD is the second most used primary source after censuses, by country. Population size wise, WRD usage was comparable to large scale demographic surveys (12% of the population) - but Pew used 2,500 sources overall so it was never one source per country. Seeing that China and India alone account for 38% of the world population and all of Europe is only 7% of the global population, objections based on population size are not convincing not carry any weight. Pew goes by # of countries instead. See Palgrave handbook link for more info. Pew would simply not use WRD if it was so unreliable. Period. Numerous other authoritative sources that are commissioned specifically to leading experts in their fields (Oxford handbooks, Cambridge handbooks, etc) easily use these. Net positive, all things considered. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Religious demography is just a mess and not as simple as you make it seem. That is why I keep on saying that experts should be doing this stiff, not wikieditors. I rest on the experts from Oxford, Pew, Cambridge, etc on what sources are used and acceptable. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm wrong to post this as a reply.
- Comment: The World Religion Database has recently (on 5 Feb.) changed it lay-out. More importantly, they have published on their FAQ a document containing their methodology. It is probably required reading for everyone giving their opinion on this source. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:2C98:387B:A549:4647 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Postponing the archiving. Will ask for a WP:CR soon.
Æo, when issoon
? I struggle to see what two more weeks will accomplish that the last month and a half hasn't. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)- P-Makoto, Agreed. I have requested closure for both RFCs from an univolved editor to ensure fairness. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The document has been around since 2013. Well they seem possibly to have learned about significant digits though I haven't found under the new layout what sources they are using for specific countries so that is a possible step down (even if the previous layout was unclear whether they were sources). BTW is there anyway of notifying people who have been involved in this discussion that it has new comments? I keep a watch on this page but with so many discussions going on it is hard to keep track of one. Erp (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Is NGO Monitor a reliable (but obviously not unbiased) source regarding statements about NGOs and the BLP associated with them?
There are (mostly old) discussion before, but the source came up in the Discussion on this noticeboard about Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and was characterised as biased (which, in my opinion, is accurate). I would like to incorporate some of them into the article on the org, insofar as that is appropriate. I believe that it can be used, where necessary with an attribution, as it is generally considered reliable enough to be cited by significant parts of MSM, many of the involved people are subject matter experts and they generally cite specific sources and examples. Does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per reliable academic sources, I would consider NGO Monitor an unreliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. Multiple sources published through academic presses and periodicals characterize NGO Monitor's assessments as politically motivated, lacking full editorial independence, not conducting sufficient investigation to substantiate their claims, at times reporting inaccuracies, and having a pattern of singling out groups with perceived political differences rather than focusing on the substance of the alleged problems.
- Michael Edwards, foreword to NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations, eds. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl (Routledge, 2006):
Examples of such attacks include the NGO Watch project at the American Enterprise Institute, the Rushford Report in Washington DC and the NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, all of which single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views. It is no accident that hostility to NGO involvement in global governance forms a key element of neoconservative thinking in the US. Stronger NGO accountability mechanisms won't do away with politically motivated attacks like these, but they would surely help to expose them for what they are.
(viii, bolding added) - Joel Peters, "Israel", in The European Union and the Arab Spring: Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in the Middle East, ed. Joel Peters (Lexington Books, 2012), 77–92:
In recent years a number of right-wing groups in Israel, most notably Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, have launched high-profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organizations, especially those that advocate the rights of Arab citizens in Israel and/or address the question of Israeli violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories.
(86, bolding added) - Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, "After 9/11: Canada, the Israel/Palestine Conflict, and the Surveillance of Public Discourse", Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 3 (December 2012): 319–339:
NGO Monitor has been characterized by Israeli academics as "right wing", as well as selective in its focus on NGOs; in particular, it ostensibly looks at NGOs concerned with human rights but fails to seriously investigate the activities of NGOs that support illegal activities in the occupied West Bank.
(333, bolding added)- Abu-Laban and Bakan in particular identify NGO Monitor's propensity for inaccuracy in its descriptions of the basic planks of other NGOs, such as claiming Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS supports BDS when at the time it explicitly did not encourage boycotting Israeli products:
while NGO Monitor claims that KAIROS is a "primary supporter of the anti-Israel divestment movement", KAIROS denies it. In fact, in its "FAQs" online, KAIROS states that its position since first discussed in 2005 is that "KAIROS does not recommend a general boycott of Israeli goods for a number of reasons.
(335, bolding added)
- Abu-Laban and Bakan in particular identify NGO Monitor's propensity for inaccuracy in its descriptions of the basic planks of other NGOs, such as claiming Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS supports BDS when at the time it explicitly did not encourage boycotting Israeli products:
- Sara Kalm, Lisa Strömbom, and Anders Uhlin, "Civil Society Democratising Global Governance? Potentials and Limitations of 'Counter-Democracy'", Global Society 33, no. 4 (2019): 499–519:
However, in all its reports, the NGOs that are criticised for being biased and partial have a perspective of promoting Palestinian human rights and/or taking a critical stance toward Israeli Government policies vis-à-vis Palestinians. Thus, the NGO Monitor appears to be promoting pro-Israel views regarding the conflict in a partisan way. Therefore, the organisation cannot be claimed to express universalist views, as it promotes a highly parochial perspective, mainly promoting Israeli interests.
[...]Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government.
[...]In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors.
(516–517, bolding added) - Ron Dudai, "Entryism, Mimicry and Victimhood Work: The Adoption of Human Rights Discourse by Right-wing Groups in Israel", International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 866–888:
The goal of such pro-state entryism can be demonstrated most powerfully by NGO Monitor's recent practice of submitting 'shadow reports' to the UN human rights system. Shadow reports are among the most common and important tools of human rights NGOs: while governments submit their formal reports to UN human rights monitoring bodies, obviously seeking to portray a positive image, the practice of shadow reporting allows human rights NGOs to bring to the attention of these bodies independent and less flattering information and interpretation. Israel's human rights NGOs often make use of this tool. NGO Monitor's shadow reports however contain nothing but positive information about Israel, not seeking in any way to question Israel's formal submissions. In effect, they provide shadowing not to the state’s reports but to those of the other NGOs.
(871, bolding added)
- Michael Edwards, foreword to NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations, eds. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl (Routledge, 2006):
- Assessments such as these from academic sources lead me to conclude that NGO Monitor is not a reliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on the claims regarding unreliability? Their bias is pretty clear, but as far as I can tell, there is no higher frequency of errors than with many newspapers considered reliable.
- As this is an activist org (such as the one discussed above), it is obviously not fully independent, but many newspapers aren’t either, and as far as I can tell, there is no sign of a higher degree of bias than shown by many other comparable orgs.
- By my cursory reading, there were historically some instances of poor reporting, but not beyond the usual level for comparable org, and not beyond what was shown for EMHRM, which appear to be acceptable with attribution?
- Im pretty new, so it’s possible I missed something, but a (high) degree of bias is not a direct hindrance to being an RS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- While sources having some biases isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, the overall impression I get from academic sources is that NGO Monitor is not only particularly biased (rather than just somewhat biased) but moreover lacks independence from the topic it often reports on (by which I don't just mean it's founded by Israelis, but moreover Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's analysis which finds compelling the connections between NGO Monitor and the institutional Israeli government) and is prone to mischaracterizing organizations. While every editor has a right to make a cursory reading of a source/sourcebase, I'm inclined to base my position on these academic assessments made by trained scholars with a lot more experience in the subject area than me. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. is (as far as I can tell) not entirely untrue, but it refers to Steinberg being a man who, at least for a period of time since its founding, was closely affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Source (from the other end of the political spectrum). This sounds biased (which isn’t in question), but I don’t think it’s more unusual than many other political organisations are. As much as the “revolving door” personally annoys me, it is also the norm, and a venn diagramm of consultants, professors and activists would have more overlap than I like, but it is also a fact of life. Is there a more specific issue that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think these assessments from trained academics, published in peer-reviewed publications, carry more weight than the personal, lay assessments you or I are capable of. I continue to consider NGO Monitor unreliable for statements about NGOs and affiliated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Political scientists and journalists argue about the independence of biased sources all the times, which is a normal (and good) part of scientific discourse. It is considered reliable enough that others, including AP and other major publications, cite it, so such an (in this case, very reasonable) argument towards authority does generally hold water in both directions, so I investigated their claim.
- In this specific case, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin base their analyses on two sources: „ Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government”. It cites a guardian article, which does not contain any of the relevant keywords and concerns another group, and „Mandy Turner, “Creating a Counterhegemonic Praxis: Jewish-Israeli Activists and the Challenge to Zionism”, Conflict, Security and Development, Vol. 15, No. 5 (2015), pp. 549–574“, which in Footnote 119 links what I have cited above as proof regarding the lack of independence: Yossi Gurvitz and Noam Roatem, ‘What is NGO Monitor’s Connection to the Israeli Government?’. +972 Webzine, 29 April 2014. Available at: http://972mag.com/what-is-ngo-monitors-connection-to-the-israeli-government/90239/[Accessed 23 July 2015]. Based on their writing, it appears to be their political reporting, which I would consider accurate but biased unless proven otherwise (left wing mag, good reporters). However, that does not appear to be significant enough unless we are willing to discount a very long list of orgs, certainly after the time frame where that relationship terminates (otherwise, we would have to depreciate every article written by a current or former politicial consultant, staffer etc.).
- If this is the case, I would genuinely appreciate if you re-assessed your view regarding the source; if (which is quite possible) I missed something, I would greatly appreciate if you took the time to correct me. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- By way of aside, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's citation of the Guardian article doesn't strike me as strangely as it apparently strikes you. It's about another group, yes, but the point of the citation is to place their assessment of NGO Monitor in the context of an existing literature about Israeli institutional actors
redefin[ing] what was once seen as tolerable, but albeit bitterly contested, dissent – the reports and critiques of Israel's human rights organisations – as a form of intolerable and existentially threatening delegitimisation.
Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's Global Society article is, I would remind, a secondary source which incorporates the three authors' own research and expertise as observers of organizations like NGO Monitor. If they were writing a Wikipedia article, we would expect every claim to be summarizing a verifiable source; but they didn't write a Wikipedia article. They, as academic researchers, have the training to synthesize literature from other writers with their observations to make the kinds of analytical claims that go beyond what a Wikipedia article would say in Wikipedia's own voice. - In any case, my view is based not only any one isolated example from the published literature on NGO Monitor but on the impression I get from the balance of academic sources. I respect your interest in my perspective on this. At the same time, I'd appreciate it if you accept that you haven't convinced me to change my mind. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The guardian citation is fine, I just wanted to clarify that it is not directly related to the question at hand.
- I understand that you disagree and trust their assessment, and appreciate the good faith discussion, even if I believe that the researchers view does not diminish the reliability of the source and therefore chose to respectfully disagree with you. Thank you for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- By way of aside, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's citation of the Guardian article doesn't strike me as strangely as it apparently strikes you. It's about another group, yes, but the point of the citation is to place their assessment of NGO Monitor in the context of an existing literature about Israeli institutional actors
- I think these assessments from trained academics, published in peer-reviewed publications, carry more weight than the personal, lay assessments you or I are capable of. I continue to consider NGO Monitor unreliable for statements about NGOs and affiliated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. is (as far as I can tell) not entirely untrue, but it refers to Steinberg being a man who, at least for a period of time since its founding, was closely affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Source (from the other end of the political spectrum). This sounds biased (which isn’t in question), but I don’t think it’s more unusual than many other political organisations are. As much as the “revolving door” personally annoys me, it is also the norm, and a venn diagramm of consultants, professors and activists would have more overlap than I like, but it is also a fact of life. Is there a more specific issue that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- While sources having some biases isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, the overall impression I get from academic sources is that NGO Monitor is not only particularly biased (rather than just somewhat biased) but moreover lacks independence from the topic it often reports on (by which I don't just mean it's founded by Israelis, but moreover Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's analysis which finds compelling the connections between NGO Monitor and the institutional Israeli government) and is prone to mischaracterizing organizations. While every editor has a right to make a cursory reading of a source/sourcebase, I'm inclined to base my position on these academic assessments made by trained scholars with a lot more experience in the subject area than me. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @FortunateSons, what exactly would you like to add to the article about the EMHRM based on the NGO Monitor? In general, I would suggest to use less biased sources. If some information is only reported by the NGO Monitor, it might not be WP:DUE.
- A bias doesn't mean they are unreliable. The quotes above mostly confirm their partisanship and only one mentions an inaccuracy, so it's hard to understand whether it's a one-off or systematic problem. Alaexis¿question? 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that they are biased. The article linked to questionable reporting about things like organ theft and statements by associated people that one can reasonably argue are antisemitic under modern definitions of antisemitism. I would have added them, probably as „NGO Monitor, (a Jerusalem-based NGO), argued that X was Y.“ You can find examples of the discussed things above in the discussion on EMHRM, if you are interested in writing them yourself :)FortunateSons (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am happy to discuss the DUE weight of statements later, but as long as this is ongoing, I am not really interested in pre-writing and sourcing a statement that I might not even be able to include on the talk page. FortunateSons (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- It certainly has come up before. If one puts "NGO Monitor" into the search box at the top of this page for the archives you'll find a whole load of them. I've only gone through a few but they were very dismissive overall. One comment I saw said calling it reliable is like saying Electronic Intifada was reliable - and that has been deprecated. Perhaps someone else can go through the lot and get an overall opinion about reliabiliy. I definitely think its very biased views mean its opinions should be assigned little or no weight. NadVolum (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, their bias is clear in my opinion, and pretty undisputed as far as I can tell; they are right-wing and Zionist (in the literal sense of the word). However, considering the debate we just had on EMHRM, I would think that they should be in the same category; they both have bias and some questionable statements, but NGO Monitor is cited by RS and should therefore be considered equal or better (but obviously attribution is still required). FortunateSons (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Putting a respectable NGO and NGO monitor in the same basket? Don't think so. Monitor is a trash operation spewing out endless Israeli propaganda, one merely has to look at the complete crap they wrote in respect of 6 NGOs declared illegal by Israel and for which Israel was widely condemned. Extreme bias makes the source unusable. I would accept the equally biased views of its founder as a source because they theoretically qualify as an expert and at least then we have a name attached to an opinion, can form a judgement of it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that isn’t really an objective argument. Bias is not really an argument if it doesn’t interfere with the facts, and they are right wing, but not fringe beyond what many left wing sources are. If you agree that the creator is a subject matter expert and that they are regularly quoted by RS, I don’t think that one can really disagree with being biased but reliable unless you can show a pattern of poor reporting beyond bias. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I just did, read the linked article. And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate). I don't understand the last sentence. To reiterate I accept the creator as an SPS and afaics, NGO monitor is a good candidate for deprecation, since we have had many discussions, I think converting this one into a formal RFC might be the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate).
- With all due respect to you, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding EI and Mondoweiss despite their bias being extreme as well. As someone who’s been in favor of GUNREL/deprecating biased sources on either side of the conflict, the least I can ask for is logical consistency. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is a key difference. NGO Monitor's output is written by NGO Monitor. Mondoweiss' output is written by the authors of its articles, some of whom are respected experts. I'm not in favor of citing Mondoweiss editorials (for facts, especially), but the articles it publishes should be judged on the expertise of their authors. So actually I am completely consistent. Zerotalk 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which is a different issue entirely than the predictability of output that you cited below. Yes, Mondoweiss primarily publishes op-eds from individual authors; however, just like NGOM’s content, those op-eds have an extremely predictable bias to them.
- I’m simply tired of users’ opinions/votes on sources developing entirely from what side of the conflict said source backs, and this applies to sources and users on either side. If a source overly favors one side of the conflict it’s probably not reliable, this shouldn’t be hard. When a user supports downgrading one source because of bias but opposes doing so for a biased source in the opposite side, I have the right to question if general bias (versus the user’s opinion) is the real concern.
- And before I myself am inevitably accused of favoring one side, you can see that I’ve voted for GUNREL below after voting for GUNREL/deprecate on the Palestinian-biased EI/The Cradle/Mondoweiss while advising against using the Israeli-biased i24 and JNS as reliable sources in two non-RfC discussions. Again, it’s not hard. The Kip 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is a key difference. NGO Monitor's output is written by NGO Monitor. Mondoweiss' output is written by the authors of its articles, some of whom are respected experts. I'm not in favor of citing Mondoweiss editorials (for facts, especially), but the articles it publishes should be judged on the expertise of their authors. So actually I am completely consistent. Zerotalk 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I just did, read the linked article. And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate). I don't understand the last sentence. To reiterate I accept the creator as an SPS and afaics, NGO monitor is a good candidate for deprecation, since we have had many discussions, I think converting this one into a formal RFC might be the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that isn’t really an objective argument. Bias is not really an argument if it doesn’t interfere with the facts, and they are right wing, but not fringe beyond what many left wing sources are. If you agree that the creator is a subject matter expert and that they are regularly quoted by RS, I don’t think that one can really disagree with being biased but reliable unless you can show a pattern of poor reporting beyond bias. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see no reason to use them. They are more akin to one of those think tanks employed to say global warming isn't happening and it is too late to do anythng about it and it is good for agriculture and it is a Chinese plot. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- That isn’t really true. You can disagree with their claims, but the statements are generally fact-based FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually it's a good description. They can only be called fact-based if the facts always point in exactly the same direction. A source with entirely predictable output is worthless. Zerotalk 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding Mondoweiss despite their outcomes being rather predictable as well. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The tobacco industry and suchlike tried to avoid outright falsehooda too. Have a look at NGO Monitor on Amnesty International [53], Medicis Sans Frontieres [54], the ICJ [55]. Does factual really cover them? NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify which of the statements is false? They provide links their sources, and while they obviously cover things in a way that is in line with their bias, I can’t find anything where they have claimed something to be true which isn’t in the 3 links you provided. Their interpretation is obviously their own and biased (which is the reason that policy requires that such claims be attributed), but I can’t find anything that goes beyond biased into falsehoods. If they have a pattern of blatant misinformation like most depreciated sources do, it should be easy to find, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- So do you think "Amnesty disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region." is a reasonable statement like any investigative journalist might make? Or its bias is just something that can be ignored? Or how about "In practice, however, MSF consistently abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns." or "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it’s complicated, but I certainly disapprove of the way it is being said.
stricken for being off topic- In this case, I believe the answer for this issue to be fully covered by the policies of Wikipedia: we attribute claims to biased sources, don’t use our own voice in controversial cases, and make a reasonable effort to verify information when it appears to be fishy.
- After all, we (as in all Editors) figured out religious disputes, military conflicts, and complex ethical debate. I think we can trust each other to differentiate between posturing and a specific claim being made about an NGO, don’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not complicated; it's complete crap and a joke source.
"ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."
- just laughable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not complicated; it's complete crap and a joke source.
- Oh, and regarding „unverifiable allegations“: that may be my personal frustration, but all sides are currently doing that this and I find it highly annoying when doing research. The people (even scientists and journalists) stating assumptions as facts when talking about topics in the fog of war (unless someone secretly works for an intelligence agency with a very high clearance, in which case, go right ahead) are the bane of my existence. FortunateSons (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- So do you think "Amnesty disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region." is a reasonable statement like any investigative journalist might make? Or its bias is just something that can be ignored? Or how about "In practice, however, MSF consistently abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns." or "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify which of the statements is false? They provide links their sources, and while they obviously cover things in a way that is in line with their bias, I can’t find anything where they have claimed something to be true which isn’t in the 3 links you provided. Their interpretation is obviously their own and biased (which is the reason that policy requires that such claims be attributed), but I can’t find anything that goes beyond biased into falsehoods. If they have a pattern of blatant misinformation like most depreciated sources do, it should be easy to find, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually it's a good description. They can only be called fact-based if the facts always point in exactly the same direction. A source with entirely predictable output is worthless. Zerotalk 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- That isn’t really true. You can disagree with their claims, but the statements are generally fact-based FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
NGO Monitor is cited by RS
. Is it? I'm looking now and (excluding unreliable sources such as Electronic Intifada and Israel Hayom) this is what I see:- Jewish News Syndicate[60][61][62]
- Ha'aretz noting one of its employees was banned from editing Wikipedia in 2013[63]
- a 2014 controversy during which the Washington Post reported that AP had not cited in for several years,[64] after a former AP reporter claimed there was a ban on using it there[65] (but note David Bernstein of Volokh Conspiracy did describe them as a usable source in WaPo in response.[66]
- A 2016 op ed in Al-Jazeera attacking them for bias and misrepresentation[67]
- +972 ridiculing it[68][69]
- rival op eds in a Canadian Jewish outlet[70]
- a 2018 news article in EUObserver that starts
"Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution."
- a 2021 op ed in the NYT that describes
"a campaign, spearheaded by the Israeli government (with support from groups like NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, which pursue these Palestinian groups in court and have been accused by advocacy groups of disseminating disinformation), targeting civil society organizations that monitor and resist Israeli human rights violations, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements."
[71]
- In conclusion, two right-wing RSs use them; lots of others see them as unreliable. I'd say we could mention their opinion when secondary usage in e.g. Jerusalem Post shows it's noteworthy; otherwise avoid. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Putting a respectable NGO and NGO monitor in the same basket? Don't think so. Monitor is a trash operation spewing out endless Israeli propaganda, one merely has to look at the complete crap they wrote in respect of 6 NGOs declared illegal by Israel and for which Israel was widely condemned. Extreme bias makes the source unusable. I would accept the equally biased views of its founder as a source because they theoretically qualify as an expert and at least then we have a name attached to an opinion, can form a judgement of it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, their bias is clear in my opinion, and pretty undisputed as far as I can tell; they are right-wing and Zionist (in the literal sense of the word). However, considering the debate we just had on EMHRM, I would think that they should be in the same category; they both have bias and some questionable statements, but NGO Monitor is cited by RS and should therefore be considered equal or better (but obviously attribution is still required). FortunateSons (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's a biased source that needs to be used with care, if at all, as its use could easily be WP:UNDUE due to its partisan nature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- As per my prior opinions re: EI, the Cradle, JNS, etc, I’d personally avoid using any outright biased sources with regards to anything in the I-P CTOP are regardless of “reliability,” and in that case that includes NGO Monitor. If it absolutely needs to be used, don’t do so without attribution. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would personally only use it for background on individuals and orgs with controversial views, and not generally use them for notability as such and breaking news.
- However, they are ‚useful‘ (if you get over the language) when it comes to statements made and reports published, as even very questionable statements and reports are often ignored due to the sheer quantity of content in the digital age. FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think "background on individuals with controversial views" would be the worst possible use, as BLP material requires extra high quality sourcing and this is the opposite of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Insofar as the source is reliable (which is the question at hand), I would argue that verifiable claims (such as public statements or statements made online) would be acceptable, right? FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think "background on individuals with controversial views" would be the worst possible use, as BLP material requires extra high quality sourcing and this is the opposite of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It gets tricky, though, doesn't it? Plenty of clearly high-quality sources on I-P issues (including some of the most commonly cited ones, like Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post) have what could reasonably be described as outright biases. It's not uncommon for sources closest to the conflict and which, therefore, produce some of the best coverage, to also have outright biases. Ultimately what matters is their reliability - whether that bias is sufficient to harm their
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. To me, the most alarming thing here is the fact that they claim more independence than they actually have - if true, that is a fundamental falsehood that makes them hard to use as a source. For outrageously slanted sources there are also WP:DUE issues - when a source's coverage is too slanted, then what it covers or doesn't cover has less significance, making it likely to be undue; and even when they cover factual things, their opinion about what is important carries little weight for our content decisions. "Source that always without question advocates X is advocating X in this particular context as well" is just not something that is generally going to be due without a secondary source - we wouldn't end every article with Carthago delenda est just because we have a cite to Cato the Elder connecting it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for your response! Yeah, it’s pretty complicated. There was a pretty long discussion above, that I believe can be summarised as „we are not sure“ when it comes to questions of independence. I believe to have found the original source by following the citations and consider it mostly harmless, but my counterpart in the discussion made excellent points and provided good sourcing, so I think it’s still up in the air.
- Regarding WP:DUE, I agree that it is pretty complicated and will (as I/P does) lead to long discussions on talk pages. However, some of the most „outstanding“ claims, such as (in the thread on EMHRM) a chairman of an NGO allegedly downplaying sexual assaults is probably DUE at least a sentence.
- Would you consider them reliable (but biased, as you said) unless there is convincing evidence that they are not independent? FortunateSons (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The default for sources is that they're unknown, leaning towards unreliable. A lot of people above have fixated on the question of whether their bias renders them unreliable, which misses the more basic question - what reasons do we have to think that they are reliable? I mentioned Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post, say; while they're biased, there's massive amounts of high-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS and secondary coverage indicating that they have a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. Where's the corresponding reputation here? I feel that this is a common problem when discussing sources that are known for their bias and nothing else - people get derailed into the fact that WP:BIASED isn't automatically disqualifying and miss the fact that it allows sources that otherwise have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be used despite their bias. If the only thing the source is known for is its bias, and nobody has written anything positive about it at all, then it's unreliable because it lacks the reputation that RS requires. (And beyond that the WP:DUE issue remains, so I probably would avoid citing it in any place where it's the only source, especially for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL - which is probably the only situations people are likely to want to cite it anyway.) So if you want to argue it is reliable, I would search for at least some positive coverage or WP:USEBYOTHERS to counterbalance the obviously-negative coverage above; even if the sources above don't outright say it's unreliable (and therefore wouldn't be disqualifying if it clearly had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy otherwise), a source where the only available coverage is negative is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)- If I understood you correctly, you are looking for cases where a reliable sources cited them or their spokespeople? With a quick search, I have found:
- AP (1) AP (2) AP (3), also NYT (1) NYT (2), and BBC (1) BBC (2) and also others [1] [2]. Is that enough, or should I look for more? FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[72] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time. The links below are without paywall, and are IMO.:
- NYT (1) mostly opinion related to the value of another NGOs actions
- NYT (2) is Kind of both, but also a statement regarding causality, so I would say its partial
- WaPo ascribing motives to others, 70% opinion, 30% statement of fact.
- (Assessments are my own, please feel free to verify.) What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[72] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The default for sources is that they're unknown, leaning towards unreliable. A lot of people above have fixated on the question of whether their bias renders them unreliable, which misses the more basic question - what reasons do we have to think that they are reliable? I mentioned Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post, say; while they're biased, there's massive amounts of high-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS and secondary coverage indicating that they have a
- It gets tricky, though, doesn't it? Plenty of clearly high-quality sources on I-P issues (including some of the most commonly cited ones, like Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post) have what could reasonably be described as outright biases. It's not uncommon for sources closest to the conflict and which, therefore, produce some of the best coverage, to also have outright biases. Ultimately what matters is their reliability - whether that bias is sufficient to harm their
- It's an overtly biased pressure group in favour of Israel. I don't see evidence they're not independent, but they're still pretty clearly on one side of the conflict. They're not a news organization and like Amnesty International, their claims should be covered by other sources to assess if they have WP:DUE weight. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Have we got an example of page of NGO Monitor we might possibly use as a citation on Wikipedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would absolutely avoid NGO Monitor. It's not just biased and partisan; it's an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor. It regularly distorts material it quotes. I don't think it's the case (as suggested above) that it's used as a source by mainstream sources - it might be used as a source by right-wing tabloidy media such as Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I don't recall it being seen as a source of facts by serious outlets. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made a short list of citations by RS above FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sorry I missed that. I'll look now. I just did a systematic search of Google News and found two RSs using it and several others criticising it, pasted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you check whether to include the ones I found as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sorry I missed that. I'll look now. I just did a systematic search of Google News and found two RSs using it and several others criticising it, pasted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made a short list of citations by RS above FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- My opinion of NGO monitor is strongly influenced by the way that the organization has manipulated Wikipedia using paid staffers. In particular one staffer who had no qualms about making COI claims against a target of Gerald Steinberg [73] while failing to disclose his own, much worse, COI. [74]. And then, to make it worse, lying about it. He utilized an elaborate strategy to pad WP articles with NGO monitor talking points.(clearly described by Nomoskedasticity in “additional comments” [75]). It was disgusting. I can’t think why anyone would consider an organization who would stoop this kind of underhand behaviour a reliable source. “A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, we have direct evidence of exactly the opposite. Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?
The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmeddoes not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
|
What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
RFCbefore is above, there have been several discussions in the past.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NGO Monitor)
- Option 3 but only because we shouldn't deprecate right off the bat. It is clear from the above discussion that this source is not at all reliable for facts. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per my contribution to the discussion above, describing it as an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor and noting that it its opinions are occasionally quoted by RSs meaning its views might sometimes be noteworthy, that the Jerusalem Post and some other outlets have used it as a source for facts, but that other sources explicitly call it unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 per my contributions above. Made by a subject-matter expert and cited by RS such as NYT, AP, Reuters etc., but also has a right-wing bias and shouldn’t be used without attribution. For BLP, claims regarding facts should not be used unless a source/link is explicitly provided. FortunateSons (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 NGO Monitor is a partisan activist organisation that masquerades itself as a neutral monitor. It's only usable for their own opinions, but even then it would very likely be WP:UNDUE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 This is a propaganda outlet and nothing more. I can't see that it is to be used a source for anything. --Te og kaker (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? I don't see how one could use any page in it for a citation. NadVolum (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 per FortunateSons. JM (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, and I only don't !vote for 4 because the trend of deprecation has been to the detriment of the project. This organization began as a one-man outfit for publishing lies and evolved into a multi-person outfit for publishing lies. Nothing positive can be said about it. Zerotalk 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- You dwfinitely make a point okay. I would not have deprecated the Daily Mail or the Sun, I think I'll stick with deprecation here though. NadVolum (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per my votes on EI, Mondoweiss, etc. GUNREL’ing unreliable sources on a CTOP shouldn’t be difficult, but certain groups of users seem only interested in doing so to sources that disagree with their perspective. The Kip 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 FortunateSons' statement is reasonable. use with attribution, caution in biographical articles. ValarianB (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3. Per my contribution in the discussion above, the balance of of reliable academic sources independent of NGO Monitor indicate that the way in which it's partisan and partial results in distorted assessments of the NGOs it purports to monitor and but has led to inaccuracies. I was also very persuaded by user Aquillion's comment in the above discussion about WP:USEBYOTHERS. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, based on the evidence presented in the discussion above. It's not merely biased, like an editorial publication can be. Its primary purpose is to attack other people and groups, from a frankly extreme PoV. That makes it unusable from a WP:BLP standpoint. The allegations of ties to political actors (P-Makoto's list of academic sources) and allegations of spreading misinformation (BobFromBrockley's review of media outlets) make it worse. Only voting "3" out of respect for the norm of avoiding deprecation as the first step. DFlhb (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 - the definition of a propaganda outlet, including having had paid employees editing Wikipedia entries to insert NGO-Monitor press releases. When their views are noted by some other reliable outlet then perhaps there is discussion on including them in our articles, but as a source itself? It does not have any noted experts in any field publishing on their webpage, so the comparisons to other sources that do publish such experts is lacking, this is purely a propaganda outlet with no redeeming qualities to use as a source in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, could you explain why the founder is not considered an expert? FortunateSons (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and the Wiki Page includes a list of people, I can’t find a current list but I think some of them can be considered legal experts etc. Can you find a current link? FortunateSons (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per P-Makoto and DFlhb. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. While I am also reluctant to go straight to deprecating a source in most cases, Slp1's comment above proving that NGO Monitor has attempted to manipulate Wikipedia should be enough to get them put on the spam blacklist. I also see ample evidence that they are not only unreliable for facts but actually specifically generate misinformation, which IMO is the standard for deprecation. Loki (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill that publishes blatant falsehoods, and should never be used as a source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. I might have gone for just unreliable, but the attempt to manipulate coverage on Wikipedia is the sort of thing deprecation exists for. Additionally, there are allegations that they were banned from even being quoted in the Associated Press; while the AP denied that there was a formal ban, it seems likely that they were specifically noted as a poor-quality source. --Aquillion (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2'. Like FortunateSons says, it is biased but it is also curated by subject matter experts and is cited by RS. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 or Option 4 I would consider it unreliable for facts. It is meticulously demonstrated by other editors that this organization does not have a good reputation factual accuracy. Cornsimpel (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (NGO Monitor)
OAS Panel of Independent International Experts
|
In 2018, the Organization of American States set up a Panel of Independent International Experts to analyse the commission of possible of crimes against humanity in Venezuela (press release, executive summary and final report).
Is the report a reliable source to use in the Guarimba article? NoonIcarus (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment More context on the dispute can be seen here: Talk:Guarimba#Tags. The panel was made up of three experts: Santiago Cantón , Irwin Cotler and Manuel Ventura Robles . WMrapids has argued that since Irwin Cotler was a lawyer for opposition leader Leopoldo López, the source might have a conflict of interest and not have due weight. Cotler was also Nelson Mandela's lawyer in the 80s and a Canadian MP. The disputed content can be found at this diff: [76]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's a primary source, so very likely to need attribution if we are talking about anything even vaguely controversial. If there is criticism of the source, it is likely to be WP:DUE as well. Of course, it is impossible for us to say whether it is reliable unless we know the specific claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that the OAS is not a neutral body, so any claims attributed to it will often need to be presented with counter viewpoints. It made a lot of untrue claims with regards to the Bolivian election of 2020, for example, so care is needed with anything it publishes. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- CEPR (a pro-Maduro thinktank) in turn, despite its academic veneer, is not a reliable source for whether OAS is reliable. Many of the claims of inaccuracy in this text are simply false. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Several sources reached the same conclusions, including the European Union, and the OAS reaffirmed the report, so it isn't widely accepted that the claims are unture, let alone that this is a systematic issue for all the reports by the OAS.
- Even if this was the case, this RfC is about a Panel of Independent Experts, not about the OAS Bolivian election report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The New York Times investigation also found clear errors in the OAS behaviour, as you must know. The OAS is a political organisation, and its committee is selected and paid for by them. We would also attribute statements by the EU on anything remotely controversial. Attribute it, or don't use it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- The New York Times article also cites experts who believe that the conclusions were correct, so my point stand. In any case, I agree that attribution can be included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The New York Times investigation also found clear errors in the OAS behaviour, as you must know. The OAS is a political organisation, and its committee is selected and paid for by them. We would also attribute statements by the EU on anything remotely controversial. Attribute it, or don't use it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say this could be used with clear attribution, but I would not use it to source statements in wikivoice. Ostalgia (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, has the Panel's findings been used by other sources? Is there journalistic or academic endorsement or criticism of it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P-Makoto: Absolutely. Back in the day it was a big headline because it was seen as a precedent for the current investigation in the International Criminal Court (ICC): ([77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]), and it was the first time that the OAS did something similar. Former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was involved with the audiences, and after published the report has been cited by both the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela[88] and the ICC.[89] Just a few months ago, the ICC approved the Panel to submit an amicus curiae to the Court.[90][91][92]
- The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",[93] and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.[94] Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- And they attribute the report too when they cite it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Venezuelan government expectedly condemned the report, calling it a "grotesque media farce",[93] and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone questioned why situations like the one in Israel weren't investigated.[94] Incidentally, Blumenthal also questioned Cotler for being a lawyer for Leopoldo López. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Red Ventures
|
What is the reliability of sites owned by Red Ventures (excluding specific sites listed below)?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [95]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [96] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:
- WP:CNET, WP:MREL since being acquired by Red Ventures in October 2020, unreliable after November 2022
- WP:HEALTHLINE, deprecated
- The Points Guy, blacklisted and split between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL.
It also excludes sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom as they were identified in the previous discussion as possibly needing an exception due to frequent use/not spending that much time under Red Ventures. Examples include Metacritic, TV Guide, and Gamespot (which are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES). However, this RfC would apply to ZDNet and Lonely Planet as of the time they were acquired by Red Ventures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Survey (Red Ventures)
- Option 3. Publications acquired by Red Ventures have come to WP:RSN and have usually been declared as generally unreliable or below. WP:CNET was declared unreliable in 2022 after Red Ventures began filling with AI-generated content, WP:HEALTHLINE was deprecated as being frequently filled with misinformation, and The Points Guy is blacklisted due to abuse. JPxG observed in this thread that ZDNet currently has an article up on "the best Linux desktops" [97] [98] that has notes from the editor still in the article. In addition, the editor did not identify multiple factual inaccuracies and the article is apparently republished every year with the same URL. [99] ZDNet also publishes articles from StackCommerce about great deals on StackCommerce's website, which are not declared as sponsored content. [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] Other articles are declared as paid content though,[106] which leads me to believe ZDNet is intentionally failing to declare StackCommerce ads as paid content.
- This appears to be Red Ventures' modus operandi. They acquire sites with good search engine optimization (SEO) scores, then cut costs by using AI to generate a bunch of content for affiliate marketing on the site. Futurism has identified that Red Ventures uses this strategy across many of their properties such as Bankrate. [107] [108] The Verge also has a good explainer on their editorial process,[109] and adds that Red Ventures pressures journalists at CNet to give better reviews.[110] We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another. I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source.
- I'll also add that the reason I included so many exceptions in this RfC is because on a pragmatic basis it will be easier to deal with the special cases in the future, rather than now (this avoids a potential WP:TRAINWRECK). It's not because I think all of the exceptions should be treated differently and I don't think this RfC should be seen as closing the door for further discussion on those sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[111] According to the Director of SEO at the company:
"Disclosing AI content is like telling the IRS you have a cash-only business,"
so we can't trust them to disambiguate AI-generated content from non AI-generated content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC) - I've been convinced that this should be limited to web content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[111] According to the Director of SEO at the company:
- Option 3 Between the AI-generated and often blantantly inaccurate content, as well as the SEO/sales/marketing-oriented output, and the decisions previously made regarding CNET and The Points Guy, a fairly easy blanket GUNREL. The Kip 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. I don't think it makes sense to categorize Lonely Planet as unreliable because some other company owned by Red Ventures did something very stupid. I think that this is jumping the gun: it feels like something should be done, and this is something. Frankly, categorizing an entire outlet as unreliable because one writer or one editor craps the bed is an overreaction; doing so because someone at a different outlet owned by the same parent company crapped the bed is medieval. jp×g🗯️ 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [112] [113] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [114] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [115] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- By definition an "AI detector" cannot reliably detect whether content is written by a large language model (as the LLM could use the detector like an oracle machine), so this New York Times claim should be taken with plenty of salt. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [114] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [115] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [112] [113] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 but I'd prefer option 4 if possible. It's high time for it. Enough is enough: if it's owned by Red Ventures, we need to go ahead and identify it as a hard WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think Option 4 is going to run into technical snags with the edit filter. The way the filter works is by checking urls and evaluating them against a regex to see if they're deprecated. Since the websites were (largely) fine before Red Ventures, we can't exactly deprecate the sites and slap on the filter in the same way. It might be possible if these websites were to include a datestamp in their urls, but they don't, so we're not going to be able to add them to filter 869 as we would with other deprecated sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 but not opposed to Option 4. Highly questionable and effectively not usable in most cases, particularly if they intend to go forward with not disclosing AI content.FortunateSons (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. The RfC's need to outline multiple exceptions is an indication that "owned by Red Ventures" is too slippery of a category. We can have RfCs for individual outlets as they come up. It certainly makes sense to point out Red Venture's pattern in future discussions about sources they purchase, but attempting to target Red Ventures while simultaneously acknowledging that this isn't actually wholly consistent and doesn't apply to some outlets that have been under Red Ventures ownership strikes me as liable to be confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think we should deprecate Healthline because I think even if we designate Red Ventures as unreliable, Healthline is health-related and should be considered even less trustworthy. Metacritic has always been algorithmically generated (we're usually citing it for its review aggregation) and the other sources in 2022 got sold off around the time CNET started dropping AI-generated content. I don't think any of their content right now should be considered above generally unreliable, but other editors might feel differently. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. It should be uncontroversial that whatever the pattern of parent comapany's recent acquisitions, sources at RSN-RSP are evaluated individually on their merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [116] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [117] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [118] or Nursejournal.org. [119] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[120] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard somebody say on an already-ridiculous noticeboard. Do you seriously think that a media holdings company is creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecations? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG: Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize. Red Ventures' actual concern is Google et al catching on that their content is AI-generated and blocking the site. They're not trying to skirt Wikipedia deprecation, but they start/acquire sites, fill them with garbage, and by the time Google and others catch on, they've moved on. And as a volunteer project we're very far behind the curve.
- It's not that Red Ventures creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecation, it's that by the time we get around to deprecating a source because everyone else has realized its shit, Red Ventures will already have a new thing ready. And this is inherent to the structure of Wikipedia because of how much credence we give to reliable sources judging other reliable sources (e.g. WP:USEBYOTHERS). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard somebody say on an already-ridiculous noticeboard. Do you seriously think that a media holdings company is creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecations? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [116] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [117] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [118] or Nursejournal.org. [119] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[120] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, Red Ventures has perverted everything under their purview and we don't actually have a requirement that sources are evaluated individually despite multiple editors claiming that we do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 Support a blanket ban of all Red Ventures sites, per my comments in previous discussions. But I think a more reasonable cutoff date would be 2022, similar to what we do with CNET. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we're blanket banning, maybe it's better to do option 4 to get an edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how that would work with a cutoff date (i.e. I don't know if it is possible for an edit filter to detect when an article was published). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we're blanket banning, maybe it's better to do option 4 to get an edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per much of the above. JM (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 as per above. Red Ventures poisons everything it touches. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 They're so bad editore should need to explain why they use a link but I would oppose general deprecation. If some bit seems able to resist the overall fungus growth a RfC can be raised to say it is a more reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per many above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. I'm a bit skeptical that the print editions of Lonely Planet post-2020 have evidence of problems with them; they seem to be the same sort of thing as they were before the acquisitions. And those sources are useful; there's at least one GA on transport that use Lonely Planet guides (Driving in Madagascar), and it can be quite hard to find detailed English-language coverage of transport in (for example) the former French African colonies. I think that we shouldn't be overbroad when dealing with the publisher merely because of problems with some of their online content.I understand the issues with several properties owned by Red Ventures, but there is zero evidence that these sorts of issues have moved to Lonely Planet print guides—even a fairly detailed and independent investigation by The New York Times, as Chess has admitted above, found no evidence of AI use in such guides. As such, I think that this RfC is overbroad in its scope, and I think that the lack of nuance here would be harmful to our ability to create good articles going forward.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, per Red-tailed hawk. Already, we use RSP as a broad - often excessively broad - brush, with no room for accessing individual articles within sources for reliability. This is a step in the wrong direction, making that brush even broader with no room for accessing individual sources for reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3: I find the evidence here compelling but deprecating is clearly impractical in this instance. But I would exclude print content, in particular from established brands such as Lonely Planet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3 for websites. GUNREL still gives us the opportunity to evaluate specific cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: editors should be made aware (through RSP) of Chess's research and the risk of undisclosed AI use in any company owned by Red Ventures. However, given the breadth of sources this incorporates I would prefer to be more conservative in setting precedent. It may be that these issues only exist in web sources or under a particular CEO or in a particular time period or for certain companies where Red Venture has rolled out its AI apocalypse. In the case that there is consensus for option 3 (which I would prefer to no consensus), I would remind editors that reliability is evaluated with respect to a particular fact and so a "generally unreliable" company can create a source that is reliable for some facts. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3: Basically same reason as BobFromBrockley and User:Red-tailed hawk, the websites should be regarded as generally unreliable, but print versions are fine. I don't think this exception makes this RfC invalid. Theepicosity (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 or Option 4 (online websites affiliated with Red Ventures): Per arguments provided in the survey. Red Ventures company has a declared policy of producing AI-generated content in the articles of their online websites.[1] The online websites of the "Red Ventures" are unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (Red Ventures)
Let the record reflect that "a permanent and open-ended blank-check deprecation of all websites and companies in whom a majority ownership is owned by this specific firm" is an obscene, authoritarian overreaction that goes far beyond even the most wildly expansive interpretation of what this noticeboard is set up, or within its remit, to do. Deprecation is already not a policy: it's something we made up on the spot to get rid of the Daily Mail in 2017, on the basis that the site had been so bad in so many ways for so many years that we needed to bypass our existing policies for an exigent emergency.
Now, seven years later, we want to set up a system for the indefinite future in which we deprecate dozens of websites, pre-emptively and without any evidence of their doing anything untrustworthy, on the basis that they get bought by a company that at one point owned a different website that had something bad on it? I realize that the stuff that's happened is annoying, and we want to "punish" them in some way, but Wikipedia is not a means for owning the libs or punishing our posting enemies or doing callout posts on venture capital firms. These may be noble goals, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. If we find it "too hard" to individually evaluate entire websites before making blanket bans on their use, well, maybe it is just "too hard" to edit Wikipedia and we need to take a break.
The idea that Red Ventures is going to try to "get around" a deprecation or a "judgment" by making new websites is total fantasy. Media companies, in general, do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by Wikipedia, and they definitely do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by an unofficial club of Wikipedians who maintain a list of what sources are reliable. The idea is risible: what proportion of traffic on a news site comes from people clicking links to that site in the references section of Wikipedia articles? A hundredth of a percent? A tenth of a percent? Do we have some fantasy where the Red Ventures guys see that they've been deprecated on Wikipedia, break into a sobbing fit, and tearfully promise repentance? I don't think they give a hoot -- it's just going to make it even more difficult for editors to write articles. We do not have an "guilty until proven innocent" system for allowing people to link to websites in article citations, and we should not try to create one out-of-process because we are mad online. jp×g🗯️ 04:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I addressed the idea that this is a mechanism to 'punish' Red Ventures above in another reply, so I won't repeat it here beyond to say that what you're saying is not how I intended my argument to come across. But re: to the idea that this is unprecedented and an overreach, we blanket ban collections of websites that share editorial teams all the time. Dotdash has a special entry at WP:RSP, and so does the WP:EPOCHTIMES as we deprecated all sources owned by that group including NTDTV and Kanzhongguo. We've done the same for WP:RT.COM. In cases where a larger organization enforces the same editorial policy on multiple purportedly independent websites, it's understood that they can be treated as a group as we're ultimately judging sources largely on their editorial policy.
- When the stated editorial policy of Red Ventures is to fill websites with AI-generated content regardless of if its reliable, we shouldn't have to care about their convoluted organizational structure. It's the same people running the sites with the same content-creation tooling (their euphemism for AI) on the backend and that consistently combines to create unreliable content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The content of our articles should be determined by the quality of the sources that are available to write those articles. I am in favor of noting that the sites mentioned in this RfC should be used with extreme care (and that articles published on them after the implementation of these new editorial policies should be generally avoided). However, I am strongly opposed to preëmptive deprecation of sources that haven't done anything improper. This presumes a whitelist model of sourcing acceptability, which is emphatically not the way that this project has worked for the last twenty-three years.
- There is no policy- or guideline- consistent basis for saying "this source is deprecated because we couldn't be arsed to look at it in detail". If we can't be arsed to look at something in detail, why would that RSN discussion matter more than a hypothetical situation in which somebody wanted to use a source in an article and was overruled by it?
- The Dotdash entry says that there was no consensus on the company as a whole, and has a very long "notes" section detailing individual discussions (with differing consensi) on each of the sites in question. There is not consensus to give Dotdash a scarlet letter that immediately taints all companies it buys.
- Conversely, with the other examples you give (Epoch Times, NTDTV, Kanzhongguo, RT), these are outlets in their own right, that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries; the subsidiaries being unacceptable for sourcing is obvious from the fact that they don't have any independent existence from the parent, and never did. The thing being proposed here is much more ambitious: we're trying to probe into corporate governance.
- To get a little more down to brass tacks: what does it mean for a company to be "owned"? A majority stake? By shares? By class of stock? A majority stake of voting shares? Does owning 40% of a newspaper's stock mean you own the newspaper, if the rest of the ownership is split between different shareholders and none of them have more than 40%? What about the same situation, but your stake is 20%? What distinction do we make between portfolio companies, subsidiaries, and business units? What degree of integration or subordination between levels of executive management has to exist for us to say a company is really just a different company in a hat and trench coat? These aren't really questions that an encyclopedia should be in the business of determining. They should not determine the content of Wikipedia articles. We should judge sources based on whether the sources are good or bad. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is
Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content.
Saying "most cases" gives us the ability to postpone where to draw the line in the grey area later. Much of your argument is that "deprecation is bad" but that's not what most people have called for at this discussion. - While I can see your point that this isn't analogous to Dotdash, I still believe that this is very similar to RT or the Epoch Times. As you said, the problem is with those outlets
that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries
and their lack of independence from the parent group. This is the same situation as Red Ventures; except Red Ventures is managing things at a higher level. Go read the article from Futurism about their policies: [121] They have the same guy (Lance Davis) that is theVice President of Content for Financial Services for for CNET as well as its sister sites Bankrate and CreditCards.com
. According to Red Ventures themselves,"He is responsible for overseeing and reviewing editorial content and is a member of the newsroom,"
And the editor in charge of their AI-generated content (Cameron Hurta) is the same person for all Red Ventures properties. - Red Ventures is not an organization that owns distinct websites with different editorial teams. While CNET and ZDNet used to be independent tech news websites, they are obviously not anymore. Red Ventures is a highly integrated company that has the same people creating unreliable content on all of their websites. As much as they try to avoid showing that in public, this is a fact that is supported by the consensus of reliable sources. If we're judging sources by whether they're good or bad, Red Ventures is with limited exceptions bad.
- And in response to your last point about "brass tacks", you're splitting hairs prior to those issues being a problem. If we discover Red Ventures sites in the future that don't have these issues or don't neatly fit into this discussion, we can easily have another discussion at RSN. But from what I can see, most of their websites have the same issues, and I don't think we should start edge case poisoning the general point of the RfC by dealing with the possibility of a Red Ventures subsidiary having multiple classes of shares before that is shown to exist. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is
- @Chess: I'm re-reading the RfC prompt, and I noticed that you stated
this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures
(emphasis mine), but you mentioned Lonely Planet print guides in this comment. Are you seeking to have those included in this RfC, or merely seeking to discuss web content? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)- @Red-tailed hawk: This is a really good point. I think I screwed up when writing this RfC in terms of clarity, since it seems most people view this as a network of websites. I think it's fair to apply this only to web content since most of the points I made here are about search-engine optimization, which obviously doesn't apply if its not a website. In all honesty, I intended it to apply to the print editions at first, but I think based on what everyone has said here + the New York Times rating Lonely Planet guidebooks as not AI-generated, we can put the print stuff from Red Ventures in a different category than their websites. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to way into this individual RfC, but there examples where ownership by a head company has an editorial effect on all of the subsidiary media outlets that is toxic and we should consider that. Perhaps not to go so far as arguing for deprecation of all subsidiary outlets (which I don't really see happening here). E.g., Murdoch's empire, there is not a single one of his subsidiaries, in any country that is not tainted by Murdoch's editorial control. The talk shows in every country can not be relied upon when it comes to matters of fact, particularly in regards to politics, climate change or anything to do with any culture war issue. Why would we not as a matter of first principles declare every one of Murdoch's subsidiaries' talk shows to be WP:GUNREL without further analysis and save ourselves a lot of time? Note: WP:RSP already does that for those that have been discussed (AFAIK) but we could just save ourselves some time and generalise across all boundaries. Just a point for consideration that I thought could be abstracted to this situation. TarnishedPathtalk 10:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- All op eds, talk shows, and other opinion content should be rated GUNREL and only usable (rarely) when it's a subject matter expert or for the author's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think Murdoch's talk shows are reliable even in those "rare" occasions you cite. TarnishedPathtalk 08:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's going to be a fair bit more controversial, but over the past few years WP:RSN has been heading in that direction. I would disagree with designating as unreliable all outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch as he's 92 and we don't know how the succession will play out. I would imagine the closest would be designating as unreliable News Corp, but the wide disparity between the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and books published by HarperCollins would make that nearly impossible. I don't think Murdoch is reusing the same generative AI engine to create content for Fox News and the WSJ, nor does he have a special director in charge of a unified plan to push affiliate marketing content. But if you want to treat this RfC as precedent to make your own about News Corp, go ahead. A lot of editors (not including me) would probably agree with you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- All op eds, talk shows, and other opinion content should be rated GUNREL and only usable (rarely) when it's a subject matter expert or for the author's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Tasnim News Agency - revisiting its reliability
- tasnimnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Is it worth revisiting the reliability of the Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in light of the recent article referenced in the latest WP:SIGNPOST about a related state-backed propaganda and disinformation operation? Amigao (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at WP:RPS, so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.
- That said, considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be extremely wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think WP:GUNREL is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to WP:PRESSTV. The Kip 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. The Kip 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Tasnim News Agency
|
What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was referenced in a recent WP:SIGNPOST issue in relation a recent Townhall.com opinion piece concerning systematic "disinformation and state propaganda" efforts on Wikipedia. Past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4). - Amigao (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- tasnimnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Survey
- Option 4: per nomination and arguments given by the user "The Kip" in the section above the RfC. "Tasnim News Agency" has been described by various sources as an "IRGC-controlled" outlet that disseminates "state propaganda and conspiracy theories" on behalf of Iranian political fronts affiliated with the IRGC.[2] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 per nom and arguments above. State mouthpiece that has published disinformation. Possible reliable source for Iranian gov statements and similar so preference for GUNREL over deprecate, but as more official press agencies exist for those hard to see any loss in deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
This outlet has been mentioned only briefly in the article. Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim, and provide other examples, if you have them? Alaexis¿question? 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Here's one about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - Amigao (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Can I suggest moving this RfC to the same section as the initial live discussion above, as it seems silly to split the conversation? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done. The Kip 06:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The RfC mentions an opinion piece on the Townhall website which referenced Tasnim. I did not find the TownHall article very persuasive. It only mentions Tasnim once, where it says it was used to add "false information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran". However, the Townhall article does not say what false information was added and does not provide a link to the claimed addition so that the claim can be verified. The article is poor in other ways. It makes a number of claims, including about Wikipedia editors and admins, without providing a way of verifying the claims. Two of the writer's claims can be checked by looking at the Wikipedia articles to which he refers. The writer says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Barakat Foundation," details about its connection to the powerful Iranian institution known as the Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order were deleted". The Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order is mentioned eight times on the Barakat Foundation page. The writer also says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Mahsa Amini protests," a Guardian article was used to falsely claim that demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," when the article actually reported on pro-government rallies as a response to the protests". Afaict, we have used The Guardian article correctly in the Mahsa Amini protests article, including its claim that pro-government protesters shouted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?
|
What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich is currently cited on List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Survey
- Discussion opened as a result of a now-blocked editor dispute. However, further discussion and searching led to finding a previous (even larger) non-RfC discussion as well as being cited on two articles. Since this involves determining whether peer-reviewed material from a scientist is a reliable source & having previous discussions on him, an RfC to make the reliability determination is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, I suppose, though I doubt this really comes up enough to be worth an RFC or a RSP entry. The discussion on Talk:Sun was about an article in the Journal of Geophysics]. Let me paste in my comment from that discussion here: Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. Participants should also have a look at Omerbashich's blog. But here's a representative quote:
this discovery instantly invalidates/makes impossible any (general) relativity theory (including Einstein's) as well as any alternatives such as MOND, which jews came up with "just in case" - to keep us/goyim dumbed down so they can easier get away with being the supreme race of our masters:)
- MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC) - Option 4, in addition to the above I am unable to find any evidence supporting Dr. Omerbashich's claim to be the current "Lead geodesist" of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a position he claims (alongside "Head of the Bosnian royal family") on his LinkedIn. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here is another website run by Dr. Omerbashich that succinctly demonstrates his relationship with the field of science in general. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Neither, this seems malformed. Citations aren't fundamentally about the author, they're about the editorial control of the publication venue. I would choose option 4 for 'Journal of Geophysics', to which WP:SELFPUB arguably applies as he his the editor-in-chief and I understand that at least one of his articles appears in all three published issues. However, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, I do not see any evidence presented to argue that Omerbashich, Mensur; Sijarić, Galiba (28 November 2006). "Seismotectonics of Bosnia - Overview". Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 3 (2): 17–29. to be unreliable. Has any such argument been made? --Noren (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, even if something he published is correct, it looks really fringy. And here is an interesting rationalwiki article on him, just for some context. And one quote from his blog:
How fascist monopoly Google character-assassinates Dr. Omerbashich to protect its masters' theft of his multi-billion intellectual property
. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC) - Option 3 Given the above concerns about self-publication, if he has been published in a journal not published or edited by himself he might be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, obviously. Omerbashich's blog clearly demonstrates that he is a common antisemitic crank dressing wild pseudoscience in a hollow costume of academic language. It's a sadly frequent occurence and I hope this RFC is for posterity's sake more than any kind of real debate about reliability. Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, seems to be nothing more than self-published pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories. Clear WP:FRINGE source. The Kip 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This isn't really a question of reliable sources. We don't let editors add new theories to scientific articles sourced only the publications by the creator of the theory. They may be full professors and the theories may be published in perfectly acceptable journals, but that is not enough. We require evidence that the material has been accepted by the wider scientific community as shown by review articles or other material published by people independent of the originator. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mostly correct… there are situations where it is appropriate to briefly mention an established expert’s new and unreviewed theory (one example would be in that expert’s bio article) … but when/if we do mention this sort of thing, we would have to present it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. Pseudoscience. We don't cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (Dr. Mensur Omerbashich)
Why is this written with the subject being a person rather than a particular publication? This does not follow the pattern of other discussions. It may be too late now, but I think this would have been better written with 'Journal of Geophysics' as the subject. Is there an argument to be made against https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611279.pdf, a source currently cited by List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake which this RFC as written would depreciate? --Noren (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Minor clarification: Omerbashich's paper is listed as Further reading in both of those articles, not cited. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I would also clarify minorly that it should be referred to also as the co-author Sijarić's paper. This raises the question: if we start to depreciate sources by author(s) rather than by publication venue, how would we handle publications with more than one author? There are many scientific papers with dozens of authors. --Noren (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need an RFC for this? nableezy - 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and no. RFCBefore was satisfied, so an RfC was more or less actually needed, given the debate that actually partially ended right before this was started. That said, in a couple of days, if consensus is clear for an option, the RfC tag could be removed and speedy closed. So yes, since there have been dozens of editors involved in discussions related to his publications. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- If its about a single source on a couple of pages just have a normal discussion on is this a reliable source for this material? This page isnt supposed to be a thousand RFCs to deprecate, thats only for something that is a widespread and persistent issue. nableezy - 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a "single source". This is more, from what I gather, that a clueless scientist has published a handful of actual scientific and peer-reviewed papers. Imagine if say Alex Jones published a peer-reviewed article in say American Historical Review, four in Monthly Weather Review, and ten in The New England Journal of Medicine. Do you talk about the author or the actual academic sources? Would you trust a peer-reviewed academic paper by him? This spans at least four Wikipedia articles, each with different sources. So, no, this discussion is valid as it is about a scientist, not a "single source". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which papers do you object to that were not published in 'Journal of Geophysics'? --Noren (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- For something written by anyone to be published in any of those well-established and well-respected journals, the article has to survive a blind peer review process with at least anonymous reviewers plus the review from the editor-in-chief and possibly editorial board as well (I say this based on my knowledge of how history journals like the American Historical Review work). I see no reason for thinking any of those three periodicals would publish something along the lines of content in Alex Jones's Infowars, which would likely fail the initial editorial review, much less the anonymous peer review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can't speak to how it works in geophysics or history, but in my experience in the biosciences the peer-review process primarily ensures that the experimental design & methods are appropriate to answer the questions being asked (and that the results at least appear to be plausible). Reviewers don't actually check if the results are valid/repeatable, and so the process assumes that scientists are acting in good faith and fails in the case of bad actors.
- Dr. Omerbashich's willingness to misrepresent himself (as the "Lead Geodesist" at Berkeley), his co-opting of an existing journal into his own vanity press, and his beef with the peer-review process in general are concerning. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- For something written by anyone to be published in any of those well-established and well-respected journals, the article has to survive a blind peer review process with at least anonymous reviewers plus the review from the editor-in-chief and possibly editorial board as well (I say this based on my knowledge of how history journals like the American Historical Review work). I see no reason for thinking any of those three periodicals would publish something along the lines of content in Alex Jones's Infowars, which would likely fail the initial editorial review, much less the anonymous peer review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which papers do you object to that were not published in 'Journal of Geophysics'? --Noren (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a "single source". This is more, from what I gather, that a clueless scientist has published a handful of actual scientific and peer-reviewed papers. Imagine if say Alex Jones published a peer-reviewed article in say American Historical Review, four in Monthly Weather Review, and ten in The New England Journal of Medicine. Do you talk about the author or the actual academic sources? Would you trust a peer-reviewed academic paper by him? This spans at least four Wikipedia articles, each with different sources. So, no, this discussion is valid as it is about a scientist, not a "single source". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- If its about a single source on a couple of pages just have a normal discussion on is this a reliable source for this material? This page isnt supposed to be a thousand RFCs to deprecate, thats only for something that is a widespread and persistent issue. nableezy - 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and no. RFCBefore was satisfied, so an RfC was more or less actually needed, given the debate that actually partially ended right before this was started. That said, in a couple of days, if consensus is clear for an option, the RfC tag could be removed and speedy closed. So yes, since there have been dozens of editors involved in discussions related to his publications. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Prigozhin vs Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx casualty numbers reliability for the infobox
There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#Ukrainian losses "per Wagner" where @Alexiscoutinho insists Prigozhin casualty numbers should be kept at the infobox [122] while numbers published in Journal of Advanced Military Studies (usmcu.edu) article Project MUSE - Russia's War in Ukraine: Two Decisive Factors (jhu.edu) are not reliable enough for the infobox [123] .
My point is There are no proofs in this discussion for Prigozhin numbers reliability, and he is unreliable thus has no place in the infobox. He is unreliable per any threshold of reliability and return of his numbers is unwarranted. Balance is about balance among reliable sources and is to be achieved using reliable sources. That has all already been discussed and answered and we are in no need to repeat.
What the opinion would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's very important to really know the context of this discussion since many of my points were already exposed in the original discussion. Besides, the writing of this title seems a bit disingenuous since it mixes up, in an unfair way, two distinct concerns I raised there. Below is a transcript of the original discussion:
Extended content
|
---|
Prigozhin can be used for assessing Russian losses as he would not say a number which is more than they what lose. Assessment of Ukrainian losses however is different and he is not a reliable source for this figure. It can be left within article body but I'm removing it from the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx reliabilityIn fact, I would ask you to demonstrate how that "academic source" you cited is objectively "more reliable" than all the other estimates. I've checked the publication and I really wasn't impressed. Firstly, it's a review piece that talks about the war as a whole, thus talks about a bit of everything. The only part I found that was related to casualties in the battle of Bakhmut was this:
|
- So, summarizing, there are two concerns:
- All varying estimates shown in the infobox are published by reliable sources. These can be trusted to be accurately making statements of fact. What are these statements of fact? To faithfully relay the estimates from the original primary source. Now here comes the problem, all of those primary estimates are, well, estimates, they are not confirmed casualties (or confirmed strength) and all have varying degrees of uncertainty. So it seems inadequate to be extending the notion/argument of reliability to those primary sources/estimates aswell. Furthermore, those estimates all come from heavily involved parties: Ukraine, Wagner and USA (which spent a massive amount of money in the war and naturally has its own interests to justify all that past and continued spending). I believe it's too early to be making assertions that one estimate is more reliable than the other (and then trying to hide one estimate and advertise the other) when the correct terminology should actually be "how likely" each one is to be closer to the true number. And the true number is something only Russia and Ukraine know for their own troops; a figure which won't appear until well after the war. I also thought that ManyAreasExpert's argument that Wagner's estimate was unreliable for the infobox, but was acceptable for the article body was quite inadequate. There should be no varying or arbitrary thresholds of reliability in different parts of the article. The infobox should summarize the points/views presented in the article in a balanced way. If, in the process, it skews the balance by filtering out particular views/information, then it's not serving its purpose and is actually being misleading.
- The other concern is about Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx's citation. While ManyAreasExpert attempted to prove the reliability of the author and journal, I pointed out that his method wasn't ideal. This/here is a better place to reach such conclusions about reliability. But even though I didn't find his proof particularly satisfying, that wasn't my point. I argued that the attribution of his citation in the article was incorrect. ManyAreasExpert wrote the citation implying that Dr. Gilbert W. Merkx made the estimate. But closer inspection of the source showed that this likely wasn't the case. The author, with degrees in Sociology but still knowledgeable in other relevant areas (I showed his full attribution in the original discussion collapsed above), in a review paper that talked about the war as a whole, made a passing mention of recent estimates. This is the quote in the publication: "In Bakhmut, the most intense of these battles, recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that." That's the only thing the author says in a sea of text. It seems likely that he isn't refering to his estimate (which is good since he doesn't seem to have the ideal qualifications to make one). But then whose estimate is that? American, Ukrainian, German? We don't know and maybe can't. Possibly even the peers who allegedly review JAMS pulications might not have exactly known the source. After all, the publication had a completely different objective/thesis. In light of this, I corrected the citation here and the problem should have been solved. Given that the primary source of the estimate is unknown, one must not attribute it directly to the secondary academic source. Thus I don't fully understand why ManyAreasExpert is bringing this up again. Perhaps to fully clarify the matter...? Which would be understandable.
- Damn, this was supposed to be a summary, but ended up being quite long. If something I wrote isn't quite clear, then reading the original discussion will probably be more elucidating. I think the real juice is there.
- Oh, and I must not forget that I suggested to move all those quite different estimates from the infobox to the body of the article. There, we can properly give WP:DUE weight to all notable views/estimates in a balanced way. It also clears up the infobox and let's us keep only the facts and uncontrovertial information: that both sides suffered "heavy" losses and that the reader should also check the appropriate section to really understand who said what and by how much they differ. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are in general bad places to try and discribe complex disagreements. I would suggest changing them to "lowest estimate<refs> – highest estimate<refs>" and moving any furthet details into the article content. There who made estimates and any criticism of those estimates can be explained in full. I would also suggest all estimates are attributed as estimates are.. well estimates. Also attribution should be to the source, for instance the current infobox attributes a report by Sky News as "Western estimates" as if Sky News is the mouth piece of of some multi-national conglomerate. It should either be attributed to Sky News or the source that Sky News is quoting (if any). The same issue holds true for several of the other attributions (whether 'western' or not). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Prigozhin numbers are unreliable to be included into infobox no matter if they are attributed or not.Sky News cites Western officials and there are other media outlets for the same number so we don't have to be that precise with attribution and just settle on "Western".Or, we can use academic article referred above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but your previous reply gives the impression that you're not looking for advice here. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've just re-read the Sky article again just to be sure, and it never mentions Western officials or any other source for it's figures in any way. To be clear I mean this article[124] that is used to say 'Western officials' claim Ukrainian loses are
20,000+ killed or wounded
.
The sources for an estimate by a western official of Russian nukbers we're both just quoting a different Sky article, I've replaced both with the direct Sky News article.[125]
Prigozhin would be considered reliable for the losses according to the Wagner group, in the way that any group is reliable for their own words. Putting these details in the content on the article allows for any criticism of them to also be added, something the infobox can't handle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)- Thanks! Ukraine-Russia war latest: Zelenskyy replaces another top army chief; Putin wanted to show he's 'ready for peace talks' in interview | World News | Sky News says More than 60,000 Russian casualties have been reported in Moscow's efforts to capture the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, according to a Western official and there are other sources [126] [127] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes as I explained that's not the part I'm talking about. I as talking about the source used in the infobox for
20,000+ killed or wounded
Ukrainian loses which doesn't mention western sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes as I explained that's not the part I'm talking about. I as talking about the source used in the infobox for
... and that means ... ? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Prigozhin would be considered reliable for the losses according to the Wagner group, in the way that any group is reliable for their own words. Putting these details in the content on the article allows for any criticism of them to also be added, something the infobox can't handle.
— User:ActivelyDisinterested 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)- Something like "Yevgeny Prigozhin estimated the Wagner group loses to be ..." If I published an article saying I believed the worlds favourite fruit was the orange, the you could attribute as "ActivelyDisinterested says the worlds favourite fruit is the orange". Prigozhin as the leader of the Wagner group is reliable for statements from the Wagner group. You can't use that to say it's true in wikivoice, but you can use it to say that what he said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is already a paragraph saying this in article body.The argument is that why we should have Prigozhin numbers in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Something like "Yevgeny Prigozhin estimated the Wagner group loses to be ..." If I published an article saying I believed the worlds favourite fruit was the orange, the you could attribute as "ActivelyDisinterested says the worlds favourite fruit is the orange". Prigozhin as the leader of the Wagner group is reliable for statements from the Wagner group. You can't use that to say it's true in wikivoice, but you can use it to say that what he said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ukraine-Russia war latest: Zelenskyy replaces another top army chief; Putin wanted to show he's 'ready for peace talks' in interview | World News | Sky News says More than 60,000 Russian casualties have been reported in Moscow's efforts to capture the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, according to a Western official and there are other sources [126] [127] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- If an argument is being made against JAMS as a reliable source it needs to be spelled out better. I wouldn't attribute them as academic sources, as that's a very wide net and just invites {{who?}}, but "an estimate in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies" could work (or an estimate by Gilbert Merkx in the Journal etc..). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would admit Merkx's estimates seem high, but they are also appear newer and independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
newer and independent
should we actually assume that? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)- That would depend on your argument against Merkx and JAMS reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just found this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters which may be useful:
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- All these policies have "may not" or "should' in them, instead of "will not" and "must". They are guidance and advice rather than scripture.
However saying that I spent a couple of hours trying to find any collaboration for this estimate. Merkx does say it's someone else's estimate, but doesn't say who and doesn't give a citation (oddly given everything else is properly cited in the article). The only thing I can find coming close is some old leaked estimates from US officials, but they were for the whole conflict at the point not just the battle of Bakhmut. I'm concerned that the numbers are a mistake, even in reliable sources they do happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- All these policies have "may not" or "should' in them, instead of "will not" and "must". They are guidance and advice rather than scripture.
- Just found this in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters which may be useful:
- That would depend on your argument against Merkx and JAMS reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Right now it says Fall 2023 research suggests that recent estimates[who?] have Russian losses at 32,000–43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded and Ukrainian losses at 15–20% of the Russian's in the article body. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)"an estimate in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies" could work
— User:ActivelyDisinterested 22:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)- You seem to have misunderstood slightly, the "[who?]" part is highlighting a problem. This seems to be an estimate inside another work rather than research dedicated to the specific subject, it shouldn't say who made the estimate rather than "Fall 2023 research". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Fall 2023 research" is fine but under what attribution to include it into the infobox? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not fine, as it is not attribution. It's not even research but Merkx stating someone else's estimate. If it's going to be included, and I'm leaning more than it shouldn't, it should be attributes to Merkx or JAMS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with this attribution as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not fine, as it is not attribution. It's not even research but Merkx stating someone else's estimate. If it's going to be included, and I'm leaning more than it shouldn't, it should be attributes to Merkx or JAMS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Fall 2023 research" is fine but under what attribution to include it into the infobox? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have misunderstood slightly, the "[who?]" part is highlighting a problem. This seems to be an estimate inside another work rather than research dedicated to the specific subject, it shouldn't say who made the estimate rather than "Fall 2023 research". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would admit Merkx's estimates seem high, but they are also appear newer and independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Prigozhin numbers are unreliable to be included into infobox no matter if they are attributed or not.Sky News cites Western officials and there are other media outlets for the same number so we don't have to be that precise with attribution and just settle on "Western".Or, we can use academic article referred above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to create two new sections, as this is becoming confusing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've notified the WP:MILHIST project to hopefully get some extra input to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner group
Is Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner group reliable for estimates of loses suffered by the Wagner group during the battle of Bakhmut? Should Wagner groups estimates of Ukrainian loses be included in the infobox? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per Cinderella's comment in the section below, I see it as premature to attempt to judge the reliability of estimates from either side when no good quality independent assessments currently exist. The current estimates are all flawed to a varying extent, and as such, should only be explored in the article body. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be very wary of using such sources in an infobox as by definition unreliable, but might be OK with a clear "per Wagner" attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please @Alexiscoutinho, you are again putting on the same bench an academic research and Prigozhin claims [128] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added intext attribution to clarify where the lower and upper bounds are coming from. The casualties summary statement should be ok now. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's pretty clear that you still didn't like it. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added intext attribution to clarify where the lower and upper bounds are coming from. The casualties summary statement should be ok now. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It goes without saying that each side of a conflict has many reasons not to be fully truthful about their own and the enemy's losses.
- In this case the question is whether these numbers are cited by reliable sources. I see that the Jerusalem Post cited Prigozhin's estimate of the Ukrainian forces (80k) [129]. Are the losses numbers also cited by RS? Alaexis¿question? 23:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, any claims of this nature by Prigozin should be regarded as a disinformation. Yes, they were cited by a variety of sources as a claim by Prigozin, but it does not mean they are not disinformation. Same applies to claims by Russian Ministry of Defense, claims by international terrorist organizations (such as Hamas), etc. Yes, their numbers may be cited (just as claims by conspiracy theorists, etc.), but we must make it clear on the page they are not to be trusted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- 🤦♂️
No, any claims of this nature by Prigozin should be regarded as a disinformation.
Your personal opinion. Also, see WP:INTEXT. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- 🤦♂️
Gilbert W. Merkx and the Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Are the estimates given by Merkx in this article[130] in the Journal of Advanced Military Studies reliable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of Merkx's article is well cited but the estimates give no citation and I can't find anything to back up the estimates. The exact quote is
recent estimates suggest that Russian forces suffered between 32,000 and 43,000 dead and 95,000 wounded, with Ukrainian losses at about 15–20 percent of that.
These don't appear to be an Merkx estimate and the only thing close I can find is an estimate for the entire war not just the battle of Bakhmut. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- I would actually greet any other academic estimate as well, including, for example, ISW's. Couldn't find another one yet. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I spent some more time looking for estimate, but estimates seem hard to come by. Estimates for Russian figures are all very similar to the figures given by Wagner, while finding anything for Ukrainian figures is proving extremely hard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would actually greet any other academic estimate as well, including, for example, ISW's. Couldn't find another one yet. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points from the article. Placing multiple estimates in the infobox for casualties is intricate detail for which the infobox is unsuited. We do not have casualties in the infobox for Russian invasion of Ukraine, partly because the war is ongoing and partly because there are no good quality independent assessments to draw upon and report in the infobox with confidence. We should note that what is reported in an infobox is often viewed as fact. Even though the fighting for Bakhmut has concluded, one can say that the dust is yet to settle and the circumstances for Bakhmut are not unlike the ongoing war. We lack good quality independent assessments and are unlikely to until the dust has well and truly settled. We are not obliged to populate the infobox casualty section. There is WP:NODEADLINE. In the meantime, we can write in the body of the article, a summary of what has been published about casualties and the TOC will direct our readers to that section if it is their desire to know more about casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Having spent many hours now looking for estimates and such for the battle specifically I think this is the best option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
MyWikiBiz (mywikibiz.com)
I would like to discuss what, if anything outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, MyWikiBiz is reliable for, and whether I should restore a recent deletion at WP:CANCER.
Previous RSN discussions: [131], [132]
Article: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#MyWikiBiz
Edit in question: [133]
Source in question: h t t p : / / m y w i k i b i z . c o m/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
Claim that the source was used to support: "Although this essay focuses on spending, not fundraising, it could be argued that the ever-increasing spending is a direct cause of the kind of fund-raising that has generated a storm of criticism.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][ref deleted][11] These complaints have been around for years,[12] leading one member of a major Wikimedia mailing list to automate his yearly complaint about the dishonesty he sees every year in our fundraising banners.[13]"
References
- ^ "CNET's Parent Company Preparing to Kickstart the AI Content Engine". Futurism.
- ^ "Tasnim News Agency". Media Bias Fact Check.
- ^ Wikipedia has a ton of money. So why is it begging you to donate yours? The Washington Post
- ^ 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate Wikipedia Signpost
- ^ Wikipedia fundraising drive: Should you donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation? International Business Times
- ^ The Wikipedia Fundraising Banner: Sad but Untrue Wikipediocracy
- ^ Wikipedia Has Millions In The Bank – Why Beg For More? MakeUseOf
- ^ Wikipedia – keeping it free. Just pay us our salaries. Wikipediocracy
- ^ Should you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation? Effective Altruism
- ^ Why does Wikipedia ask for donations even though it has a huge reserve? Quora
- ^ A Modest Proposal for Wikimedia’s Future The Wikipedian
- ^ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you? The Register
- ^ Fundraising banners (again) Wikimedia-l
So, should I restore the citation? I am not saying that I should or should not; I am leaning towards leaving it out, but I am asking for advice. It seems reliable for the claim "someone criticized Wikipedia", and of course the reliability rules are different for user essays. On the other hand, restoring it would require an exception to allow an external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- This appears to be a userspace essay, it does not have to follow guidance on the reliability of sources.
However I think this might be a misunderstanding, the editor was restoring the page after it had been blanked by a vandal. My guess is that the source was removed as the editor couldn't restore the page without doing so, as the blacklisted site would have stopped them from saving the page. You may also find that you can't re-add the reference, an admin might be able to do so. Otherwise you will have to ask for the URL to be whitelisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I figured as much, and I realize that I can choose (with admin help) to restore the link. My question remains: should I restore it? Does it add to the essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Personal I don't think it adds weight to the essay. Reading through the article I get to
having suddenly realized that a majority vote of citizen-members could unseat a corrupt Board of Trustees
. There seems to be a presumption of guilt there, after that statement there are statements about irregularities. However the issues mentioned happened after the scrapping of a membership board, so it's saying they always intended to be corrupt but doesn't show any prove of such.
Being more impartial I'd point out that although I agree with parts of the essay I not it's biggest fan, so take my comments with a pinch of salt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) - For what it's worth, I can't save an edit and bypass the URL blacklist either -- it will also block me from saving the page. The URL has to be specifically added to the spam whitelist (which, I suppose, I can do because it's only normally full-protected). I don't think there is a solid reason for this specific URL to be blacklisted, other than the site itself being blacklisted (of which subsidiary URLs are on the list as a consequence). jp×g🗯️ 02:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Personal I don't think it adds weight to the essay. Reading through the article I get to
- I figured as much, and I realize that I can choose (with admin help) to restore the link. My question remains: should I restore it? Does it add to the essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's not a userspace essay - it's an article.
- As is common on this noticeboard, I don't think that we even have to address whether the source is reliable as it fails to meet WP:DUE anyway.
- For what it's worth, several of the sources cited in the snippet of article text above should also be removed for failing to meet WP:DUE or WP:RS. The whole thing is really close to being original research. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK can someone clarify what is being discussed? I thought it was about these edits[134] to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer (or more specifically this edit[135] that reverted vandalsim without the MyWikiBiz URL). This is not an article WP:RS/WP:DUE it any other policy about content wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're right - the links provided as the "Article" and the "Edit in question" lead to two different places. @Guy Macon: Can you please provide clarification? ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this is about the essay, see Guy Macron's comment above
about being the Prime Minister of Francesaying "Does it add to the essay?
". The article link is there for background information about MyWikiBiz. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)- My apologies for being unclear. I should have written "Related article". Keep in mind that in the future anyone searching RSN for MyWikiBiz.com will see this as the only discussion of that site's reliability, so comments on it as a source for an article as opposed to a user essay would not be out of line. For the record, it is a banned (you get an error if you try to post a link to it) self-published source with strong anti-wikipedia bias and a glaring conflict of interest concerning pretty much any article - they don't reveal which aricles they were paid to edit. As for my question, I now have the advice I asked for and will be leaving it out. Thanks to everyone for the help! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- For use in articles it would fall somewhere between WP:User generated content and failing the requirements of WP:Self-published sources (unless it could be shown the author was a previously published expert). Either way it is not close to being a reliable source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for being unclear. I should have written "Related article". Keep in mind that in the future anyone searching RSN for MyWikiBiz.com will see this as the only discussion of that site's reliability, so comments on it as a source for an article as opposed to a user essay would not be out of line. For the record, it is a banned (you get an error if you try to post a link to it) self-published source with strong anti-wikipedia bias and a glaring conflict of interest concerning pretty much any article - they don't reveal which aricles they were paid to edit. As for my question, I now have the advice I asked for and will be leaving it out. Thanks to everyone for the help! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe this is about the essay, see Guy Macron's comment above
- You're right - the links provided as the "Article" and the "Edit in question" lead to two different places. @Guy Macon: Can you please provide clarification? ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK can someone clarify what is being discussed? I thought it was about these edits[134] to User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer (or more specifically this edit[135] that reverted vandalsim without the MyWikiBiz URL). This is not an article WP:RS/WP:DUE it any other policy about content wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not usable for anything other than ABOUTSELF, because of its content model, which affords control to commercial entities. Every page is presumptively advertorial / PR and not independent.
- It is canonically unreliable for commentary on Wikipedia, due to its founder's ban for undisclosed paid editing, and his long-term beef with Jimbo. The same applies to Cade Maetz, at el reg, who has consistently regurgitated false claims made by disputants on Wikipedia, a form of fact-washing. Those disputants whose identities are known to me have all since been banned, usually for outing or harassment. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I won't be using it even in a essay, and now we have something in the reliable sources noticeboard history for anyone thinking about using it in the future to find. TLDR: don't. :) I think we are done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Acceptable use of SPS?
A self-published academic study on the subject of transport makes an important point, published (on Google Docs) in a form acceptable to policy, by a multiply-published expert, see [136] and [137]. I feel that we should include it in the article Low Traffic Neighbourhood, as follows:
In 2022 local elections were held across London. Many candidates had tweeted about LTNs, Labour candidates generally positively, Conservatives generally against; these tweets seemed to make very little difference to the number of votes cast for these candidates. If anything, tweeting positively about LTNs may have increased the number of votes for Labour councillors.Sound and fury? The impact of councillors’ LTN positions on voting behaviour in Greater London. July 2023. Jamie Furlong, Athena Brook, Charlie Hicks, Professor Rachel Aldred. accessed 28 Jan 2024.
Is this source acceptable? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Google docs are not stable. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is the point about our definition of publication and our criteria for the use of SPS. This Google Doc seems entirely acceptable according to policy, although, as with most other SPSs, the author could change it at any time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- One can usually take a snapshot. But why would we use a self-published Google Doc for a topic where there are oodles of peer-reviewed academic sources avialable? If the paper is truly making "an important point" surely RS will have made that point? Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This particular point is significant in view of the electoral significance and social media uproar about LTNs, and this is the only paper I've found that makes it. The author, Professor Aldred, tells me: "We're hoping to publish this in a journal but it's currently not yet been submitted so given academic publication timeframes, it might not be for a while. Sorry." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say wait until it IS published… in the meantime, keep looking for another source. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK...could we have your opinion on whether it's an acceptable source according to policy? I think it unequivocally is. If so I'd hope then to develop a consensus for or (more likely given comments so far) against its use, on the appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Everything's reliable for what it says (and this wouldn't be usable for assertions of fact). But the problem more is NPOV. Why would Wikipedia be paying attention to this source when no RS has? Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not an ersatz secondary one picking winners from among unpublished primary sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK...could we have your opinion on whether it's an acceptable source according to policy? I think it unequivocally is. If so I'd hope then to develop a consensus for or (more likely given comments so far) against its use, on the appropriate talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can't he put it in a preprint directory or something? We do, for example, have a {{cite arxiv}} template. jp×g🗯️ 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not that this is the Most Impeccable Triumph Of Sourcing Excellence, of course, but you could do worse than arxiv to source research. jp×g🗯️ 18:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say wait until it IS published… in the meantime, keep looking for another source. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This particular point is significant in view of the electoral significance and social media uproar about LTNs, and this is the only paper I've found that makes it. The author, Professor Aldred, tells me: "We're hoping to publish this in a journal but it's currently not yet been submitted so given academic publication timeframes, it might not be for a while. Sorry." Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- One can usually take a snapshot. But why would we use a self-published Google Doc for a topic where there are oodles of peer-reviewed academic sources avialable? If the paper is truly making "an important point" surely RS will have made that point? Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is the point about our definition of publication and our criteria for the use of SPS. This Google Doc seems entirely acceptable according to policy, although, as with most other SPSs, the author could change it at any time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is that
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications
(see WP:EXPERTSPS). As co-authors Jamie Furlong and Rachel Aldred are both established experts in the subject of Low Traffic Neighborhoods who have been published in reliable academic sources, on those grounds, this self-published source is a reliable source. - Whether or not the proposed content should be included is a separate question of content, to be resolved at the talk page for the article. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- What evidence is there this was published by her? Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This has been published via the wearepossible.org website. See their article[138] and it's link to the full report in pdf format[139] I don't see any reason to use the Google docs version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Then no the google docs version is not an RS, as we do not know who published it, there are more "reliable" versions out there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also here on Westminster Research via the university of Westminster. It looks like that just publishes any research by the University of Westminster's academic community, and its about page clearly states that
The administrator only vets items for the eligibility of authors/depositors, and valid layout & format. The validity and authenticity of the content of submissions is not checked.
so it still counts as a WP:SPS, but given that it clearly passes WP:EXPERTSPS it is at least notionally usable for a brief relatively-uncontroversial sentence like this. --Aquillion (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to all contributors. At this stage, would anyone disagree with Aquillion's "notionally usable" verdict? If not, it's time to wrap this discussion up. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also here on Westminster Research via the university of Westminster. It looks like that just publishes any research by the University of Westminster's academic community, and its about page clearly states that
Al Arabiya
Is this an RS (giving its dodgy rep) especially for someone being dead? Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Probably OK if nothing to do with Saudi. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Muhammad al-Zawahiri, his death (odd this is a saudi source, and not an Egyptian one). Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hum , might look for confirmation in that particular case. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes well the person who is adding is says it's enough. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:, a quick glance at his article would have told you that he owned a construction firm in Saudi and moved there to live at some point in his life. I therefore don't find it strange that news of his death was broken by a Saudi news outlet? Somebody's birth does not determine where their obituary comes from if they relocated throughout their lifetime. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- 50 years ago, and long before his arrest in Egypt. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven:, a quick glance at his article would have told you that he owned a construction firm in Saudi and moved there to live at some point in his life. I therefore don't find it strange that news of his death was broken by a Saudi news outlet? Somebody's birth does not determine where their obituary comes from if they relocated throughout their lifetime. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes well the person who is adding is says it's enough. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hum , might look for confirmation in that particular case. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Muhammad al-Zawahiri, his death (odd this is a saudi source, and not an Egyptian one). Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Whats the dodgy rep for al-Arabiya? nableezy - 17:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Being sanctioned by Ofcom, which led to them surrendering their UK broadcast license, for a start? Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be regarding this. I dont really think a British government agency is who we should be relying on to determine the reliability of a source. nableezy - 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ofcom is an independent body, and it was after more complaints were made, and were about to be investigated they dropped their license. Then there is plagiarism. The use of fake reported to plant stories. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Independent of the political branches sure, but still an agent of the British state. Sources for plagiarism and planted stories? Im genuinely asking, Im not saying I know this source is reliable, I just want to see the evidence that it is not. nableezy - 18:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, that Ofcom ruling appears to be about bias/framing on political matters, which is a different matter to generally questioning reliability. Ditto the above user's comments – Ofcom isn't an authority on Wikipedia by which we give any additional weight to because it's tied to the UK Government. We need to judge sources independently of the opinions of any other bodies or organisations. --Jkaharper (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Err, no, as RS have to have a good reputation, in other words, other people regard them as reliable. And (again) it's not just ofcom. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's exactly right that we judge sources independently of the opinions (or in this case findings) of other bodies. We weigh up what other sources say. An independent broadcasting regulator or press regulator, while not necessarily the final word, is a good source to take into account in assessing reliability. The Ofcom ruling was not about bias/framing, it was about use of false testimony extracted under torture, a fundamental issue of both journalistic ethics and reliability. However, a single instance isn't enough to make a general unreliability ruling - are there other instances? And does it relate to specific topic areas (e.g. Gulf geopolitics) or is it a general issue? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, that Ofcom ruling appears to be about bias/framing on political matters, which is a different matter to generally questioning reliability. Ditto the above user's comments – Ofcom isn't an authority on Wikipedia by which we give any additional weight to because it's tied to the UK Government. We need to judge sources independently of the opinions of any other bodies or organisations. --Jkaharper (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Independent of the political branches sure, but still an agent of the British state. Sources for plagiarism and planted stories? Im genuinely asking, Im not saying I know this source is reliable, I just want to see the evidence that it is not. nableezy - 18:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ofcom is an independent body, and it was after more complaints were made, and were about to be investigated they dropped their license. Then there is plagiarism. The use of fake reported to plant stories. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be regarding this. I dont really think a British government agency is who we should be relying on to determine the reliability of a source. nableezy - 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Being sanctioned by Ofcom, which led to them surrendering their UK broadcast license, for a start? Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Al_Arabiya, it is a usable source except where the Saudi government could be reasonably construed to have a conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll leaved it for today, I will get back to you. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for what exactly? You don't seem to be winning any support from your arguments, Slatersteven. Fact is unless you have clear grounds to dispute the reliability of a news source, then editors should be allowed to cite it. Not any agreement above nor on the edit history of the Muhammad al-Zawahiri page. His death has been up on the Deaths in 2024 page all day, and despite 1000s of active users visiting that page in that time, it hasn't been brought into question. If you can bring forward evidence we can discuss this further but in the mean time, the source seems sufficient. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The request for sources about its faults. [[140]] [[141]] [[142]] [[143]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Electronic music sources
WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES has quite a few sources, but almost none of them are about electronic music, which is a pretty big genre. I am currently working to get an electronic album to FA and I'm trying to use only the ones I'm sure are reliable, like the dance division of Billboard, but the following are the biggest websites focused solely on the genre, so I'd like to request opinions on them too.
- YourEDM (apparently no about page) - seems to be the largest EDM website, but this discussion and this one indicates that it is possibly unreliable.
- Dancing Astronaut (about page / wiki article)
- EDM.com (about page)
- We Rave You (about page)
There are other big websites, but I feel these are the main ones, and others already felt clearly unreliable for me. Skyshiftertalk 23:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular knowledge of the field or these websites, but a couple of things on their about pages made me raise an eyebrow. The biggest was on EDM.com, where the about page reads in part: "In the interest of journalistic integrity we here at EDM.com are committed to the transparency of our business model. A portion of our content is sponsored by advertisers and we cover music released by the record labels with which we partner." Notably omitted from that is any committment to disclose which articles have been sponsored - maybe they do, but I haven't been able to find an example of what that looks like. If I were reviewing an article at FA which used these as sources, I would absolutely be asking the nominator to justify their use. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had a look at WeRaveYou, and picked a random news story posted today - this one. It doesn't have a writer byline and a quick Google found this story, posted 36 hours earlier by reliable source Mixmag. The WeRaveYou one is practically identical. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a list of sources at Wiki Project Electronic Music here but not all of them have linked discussions, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I've just encountered that. It seems that most of these were added without any kind of discussion. Skyshiftertalk 00:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Black Kite it actually does have a by-line off to the right, "Written by Lewis Mulligan" though they are not a listed staff member. Both articles are based from the BBC's press release so churnalism. S0091 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a list of sources at Wiki Project Electronic Music here but not all of them have linked discussions, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I come across these as an AfC reviewer and am skeptical of all them. YourEDM as previously discussed is not reliable. DancingAstronaut touts itself as "brand" and if you look at their articles, they are all either press releases/announcements or are glowing coverage, even articles marked as "[Review]". We Rave You offers " tailored promotion and marketing strategies and campaigns to grow your brand." EDM.com is the most promising of the bunch but as Caeciliusinhorto states above, disclosure of sponsored/partner content is not clear so it might be worth emailing them to ask.
- With this said, it also depends on your use of these sources. I think any of them are likely fine as a primary source, meaning probably ok to support an event occurred, the line-up, etc. or that a song/album was released but not much more. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is sad that this is the situation for the biggest EDM websites honestly, but yeah, unfortunately it is what it is. I did think of using them for some strong claims (although it is supported by other reliable sources, I won't use that one). Even if I used them for simple stuff, I'll probably avoid them anyways considering how harsh FA reviewers tend to be sometimes in regards to sourcing. Skyshiftertalk 00:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
bnnbreaking.com ?
I've seen this pop up in searches now and then, aboutpage:[144]. Where does it fall on the newspaper "general reliability" scale? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unreliable
- they make unverified claims on About page and say they are a source for The Gateway Pundit a website
known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories
Softlem (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) - We have an article on them: BNN Breaking. It's not encouraging. From some of the sources:
One of those stories, which was bylined by BNN Breaking founder Gurbaksh Chahal and was riddled with inaccuracies
;The sheer volume of stories on the site raises questions about whether they’re being generated with the help of artificial intelligence tools, according to Hany Farid, a professor at the UC Berkeley who specializes in deep-fake technology.
[145]The site BNN News made the false report...
;Instead of making a correction...
[146]Twitter said it is suspending scores of new accounts purporting to be part of a "news network" called BNN
[147]
- Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies! Apparently there is a bit of a "feud" going on:[148]. FYI @Chisme and @Lepricavark, you're on bnn. Clever name, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads' up, but I'm not gonna bother giving them a click. As for the question being addressed in this thread, I doubt that any publication founded by convicted woman beater Gurbaksh Chahal is reliable, given his extensive history of interfering with our article on him. I'm sure he has an axe to grind against me, but when you remember that he was caught on camera
smothering the woman with a pillow and hitting and kicking her 117 times over a half hour period
[149], perhaps he should be focused on dealing with other problems in his life. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)- Well, that's one reason for him have his own media-org. Better press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads' up, but I'm not gonna bother giving them a click. As for the question being addressed in this thread, I doubt that any publication founded by convicted woman beater Gurbaksh Chahal is reliable, given his extensive history of interfering with our article on him. I'm sure he has an axe to grind against me, but when you remember that he was caught on camera
- Looking at the BNN Breaking article, having "Criticism" as the first and only prose-section is not good WP-writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The more I look at this, the shadier it gets. The whole site appears to be a clickfarm built out of AI-laundered content taken from legitimate news sites. It's not clear that the "journalists" are even real people. This is all extremely corrosive. I suggest the site be blacklisted as spam. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The images are a dead giveaway:
- Here's an article about "Brave London Police Officers", which features File:Police in Glasgow.jpg from Wikipedia Commons. (Glasgow notably not being in London). There is no attribution as required by the license.
- This article uses an illustration that came from this artist. I contacted the artist who confirmed that this use appears to be straight-up copyright infringement.
- This article about recycling is illustrated with a completely unrelated image of a baseball player. Surely if a human was involved in the editorial process, they would have noticed this?
- It's garbage and all links to it need to be removed per WP:LINKVIO. I count 181. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- You search better than I do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. Not much presence on WP [150], not under that name at least. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- User contributions for Bnnbreaking Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The images are a dead giveaway:
- Thanks for the replies! Apparently there is a bit of a "feud" going on:[148]. FYI @Chisme and @Lepricavark, you're on bnn. Clever name, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Blacklist This is a worthless content farm that has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is not an RS, but it's in-depth: The Curious Case of BNN Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe WP:RSN is appropriate not for questions about "general reliability" but for specific reliability of cited articles, so here are a few examples of cites of bnnbreaking.com added in the last few days. Fico Puricelli cited it on G.I. Joe. SiniyaEdita cited it on List of power stations in Sierra Leone. Cassiopeia cited it on UFC Fight Night 244. Chelsdog cited it on Dujuan Richards. (I think there are others.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is this really not the place to discuss the reliability of this source in general?
- Anyway, looking at those examples:
- [151] looks like a rehash of [152], with the addition of some generic hallucination about the lore of the Transformers universe.
- [153] is a close yet incorrect paraphrase of a press release here: [154] (note that commencement of construction is Q2 2024 in the press release but is "the final quarter of 2024" in the BNN article).
- [155] is an obvious ripoff of [156]: search for the phrase
hungry Argentine up-and-comer
to find various syndications of this story, all attributed/credited. All except BNN, that is. I guess their AI model was unable to find a paraphrase for this unusual construction? - Meanwhile, on [157], it appears their paraphrasing extends to the content of literal quotes from an interview, resulting in fabricated quotes attributed to the subject. You can read the original here: [158].
- Whoever runs BNN better have good lawyers, as their tech appears to be on an out-of-control copyright infringement rampage. I note they are already facing legal action for defamation as a result of one of their publications.
- In the meantime, this source has no place on Wikipedia. I suggest every citation of BNN needs to be removed immediately, possibly replaced with {{Citation needed|date=February 2024|reason=Unreliable source removed}}.
- I expect editors using this source will have been acting in good faith, as the BNN articles do look very convincing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have opened a request to add both bnnbreaking.com and bnn.network to the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bnnbreaking.com. I’m not sure if this can be actioned while we still have about 100 links to bnnbreaking.com and about 200 to bnn.network. I removed a large number yesterday but more are being added. Help pruning these would be appreciated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the ongoing discussion regarding bnnbreaking.com, it is imperative to address concerns that some contributors may be engaging in original research or allowing bias to influence their evaluation of the site's reliability and its contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policies on No Original Research (NOR) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV) are foundational principles that ensure content is verifiable and unbiased, reflecting a fair representation of all significant viewpoints.
- While criticisms of bnnbreaking.com have been presented, including accusations of AI-generated content and questionable reliability, it's crucial that these assessments are grounded in verifiable evidence and not the product of conjecture or extrapolation beyond what sources explicitly state. The reliance on indirect indicators or affiliations with other entities to judge bnnbreaking.com's credibility risks veering into the realm of original research, which Wikipedia strictly prohibits.
- Moreover, the discourse around potentially blacklisting bnnbreaking.com or removing its citations from articles must be carefully navigated to ensure it does not become an avenue for targeted actions that could be construed as attacking the site. Such actions need to be scrutinized for compliance with Wikipedia's policy against bias and ensuring that discussions and decisions are based on a balanced evaluation of the source's use and contributions to the encyclopedia.
- The presence of references from bnnbreaking.com in Wikipedia, especially if cited by reputable news organizations, underscores the need for a nuanced discussion about its role and reliability as a source. It's vital to differentiate between content that may not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards and content that does, ensuring that decisions to remove or retain references are made transparently and with broad community input.
- I urge a return to the core principles of verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. Let's ensure that our focus remains on enhancing the encyclopedia's quality and reliability through evidence-based evaluations and consensus-driven decision-making. Such an approach will safeguard against undue bias and promote a more inclusive and balanced representation of sources and perspectives. 49.130.118.20 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. I have also reinstated the 'Criticism section' template as of February 2024 due to unresolved issues with article's balance and neutrality.
- Any editor rushing to black list the site and also keep the page in its current form, is clearly NOT abiding by the Wikipedia's NPOV foundational principles. 49.130.118.20 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- On NOR:
This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
- It is normal and expected that editors will research the reliability of sources.
- Please declare whether you have a conflict of interest regarding BNN. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Barnards.tar.gz, for highlighting the scope of the NOR policy on talk pages. While it's clear that evaluating source reliability is within bounds, it's also crucial that such evaluations are rooted in verifiable facts rather than conjecture. Discussion should not serve as a pretext for removing content or sources based on unverified assumptions.
- Regarding the conflict of interest query: No, I have no conflict with BNN. My interventions are aimed at ensuring a balanced and fair discussion in line with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability. How about you? Any conflicts we should know about to maintain transparency? 49.130.118.20 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I was very surprised to see the founder's negative history highlighted prominently on BNN Breaking's page which has nothing to do with the subject matter?
- @DanielMichaelPerry can you confirm you have no conflicts either? 49.130.118.20 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The founder’s negative history is not “highlighted prominently”, it is briefly mentioned at the end of the article.
- I can confirm I have no conflict of interest. However, the fact that your IP address (along with those of other editors who have tried to remove negative coverage) is registered in Hong Kong - where BNN Breaking is based - strongly suggests that you are not being honest your potential conflict of interest. DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I have no conflict with BNN
. Please forgive my fussiness, but I want to make sure you understood the question. I didn't ask if you had a conflict with BNN. I asked if you had a conflict of interest:Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.
- I have no conflict of interest. My interest is in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia by rooting out dubious sources. I hope you'll agree that's why we are here having this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
it's also crucial that such evaluations are rooted in verifiable facts
I agree. If you read further up the thread, you'll see it's a verifiable fact that BNN has engaged in copyright infringement, so as well as reliability concerns, this site should not be used on Wikipedia per WP:COPYVIO. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)- In addressing the points raised: @Barnards.tar.gz and @DanielMichaelPerry:
- Regarding the Founder's History: The selective emphasis and lack of relevance on the founder's negative history, without a balanced view that includes positive achievements, deviates from Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons (BLP). Wikipedia is not a repository for only negative information. If the founder's history is relevant, then a balanced approach that includes both positive and negative aspects should be applied, similar to how other public figures' pages are structured. This ensures compliance with the NPOV policy.
- Conflict of Interest Accusations: My geographical location or IP address does not inherently indicate a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's guidelines on COI are clear about the nature of conflicts, focusing on direct relationships rather than geographical proximity. Accusations based on location alone are insufficient and divert attention from the substantive issues of content neutrality and source reliability.
- Copyright Infringement Claims: The assertion that BNN has engaged in copyright infringement relies on verifiable evidence, not just claims or allegations. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion require that information, especially of a negative nature, be well-documented and proven in reliable sources, preferably through legal adjudication or similar authoritative confirmation. Without clear, court-verified instances of copyright infringement, we risk propagating unverified claims, contrary to Wikipedia's verification policy.
- In pursuit of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, it's essential that our discussions and actions are guided by the platform's core policies: Verifiability, NPOV, and No Original Research. I hope you all can focus on constructive dialogue that seeks to enhance the article's accuracy and neutrality, respecting Wikipedia's standards and the broader community's trust in the encyclopedia. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question: Do you have a WP:Conflict of Interest regarding BNN Breaking? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you continue to engage in disruptive editing and have not disclosed if you are getting paid for these disruptive practices. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BNN_Breaking&action=history
- Knowing how "active" you are on Wikipedia with these disruptive edits, you clearly know I have answered the question in the talk page and have no conflicts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BNN_Breaking#Shame_the_site_is_under_attack. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not paid, WP is my hobby. And I don't see any comment on your COI on that talkpage, though it's getting a bit long. Perhaps you can quote that statement here? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The assertion that BNN has engaged in copyright infringement relies on verifiable evidence, not just claims or allegations.
Bingo. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)- Copyright Infringement Claims: The assertion that BNN has engaged in copyright infringement relies on verifiable evidence, not just claims or allegations. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion require that information, especially of a negative nature, be well-documented and proven in reliable sources, preferably through legal adjudication or similar authoritative confirmation. Without clear, court-verified instances of copyright infringement, we risk propagating unverified claims, contrary to Wikipedia's verification policy. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No. We don't need a court judgement to note that a site contains copyright violations and we shouldn't link to it. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, so if any random user with a userId starts complaining about a site that reaches millions of users, and claims it has a copyright violation, we should these userIDs as reliable sources?
- You are not a lawyer, nor are you a journalist. I suggest you stick to your adherence to Wikipedia policies. Which apparently you don't understand. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Discussions on a talk page are not held to the same sourcing standards as claims within articles. By your standard policies such as WP:COPYLINKS would not be enforceable - but I assure you they are. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of engaging in personal attacks (which will eventually get you blocked), it would be more helpful if you could explain why the cited examples of copyright infringement on your site are not actually copyright infringement. That would be the easiest way to make the problem go away. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No. We don't need a court judgement to note that a site contains copyright violations and we shouldn't link to it. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Copyright Infringement Claims: The assertion that BNN has engaged in copyright infringement relies on verifiable evidence, not just claims or allegations. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion require that information, especially of a negative nature, be well-documented and proven in reliable sources, preferably through legal adjudication or similar authoritative confirmation. Without clear, court-verified instances of copyright infringement, we risk propagating unverified claims, contrary to Wikipedia's verification policy. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question: Do you have a WP:Conflict of Interest regarding BNN Breaking? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mr IP - you should try to sound less like AI generated text yourself when you are defending a source who has been accused of generating their content with AI. MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies my thoroughness has bothered you. I suggest you try to incorporate some happiness into your life before replying. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- IP user is now blocked for edit warring--obviously. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- After seeing the harassment here, and the other edits from similar IPs, I placed a rangeblock. Geolocation is Hong Kong, for what it's worth. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies my thoroughness has bothered you. I suggest you try to incorporate some happiness into your life before replying. 49.130.9.100 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have opened a request to add both bnnbreaking.com and bnn.network to the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bnnbreaking.com. I’m not sure if this can be actioned while we still have about 100 links to bnnbreaking.com and about 200 to bnn.network. I removed a large number yesterday but more are being added. Help pruning these would be appreciated. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#BNN Breaking. This is the only prior discussion I've found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- And if anyone missed it, now blacklisted. Initially I thought that suggestion was a little hasty, but BNN changed my mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Soap Hub and Ned Hardy
Are https://soaphub.com and https://nedhardy.com/ reliable sources when it comes to biographies? Like birth dates etc.
Regarding soap hub I got a thanks from one experienced editor when I added it to support the birth date of Heather Tom but now another editor continues to revert it. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
While working on one article, I found contents sourced to https://plaskett.family/mansfields-were-pacific-valley-pioneers/. Upon looking for other articles using this source, I've found nearly all insertions of anything sourced to plaskett.family site was done by one user. I reached out to the user at User_talk:Btphelps their talk page. The user said The site contains excerpts from a historiography written by a person who lived during the era described. It's first person reporting of events and people the author knew.
. An example of contents sourced to that site I've removed. What it looks like is a website maintained by some random person based on notes and unpublished materials from family. Simply having it uploaded on website doesn't make it reliably published and fleshing out contents based on a such a personal website is undue. With my interpretation of WP:RS, this should be treated as a blog. Since the other user is disputing this, I am seeking outside comments. Graywalls (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the source was authored by a person firsthand experiencing the events that the source is being cited to describe, that would make it a primary source. Primary sources aren't necessarily automatically reliable or unreliable, but as a project we generally prioritize and prefer citations to independent secondary sources—something written by a historian would be a reliable, independent, secondary source. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- They're all written by some random people late Mabel Plaskett and Bill Alderson. Not only is it just a primary source, I would even argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Research based on someone's diary, family notes and other unpublished "internal documents" would be based on unpublished documents. If a person writes contents onto Wikipedia based on papers found in their family's attic, that would be fully unacceptable original research. Now, simply having that information ricocheted off a blog site by WP:OR process having done by some random internet dudes that put their research on their personal website doesn't turn it into reliably published sources. Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OR and WP:SYN apply to Wikipedia content, not sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- They're all written by some random people late Mabel Plaskett and Bill Alderson. Not only is it just a primary source, I would even argue that it is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Research based on someone's diary, family notes and other unpublished "internal documents" would be based on unpublished documents. If a person writes contents onto Wikipedia based on papers found in their family's attic, that would be fully unacceptable original research. Now, simply having that information ricocheted off a blog site by WP:OR process having done by some random internet dudes that put their research on their personal website doesn't turn it into reliably published sources. Graywalls (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This is about [159] and [160].
The sources are:
- Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days
—supports the claim that Steiner was a member of the NSDAP. - Garner, Richard (24 January 2007). "The Big Question: Who was Rudolf Steiner and what were his revolutionary teaching ideas?". The Independent. Retrieved 26 October 2023.—supports the claim that Hitler declared "war against Steiner".
- Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
Was discussed at Talk:Rudolf Steiner#Drop the claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- On Taverne, it is OUP; however, in checking the book, Taverne twice claims Steiner joined the Nazi Party in the early days but neither claim is supported by a reference (Steiner died in 1925 so it would have to be very early days). I also checked the nearest footnote in case it covered more (Bramwell, Anna (1989-01-01). Ecology in the 20th Century: A History. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-04521-5.) and though it covers Rudolf Steiner and his movement extensively it does not mention him joining the Nazi party (as far as I can see, I don't have full access) though it does mention that his ideas influenced some prominent members of the Nazi party (and not others). Taverne also freely admits he is not a trained historian. For this particular claim I would say not reliable.
- On Garner, this is a newspaper opinion piece including history. I would say there should be far better sources. Erp (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I could investigate the matter, "war against Steiner" was a statement by a German Catholic nationalist, in a Catholic nationalist newspaper. I saw no evidence that Hitler ever said something like that. It is not odd for Catholic true believers to lambaste heretical movements. On the other hand, Hitler was not a Catholic true believer, and he did not really care about heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the sourcing for the claim that Steiner joined the Nazi party is weak enough that the claim should be omitted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages)
Over 1000 articles are currently citing some ScienceDirect Topics page. These are machine-generated summaries of the articles published in a certain topic by Elsevier. They cannot be reliable sources because they obscure the real source and context of any given statement, potentially turning into its opposite for lack of understanding. After finding a useful statement on such a page, editors should find a suitable original source (possibly one of the academic papers listed in the page itself), confirm that it supports the claim, and use that as reference.
I suggest adding ScienceDirect Topics to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as banned source, to better inform editors. Elsevier is strongly promoting its "AI" offering, and even though this is probably just some pretty standard machine learning (arguably less dangerous than general machine generation based on LLM), we'll probably see increased usage here as collateral damage. Nemo 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Topics is already listed at RSP. I had no idea so many pages use it though. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
RfC: ScienceDirect topics
|
Should an edit filter be implemented to warn editors trying to add ScienceDirect topics pages to articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Responses
- Yes As discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics, an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Machine-generated_text_at_ScienceDirect_used_as_source) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).
- JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Op-ed to substantiate rigging allegations during 2024 Pakistani general election
Would this opinion piece from The Washington Post be considered a reliable source for supporting allegations of rigging, given its usage three times in the following manner?
- Polls were held amidst allegations of pre-poll rigging.[1]
- A strict order was given to stop mentioning Khan's name on television and PTI protests were suppressed, while PTI supporters were arrested and harassed by the military, judiciary as well other political parties.[1]
- The Washington Post in its editorial board wrote following the election outcome, the military's control is being questioned more than ever before, possibly in decades as for the first time, the military-prefered candidate, Nawaz Sharif, was unable to win the most seats.[1]
References
- ^ a b c Board, Editorial (12 February 2024). "Opinion: Pakistan's shocking election result shows authoritarians don't always win". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Some resources that covers comics information.
Hello, my user name is Sewnbegun. I am new to Wikipedia and here for editing mainly lists/tables (obviously not exclusively) regarding comics, tv series and films. I searched many sources which I though can be reliable sources; in the list at WP:RSP. I was surprise that only three (Screen Rant, IGN and Gizmodo) are considered as reliable source, for one (Dexerto) is advised to find alternative source while remaining are missing (including the ones that constantly tells about comics - like Comic Book Resources and Aiptcomics). So I am starting a new enquiry about that remaining sources of my list and can somebody help me to know which of them are reliable?:
- Comic Book Resources
- AIPT
- ComicBook.com
- SuperHeroHype
- Official website of Marvel (Marvel.com)
- GamesRadar+ (for comics)
- Bleeding Cool News
- Popverse
Sewnbegun (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- You may find the WikiProject Comics sources and WikiProject Video games sources pages helpful.
- Besides that, it's important to understand that source reliability always depends on the context. For example, Marvel.com may be a good site for primary sources like comic books or claims about its corporate structure, but we should generally cite reliable, independent, secondary sources for most content. ComicBook.com is ostensibly "independent", but its articles often include affiliate links, which may present a bias or conflict of interest in its coverage. The reliability summaries at RSP are also general and may not apply in all cases.
- To answer your question, we'd really need to know the specific sources you'd be citing, and what you'd like to cite them for. Woodroar (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Woodroar, I got your point and now I am going cite few sources that can leads to more clearity.
- Sewnbegun (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The AIPT source is an interview, so anything Duggan says would fall under WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and also carry no weight as far as notability is concerned.
- The Bleeding Cool source looks like a roundup of stories about X-Men cancellations from the day before. Instead, you should use and cite the original source.
- These are just general tips, however. Everything depends on what you want to use the sources for. Woodroar (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodroar, what about this Bleeding Cool reference - [3]? Sewnbegun (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would think that source is fine for, say, plot highlights and credits from those two issues. Primary sources can sometimes be used for those things, but coverage in a secondary source (Bleeding Cool) gives it more editorial weight or importance. Woodroar (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping! Sewnbegun (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to help! Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping! Sewnbegun (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would think that source is fine for, say, plot highlights and credits from those two issues. Primary sources can sometimes be used for those things, but coverage in a secondary source (Bleeding Cool) gives it more editorial weight or importance. Woodroar (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodroar, what about this Bleeding Cool reference - [3]? Sewnbegun (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hassan, Chris (August 14, 2023). "X-Men Monday #215 – Gerry Duggan Talks 'X-Men' at FAN EXPO Boston 2023". AIPT Comics. Retrieved February 18, 2024.
- ^ Johnston, Rich (February 18, 2024). "Marvel Cancels All X-Men Comics in the Daily LITG, 18th February 2024". Bleeding Cool. Retrieved February 19, 2024.
- ^ Johnston, Rich (February 7, 2024). "Invasion, Insurrection & Kissing in Today's X-Men Comics (XSpoilers)". Bleeding Cool. Retrieved February 19, 2024.
Chronicle
I have crossed paths with a reasonably new editor @SebbeKg: that has been creating a number of new articles which are heavily but not exclusively based on content from a medieval chronicler named Jan Długosz [161]
Examples:
- Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1069–1071)
- Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077)
- Jan Zamoyski's expedition to Moldavia
- Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)
- Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)
- Polish–Pomeranian War (1099)
- Hungarian–Ottoman War (1437–1442)
Others articles in the same area: [162]
Is there a consensus on what extent should the above primary chronicle should be considered a reliable source for historical narratives (for context see the above)? I'm pretty sure this new editor will want more than my opinion. // Timothy :: talk 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend to use history books (there are plenty of them about these topics) instead of such primary source (especially editions of dubious provenience). This source is so old it is unusable without context provided by recent historiography. Note these topics concern history of eastern Europe, so we should be really cautious about sourcing. Pavlor (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Are any of these sources reliable for covering LGBT representation on Nickelodeon?
Yesterday, I copied the contents of a former section in LGBT representation in children's television to produce a draft and hastily submitted it to AfC. After being declined on account of having inadequate sources, I decided to make and fill out a source assessment table. Here are some sources that have yet to be ruled out as unreliable as far as I know:
GLAAD is cited multiple times:
- "GLAAD 2002". (permanent dead link)
- On June 18, 2002, Nickelodeon ran a program titled Nick News Special Edition: My Family Is Different. Produced by Linda Ellerbee's Lucky Duck Productions and hosted by Ellerbee, My Family Is Different featured children of gay and lesbian parents talking with children from households that oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian families.
- GLAAD 2018, p. 31.
- They would be the first pair of married male characters to be depicted on a Nickelodeon series. In later years, Luna Loud would be revealed as a bisexual girl who sent a love letter to a girl named Sam Sharp in the June 2017 episode "L is for Love". She is also revealed to have a crush on a boy named Hugh.
- GLAAD 2019, p. 33.
- Later on, Sam seems to feel similarly about Luna and appears to reciprocate Luna's feelings in that episode and others, with Lori describing them as beginning to date in the episode "Racing Hearts," though neither character calls their excursion a date throughout the episode.
- Where We Are on TV: 2020–2021 (PDF) (Report). p. 40.
- and Sam, her girlfriend, along with Howard and Harold McBride, "the two Dads of the protagonist’s best friend Clyde."
- In 2020, Nickelodeon debuted a new television show, Danger Force. The episode Say My Name portrayed two dads of a lost child in which Danger Force was trying to find his parents.
Autostraddle is cited twice:
- ""Steven Universe" and the Importance of All-Ages Queer Representation".
- Some noted that while the relationship between two bisexual characters, Korra and Asami, was built up during the course of the series, the words "I love you" were never uttered, nor did the characters kiss.
- "I Have a Lesbian Crush on This "Loud House" Storyline About Girls Having Crushes on Girls".
- In later years, Luna Loud would be revealed as a bisexual girl who sent a love letter to a girl named Sam Sharp in the June 2017 episode "L is for Love". She is also revealed to have a crush on a boy named Hugh.
Each of the following sources has only been cited once:
- Sun Sentinel: "NICKELODEON UNDER FIRE FOR A SPECIAL ON GAY PARENTS".
- This program was subject to much criticism from Christian organizations, such as the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, who believed the program pushed a "pro-homosexual agenda" and was not suitable for children.
- The Sundial (California State University Northridge): "The effect of LGBT characters in our generation".
- In the aftermath of series finale, which aired on Nickelodeon and Nick.com, there were debates about "queer representation in children's media."
- Logo TV / NewNowNext: "9 Cartoons That Were Censored For Being Too Gay". (it belongs to Paramount, so it could be a primary source)
- Even so, the latter was censored by a South African broadcaster, DStv,
- Press Telegram: "Local sisters' new Nickelodeon show aims to shape young entrepreneurs".
- Also, one character, Yuna, in the main cast, had two moms, who appeared in two episodes as secondary characters who give Yuna moral support, giving her the inspiration to finish her fashion designs.
- Out: "This Tweet Is Why People Think SpongeBob Came Out as Gay".
- On June 13, 2020, Nickelodeon promoted LGBTQ+ characters in their shows, highlighting SpongeBob SquarePants and The Legend of Korra.
- Backlot Magazine: "Rugrats Gets First LGBT Character in Reboot".
- Betty is voiced by queer actress Natalie Morales. Morales described the character as a "single mom with her own business who has twins" but still hangs out with her community and friends, even casually talking about her ex-girlfriend.
- Gayming: "Power Rangers Dino Fury Green Ranger confirmed as LGBTQ+".
- In September 2021, Izzy Garcia, the Green Ranger from Power Rangers Dino Fury was revealed to be a lesbian in the episode "The Matchmaker".
- Kotaku: "New Transformers Series Introduces Its First Nonbinary Robot [Update]".
- In November 2022, the Transformers: EarthSpark two-part midseason finale "Age of Evolution" introduced Nightshade, one of the three new Terrans.
- MovieWeb: "Nickelodeon Gears Up to Introduce Bossy Bear to New Audiences".
- In March 2023, Bossy Bear introduced Ginger's dads Tyler and Greg.
- WPDE-TV: "Paw Patrol spin-off episode by 'Queer Mister Rogers' features first non-binary character".
- In September 2023, the Paw Patrol spinoff series Rubble & Crew introduced a non-binary character River in the episode "The Crew Builds an Observatory".
- Them: "Paw Patrol's Nonbinary-Coded Character Is, Um, Very Subtly Coded".
- Same sentence as WPDE-TV
If you think that's a big handful, this is less than a third of that draft's citations. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a lot of sources – I don't know how much useful engagement a question about all of these sources together is going to get. As an initial observation from a "should we have an article on this topic" point of view rather than a strict "are these sources reliable" point of view, I am struggling to see any source out of the 71 in the current draft which discusses LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. There are sources which discuss specific instances of LGBT representation on Nickelodeon, and at least one source about LGBT representation on television generally, but nothing about LGBT representation on Nickelodeon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's a lot of sources. Some of them would probably require attribution (either for WP:BIASED reasons or WP:RSOPINION reasons) and others wouldn't, but glancing over them there's probably enough there to write an article, and certainly enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. While this is probably enough, I would suggest searching for some academic sources as well; a quick glance on Google Scholar suggests that there's some papers that at least discuss this topic (not surprising given that Nickelodeon is very prominent and shifts in LGBT representation have a lot of academic discussion.) While, again, they're not strictly necessary, having them there from the start could help inform the article's structure in a useful way, and I suspect they'd be useful in terms of forming a complete timeline. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be more of an undue question than an RS one. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
While none of your responses have helped me determine how any particular tile in the source assessment table ought to be colored, they do bring up important caveats to take into consideration. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
medriva.com
Following the discussion on bnnbreaking.com, I thought I would check out its associate medriva.com - another product of the same owner. It purports to be a library of medical articles and medical news, all enhanced by AI somehow. It’s been used as a source on two Wikipedia articles:
1. 2022–2023 mpox outbreak, which cites [163], which appears to be a near-literal translation of the Somali-language source here: [164]. That source is at least somewhat credited, as “Capital Online”, which seems like a literal translation of the name of the source. I’m unsure of the copyright implications of publishing “near-verbatim translations”, but it doesn’t feel wholly above board.
2. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, which cites [165], another “Medriva newsroom” article, which this time is a very light paraphrase of [166]. The source has a permissive license: [167]. However, although Medriva mentions ECDC, it does not at any point attribute the text of the article to ECDC. This is therefore a COPYVIO.
In terms of the medical articles, meet the “renowned” Dr Jessica Nelson: [168], who has found the time to write no less than 12 articles today. She must have been busy seeing patients because she managed to write 22 articles yesterday. The articles do at least link to sources occasionally, but usually to explain terms rather than to provide credit. This one: [169] appears to be based on this source: [170] but doesn’t say so. Observe the “ray of hope” wording, which echoes the “beacon of hope” phrase beloved of BNN (Twitter link, sorry, but illustrative: [171]).
In short, this thing appears to be very much cut from the same cloth as BNN Breaking. Stylometrically, it’s almost certainly using the same LLM-based filter/generator behind the scenes. I can’t find any reliable sources discussing it, but I feel confident in stating it provides no value as a source for Wikipedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- From their "about" page: "Spearheaded by visionary entrepreneur Gurbaksh Chahal and part of the esteemed Procurenet Group, Medriva champions the union of avant-garde AI technology with age-old medical wisdom. Our genesis lies in a clear vision: harmonizing the tech revolution with reliable medical insights." Oily, buzzwordy BS, and that's completely ignoring Chahal, who has been discussed in these pages above and previously. This is toxic-waste level AI garbage, made all the more horrible by being in a topic area where MEDRS should apply. Absolutely not reliable for anything. I would not oppose a blacklist. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
our article is rather positive but the website wants me to sign in, which makes me think there is some level of user-generated content. It doesn't seem to have come up here before. The article is 110th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) and the text is: it has gained notoriety for its part in the Battle of Avdiivka, and it is said to have performed well in spite of the amount of new Russian resources sent to this front
Thanks for any thoughts Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
About NewsMeter, Newsmeter, newsmeter.in and so on used as references
Hello all,
I can see that NewsMeter, Newsmeter, newsmeter.in and so on have never been created.
Those or variants are currently used on
- Kalki Bhagawan - WP:BLPSOURCES concerns there - URL https://web.archive.org/web/20200701154509/https://newsmeter.in/the-deverakonda-foundation-ensures-people-dont-be-sleep-empty-stomach/
- Vijay Deverakonda - WP:BLPSOURCES concerns there - URL https://newsmeter.in/the-deverakonda-foundation-ensures-people-dont-be-sleep-empty-stomach/
- List of districts of Telangana - URL https://newsmeter.in/top-stories/kcr-renames-warangal-urban-hanamkonda-warangal-rural-becomes-warangal-679850
If appropriate, please do ask for or perform WP:REVDEL on any or all of this without asking me.
I seek your opinions about this.
Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Is e-Perimetron a reliable source?
I can't tell, but we use it[172] in over 20 articles.[173] Doug Weller talk 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
FanGraphs as a source, not just an external link
There appears to be consensus at WP:BASEBALL for inclusion of FanGraphs statistical information in articles about baseball players, as the site has a comprehensive collection of baseball statistics that exceeds in scope other sites. Were the site used as a reference for hard statistics, I wouldn't object.
However, an IP editor used a column at the site for a source in the Rowdy Tellez article (diff cited source). The immediate red flag to me was "blogs" in the path to the article, as it's an indicator of an author's opinion and not content that has been through a publication's full editorial review cycle. The IP did not provide a link to a masthead or about us page that discussed their editorial policy for blog pages when asked, nor could I find one in my own search. Can a blog/column/article at FanGraphs be relied upon as a reliable source? Or is this an IMDB-type situation where the site provides a valuable resource and should be included in external links for articles but is not a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- The term "blog" used in the FanGraphs url does not fall under user generated content. These are articles from columnists that are highly regarded baseball analysts with a full editorial process to back them. Articles from blogs.fangraphs.com are about as reliable as you can get for factual information and statistical analysis. More generic community generated content would fall under community.fangraphs.com. While these articles still have editorial backing and discretion, they can be created by anyone in the fangraphs community and I would argue shouldn't be considered reliable. - Skipple ☎ 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)