Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286

Archive 280

←

Archive 284

Archive 285

Archive 286

Archive 287

Archive 288

→

Archive 290

Ancient Pages

Hi everyone, do you know if this website qualifies as a reliable source? It seems to present out-of-this-world ideas, however it tells the reader they can choose to believe in them or not.

-Prana1111 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, that website is absolutely unreliable. Taking a "we report, you decide" approach to unreliable info doesn't make it suddenly reliable. Either they need to point out bullshit as such, or else truly take an academic stance of "look, this is just what this specific group of people in this specific time believed, based on this evidence." Instead, that site wants to tell us how "some scientists" (who they never link to or identify) have proven Greek mythology was right all along. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Aww but Ian.thomson, that article you linked has an image of a guy in an old library reading a book full of so much secret ancient knowledge it's literally glowing, surely that indicates some form of divinely-provided reliability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Iran Human right

Is these sources (Beaten During Arrest Prominent Iranian Female Activist On Hunger Strike and Iran Moves to Silence Journalists, Activists Ahead of Parliamentary Elections) are reliable for the following sentences? Please pay attention that Radio Farda reported it from "Iran human rights".

• Iranian female human rights activist Bahareh Hedayat was arrested on 10 February 2020 by Tehran University security police. She was later taken to Qarchak prison where she is now on hunger strike. Bahareh’s colleagues say she was beaten by the police when she was arrested.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

bmpd.livejournal.com

• bmpd.livejournal.com  

This is a LiveJournal blog whihc I have been removing when I find it in articles related to Ukraine and Russia, through purging of 112.ua and other deprecated fake news / propaganda sources.

An editor has challenged this removal. I checked the blog's home page, which says, inter alia:

The posts posted on the bmpd blog represent only the point of view of the author of the material and may not coincide with the position of the management or employees of the AST Center.

The Profile page says:

The blog complements the AST Center's product line: Arms Export magazine ( http://www.cast.ru/journal ) and the Periscope daily press digest ( http://www.periscope2.ru ). It publishes the so-called unformatted messages, which are not suitable for one reason or another for publication in the first two editions.

So according to my reading this is a blog set up for "interesting" stuff that doesn't meet the standards required for publication on the (authoritative) parent body's site, and which represents personal views. They mention that they cast the net wide in attracting contributors, again, establishing that they don't appear to hold to the same standards of authority as the parent body.

But a user says it's "irreplaceable" in some military articles (where there is a strong desire to add intricate levels of detail that very often only comes only from sites rune by interested private individuals that are to me, as one such, alas often indistinguishable from fansites).

Reliable or not? Guy (help!) 21:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's just say this: when it comes to open-source military analysis, nothing is particularily "reliable" for obvious reasons. The main thing about "bmpd" is that it provides constant updates on the aquisition of military equipment in Russia and does it in a very structurized manner. A lot of the times you wouldn't find this information in the big media outlets like TASS or RIA, since they tend to focus on bigger things than, say, launch of some other ship of small to medium tonnage, which, from the standpoint of keeping the articles like Karakurt-class_corvette up to date is detremental. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable: Appears to fit WP:BLOGS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It does, indeed, meet the criteria of a self-published blog, however, once again, a lot of the times you wouldn't find this information anywhere else, so I would argue it's worth an exception. Maybe a formal reason for leaving it in the articles could be the fact that it is published under aegis of Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies - it is stated on the first page of the blog. Their website: http://cast.ru/eng/ And I would also like to mention the politically neutral position of the author(s) of the blog, which is really not that common when it comes to sources on Russian weaponry and, in my opinion, makes it even more valuable, especially considering how many other sources widely used in these articles have been blacklisted recently. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, WP:RS doesn't have an exception for "information you can't find anywhere else". Guy (help!) 09:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that Wikipedia' guidelines do not support such an approach, however, I am not appealing to them - I just propose an informal solution based on everyone's agreement, if it can be reached. And the basis for this proposal is, as I stated previously, the need to source content with something. Otherwise, with time, lots of articles are going to get pruned beyond belief due to unresolved "citation needed" situations. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, you're proposing ignoring policy in order to give a content result you like. That's above our pay grade. Guy (help!) 13:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not really. I am just warning you about the risks of massive source blacklisting/pruning in niche topics and suggesting a slight adjustment of the policy towards military articles (or technical topics in general) in order to prevent the likely and, quite honestly, ugly outcome, which no one is going to benefit from, if current approach to pruning is to be continued. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources for information it should be pruned, regardless of how widespread that pruning is. Information that can only be sourced to non-RS sources has no place on Wikipedia, and I don't see what is ugly about removing information that cannot be properly sourced. I think readers benefit greatly by having any information they read be cited to reliable sources, and leaving information which has no reliable sourcing is indeed a disservice to the readers and a mark against Wikipedia in general. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The ugly part of it is that eventually you're going to have dozens or even hundreeds of articles filled with the <citation needed> tags, and slowly but surely all the content added througout the years will be removed. And readers are not going to benefit from it, because not only you deprive them of information through extensive pruning, you deny them a possibility to decide for themselves, whether a particular source is worth their attention or not. Of course, having a reader go throught that process is not something encouraged by the Wikipedia guidelines, but when it comes to military articles, the alternative is non-existent, since in this case the so-called "reliable" sources cover too little and their exclusive usage results in a very flat narrative, which, ironically, is not something you would call a "Wikipedia standard" as well. I'd say the best solution there would be to leave all the already present links in their articles, but prohibit addition of the new ones: this way we're not risking to massively reduce amount of content, but at the same time sending a message to the editors that the old ways of dealing with technical military topics are gone, i.e. no globalsecurity.org, f-16.net links etc. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your argument that readers should be able to "decide for themselves" about sources is an acceptable one. That is why we have reliable sourcing guidelines, because most readers do not check the sources, they just assume that if it is cited to a source it is correct. The fact that people have managed to circumvent the policy on RS for a long time and add a lot of material that has no reliable sourcing is not our concern. Editors should be more careful not to waste their own time adding information and sources that do not meet our guidelines. If people want to know this niche information, they can decide for themselves where to seek it out. If they want to find it on Wikipedia, they should only find material that is verifiable through reliable sources. Bad information is worse than no information. This is not information that is inherently so important for people to be able to find here that it would warrant breaking policy to allow it to remain. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The blog does not appear to be under the editorial control of the AST Centre and so doesn't seem to pass the threshold for a reliable source. The main products of AST may be more promising, although Periscope does not seem to have been updated for a while. The sort of small updates of useful data (ship launches, aircraft deliveries and the like) should be covered in press releases and the like, either from manufacturers or the Russian government (although care needs to be taken with Russian government-controlled sources as well), which will be where the contributors will get most of their stuff from. We shouldn't lose that much, we will just have to wait a bit longer (for stuff to appear in actual reliable sources) and take a little more care over where the information is coming from to make sure that it has come from a reliable source. Waiting for proper sourcing (such as waiting for decent-sized articles in RS magazines) should also help to avoid the very bitty nature of many of these articles which have been compiled from (often dubious) news snippets.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, official sources cover at best 50% of the procurement and tend to really go in detail only when something really big happens, like laying down of another SSBN or acceptance of some "hype" weapons system into service, and when it comes to manufacturer websites, they rarely go beyond simple overviews with a scent of advertisement. I agree, though, that it's better to stick to official sources whenever it's possible. As to the "bmpd" blog, it says on the first page that it is "informal" and "unofficial", but that it is published "under aegis" of the AST Center, so, while their positions may not coincide, the blog still has some affiliation to the AST. And let's not forget, AST is a think tank, and think tanks tend to value polarization of oppinions, so I personally see no problem in considering this blog reliable. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Independent Australia

Independent Australia is a left-wing political comment blog masquerading as a news outlet. Their stories are unbalanced, poorly sourced, and their best work is that lifted from other publications. They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer of the conspiracy-theorist bent. I have rarely found a reference to Independent Australia to be of any value, and its regular appearance as a source to support - or attack - some living politician is a constant irritant. On the rare occasions that they come up with something useful, it is always something we can find in an accepted reliable source.

I'd like them added to the list of perennial sources. --Pete (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support deprecation. I broadly agree with them politically, but the reliability and quality of their content is abysmal. They've long been something people have quietly removed as a crap source, after an incident this week where they were caught distributing objectively fake news (that a Senator with a deciding vote had committed to voting in support of a highly controversial bill when she had done no such thing, sparking widespread social media panic) I think it's time we pull the plug and ban them entirely. There's absolutely no occasion when they're a useful source that can be trusted with any certainty. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not their political slant I have a problem with so much as their lack of standards. There is certainly a place for investigative journalism regardless of political leaning, and IA explores areas out of the mainstream. It's just that we can always find a more reliable source for anything that is true and noteworthy. There are enough eyes on these guys that if they do come up with something that checks out, a RS will have a look at it. I'm far more likely to regard The Guardian with approval, and they walk down the same political path, perhaps not so much in the muddy fringes, but in that same direction. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer..." That's obviously true of many journals, but I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable. How far are you willing to take this type of concern Pete? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is specifically as to the reliability of this one source and hopefully having it deprecated. Given that you agree as to that issue, it'd be helpful if you'd take any broader discussion about sources/argument with Pete/whatever somewhere other than here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

HiLo, you left out my point about conspiracy theorists. IA - like many other outlets - wants to gain readership, but they make up for their lack of mainstream credibility by promoting entertaining and irresponsible stories. As we see with many fringey political sites on both sides of politics. It is a money-making enterprise aimed at an audience that is not as concerned with facts and objectivity as we who are compiling an encyclopaedia might wish. Alex Jones does the same sort of thing, aiming at an audience with a different political flavour, but just as credulous. The issue here is reliability as a source. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with IA from their posts on Twitter. They just aren't reliable, despite apparently having Canberra press gallery membership... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have posted on the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season due to content that has been removed and re-added to the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with IA so had a look at its website. The ads are unobtrusive and it has a large editorial presence. Does anyone have any links to problematic stories? What about the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote? Burrobert (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The "John Wren" identity on IA was actually banned from Twitter for spreading fake news. The latest story spreading it seems to have been redacted after the amount of flak they copped, but it's generally indicative of their attitude towards reliability and accuracy that an identity banned from Twitter for spreading fake news (and notorious even on their own side of politics for it) now has a regular column there. This is another current article spreading far-fetched conspiracy theories that make jumps way beyond any even vaguely reliable source. They seem to have some more normal people involved with them (Alison Broinowski has an opinion piece on the front page), but the small number of people who might plausibly get published in a more reliable source sometimes aren't saying anything we couldn't more reliably source elsewhere, and even if they were we couldn't trust it due to their nonexistent (or lax if we're being very charitable) factchecking standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at "John Wren" who explains on his profile why he uses the name of a "Melbourne Businessman and Labor Party Power-Broker who died in 1953". The only reference to his twitter suspension that I could find was a mention that he was suspended for "impersonation" in March 2019 [1]. I couldn't find anything related to the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote. Do you have any links for those? Burrobert (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"JohnWren1950" tweeted images of letters, supposedly from PM&C. The actual PM&C twitter account responded, saying they were faked, and shortly thereafter the account was banned. There's some discussion here. Following the various accounts raised by the same person, it seems that Twitter serially suspends them, much like Wikipedia does to socks of banned users.[2] The "John Wren" persona itself has a fake genesis.[3]

So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories? --Pete (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The twitter suspension message gives the reason as “impersonation”, presumably because the name on the account was that of a well known identity who died in 1953. The person who claims the suspension was for posting fake documents says he is guessing about the reason based on the sequence of events. Someone else points out that “John wren” asked the twitterverse whether the documents were real when he posted them and didn’t claim they were real. The twitter account was apparently run by a number of people. “John Wren” explains that he started a second twitter account to avoid the block but twitter discovered it and the second account was blocked as well. Anyway, I can’t see that this episode says anything about the reliability of articles written by “John Wren” or anyone else at IA. Is there anything else? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There is conspiracy theory stuff like this (on the front page right now), which takes a couple of actual facts and sprawls into making highly defamatory and absolutely unsubstantiated claims about prominent people. The fake news story claiming that Jacqui Lambie had committed to supporting the cashless welfare card, while they've subsequently redacted the article itself after the backlash, still has the original headline posted on their Twitter. This is just the stuff they have come out with this week. There's no basis to suggest that they're a reliable source, and nothing to suggest that they add anything useful we couldn't have gotten elsewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete - "So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories?" Are you serious? The Murdoch media does this quite frequently. So, no doubt, do other major outlets. Sadly, lying has become the norm in much of the media today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you any input on this specific RfC, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• False claim made by IA - pointed out in a comment with reference to source - comment deleted and commenter vilified.[4]
• IA reports rumours as fact. Just because one later turned out to be correct doesn't make them reliable. "The blogs are filled with unsubstantiated allegations, rumours and innuendo."[5][6]
• IA lifts material from other sources. [7]
• IA publishes faked documents. "Last week, Twitter permanently suspended this account for impersonation, after John Wren posted a fake memo purportedly from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, using its letterhead."[8]

Hardly an exhaustive search. Bottom line, IA is a political opinion blog with a history of deception. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on Murdoch recently publishing Andrew Bolt's lies about what a Yolngu elder "said" about Bruce Pascoe? Your complaint here seems more about the politics of a source you don't like than truth. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You said above "I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable". These responses have nothing to do with this subject and are about the reliability of other publications, which should be the basis for having discussions about those other publications. Andrew Bolt's blogs are already not a WP:RS about anything other than what Andrew Bolt said on Wikipedia and used with caution at the best of times. I've had plenty of conflict with Skyring over sources before, but we can mutually agree that this source is an absolute dud that should be banned. "I think the Murdoch media posts fake news too" is not an argument for just throwing out all attempts to purge really unreliable sources, and Wikipedia does purge mainstream media that persistently put out bullshit too (the Daily Mail being the most famous example, but not the only one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

At no point have I disagreed with declaring IA an unacceptable source. I just find some of the arguments here less than convincing, and clearly politically motivated. If IA is bad for ALL the reasons Pete/Skyring claims, then so are the Herald Sun, The Australian and Sky News. And they are often annoyingly hidden behind frustrating paywalls. Perhaps if he hadn't used "left-wing" as the first part of his criticism of the journal here, his efforts may have seemed more objective. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

They're a left-wing bad source in much the same ways as many similar right-wing outfits that've been similarly banned as sources. I could've posted the same thing even though I'm politically opposite to Skyring. I just really don't think it's helpful to try to make this an argument about Murdoch - they're not bad in the same ways (although they're obviously bad), and it's that's a much bigger conversation for another day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I shall await that proposal with pleasure, and wait with fascination to see Pete/Skyring's arguments on that topic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read anything in The Australian, Herald-Sun, or watched Sky News. Years. Apart from the Oz, when I paid some close attention to the sudoku puzzle on a recent Qantas flight. Nor do I read or watch Andrew Bolt. Again, years. I have a WaPo subscription, I'm more likely to read the Guardian online than any other paper, and I'm pretty much welded to the ABC. I'm sorry your prejudices don't match up to the reality, HiLo, but in the meantime, do you have anything to say about this RfC? My position is that biased opinion blogs are unreliable sources regardless of which side of politics they favour. For the simple reason that they are full of misrepresentation, rumours, and sensational tripe. We can do better. --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have said before about your pseudo-unbiased comments, I'm not biting. I have made my thoughts on this topic 100% clear. I have also, as I do quite often whenever I see it, pointed out some poor argument. We must be fully objective on matters like this. Sloppy argument never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing three solid editors for adding IA to the list of perennial unreliables, one lukewarm, and one who wants to talk about other stuff. No voices in support.

Do we need a !vote? --Pete (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete, you've been here a long time. You know we don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support deprecation. Any publication that would allow that "connect the smear" conspiracy mongering rubbish pointed out by Drovers Wife ( this) under their masthead cannot be described as a reliable source. Imagine someone putting stuff like this into a BLP! Curdle (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, on the face of it, but much of the claims above of "fake news" or whatever seems to be hyperbole: while not RS level, it's hardly outrageous to suggest that, for example, George Pell might be of interest to police investigating a murder where the prime suspect is his former colleague (albeit that, unlike Pell, he does not appear to have been convicted of child abuse). Bongiorno was reportedly (from apparently credible sources) abusing the victim's daughter, and a quick Google suggests the Melbourne diocese has now admitted to covering up his abuse, and he would have come under Pell's supervision as Bishop of Melbourne at the time of his being charged and investigated. It's not "connect the smears", Pell is a convicted child abuser, Bongiorno was credibly identified as a paedophile and very possibly a murderer. And they cite a source supporting at least a valid question. Guy (help!) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a very...charitable reading of that article. There are credible reports connecting Bongiorno as a possible suspect in the murder. All the extrapolation from that involving Pell and Kennett is, as Curdle put it, "connect the smear". And the only reason that we know that the Bongiorno stuff is not exactly the same is because they linked a reliable source - further showing that they're completely unreliable as a source for us to actually cite. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    The Drover's Wife, that might be true if it weren't for the fact that pell is himself a convicted child abuser and complicit (as are most senior Catholic clergy) in the coverup of rape by other priests. Guy (help!) 19:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

    • I loathe Pell as much as the next person, but it's still a pretty considerable leap from there to murder without any evidence whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      We can't use IA as a RS for BLP in any case. For other uses, their political position - on the fringe, rather than centrist, regardless of left/right orientation - makes them very shakey. They are biased and almost certain to "spin" facts. Not quite Alex Jones (or Alan Jones, for that matter), but you get the idea. They cannot be depended upon to tell the truth, because unbiased, independent news reporting is not their purpose. On the rare occasions when they present a factually correct news story, it is usually something lifted from another publication directly, or something which may be found in one of the MSM sources we generally use for Australian political sourcing: Guardian, SMH, ABC, SBS and so on. --Pete (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing in Ukraine articles

As I have been cleaning up some blacklisted fake news / propaganda sites I have encountered repeated use of a number of sites whose reliability is unclear to me (mainly due to language). I think it might be helpful to set up a subset of RSP for Ukraine / Russia sources, as there are a lot that see to be specific to this subject area.

Examples:

• mediarnbo.org - superficially legit, but set up by the previous Ukrainian regime and not a government agency, so what's its actual reputation for fact-checking?
• rt.com - Russian state propaganda outlet, generally unreliable? generally reliable for news? What?
• sputnik is on RSP as generally unreliable
• ria.ru - RIA Novosti, identifies as part of RT
• A host of livejournal sites that might be qualified as reliable commentators if there's a culture of this, but there's no evidence of editorial review that I can find for any of them
• TASS and Pravda - apparently reliable for factual reporting, which is quite the reversal
• Interfax Ukraine - seems legit, but is it biased? I mean, everything in this area is biased, but is it biased to the point of suspicion?
• Interfax Russia - presumably the same as the above
• Unian.net/info/ua - seems legit?
• ukrinform.ru - looks like Russian propaganda but what do I know.
• rferl.org - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a US propaganda station, do we trust it?
• liga.net - seems legit?
• eadaily.com - I am suspicious on the basis that any source based in Russia that describes itself as a source of "unbiased coverage of political and social developments on the Eurasian continent Подробнее: https://eadaily.com/en/information/about/" is likely to be the exact opposite.

Lesser-used:

• DonPress.com - used to source, e.g. "Legally, DDC is registered in Ukraine, Russia and has a continuous status of an accredited humanitarian mission at the Donetsk People's Republic since May 2016" - that is Russian propaganda, as Ukraine is not part of Russia and the DPR is a Russian puppet body, so nuking that one.

Am I wasting my time here? Should we maybe have specific sourcing guidelines for this area that prefer sources not aligned with one of the governments? Guy (help!) 11:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an area where some really clear source clarification would be helpful given the large amount of disinformation flying about. I would be hesitant about completely deprecating use of some of the Russian sources given that a huge problem with Russian-backed separatist republics in the past is sourcing largely non-controversial information about what's going on in those places (e.g. changes of membership in government) since Western media doesn't necesarily care. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, that's a good point. It would be possible to craft a policy that these sources can only be included with explicit consensus, but in fact the easiest way to do that would be to blacklist them and require consensus to whitelist. Guy (help!) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisting all of them would be going too far, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, a filter would work. But first we need some kind of consensus guideline on sourcing. It should be uncontroversial on Wikipedia to say don't use RT, Sputnik and the like, but I've seen articles on places in Donbass that were clearly written by Russians. Guy (help!) 09:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

State sponsored media organizations exist in many countries: RFERL, PBS, NPR (USA), TASS, RT, Sputnik (Russia), Xinhua (China), BBC (UK), France 24 (France), DW (Germany), RAI (Italy) and so on. Because these organizations are financially dependent on the government of their country, they will regularly not contradict the foreign policy of their country's government. Wikipedia's default position should be to view them to be reliable but biased sources especially on foreign policy topics. Biased sources should be balanced with other sources giving alternative viewpoints to create a neutral point of view overall. Additionally to this default position, each source should be evaluated separately for their adherence to facts and error corrections. Xenagoras (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, if you think RT and the BBC are similar in any meaningful way, then you're probably not qualified to comment here. Guy (help!) 20:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Russia stuff

• RussianPlanes.net  
• RussianShips.net  
• RussianTrains.info  
• RussianRockets.net  
• Wingeds.ru  

This group of sites are all run by the same folks, it seems. They are apparently user edited and there's no evidence of credentials or authority (e.g. "sufa125" is one of the editors). Googling the obvious real names finds references on sites like topwar.ru (blacklisted). It looks ot me as if this is not a RS. Guy (help!) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of these with prejudice per Guy and WP:UGC. They look like garbage to me. buidhe 01:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Norrœna Society

Over at Norrœna Society, an internet-based group is repeatedly using the platform to promote a variety of self-published works. In short, they've taken the name of the historic group as their own, but otherwise have no historic relationship. Could use more eyes. Example: [9] Could use more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Another Russian military website

• russianships.info  

Per the about page, this appears to be a WP:FANSITE. Yes? Guy (help!) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of this website, as well as the ones mentioned above (russianplanes, etc.) would be highly damaging. I am not even joking, if we are to remove all these links and continue purging, there would be nothing to source articles on Russian weaponry with (this is especially true for the articles on legacy systems). And they are certainly not in the fansite category - they are information aggregators, just like, for example, the widely used http://www.f-16.net/ and https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.htmt . It would be completely nuts to prohibit all these websites. Might as well just remove 30-40% of military articles on Wikipedia. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez, you say that, but if they don't meet our criteria for reliability then it's inclusion that's damaging. Guy (help!) 09:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid, it's not a matter of opinion. If all these websites are getting blacklisted, and the general approach to managing weaponry-related articles (not just the Russian ones) continues, there's going to be a severe depletion of content, and neither a reader, nor Wikipedia are going to benefit from it. If you're curious about it, check how many articles on Wikipedia use globalsecurity.org as a source (which is also unreliable if we're strictly following the Wikipedia guidelines) and try to imagine who and how is going to replace all the reference gaps in case it gets blacklisted. It's going to be a catastrophe. The same goes for the websites discussed here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This site does appear to be a fansite. However, the site provides a bibliography of books, and reliable sources listed in the bibliography can be used. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, oh sure. It would be fine to add a link to the bibliography as a resource list in a wikiproject. It's just not usable in mainspace, as far as I can see. Guy (help!) 20:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Some of the books on the bibliography might be reliable, but RussianShips.info isn't. — Newslinger talk 05:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Simple Flying

We should probably consider Simple Flying as unreliable. The website is currently used in 120 articles (1  ). See a related discussion here documenting how the website frequently publishes articles with inaccuracies and factual errors. feminist (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of a website project to churn news and create a large internet presence, refer https://uk.linkedin.com/in/arran-rice-752722b4 and https://uk.linkedin.com/company/simple-flying?trk=public_profile_topcard_current_company not much sign of a strong editorial backing or experience with aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that LinkedIn profile for Arran Rice explains everything. feminist (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

stadimiz.com

Batman Arena is the article I found this in. Direct link stadimiz.com. It open under a tab, you have to enter the address in a clean window. Messed up stuff. They force you to go to Google Play and install an app, or to change your search engine. This is a dangerous way to do business and has no place as a "reliable source", thus should probably be blacklisted, but at least listed as a non-reliable source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

whatplug.info spamming from IP address

86.20.239.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP editor keeps trying to add whatplug.info to electrical socket related articles. They started adding it as a spam link, then after being warning about external links in the article body and user-generated content as sources at User talk:DIYeditor#Actually, whatplug.info is more up to date than IEC World Plugs and seeming to agree/understand, they came back with the same "source" formatted into cite templates. What's the next step here, ARV for vandalism? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

wp:ANISlatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

World History website

https://worldhistory.us/

Is this site considered a reliable source? I have my doubts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't see how it could be. All posts are attributed to a bot or the site itself. And zero information of authorship/ownership anywhere on the website 02:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely not consider this reliable. Some of the articles have credited authors, but the ones I googled I cannot find any information about – their qualifications to write the articles are a total mystery. Others are attributed to the site, or "History Bot". The site itself doesn't appear to make any claims as to its editorial practices or the expertise of its authors. And I spot-checked a few articles on ancient Greek history, which is my personal topic of interest, and was frankly underwhelmed by the quality.

To give a simple example, this article on On the Murder of Eratosthenes says that He [Euphiletus] knew Athenian law well. Evidence of this comes from his description of how the Athenian people should view his crime as one of stopping people from transgressing against their neighbors. Aside from the total non-sequitur of this claim, the author doesn't apparently know that the speaker, Euphiletus, is not the same person who composed the speech, and so we can infer little about Euphiletus' legal knowledge from it! Other articles seem to be as much historical fiction as they are works of history, and I can see no clear delineation between the two types of article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Books from Cambridge University Press

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

---

There is a disagreement at talk:Race and intelligence about whether the following two books satisfy the requirements of WP:RS:

• Hunt, Earl. Human Intelligence Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Rindermann, Heiner. Cognitive Capitalism: Human Capital and the Wellbeing of Nations Cambridge University Press, 2018.

The argument being made (for example here and here) is that all publications by Earl B. Hunt and Heiner Rindermann are inherently unreliable, and that the reputation of the publisher - Cambridge University Press in this case - is unimportant.

This question was previously discussed at RSN in December, and I think the consensus in that earlier discussion was that if a book is published by Cambridge University Press, then it satisfies WP:RS regardless of who the author is. However, relatively few people participated in the earlier discussion, so I'm hoping that in this discussion a clearer consensus can be reached. If possible, I'd like this noticeboard to also address the broader question of whether sources from mainstream academic publishers, such as books from Cambridge University Press or papers in journals published by the American Psychological Association, are sometimes unreliable sources depending on who the authors are. 2600:1004:B124:4D7F:DDD8:5D1F:92A8:84DF (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree that books published by peer reviewed academic publishing houses are generally RS. I also agree that that seemed to be the majority opinion in the previous discussion, with the important caveat pointed out by Aquillion that just because something is peer reviewed and RS does not mean it represents broader scientific or academic consensus. If the views do not represent scientific or academic consensus, and other RS support that, than policy would be to present it that way per WP:FRINGELEVEL: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources". As per the specific argument made in one of the diffs you posted ("It is not the publisher in this case that is unreliable, it is the authors themselves. Wikipedia policy excludes using unreliable authors as sources for content.") I don't think that is a valid argument for excluding attributed views published in RS, as FRINGELEVEL also states "However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Can anyone else confirm that these sources are not unreliable? I'd like the consensus in this discussion to be as clear as possible. 2600:1004:B147:29D4:9D2C:FC45:E2EF:38E9 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the previous discussions, were any RS presented that explicitly cast doubts on either source's validity? Or was the only argument a vague "these authors are not reliable no matter where they are published"? I also see no previous RSN discussions regarding either author, so I'm not sure where the idea that these authors have been deemed by the community (either the Wikipedia community or the scientific community) to be unreliable has arisen, especially so intrinsically unreliable as to exclude their works no matter where they are published. A quick glance at the referenced talk page only shows an editor insisting that they are unreliable and discredited without reference to actual RS stating thus. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, nobody has presented sources that describe either of the books are unreliable. However, the argument that these sources fail WP:RS has been made repeatedly over the past two months, so it's important for the question of whether or not that's the case to receive a clear answer here. 2600:1004:B142:FEDF:8416:31AA:B04D:FB55 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• This comes down to two examples of User:Onetwothreeip's OR & WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Being RS doesn't mean being right, but Wikipedia is not censored. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think this is more a question of due weight than reliability. If the authors' views are a minority in the field than they shouldn't be given undue prominence. One thing to look at would be reviews: if there are multiple reviews which complain about the accuracy of the book, it should not be used regardless of publisher. Reviews would also give an idea how accepted the ideas are. buidhe 02:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: As far as I'm aware, there aren't any negative reviews of either book. Rindermann's book was positively reviewed in this paper, and Hunt's book is described by this paper as the best book about human intelligence to be published in the past several years. 2600:1004:B142:FEDF:8416:31AA:B04D:FB55 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I see very few academic reviews of these specific books positive or negative, but I do see Earl Hunt in particular to be widely cited in various publications dealing with human intelligence. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Heiner Rindermann writes for the notorious Mankind Quarterly and Earl Hunt was from the International Society for Intelligence Research, also a fringe source. Reviews from others who are sympathetic to their fringe views on race and intelligence should not determine their weight or reliability. We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in. It is true that they commissioned Cambridge University Press to publish some of their works, but this does not imply that the scientific community of any description supports their views. They are inherently fringe, and should generally only be used as reliable to the extent that they describe their own views, not as a reliable source of scientific fact. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, User:AmbivalentUnequivocality asked above if you had presented any reliable sources explicitly saying these books are unreliable. As far as I'm aware, you haven't. Can you provide any sources saying that? 2600:1004:B11D:2D9A:9D05:6E72:1E1E:B283 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip While that may be true, no one is trying to cite anything published by Mankind Quarterly so that isn't really germane to this issue. The Daily Mail is a terrible, unreliable source, but just because someone once wrote for the Daily Mail would not mean that an article they later published in the New York Times would then be considered inherently unreliable, because the NYT has their own editorial oversight and fact checking. Similarly the editorial and peer review standards are different for Mankind Quarterly and Cambridge University Press, so publishing in the former does not make their publications in the latter inherently fringe or unreliable. You actually need RS that say they are fringe or unreliable. As I asked before, do you have any RS that directly back up your assertions? Policy requires that "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing", and to do that we need actual reliable sources that criticize them and label them as fringe. If they are as widely reviled by the scientific community as you say, that should be easy to produce. But the number of citations to Hunt that I have seen in mainstream sources would indicate to me that he is, perhaps, not as fringe as you have presented him. I am open to the possibility that you are correct, but I need to see reliable sources that back up your assertions, just repeatedly saying something does not make it true. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• These books are RS for what those two gentlemen think, but are WP:PROFRINGE and thus almost certainly undue in any article as sources (though they may be suitable subjects for discussion based on sources that analyse them). Guy (help!) 21:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:JzG I believe you are probably correct (at least regarding Rindermann) but can you point me to some RS that say this? Because Hunt seems to be widely cited in mainstream publications, and rather well respected, and I can't find any academic/scientific reviews or publications that are negative about his work. Rindermann has more problematic associations, and Rationalwiki has a real axe to grind with him, but again I don't see a much in the way of actual academics saying his work is bunk. It would be nice to see some actual RS saying this than just editors' assertions that they are fringe. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems that several people are applying a different standard from what's normally applied to sources. Your analogy of someone who has written articles for both the Daily Mail and the New York Times is a good one. Is it consistent with RS policy to say that because someone has written articles for an unreliable publication (Mankind Quarterly), that disqualifies all of their writings published by mainstream publishers (such as Cambridge University Press), especially in the absence of any reliable sources making that argument? 2600:1004:B149:2438:DCE4:5C33:179D:492F (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Determining the reliability of a source is not as simple as, It's published by the Cambridge University Press, therefore it is a reliable source. The quality of the publisher is only one part of the puzzle. Context and weight, among others, must also be considered: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

Take, for example, the two links provided above in support of the reliability of the sources is question,

• A book review by Russell T.Warne published in the journal Intelligence.
• Five sentences in a thirty-three page paper by Ian J. Deary published in the Annual Review of Psychology.

The following points are germane to any discussion of reliability in the context of the Race and Intelligence topic space,

1. Rindermann, Deary, Warne, and Hunt are psychologists. I.e., Genetics, the existence/non-existence of biological "races" among humans, aerospace engineering, etc., are outside their area of expertise.
2. Rindermann, Deary, and Warne are currently, and formally, if memory serves, the late Dr. Hunt, all sit on the editorial board of Intelligence, the "official" journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR).
3. Rindermann, Deary, Warne, and Hunt (along with likes of Rushton and Jensen) are members of a small group of "intelligence researchers" associated with the ISIR, Mankind Quarterly, and/or the Pioneer Fund.
4. Members of said group are often the reviewers of submitted papers, and tend cite each others work in a circular fashion.
5. Hunt was arguably one of the more mainstream members of this group, and, as such, his works are typically used as cover for the many fringe authors cited in the topic area (e.g., Rindermann, Rushton, Jensen, etc.).

These items raise questions concerning our guidelines on the reliability of journals and scholarship: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."

Regardless of any purported consensus, the claim that "...if a book is published by Cambridge University Press, then it satisfies WP:RS regardless of who the author is. is manifestly false. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The two "reviews" that the IP editor uses to support the reliability of Heiner Rindermann and Earl Hunt are clearly part of the same collection of people from ISIR and Pioneer Fund. We plainly do not have an example of someone who used to write for an unreliable source such as Mankind Quarterly but now writes for a reliable source like Cambridge University Press. The latter is not involved in researching and writing the content of what they publish like The New York Times does, they largely take what these authors write and then publish and distribute them, with minimal editorial oversight if any.

Since it can be hard to follow this sphere of views on race and intelligence, I will summarise as best I can the main threads.

• Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937 to fund research supporting theories of racial superiority. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn were major figures in the organisation. Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck received significant grants from the organisation.

• Mankind Quarterly is the most known journal to be sustained by Pioneer Fund, in particular by Lynn and the Ulster Institute of Social Research which has also published work by Tatu Vanhanen and Heiner Rindermann. Gerhard Meisenberg was until recently the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly and was published extensively there.
• IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn and Vanhanen, and The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains (better known as Rushton and Jensen 2006), are most often used as sources by proponents of scientific racialism to support various claims.

• International Society for Intelligence Research, founded in 2000, purports to be a more mainstream source, but contains significant overlap with Pioneer Fund individuals, such as Gottfredson. Earl Hunt was perhaps the most known of this group, making similar claims and positively reviewed by the same collection of individuals. ISIR has been criticised in its own right for the London Conference on Intelligence, a series of conferences attended by numerous proponents of eugenics and the same racial theories.

• Intelligence (journal), is a journal published by ISIR and reviewed largely by the same group of individuals, with Richard Haier as its editor-in-chief. It has published work by Rindermann, Meisenberg and Lynn, who have also been on its editorial board.

• Mainstream Science on Intelligence was an article published in 1994 purporting to comprise mainstream research on intelligence, but in reality was created by Gottfredson and signed mostly by Pioneer Fund-aligned researchers and sympathisers, individuals who would become associated with ISIR and its journal, and others without any significant relation to relevant fields of research. This was published as a defence of The Bell Curve, a controversial book which gained widespread media attention, which was in turn using arguments from Pioneer Fund publication sources.

There are several other significant sources of these views which continue to overlap, but these are the main threads that collectively aim to support the theories of inherent racial superiority through an academic lens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

All I see is a wall of text that appears to be entirely original research, and still no RS backing it up. I'm not arguing against you, I have no dog in this fight, but I find it odd that you will not, or cannot, provide even a single reliable source to back up your assertions. It's pretty simple, if the scientific community is unanimous in rejecting their ideas, sources that back that up should be incredibly easy to find. But so far the only sources you have presented are yourselves. Your original research is not enough. If there are no reliable sources backing up what you say, your arguments hold very little weight and are not a valid reason to exclude sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What you are likely seeing is my summary of the scientific racialist universe, to provide context to discussion participants. I thought it was necessary to provide an overview. Which assertion of mine would you like me to provide a source for? There are certainly mainstream criticisms for the more prolific scientific racialist claims, but most researchers simply don't give much attention to this area. If it is simply that certain researchers are fringe, this is especially because they are not taken seriously by the scientific community, so the burden to prove they are reliable sources falls on those who are claiming that. So far the only appraisals that have been provided for these figures have been from others that belong to the same organisations. Likewise, can you provide sources to support your assertions that Earl Hunt was "well respected"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I would consider being awarded the Association for Psychological Science’s James McKean Cattell award for lifetime contributions to scientific psychology to be sufficient evidence that he is well respected. The APS page about him says "As Hunt’s papers and books have had a significant impact on the academic study of individual differences in cognitive functioning, so too has his work had significant impact in applied areas: specifically, education and issues related to economics, i.e., the American workforce as well as workforces across nations. An example of the former is the application of his research to students’ learning in high school physics; an example of the latter is his book Will We Be Smart Enough? A Cognitive Analysis of the Coming Workforce." APS Cattell Award profile on hunt AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

To answer your other question, User:Onetwothreeip, I would like to see the sources for the statement "We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in." What specific sources have assessed Hunt and Rindermann and determined that they are "fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in"? Because so far I have seen you present zero sources for us to consider. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you consider that award to be sufficient evidence? The Association for Psychological Science, founded in 1988, should not be confused with the American Psychological Association which it split from.

I clearly said in that sentence that the views and their proponents are fringe. There are many sources which support this. Hunt and Rindermann were/are effectively small individual parts of these organisations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No confusion here, the APS and the APA are different organizations. But the APS is still widely respected, I haven't seen anything that says that the APS is in any way bad or fringe. Do you have any sources that say this? Why would you consider a prestigious award by a respected organization with over 33,000 members NOT sufficient evidence that someone is respected in their field? Secondly none of the three sources you posted even mention Hunt, and only one of them mentions Rindermann, and it is a passing reference. Also, one of those sources (Nature) is a book review, one (Vox) is an opinion piece, and the other (New Statesman) which also may be an opinion piece (they do not seem to label which of their articles is opinion and which are not, but the first person writing style indicates that it probably is, and I don't see any firm agreement on whether or not the New Statesman is even RS, it is certainly biased enough to require attribution regardless) only mentions Rindermann in passing, and, while making a similar argument to yours that participating in ISIR could taint someone's reputation, they do not state that doing so disqualifies anyone's research elsewhere: "Stephen Pinker, the world-renowned cognitive psychologist, spoke at last year’s ISIR conference." and "Publishing well-researched papers that happen to be written by eugenicists is one thing...", so guilt by association is not enough to justify exclusion of articles published elsewhere in more respectable publications. You are going to need sources that actually mention Hunt if you want to exclude his work (and better sources than opinion pieces, stuff written by actual scientists that can represent mainstream academia). Otherwise all we have is your original research. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you consider that award to be prestigious? The Association for Psychological Science has several awards which are individually awarded to multiple individuals, and there are few awardees that would be considered prestigious in their own right. Using this particular award would not be enough to suggest that anybody was particularly respected, let alone someone with such links to ISIR.

The piece in Vox is written by mainstream academics, not that it is necessary for sources to be directly written by academics in order to assess mainstream opinion. If individuals like Earl Hunt or Heiner Rindermann created work outside of the ISIR or Pioneer Fund sphere, that would be another matter. Their publications regarding race and intelligence are very much within those spheres. I'm not sure why you're acting like it's Earl Hunt in particular that I want to exclude, it's more that there is no reason to include work by him. His work on race and intelligence was only regarded highly by those who are also in the sphere of Pioneer Fund and ISIR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Earl Hunt isn't mentioned in any of those sources. One of the three sources (The New Statesman article) mentions Rindermann in two sentences, but only to say that he's a member of ISIR and writes for these various publications; it makes no comment either way about his reliability. Is that the best support you're able to provide for your argument that all publications by these authors are unreliable? 2600:1004:B114:DD4F:60F6:1BC1:82F5:E551 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to provide sources on this: We should instead be considering the totality of reliable sources which have assessed these subjects, which come to the conclusion that these views and their proponents are fringe in whichever field of study they purport to engage in. which does not mention either Earl Hunt or Heiner Rindermann. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

When I asked for that I was under the impression that "these subjects" referred to Hunt and Rindermann. I was not asking for a rebuttal of the concepts you believe they are espousing, as that would involve your original research about what that is. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"These subjects" referred to the race and intelligence controversy broadly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There are reliable sources for some parts of it. It isn't difficult to find sources that criticize the Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund has helped to fund some respectable scientific research, such as Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.'s study of identical twins reared apart, but it also has funded some very unsavory political causes, such as racial segregation back when that was a socially acceptable thing to advocate. (This paper gives a good overview of these two sides of the Pioneer Fund.)

The argument being made here is basically that several academics whose research the Pioneer Fund helped to pay for are members of the International Society for Intelligence Research, and Hunt and Rindermann are also members of the International Society for Intelligence Research, although Hunt and Rindermann have no direct relation to the Pioneer Fund. And therefore, the argument goes, any publications by Hunt or Rindermann are unreliable regardless of who the publisher is. This argument about Hunt and Rindermann is not supported by any reliable source as far as I know. It seems to have originated at RationalWiki, and more recently it has become popular among some members of Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B114:DD4F:60F6:1BC1:82F5:E551 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The research by Bouchard was not particularly significant and should not be confused with the broader Minnesota Twin Family Study. Bouchard was also a signatory to the so-called Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which as I have explained above was another Pioneer Fund-aligned publication. The infamy of Pioneer Fund is obviously much greater and more recent than supporting racial segregation. Its primary role in recent times has been to financially support theories of white supremacy, and its connections to fringe politics.

Heiner Rindermann has not only been a member of ISIR and on the editorial board of its journal, but also a recurring contributor of Pioneer Fund's journal Mankind Quarterly. I have already outlined briefly the connections between Pioneer Fund/Mankind Quarterly and ISIR/Intelligence, of which Hunt was integral to the latter. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So is your position, without any sources to support it, that anyone who was ever in any way linked to any of these various publications is simply to have all subsequent publications and work be considered verboten ad infinitum? Because that doesn't sound like a valid, policy based argument to me. I have now presented you with exactly what you asked for, support via actual sources for the statement I made, and you still have not provided me with any answers or sources, but just restated your original points again. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is not as if they used to write for Bad Publication, but now write for Good Publication. I have provided three reliable sources, and I will be more than happy to provide more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You were asked to provide sources for your claims concerning two works by Rindermann and Hunt. Instead you link an article by a student journalist, a review of a book by Angela Saini, and the Sam Harris vs. Ezra Klein proxy fight. None of these support your specific or general argument. Saini would make a good reference for the pitifully small and buried Ethics section of your article, possibly turning some of what is OR above into article text. Why not work on that?—eric 03:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

EricR That is not what I was asked. I was asked about something I said which did not mention either of those individuals, although the person asking thought what I was saying was about those individuals. If I was asked those individuals, I would have answered differently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Now that you know I was asking about those two individuals could you offer sources that do concern them or their books, which is what is currently under discussion? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Since they are not highest profile among that sphere, I don't have particular sources that discuss those two individuals specifically. Reading back on this discussion however, there is something I should point out. Cambridge University Press does not have its own "peer review standards", as the peer review happens independently of the publisher (they are not themselves peers). The only peers reviewing these works positively are mostly from the same organisations that I have mentioned before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So no, you don't have any sources to back up your assertions, we are just supposed to take your word for it? I'm not preparred to rely on your research to disqualify RS, sorry. Especially since I believe you are incorrect about the peer review process of university presses. University presses like Cambridge University Press actually do have their own peer review standards, that is what makes books they publish ideal RS. [Per Vox]: "University presses get peer reviewed. That’s a level of quality control most books don’t have"..."Unlike traditional publishers, university presses peer review their books, meaning that they send each book to scholars who are experts in the subject matter to obtain their seal of approval before they send a book to the printers". This is inline with everything else I have read in my research. Where do you get the idea that university presses don't peer review the material they publish? Do you have any sources to indicate that you are correct? Or are we just supposed to take your assertions about this as well? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, [Per Cambridge University Press]: "Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. We: provide appropriate systems, training and support to facilitate rigorous, fair and effective peer review for all our publications; encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarise themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review. For journal editors and peer reviewers, please refer to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Our books editors and peer reviewers may find the Association of American University Press’ Best Practices for Peer Review more appropriate;". The books are definitely peer reviewed (which as the Vox article I referenced is standard practice for university presses). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at the first source you provide here, and it provides absolutely no mention of Cambridge University Press. The second source is from Cambridge University Press itself, which is obviously not a good way to assess its reliability, but it says essentially what I have been saying. CUP provides systems to help authors have their works reviewed by peers, but doesn't conduct its own peer review process, although the works themselves are peer reviewed, as I have said previously. The problem is that the peers who have reviewed those works are largely from the same organisations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have provided RS that says that university presses (Cambridge University Press is undeniably a university press, or are you actually arguing that it isn't?) are peer reviewed, and I have provided a link to the ethics page that describes the specific editorial and peer review process at CUP. Your reading is incorrect, they do not "help authors have their works reviewed by peers", the information I quoted was about "Our [Cambridge University Press] books editors and peer reviewers" not the people submitting. They explicitly state that their editorial process is independent, and that "Our academic publishing programme is overseen by the Syndicate Academic Publishing Committee (SAPC), consisting of academics from the University of Cambridge who independently advise on and approve all our contracts for publication. The role of the SAPC differs for book and journal contracts: Proposals submitted for our book publishing programme are initially reviewed by inhouse editors, who may also consult relevant external book series editors or subject specialists. If the proposal is suitable for consideration by Cambridge University Press, the proposal, along with sample content, will be sent to a minimum of two external and independent peer reviewers. The peer reviewers’ assessments are used to inform the editor’s decision as to whether or not to recommend publication to the SAPC. The SAPC subsequently make the final decision on whether or not to award the author(s) a publishing contract. Our editors are free to solicit additional reviews and guidance postcontract to inform the development of the manuscript". If you want to say that they don't peer review, come back with a source that explicitly says that. Your mistaken understanding of the editorial processes of university presses is yours to resolve, and your continued insistence that we rely on your assertions WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO grows tiresome. Sources please. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally the Vox article DOES include books published by Cambridge University Press, you just have to click the "You can read the full list here." link [which takes you here], Cambridge University Press is listed on the first page. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely why WP:SCHOLARSHIP states "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (Emphasis added). You are going to need actual reliable sources to say that CUP doesn't meet these criteria. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality, I'm not claiming Cambridge University Press isn't a reliable source. What is unreliable are these works and these authors who are "peer reviewed" primarily by each other. You keep stating that Cambridge University Press publications are peer reviewed, as if I ever thought otherwise. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have been confused by the parts where you said "they largely take what these authors write and then publish and distribute them, with minimal editorial oversight if any" and "Cambridge University Press does not have its own 'peer review standards'", and then challenged the evidence I presented to the contrary by saying CUP "doesn't conduct its own peer review process". And even now, you say again "these authors who are 'peer reviewed' primarily by each other" which, as I have presented (and you now seemingly agree), is not the case. These authors, or at least the specific books under discussion, are demonstrably NOT peer reviewed "primarily by each other", but rather by independent peer reviewers contracted by the Cambridge University Press, and subject to their strict editorial and ethical standards. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the published works by ISIR members as being largely reviewed by other ISIR members. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And that is irrelevant to this discussion, which is not about publications from Intelligence or Mankind Quarterly (where it might be fair to say that perhaps the peer reviewers are more likely to be sympathetic to the views being presented), but instead is about books which are published through Cambridge University Press, and not peer reviewed by other ISIR members but rather by independent peer reviewers contracted by Cambridge University Press and subject to their editorial oversight. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim that research by ISIR members is unreliable appears to be based entirely on a statement made by the New Statesmen, which is itself a source of uncertain reliability. There is no reason to use a lower-quality source as a basis to reject the reliability of multiple higher-quality sources. That this even needs to be debated is kind of amazing, frankly.

I am a member of ISIR and I usually present at their annual meeting, as do a large number of fellow graduate students and faculty in my department. Other well-known ISIR members include Steven Pinker, Robert Plomin, Matt McGue, Ian Deary, Camilla Benbow, David Lubinski, and James Flynn, who is renowned for the Flynn effect which describes the observed secular (environment-mediated) gain in IQ scores. Flynn, who won ISIR’s lifetime achievement award in 2017, is also a well-known opponent of the hereditarian viewpoint in R&I. ISIR has been covered neutrally by sources such as Science and Vanderbilt News.

ISIR is the only large organization of intelligence researchers in the world, and therefore almost literally every currently working researcher who studies human cognitive ability is a member of ISIR. It is a large academic community with a diversity of viewpoints. Most of us care chiefly about conducting robust empirical research into actually understanding the nature of cognitive ability. If you were to prohibit the use of research conducted by its members as sources at Wikipedia, you’d ensure that every article related to intelligence descends into atrophy, bias and inaccuracy.

@DGG: You've offered your opinion in the past about the reliability of sources in this topic area. Do you have any input here? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(1)There is a confusion between "reliable source" and "source that agrees with my position". Any book from CUP is a reliable source. That does not mean everything in the book is correct, but that everything in the book must be taken seriously as responsible. The way to deal with source that oppose a position is not to try to declare them unreliable, but to present reliable criticism of the position in the article. It is our job to avoid presenting irresponsibly published work from being thought of as a RS, it is not our job to try to denigrate responsible academic publishing that we disagree with. :(2)In this area there is a recurrent theme: A is a biased author. B has once published a work in the same journal as A. Therefore B is biased also, and everything from the publisher of that journal is suspect. This is a slightly different case: Some of the members of an academic society have taken positions that most people disagree with. Therefore anyone who is willing to remain a member of the same society, or who publishes in the same journal as those people publish, is unreliable.

(3)I am deliberately not replying about these particular works. The entire line of argument is wrong. CUP does not certify scientific correctness, much less "political correctness", only responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of Ian Deary on this topic has already been questioned here, and I am surprised you would want to highlight the membership of Steven Pinker when you are presumably trying to defend the organisation. It would be odd to consider ISIR a high quality source in its own right given that they have been holding conferences in secret, but that is not the point here. James Flynn is certainly notable independent of ISIR and his works have little to do with the organisation. ISIR may not entirely comprise of those who are sympathetic to the infamous racialist views (sometimes euphemistically called "hereditarian" as you have done), but there has clearly been a significant overlap, as demonstrated by its low barrier to entry and having many of the Pioneer Fund/Mankind Quarterly proponents, including on the editorial board. Although the New Statesman article is one of the few references on the Wikipedia article for ISIR, this is obviously not something that is only covered by New Statesman. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to try to advocate that Pinker is somehow fringe and unreliable as well I think you are in for a tough battle. Many of his most vocal critics (Jason Hickel springs to mind) are in fact far less mainstream than Pinker, who is unquestionably one of the most mainstream and respected experts in his field. He is even viewed as such by people who are otherwise critical of ISIR, such as the Vox article you posted that describes him as "the world-renowned cognitive psychologist". Ian Deary has been cited 57,654 times. Being mainstream and renowned does not mean that there are not people who criticize or question their work, (quite the opposite, mainstream ideas and people are more widely criticized in the same way that truly fringe ideas and people are often completely ignored, two sides of the same coin), but criticism and questioning does not equal consensus of rejection. Yes, it may seem that way if the people you respect are the ones criticizing and questioning people you don't respect, but that doesn't make it the correct or authoritative view. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

None of this has to do with the matter at hand, except possibly your argument in defence of Ian Deary. All I can say to that is that an amount of citations, especially for all of an individual's works, is not a measure of reliability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, on it's own it might not, but it is an element of consideration. And it does speak to how fringe vs mainstream something is. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ". Considering that the most persistent argument for exclusion of most of these sources has been on grounds that they are WP:FRINGE, it is worth noting. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's comment above. The argument that Onetwothreeip is making seems to be original research, and not consistent with what RS policy says. As a general principle, we should not reject sources from reputable academic publishers for this reason. tickle me 06:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have mostly reached a conclusion. In case it isn't obvious, I agree with the views expressed by Johnbod, AmbivalentUnequivocality, EricR, Ferahgo the Assassin, DGG, and Tickle me that Onetwothreeip's argument here is original research, and that there is no policy-based reason for excluding these or similar sources. Could a non-involved admin please evaluate the consensus here, and close this discussion with an appropriate summary? 2600:1004:B10A:28E4:DDFC:973D:6A75:1085 (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Onetwothreeip did not provide convincing support for his arguments, and he should probably read the responses here before continuing along those lines. My opinion (EricR) wouldn't go so far as "there is no policy-based reason for excluding these or similar sources". fiveby (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To my mind the publisher only matters if the published is dodgy. But being published by a reputable publisher does not confirm RS status, the author does.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here, but this is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." So RS policy is clear the reputation of the publisher is very important when determining reliability. 2600:1004:B12B:3A65:AC97:5BF2:4F18:60D3 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected as this does indeed say that if a book is published by a well-regarded academic press it is regarded as an RS. Thus (as far as I can see) these would pass this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

@Slatersteven: Though I broadly agree with the consensus, it should be noted that per WP:RELIABLE, the author of the work is most definitely considered when assessing the reliability of the resource, not just the publisher. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the Christie's Web site a reliable source for antique furniture info?

I mean Christie's the auction house. --AlainV (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/petit-bureau-en-capucin-de-style-louis-5412630-details.aspx

Ish, it would be a primary expert source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimensions of an object, I think that's ok. Price-ranges and such, I don't think they're independent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of the dimensions and what could be considered an objective description of the object "un gradin rétractable muni de deux tiroirs et de sept casiers" I certainly wasn't thinking of the price. --AlainV (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Stuff like "beautiful and unique" (not a quote) would be iffier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As always attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by attribution? How would the principle of attribution work or have worked in the case of le Bureau du Roi and/or the Resolute desk articles during their creation? I always understand better with examples.--AlainV (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"according to Christies the petit bureau en capucin de style louis is this big" specific examples work best when we know what a source is being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm wrong, but each piece of furniture is just an example of a type. It would be wrong to cite Christie's to make a general point about antique furniture or a certain type of it when each bit of information is only on one example of it. The two articles linked are of individual furnishings so that should be ok, but I still think better sources are likely available. buidhe 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For furniture? Not many. I haven't looked at this example, but for expensive items they often publish mini-essays by specialists (often outside ones) that are highly useful in specialized areas. Obviously they want to present the item for sale in the best light, but all concerned live & die by their reputations (and fear litigation) so these are normally RS. Obviously for their own achieved prices they are the best source, but pre-sale estimates shouldn't be used. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Johnbod. For individual pieces of furniture, the catalogue listing is reliable for facts such as dimensions, materials, and price achieved. They are also technically RS for pre-sale estimate (so long as it is attributed, e.g. "Christie's estimated that it would be sold for $4000-$6000"), but I suspect that for other reasons (such as WP:DUE) there's basically never a good reason to quote such estimates. For individual pieces and types of furniture, the catalogue essays are generally written by experts (at least, they are in the fine arts; I assume the same is true for other deparements), and Christie's itself has a reputation to uphold, so I would consider those generally reliable. Also for types of furniture, Christie's would be reliable for "In $YEAR, an example sold at Christie's measured $DIMENSIONS and was made out of $MATERIALS" type statements – but again, other policies probably suggest that in most cases such things shouldn't be included. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I intended to omit prices from this article and other furniture articles I'm working on. They change too much and I'm working in another time frame. The reference books I use (like John Gloag's Complete Dictionary of Furniture ) avoid them completely. The problem is that there aren't enough good reference books. That's why I'm turning to the Web.--AlainV (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A catalogue entry would not be RS for notability.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Paleobiota of Burmese amber

An editor (Kevmin) keeps adding an OMICS Publishing Group journal at Paleobiota of Burmese amber. The message that predatory journals aren't acceptable as citations doesn't seem to sink in, so please advise here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The reference being used in this situation is to the type description for the genus and species. The article referenced meets ALL criteria for an ICBN accepted formal description of a taxon, and is what will always be used as the formal reference for that taxon. While Poinar may have made a poor choice of journal for the description, it is the one that is used by all taxonomists that reference the taxon, so any other reference to Spheciophila adercia such as here & here(note the listing as Legitimate) all default to the type description as accepted and formal. This was not noted by headbomb in this listing here for some reason.--Kevmin § 01:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If Mycobank/ICBN recognizes the classification, then Mycobank/ICBN should be cited, not the OMICS journal. The removal of the {{predatory}} tag is inappropriate, as is citing OMICS to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

They recognize it and cite Poinars article. It is defined taxonomic practice on en.wiki and in taxonomy in general to not obfuscate the source of a taxonomic name, thus Poinar and not secondary tertiary or quaternary sources. The tags are misleading in asserting there is a different source that is more acceptable for a taxonomic act other then the type description.--Kevmin § 01:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That does not alleviate the fact that OMICS is not a reliable WP:PRIMARY source, and we cannot cite them to establish anything. The tags are needed, and your edit warring to restore a below sub-par source is getting tiresome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Kevmin, they can do that because they have experts who can assess if the OMICS source is bollocks. We are not experts, so we have to cite reliable sources, and OMICS is not one. You can't trust it without SME review, and we're not allowed (by policy) to stand as SMEs. Guy (help!) 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the issue is: (1) we don't want to cite the type description of the species because it was published in a predatory publisher's journal, but (2) there isn't any dispute that the article is the recognized type description for the species, and (3) it is the general practice in these lists to cite directly to the type description, so (4) failing to cite the type description would be inconsistent and unhelpful to users who are expecting to be able to use these lists to easily find the type description. If that's correct, could there be a positive-sum solution here? If the concern is that we would appear to be giving undue credence to the journal publisher by citing the type description as authority, would it be workable to have a ref (or note) that cites to an appropriate authority in the field such as Mycobank, and then separately provides a link out to the type description? That way it's clearer that we are providing the predatory-publisher link purely for user convenience, and are not relying on it for authority. -- Visviva (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, since WP:RS counsels us to treat predatory-journal publications as equivalent to self-published ones, I wonder if anyone can clarify why George Poinar Jr. wouldn't be considered an "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS? -- Visviva (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a dispute that the find is legitimate. If some higher authority recognizes is, sure, but we don't take LOOK I DISCOVERED SOMETHING! at face value from WP:SPS, even expert ones.Poinar could have made mistakes, could have had nefarious motives, could have overlooked something, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things somewhat. Assuming the dispute has been appropriately documented (I'm not seeing much here), why wouldn't we simply note it in the list item (and/or the not-yet-created article)? -- Visviva (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb wrote "There's a dispute that the find is legitimate"

Citation needed for this rather extraordinary assertion. Also a citation is needed that there is any violation of the IPBN rules for the type description and that there is any dispute by the paleontological, mycological, or amber research communities of Poinars findings in the paper. (As a note Visviva there is no dispute in the relevant fields of Poinars paper.)--Kevmin § 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Poinar is a respected scholar, and papers he has published on the topic of ambers in fungus have been published in other reputable journals, including scientific reports and others. I think the most likely explanation is that this was a mistake and that he didn't realise he was publishing in a predatory journal. I understand why predatory publishers are banned on wikipedia, as much of what they publish has absoloutely no scrutiny. But this a type description of a specimen, not some random biomed paper. Paleontology is primarily a descriptive science and since this is done by a respected scholar should be left as an exception, with a warning note providing links to readers about OMICS practices, it's better readers are aware and informed about OMICS predatory publishing behaviour rather than it is just swept under the rug in behind the scenes disputes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It really is quite simple, if Poinar really is credited with the discovery of a new species recognized by IPBN or whoever, then cite those, not a predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that a super-policy to the effect that we don't cite journals published by predatory publishers under any circumstances (even when the specific paper meets WP:RS and is relevant to the article) is the sort of thing that would call for a broad community discussion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Predatory journals, by their nature, are the very definition of a source that is not WP:RS. Having a broken clock paper still requires a reliable source to establish its findings as legitimate, because without those, we can't know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the policy currently. WP:RS indicates that publications in predatory journals should be treated as self-published (i.e. as if the author had just published the paper on their own website, essentially disregarding the journal entirely). And WP:SPS indicates that publications authored by "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" are deemed reliable even when self-published. So unless there is a dispute over whether Poinar is "an established expert in the subject matter", the paper is a reliable source. I suppose that's the end of the story as far as RSN is concerned. Of course, there could still be other issues, for example undue weight, if there is in fact a documented dispute in the field over the legitimacy of Poinar's report. -- Visviva (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And we wouldn't take any claim of discovery at face value from any expert that published that on their own blog. Again, the solution is simple, if Poinar really is credited with the discovery of a new species recognized by IPBN or whoever, then cite those, not a predatory publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't we cite both? I'm fine with the reference being there plus an addtional mycobank ref with the warning label and the predatory publisher tag. Many taxa have been described, historically and currently in books. If the book is self published or is published by a publishing house but isn't properly peer reviewed by scientists, does that mean that it is an unreliable source, as it has not been peer reviewed? I think as long as it is well labelled it is fine. I've seen many citations and have cited blog posts myself by experts that have useful information that isn't in peer reviewed papers, much of this depends on context and what kind of information is being cited from it. As under WP:SPS, to quote the policy in full "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." If policy treats OMICS papers as self published, then they should be only be considered reliable sources if authored by an "established expert", which Poinar clearly is. I don't think you are going to change your mind on this Headbomb, and so to prevent this devolving into an endless back and forth so this needs to be resolved via some kind of wider policy discussion on how Predatory publishers and expert sources intersect, as the number of participants currently isn't high enough to reach some kind of concensus on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's simple, they simply aren't reliable for these sort of claims. We would not accept a claim of discovery from a blog at face value, and neither should we take one from a predatory journal at face value. You have your solution, if it's recognized by IPBN, then cite IPBN because that's the reliable source. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not simple, as I've stated, many taxa are published in books that haven't undergone peer review. When a taxon is self published or unpublished, it is considered to to be a nomen nudum or naked name. It is impossible to republish a publication from a predatory journal into a not predatory journal because it isn't considered self-published (like a pre-print) or a naked manuscript. In order to be considered a Validly published name, it must satisy International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants criteria for validity, CHAPTER V: VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES, SECTION 2: NAMES OF NEW TAXA. Articles 38-40. The paper satisfies all of the criteria laid out in the criteria for validity, including a diagnosis of the taxon. No where in there is "peer review" even mentioned. For critera of publication under CHAPTER IV: EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION, SECTION 1: CONDITIONS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION, ARTICLE 29 It states "Publication is effected, under this Code, by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to scientific institutions with generally accessible libraries. Publication is also effected by distribution on or after 1 January 2012 of electronic material in Portable Document Format (PDF; see also Art. 29.3 and Rec. 29A.1) in an online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN)." Given that even as a non-peer reviewed publication by a predatory publisher it clearly satisfies these criteria, and thus is valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It is extremely simple. If IPBN, a reliable source, recognizes Poinar, then cite IPBN, not OMICS, which is not reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Read what I wrote rather than writing a 2 sentence response ignoring the entirety of it. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is the highest authority on the topic, something like the supreme court in terms of taxonomy. If they consider a paper validy published then It should be considered validly published on Wikipedia, end of. You seem completely set in your opinion that there should be absolutely no nuance about how predatory publisher papers should be treated. I am happy to abide by a concensus view, but you seem completely unwilling to come to any sort of reasonable compromise on the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing IPBN should be a 'reasonable compromise' to anyone reasonable given that they are an authoritative source. OMICS is not reliable. We cannot call it reliable or take its claim at face value. IPBN is reliable. Cite IPBN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Haelewaters et al, 2019 disputes Poinar 2016 calling it "spurious", In that case the source can no longer be considered reliable. So I have fallen on my sword and changed my opinion and accept your compromise. I still think that there needs to broader policy discussion about predatory publishers and if it is reasonable in specific contexts to cite them, but that's best left for another time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR sourcing (etc.) at Talk:Mottainai

New outside voices are still very much welcome. The page has seen a lot of activity from trolls and editors who are hounding me, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, and so on, so more neutral parties chiming in would be most appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Al Masdar news

This source is almost like the Syrian offshoot of RT and Sputnik. It frequently posts conspiracy theories, such as Khan Shaykhun chemical attack being a American false flag. [10] According to Alliance for Securing Democracy Al-Masdar is a main source of Syria-related propaganda for Russian accounts aimed at US audiences. [11] The website also frequently uses Twitter as a reference for its news, which is not considered a WP:RS yet editors use Al Masdar to bypass this and use twitter as a reference on Wikipedia. MidEastEvents (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The site is also a main hub for far-right according to Business Insider. [12] MidEastEvents (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP, as this noticeboard is much more widely viewed than the talk page.​ — Newslinger talk 01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Masdar News has been already discussed numerous times during the years and been deemed to be a mostly reliable source when it comes to territorial changes in the Syrian conflict. Its reliability was established on the fact that Masdar, which is indeed pro-Syrian government, overlaps in its reporting of territorial changes almost entirely with SOHR's reporting (anti-Syrian government source and considered authoritative on Syria by other RS). A compromise solution was found that, when citing territorial changes, they will be presented as fact if cited by both Masdar and SOHR. If something is reported only by Masdar and not SOHR, then we attribute it to Masdar and let our readers decide weather its true or not, in line with Wikipedia's policy of not excluding the views of one beligerent over the other. However, its been further agreed that when Masdar makes controversial claims, like on the subject of massacres, chemical attacks or something similar, it will NOT be used as a source unless other reliable sources such as Reuters, AFP, BBC, etc also confirm it. Due to a major lack of independent/3rd party sources in Syria, its been agreed among editors that Masdar and SOHR, which widely cover the conflict, would be used under the established rules I mentioned. Excluding either of the two as a source on Syrian war-related articles would leave our coverage of that conflict undersourced in a major way. I am pinging other editors who have been involved in the Syrian war articles to also chip in. @Mr.User200:@Smeagol 17:@I Know I'm Not Alone:@Cengo-1992:@Applodion:@Takinginterest01:@Goodposts:@Mehmedsons:@Khirurg: (sorry if I missed someone) EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the previous RfC on Masdar News, per which the ground rules on the source were established, can be found here [13]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User @EkoGraf: hit the nail on the head. Al-Masdar has proven to be reliable in terms of factual accuracy. It is a pro-Syrian government publication, yes, but its reporting is nonetheless based on factual events. The SOHR is a very similar situation, but with the roles reversed - it actively opposes the Syrian government. For this reason, the two sources are often used in tandem, which provides a relatively good sense of balance in the article. If only one is available, it can be used with attribution as per WP:PARTISAN. As EkoGraf mentioned, excluding either of the two would seriously and severely hamper coverage of the Syrian Civil War and drastically reduce the quality of the articles on the subject. The fact of the matter is that foreign publications don't cover enough detail to replace sources like these, and Syrian publications are bound to have a bias. For this reason, publications with opposite biases can be used together to verify certain events. In any case, Al-Masdar has proven to be an accurate source and its publications can usually be trusted to convey the full reality of the situation to their readers, be it from a pro-government viewpoint. The presense of an editorial viewpoint doesn't necessarily imply a lack of accuracy. Al-Masdar's sympathies for the Syrian Government have so far not usually translated into more than phrasing differences (eg. 'militant' as opposed to 'rebel' - which in of itself isn't necessarily wrong, as they are defined as such by their country's government, but it does present a POV). It has published articles on government losses, as well as on controversies. For these reasons, I support the current SCW consensus, as accurately described above by EkoGraf, that Al-Masdar can be used, with attribution if used alone, and without if used in conjunction with other sources. As for extremely controversial matters, such as chemical attacks - the current consensus dictates that such material may only be added with multiple, independent publications and may not soley be based on such a source.

Lastly, part of the original controversy around al-Masdar was regarding one of their editors (the same one that published the controversial Khan Shaykhun article) that was found to have posted a racist comment in an online forum ten years prior. That editor was suspended by al-Masdar when those allegations were revealed and forced to resign two days later. He hasn't published anything on Al-Masdar since. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @EkoGraf: and @Goodposts:. The Syrian Civil War is a difficult subject matter, and getting reliable sources has often proven be a nightmare. In fact, even Western newspapers which are usually reliable and employ capable journalists have occasionally repeated unreliable propaganda claims. In this regard, al-Masdar is certainly flawed - it makes no secret of its firm support of the government and opposition toward the rebels. Regardless, it has access to sources within the Syrian government and military, and is able to report on matters which pro-rebel sources such as SOHR generally fail to mention, i.e. which military units take part in operations. As its reporting also overlaps with SOHR and other pro-opposition media in regard to battles, Masdar cannot be said to be a mere propaganda outlet. It should be used with caution, but as Goodposts said, Wikipedia would certainly lose many details and the proper balance between pro-rebel/pro-government sources if it would be banned. Applodion (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ekograf and Goodposts, SOHR and Al -Masdar might be used together to report undeniable facts from the battlefild, this means reports of offensives and territorial gains/losses. Regarding casualties neither SOHR or Al-Masdar share their metodology or back their claim of dead combatants with the names of he victims. Something combatants media do usually. SOHR have made very wild claims before. I remeber two, the 2013-2014 Aleppo Prison breach by Syrian rebels. This was a huge editorial error and anti-rebels labelled that coverage as SOHR FAKE news. The other gross error was a report of monthly casualties that the individual losses did not matched with the final sum. I remember sending a message to the SOHR account in FB about it and they changed their final tally in some hours. A pity I did not took a screnshot. Regarding Al-Masdar and SF some weeks ago remeber seeing a wild claim of Israeli strikes in Yemen or something like that, without any photo or evidence. They took away that new shortly after. In short dont believe blindly any media regarding the Syrian Civil War they back combatants in the field and have their own iterest. Mr.User200 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I do not think we should consider al-Masdar a reliable source. I accept that there are times when it might be useful to cite it with attribution for some details that are missing from more reliable sources, and that where it agrees with pro-opposition sources the two can be triangulated to get access to a broadly accurate account. However, there are several problems.

1) I think it is a red herring to say that it is reliable because it largely agrees with the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), sometimes described as "pro-opposition". SOHR started out as pro-opposition, but now often more closely resembles al-Masdar; they often seem to use each other as sources. SOHR is basically one man in England with a network of sources in Syria. It does not share its methodology and has been heavily criticised for that. It has long since ceased to be a trusted source for pro-opposition Syria-watchers. (See this 2017 piece and this very recent article both by Syrian journalist Amr Salahi, who also writes for Middle East Eye and al-Araby.) The Syrian fact-checking site has published multiple articles definitively showing SOHR to be reporting inaccurately. The fact that al-Masdar often agrees with SOHR is therefore not an argument for trusting al-Masdar.

2) As noted above one of their former editors Paul Antonopoulos (also involved with the South Front blog) was outed as a neo-Nazi and forced to resign. It is true that he has not published on a-M since, but his old articles remain up and many remain sources in our articles. More importantly, the main editor Leith Fadel has also been involved in controversy, as described on the al-Masdar News WP article itself.

3) a-M, like SOHR, published very quickly. Many of its articles are rightly entitled "Breaking News". Breaking news articles are defined as primary sources by Wikpipedia. As the WP:BNS essay says, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and is not required to rush to publish. As a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disasters and other breaking news events. Primary sources should always be replaced by secondary sources as soon as possible, and it is often better to leave out minor details only appearing in primary sources or in borderline reliable sources. If a detail is too insignificant to be reported anywhere other than al-Masdar or SOHR, it probably isn't important enough to include in an encyclopedia article. We don't need to know how many meters the SAA advanced on a given day or which hill they took then lost one afternoon. In short, there is rarely a good reason to cite al-Masdar.

4) Most (not all) al-Masdar articles are themselves second hand. They pass on SAA press releases, translate the Syrian state news agency into English, summarise ISIS press releases, post social media videos online, etc. The fact that these have been reposted by al-Masdar does not make them more reliable, and they should be assessed in the same way the original source was assessed. Thus a SAA briefing quoted by al-Masdar about which unit was involved in a particular battle might be usable (and this is one thing al-Masdar probably is good for) but we need to use it very, very carefully.

5) Because al-Masdar uses such non-neutral language (e.g. both jihadi and non-jihadi rebels are called "jihadis" and "terrorists"), it is not good that our articles link to their articles, especially because readers will assume that we are citing decent sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Bob. I wish we had more 3rd party/neutral sources on Syria that could replace Masdar. And where we can replace it we should. However, due to the major lack of 3rd party sources on Syria, we do with what we have. And due to Masdar's reliability over territorial and military unit issues and unreliability over controversial issues, the previous RfC set up the basic ground rules on the usage of Masdar News on Wikipedia after an extensive discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for tighter specification of when to use as an RS, building on the last RfC: (a) a-M can be used without attribution as a source for official Syrian government statements, for pro-government casualty names and the naming pro-government units deployed; (b) a-M can be used with attribution and care as a source for territorial gains and losses and other non-controversial and uncontested facts, ideally triangulated with pro-opposition sources (preferably not just SOHR), but effort should be made to replace with better sources as soon as possible; (c) a-M should never be used as a source for names and numbers of pro-opposition casualties, names of pro-opposition units or details of factional disputes among opposition fighters, or for any controversial or contested details; (d) breaking stories from a-M should be avoided unless necessary, and where used should include an inline primary source tag and be replaced by reliable secondary sources as soon as available; (e) articles that are heavily reliant on a-M should have an unreliable sources and/or partisan source template added and sections that are heavily reliant on it should have a more citations or a one source template added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll address the issues one by one.

1 - You are correct that the SOHR does not share its methodology and has been criticised for that. Regardless, it is still a pro-opposition publication and this becomes apparent from the phrasing of its articles. For example "The Syrian Army captured the village of X" would often be reported by the SOHR as "The regime and its militias captured the village of X". Its noteworthy that the Middle East Eye, which you mentioned, is in of itself involved in controversy over an alleged pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and Qatari funding. It was one of the outlets that the gulf coalition demanded be shut down as part of the Qatar diplomatic crisis.

2 - What al-Masdar did was more or less exactly what they should have done in that situation. The first article written by that editor was dated in late 2014, while his post in the neo-nazi forum was from 2007. It's likely that they didn't know about a post he made online 7 years prior. Once made aware, he was suspended and made to resign, which is exactly what one would expect. Even Vice Media, today known as a left-liberal publication, was originally involved (and even co-founded by) with Gavin McInnes - who later created the extreme rightist group "Proud Boys". Needless to say, he also doesn't write for Vice any longer. It is impossible to know the deeply held political opinions of every person that works for a publication, nor how they would or will develop as time goes on. What matters is what the response of the publication is once matters such as these become public.

3 - I will agree with you that sensationalism is not good for wikipedia, nor should editors rush to edit in the "breaking news". At the same time there are many noteworthy things that are only published in sources such as these. An example would be the reshuffle of military command in an important military unit or the surrounding of yet another observation post.

4 - That is not necessarily something that takes away credibility. It is expected that a source has some kind of methodology for confirming the findings that were alleged on twitter or other rarely reliable sources - for example by using its own sources and informants. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with translated SANA articles, when used to cite official positions of the Syrian government. It's actually preferable to linking in arabic, as machine translations can be unreliable and wikipedia policy favours English sources when available.

5 - It is true that they use non-neutral language, but so does the SOHR, Daily Sabah, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera and the vast majority of other regional sources. That's why we often use al-Masdar to provide some balance when citing some of these other sources.

While I do believe you have some valid points, I do believe your proposal is simply too restrictive, especially the idea of marking articles citing them multiple times as "unreliable". I can, however, I agree on a moderate holding off from "breaking news" articles - though I think this should cover all sources on the topic, and not just al-Masdar. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. (1) I would not use Middle East Eye as a reliable source in an actual article, but use that to show that pro-opposition commentators do not regard SOHR as a reliable or pro-opposition source. True, SOHR uses the word "regime" for the government (as do some mainstream Western outlets) but it also uses the word "jihadi" for many rebel groups. My point is that using it to legitimate al-Masdar is dodgy because two wrongs don't make a right. (2) The difference from the Vice example is that McInnes went on to be a far right activist when he left Vice, whereas Antonopoulos was involved in far right politics before joining al-Masdar, which speaks badly of their judgement. It's not itself a dealbreaker, but is suggestive of a pattern of bad judgement and fringe partisanship. As I said, what's more important is the controversy around the editor, such as his circulation of fake allegations that a refugee in Europe was a Nusra activist.[14] (3) Agree. (4) OK, but it is a reason why we need to exercise caution. As al-Masdar's reliability is not agreed on, we cannot give them the benefit of the doubt about their methodology for confirming social media stories are true. (5) OK, but al-Masdar is a particularly egregious example, so we should be minimising its use rather than using it to balance other weak sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there precedent for such detailed prescription regarding when and when not to use a source? While the OP was clearly exercised about bias at a-M, I think the RS issues are covered sufficiently by the general guidance of the 2017 rfc. Batternut (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with the use of Al Madsar (see the heated discussion on its talk page in the past) without attribution, and a period of time in which it passes the WP:NOTNEWS in which alternative sources with credibility can be found. In fact, there were no disclosures (about us, etc.) before Dfroberg (a member of the board of directors) joined in the writing of the article. He did eventually admit his COI when I found his name appended to one of their articles, but was eventually blocked for trying to disruptively promote their publication and take the WP:JDLI bits out. I can sympathise with EkoGraf wanting to be able to use their material since he works with stats, as has already been pointed out, attribution is essential, but it must quickly be backed up. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the RfC, we cite Masdar with attribution when its the sole source reporting on a territorial gain or when we are using it as a source for a controversial issues that is also covered by other more reliable sources (so to provide a competing POV). We do not use Masdar as a source (we exclude it) when its the sole source for a controversial issue that is not covered by other RS. When it reports on a territorial gain that is also confirmed by the anti-gov SOHR we use both as refs and there is no need for attribution since they confirm each others claims basically. And, I think we can all agree, whenever there is a chance to replace Masdar with a more mainstream reliable source we do it. I could also agree that "breaking news" reports by Masdar should not be used until more concrete and clear reports are provided. EkoGraf (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason I think we need more robust guidelines is that the source is really heavily and badly used. For example, in the article about a current offensive, Northwestern Syria offensive (December 2019–present), al-Masdar is used 32 times, which is an awful lot, and it would be more and with less attribution if I hadn't gone through it and checked some of its overreached uses. Maybe it is more heavily used there because it is on-going so people haven't had time to go back and replace with better, but it doesn't seem like that does happen as people move on to hastily adding in the breaking news on whatever the current offensive is. Thus, in Idlib demilitarization (2018–2019) about 10% of cites are al-Masdar; in Northwestern Syria offensive (April–August 2019), 122 cites (about a quarter of cites) are a-M; in Northwestern Syria campaign (October 2017–February 2018), 148 out of 264 references are to al-Masdar. It seems to me that unless we have a much stronger steer against using it, it will keep on being heavily used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

CAPTCHA exemption for reliable domains

(Background: New users have to enter a CAPTCHA every time they make an edit that includes a link to another website. There is a little-known feature in the mediawiki software that allows us to whitelist websites that are used frequently and are highly unlikely to be used by bots for spamming. The whitelist is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist .)

I submitted a request for the following domains to be added to the whitelist:

• ipcc.ch (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
• nap.edu (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)

I was asked to post the request here in case there are any objections. If there are no objections within a week, these sites will be whitelisted and new users who want to add references to these sources will not have to enter CAPTCHAS to do so. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

EarnTheNecklace.com

• uses

An entertainment news website. I've been slowly reviewing how EarnTheNecklace.com is being used, after running across it a while back. Given the amount of usage, I thought discussion is needed. Here's an example:

• Jony Ive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Net worth US$900 million (2019)

This article begins with a disclaimer: "*Disclaimer: The estimated net worth numbers are based on our research done on the Internet and are for entertainment purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy of these numbers."

References

Another example:

• Jared Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): In 2009, Harris met Allegra Riggio, a lighting designer and TV host 14 years his junior; at a comedy club where a mutual friend was performing.

References

While EarnTheNecklace does include these disclaimers for some articles, they also headline such articles when a person is in the news. While they do tend to indicate some references in their articles, they are often to sources that are considered unreliable on Wikipedia.

I don't see a problem deleting networth info attributed to EarnTheNecklace. I don't think it should be used for BLP information. I'm unsure about anything else, but am leaning toward this being generally unreliable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree striongly. This is not a source that we should be using in this way. Guy (help!) 19:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. EarnTheNecklace.com is a less popular version of CelebrityNetWorth (RSP entry). Neither site provides accurate net worth estimates, and the reliability of these sites falls short of what is required by the biographies of living persions policy. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I looked at their terms of use page. It says: "USE & COPYRIGHTS: Contents Copyright © 2018. You are prohibited from copying, saving, printing, selling, hyperlinking, using our URL, or reproducing, in any manner whatsoever, any of the information on EarnTheNecklace.com." Does that mean wikipedia shouldn't link to that website? --Guest2625 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  ​I wouldn't worry about it. EarnTheNecklace.com can make that statement, but hyperlinking a website (that does not contain illegal content) doesn't violate any laws in any jurisdiction affecting Wikipedia, and that statement would almost certainly carry no legal weight in court. — Newslinger talk 05:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with removing them all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Since an auction house like Christie is not a RS how about an established museum like the Met?

The Met doesn't have a "Bureau Capucin" in its holdings but there are other types of desks for which I'm looking for sources and the Met has a few. The Met is at https://www.metmuseum.org/ and an example of an item in their collection is at https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/15.21.2/ with the kind of historical text I need.--AlainV (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I do know that the question of whether the printed signage at museums should be considered RS was asked about 10 years ago, and at that time we said “yes, it generally was”... Does this answer your question? Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a single person said in unequivocal terms that Christie's was not a reliable source. There was a nuanced discussion about context and reliability where it was shown that depending on what you were using it for and depending on how you attribute it in the text it would be perfectly reliable for certain applications. You need to be clear on what you intend to use something like this, especially where it is outside of the normal "book, journal, magazine, news" type of sources we think of in this context. Like wise with a "museum". What are we using from the museum? Signage? Printed guides? Books they have published? Their website? What are we using that content to verify here at Wikipedia? How are you phrasing what you are writing? How are you attributing the source? That all matters. --Jayron32 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I should have mentioned explicitely that I'm thinking of using their Web site entries as shown in the examples I gave. I should also have said that this would be (with the exception of the capucin desk) for existing desk articles which already have lists of scholarly books consulted but which (for now) lack inline citations.--AlainV (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you give an example sentence and citation? That would let us see the how well the article text is supported by the source (or not). Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A museum and an Auction house are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If the Metropolitan Museum has an object in its collection, it will usually have reliable online material about it, and it is not necessary o ely on jus the exhibit label. Perhaps Pharos can assist here . DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, its not a sale catalogue entry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

worldatlas.com

I found many articles that cite worldatlas.com, which is another online encyclopedia. Unlike Wikipedia, it seems to lack references in most of its articles, so it is probably not a reliable source. Should references to World Atlas be replaced with references to other sources, where possible? Jarble (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am definitely not a fan of citing tertiary sources especially online ones and a better source would be best. But last time this came up that I saw Trusted web sites for research - Yale University (PDF) was cited.--Moxy 🍁 03:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Moxy but, as an fyi, that Peabody link leads nowhere. IAE, doing a bit of research, it seems you meant to link this document. From it, it's noteworthy that the worldatlas.com site in question is listed by them as a recommended "trusted" site. I think this is where our focus needs to be: that an internationally known educational institution (Yale U.) has advised its museum researchers that WorldAtlas is considered a "trusted" (i.e., reliable) site. Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• WorldAtlast.com is reliable. It qualifies as a tertiary source and the WP policy on tertiary sources here states "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". There's nothing in the policy saying tertiary sources aren't to be used. Likewise, there's nothing unreliable about WorldAtlast. This particular atlas is reliable given that it has its own editorial board and the company isn't listed at List of self-publishing companies. That said, I think it's always preferable to have more than one source to a claim; however, that preference would be true of all sources, not unique to WorldAtlas.com. Also, I am not sure why a comparison is being made above between WorldAtlas and Wikipedia: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. The comparison seems misleading. Mercy11 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Vanity press

FYI, I am doing another run of AWB edits relating to vanity presses. The search regex is copied from Filter 894: author\s?house|trafford\s?publishing|iuniverse|publisher\s?[=,:]\s?lulu[. ]*com|\bxlibris|mellenpress\.com|edwin\s?mellen\s?press|grosvenorhousepublishing\.co\.uk|grosvenor\shouse\spublishing.

The affected publishers are:

• Author House
• Trafford Publishing
• iUniverse
• Lulu
• XLibris
• Edwin Mellen Press
• Grosvenor House Publishing

I'll work out the appropriate regex for CreateSpace too.

The plan is, as usual:

• If the source has been tagged as SPS for some time then remove it (and replace with {{cn}} if it is not adjacent to another ref tag);
• If the source has not been tagged, tag it {{sps}};
• If it's a bare external link, remove it regardless.

I eagerly await the usual confident but mutually contradictory instructions from editors. If there are queries about specific books, I will direct people here.

In related news: filter 894 gets a fair few of hits, and in most cases editors ignore the warning and save anyway - that's why the problem is getting worse, not better. Maybe check the logs occasionally if you're bored and spoiling for a fight?

On the occasions I have trawled through the history to find who adds such links, it's very often IPs or WP:SPAs that give every impression of being the author of the book. The time may come when we have to blacklist the vanity presses then whitelist those books with consensus for inclusion. But not while we have thousands of the bloody things. Guy (help!) 20:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This only works if there is a URL, right? So it won't catch

• Stany Zjednoczone. Econometric models with panel data across Stata. CreateSpace. OCLC 1084540894.

This may be a bit less promotional without a "buy me" link, but not necessarily any more reliable. buidhe 01:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I am tweaking it now because I have found some like this, but basically it will find the vanity presses in "publisher=" or their domains in "url=" or when rendered as a http/(s) url. Guy (help!) 12:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How about this hypothetical example? Consider that Google Books links don't have the publisher in them. (Sorry for giving you a hard time, I think this is a good idea but there are many ways around it). buidhe 05:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Salyers, Toni (2013). Dark Dreams. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4819-5950-6

Buidhe thanks, I am looking at all of the above. It's not going to be a one-and-done exercise, this is a bit of a plague. Guy (help!) 21:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not consider Edwin Mellen Press as self publishing in the sense that he others are. They ask subventions from the author ,but so do many very high class academic presses especially if he book is going to be expensive to produce. They're simply a not -very-high-quality academic publisher. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Mmm sounds like it's similar to Cambridge Scholars Publishing. I can think of very few situations where I would use either, but it's true that a hard blacklist might not make sense. buidhe 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

KCNA.kp and CGTN.com

I kindly request some comments on the following source(s) relating to their verifiability and reliability:

• CGTN (website at www.cgtn.com)
• Korean Central News Agency (English website at kcna.kp/kcna.user.home.retrieveHomeInfoList.kcmsf)

At the time of writing, no Wikipedia articles using the above sources have been identified. --69.160.29.94 (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As state run media they are not neutral, thus could not be used for statements of fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion is not a formal request for comment, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading. Please see WP:RFC for details on the RfC process. — Newslinger talk 12:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Very strong language, few sources

Please review Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory#Very_strong_language,_few_sources. Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PureMédias

Since this is a source that's never been discussed before, I'd like some opinions on PureMédias:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thanks. ToThAc (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the usage that brings this question up? (Without that, this probably isn't worth doing an RFC on.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC on Principle Is this being used much? Have people raised a concern about its use? If no then why bring this up. Do we even have enough information to reach a conclusion one way or the other? My feeling is if a source hasn't been used much or discussed much by others then we have little on which to judge. It could be a relatively young source that will gain a strong, good or strong , bad reputation over time. However, if we have a RfC now, it might result in a thumbs down which would then keep the source out of Wikipedia even as it's real world use improves. Sorry, if we have little information on the source then we should look at specific examples of use rather than make a general proclamation. Springee (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Springee: Sorry, I must have forgotten to show you this source's usage. Here you go: ozap.com  . It appears to be used primarily for sources relating to French television, politics, and musical numbers. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what provokes you to bring up the question? What's the editorial dispute concerning the source? - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thing is, at first glance, it appears to be some sort of online database of people, somewhat like IMDb. ToThAc (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks more Hollywood Reporter than IMDb. Maybe ask editors on fr: instead and bring that discussion here. SilverbackNet ^talk 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What Springee and SilverbackNet said. Looks like any other pop culture news site to me. feminist (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have unpinned this RfC, as the discussion was too insubstantial for a formal closure. — Newslinger talk 11:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

South Front

Is this source reliable? This website is used dozens of time on Syrian civil war related articles. Here is an article by Politico about South Front. Need your opinions. Beshogur (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Beshogur, absolutely not. It is a fake news / disinformation site. Guy (help!) 12:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: KenRockwell.com

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.

KenRockwell.com should be treated as a self-published source, with caution, as it is not considered a reliable source - particularly in the absence of reliable, independent publications establishing Rockwell's work in the relevant field as a subject matter expert. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Is KenRockwell.com a reliable source for statements about photographic equipment? Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Used as a source in many articles on photography equipment, KenRockwell.com is self-published and has no editorial oversight. As far as I can tell, the author has not written any books on photographic equipment. As quoted in the previous listing, the text that used to be on the about page is telling:

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

Here is a link to a previous posting on this source, though no discussion was generated.

I want to discuss the source broadly, but here is a representative example:

• Source: [15]
• Article: Nikon F-mount
• Content: "E Lenses with manual aperture control like PC-E lenses allow manual diaphragm operation on all cameras, with possible unreliable metering on DSLRs without E-type support."

Thanks! Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Qono, not a reliable source. Should be treated as a blog. Why the RfC is needed here? DBigXrayᗙ 03:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for your response. I am unclear if RfC's are meant for disputes only. I've started a conversation on the RfC talk page and would welcome your input there. Qono (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question Do we have evidence of other reliable photography sources citing KenRockwell's blog? This might be sufficient to establish Rockwell as a subject mater expert. From there you may be able to argue this is an expert opinion that can be used with attribution. I think Rockwell's site is a good resource and one I've consulted when buying a camera. However, it's clearly a personal blog per Wikipedia's standards thus the only way for it to be considered usable, other than for ABOUTSELF, is to establish some level of expertise acknowledged by other sources. Springee (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  The eligibility requirement is a little bit different than that. According to WP:SPS, Rockwell's "work in the relevant field" must have "previously been published by reliable, independent publications" for him to be considered a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like the sort of thing we would normally apply to topic that is largely supported by academic texts. If Rockwell were interviewed or otherwise acknowledged by a respected photography magazine would that count here? This is a RS area I've been somewhat interested in for a while. For a while I've been considering doing some work on articles related to the sort of formula race cars that are typical of SCCA events. That is a topic with little academic sourcing. Trying to get facts/figures/opinions from experts is harder because they generally don't publish. I'm not sure if David Bruns has ever published anything on race car design but his Swift DB-1 was a car that changed Formula Ford across the world. A lot of the interesting design ideas associated with that car, things that made it successful, are voiced by people who's resumes make them clear experts in the field but not published on the subject. In this case I would not WP:IAR but rather bend them if reliable sources say Rockwell is an expert in the field. Springee (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: KenRockwell.com. — Newslinger talk 11:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

RfC: Metalheadzone

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.

Clear consensus for option 3: Metalheadzone is best described by the Wikipedia community as generally unreliable for factual reporting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalheadzone?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

Supplemental information about the website: Publishes news about Rock and Metal bands both modern and old. Does have a page dedicated to user submitted news but the form seems to be down so unsure if there is user generated 'news' being submitted and published, or if any is, if it's being verified in any way. EliotWL (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. Guy (help!) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly unreliable - we’ve already had a discussion and come to a consensus on the music WikiProjects. It’s listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC] as a result of it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Their https://metalheadzone.com/about-us/ does not provide any indication of editorial oversight or policy. They do list at least two contributing staff, but no credentials are provided for them. I suspect that factual reporting could be considered reliable, while reviews may contain personal opinion rather than anything else. However, since it's on NOTRSMUSIC, I would stay away from its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even a “2” is pretty generous. As I mentioned in the WikiProject discussion, the head person who writes a vast majority of the articles has a disclaimer at the bottom articles that essentially states that he doesn’t have a great grasp on the English language. Which explains the extremely misleading or poorly worded headlines they frequently pump out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we jumping straight to RfCs? - Ryk72 ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you look above There are two metal zines that no one has discussed, and have subsequently been archived. Perhaps EliotWL saw that and decided to have some actual input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Not reliable. Appears to be used in only 11 places.[16] On review of the site, I concur with JzG, above, I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. and Richard3120 here, It's literally a group of Turkish guys reposting anything they can find online related to rock and metal on their website. It seems to be 90% tabloid/Buzzfeed-style "shock! horror! nightmare!" exaggerated headlines that preface mundane anecdotes. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Most of these articles have BLP considerations and this style of tabloid gossip can't be recommended. Dartslilly (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: Does not seem to have much editorial oversight and because of some of the BLP concerns mentioned. Would be better to use the sources they link to, for instance with this article that would possibly raise a lot of BLP issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Metalheadzone. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. With only three staff members and a couple of unlisted contributors directly involved in writing blog posts, the team is small enough to be considered self-published. A web search revealed minimal use by other reliable sources. Combined with the questionable editorial oversight and tabloid-style content, the heavy focus on living persons makes Metalheadzone generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Sources for the Goths article

Article: Goths

(Pinging other users who have edited recently on this article: @Carlstak, Srnec, Orenburg1, Krakkos, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Davemck, Narky Blert, Nicholas0, Mnemosientje, Cobaltcigs, Rjdeadly, Jens Lallensack, DASDBILL2, Kansas Bear, Megalogastor, Nyook, and Yeowe:)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Author: Peter Heather. Note: there is no dispute about his status as an authority on the Goths.

Works involved, by the above author, are two "dictionary" entries behind a paywall:

• Heather, Peter (2012b). "Goths". In Hornblower, Simon; Spawforth, Antony; Eidinow, Esther (eds.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 623. ISBN 9780191735257. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Heather, Peter (2018). "Goths". In Nicholson, Oliver (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. p. 673. ISBN 9780191744457. Retrieved January 25, 2020. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The proposal for discussion is a rather high impact proposal affecting the whole article:-

Krakkos proposes that Peter Heather as an author, and in particular these two relatively recent dictionary articles are not just among the best possible sources, but definitely THE best, and as a result:

1. The lead of the article Goths should ONLY use these two sources. Anything NOT in these sources should NOT be in the lead AT ALL.

2. The article as a whole should be based on what is in these two sources.

Discussion. Feedback requested:

• I strongly oppose this proposal (and posted it here above, after discussion on the talk page). Reasons include:

• The rule proposed is arbitrary and extreme and no such rule is needed. No rationale seems clear.
• The specific sources were, already before this proposal, controversial because they are short dictionary articles which do not discuss the disputes within the field which are known to exist, and on some points Heather represents an extreme position compared to others. Wikipedia has to report all the major respectable positions, and this proposal would make that impossible.
• The cause of this demand being made seems to only be a content dispute. The proposer, (Krakkos), favour's Heather's positions. (There are also disputes about the LACK of citations to Walter Goffart, and the use of little-known book-review and educational website sources to attack Goffart and praise Heather further. I aim to post further about these.)
• As a side issue, these dictionaries are only available behind a paywall, and Krakkos has access to Oxford reference works through Wikipedia Library. It seems strange that in discussions about other highly regarded authorities, Krakkos has argued against the use of German language sources because these are less accessible to readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC) ADDED. It has been mistakenly commented on the article that this is my main concern.[17] It is not. Policy allows material behind paywalls, and also allows material in German. I was just pointing to a potential side issue, and the inconsistency of this potential argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• ADDED. To be clear I will also mention that one argument that has been made is that the newer of the two encyclopedias is very recent, making it very useful. However my counter arguments are that (1) from all reports it nevertheless is not written with the aim of giving updates of new debates from the last 20 or 30 years and (2) from online reviews it is clear this work was a project that took decades, so despite the final publication date, some articles might be very old.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Andrew Lancaster's making of misrepresented proposals on my behalf. At Talk:Goths#Request to replace links behind paywall, i have asked Andrew Lancaster for permission to insert free links at Goths, so that he will have an opportunity to read the articles by Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. 15:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried my hardest to get your cooperation Krakkos, [18], and it is based on your own words. If the proposal is wrongly worded, say so please. One way or another we need community input about your demands, so we can move ahead. Please do not work against this.

Also do keep in mind that the paywall is a side remark, as clearly stated. Please don't now try to make it all about the paywall?

...And why have you again written your position in a confusing way so that it looks like the opposite of what you mean? Is that to make some sort of point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've tried even harder.[19] Formulating fictitious "proposals" on behalf of other editors is not a good way of cooperating. Krakkos (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine. I register that as another one of your diffs that leads to nothing relevant or positive for you. But more to the point, clearly you think the "proposal" I wrote for you does agree with your position (or proposal or claim or whatever we call it). Phew. Not sure what you can complain about. Anyway, until now, no one else agrees with you, but at least you agree with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The lead should have no citations at all. It should summarize the article, which should be thoroughly cited. The two sources mentioned are top-tier sources and can be used extensively. Beyond that I don't know what to say. How the lead handles contentious issues will depend to a large extent on how the article does, but in my opinion it is perfectly okay to skate over controversies in the lead so long as the result it still NPOV. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The two sources are very good, but the best articles use a variety of sources. So other sources should be used as well. Indeed, relying too heavily on only one or two sources can create an unbalanced article with POV problems. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Part 2

Despite the strict-looking proposal noted above, these lesser known sources ARE being used in the article to ridicule Goffart and other scholars who disagree with Heather such as A. S. Christensen, and to support Heather:

A paywall online educational website:

• Mark, Joshua J. (October 12, 2014). "The Goths". Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 17, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |editors=, |registration=, and |subscription= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

A book review of Christensen:

• Whitby, Michael (October 2003). "A. S. Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth". The Classical Review. 53 (2). Classical Association: 498. doi:10.1093/cr/53.2.498. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Another book review of Christensen:

• Sønnesyn, Sigbjørn (2004). "Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths". Scandinavian Journal of History. 29 (3–4). Taylor & Francis: 306–308. doi:10.1080/03468750410005719. Retrieved February 27, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |layurl=, |laydate=, |nopp=, and |laysource= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The question is whether it is appropriate to use lesser sources like this, only for this type of reason, when there are lots of better sources easily available online, and many of those are currently not being used. Feedback requested:-

• I oppose the use of these 3 sources in the above way on the Goths article. (I posted this question.) These sources add nothing and are being used for nothing else, and at the same time we are not using any direct quotes or paraphrases from Goffart himself for example. Concerning accessibility, Mark is for example behind a paywall. (And as in the above case, the defender of these sources is Krakkos who has Wikipedia Library access, and is a partisan of Heather and critic of Goffart.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I fear this issue of due weight rather than reliability of sources. In general, "lower quality" sources should not be used to balance "higher quality" sources. If both views (Heather and Goffart) have support in mainstream scholarship, we should give both similar treatment. Are there any reviews disputing Heather´s work? (I have access to some journals to check them) Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the proposals on our article have to do with "relative" reliability, but in a strong way: in effect one source (Heather) is said to be so much better that any sources Heather disagrees with should be excluded or at least not taken seriously.

One relevant question on our article is whether we need to explain Goffart's position at any length. (I am of the belief that Goffart's position on this particular point may even be the majority position today but in any case Goffart and Heather are of similar "statue".) Another relevant question would be whether we need to use book reviews at all in this case. (I suppose that is context and not for this particular forum to rule out though.)

What do you say with that extra information in mind? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose any statement that we can only use certain sources, I also oppose giving undue weight to fringe or minority (or non expert) views. Seems to me both sides may be in the wrong here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, the two proposals you oppose, at least how I understand it, come from the same user. Can you double check if I am right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• This post is rather confusing, but at any rate i oppose Andrew Lancaster's proposed prohibition against using the above-mentioned sources at Goths. If Goths is to include the theories of Arne Søby Christensen, then it should also include reviews of Christensen's theories by prominent scholars such as Michael Whitby. The article from the Ancient History Encyclopedia is not behind a paywall (at least not in my country). I also agree whole-heartedly with Slaterseven that the article should not give undue weight to minority positions. Walter Goffart's theories on Gothic origins are rejected by more prominent experts such as Peter Heather and Herwig Wolfram, and Goffart's theories are not mentioned in any reliable reference work on the Goths. It is thus a minority position and should not be given undue weight. Krakkos (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos could I humbly suggest that you reword your first sentence so that the word you bold is the opposite of "oppose"? I wrote these noticeboard posts as proposals to consider, and the proposals are yours. So I think you are saying you support both your own proposals, right? (This actually means you disagree with Slatersteven, as I see it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note - I would say that the comments from Pavlor and Slatersteven are spot on. This is primarily a question of WP:DUE rather than WP:RS. WP:TERTIARY states that "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight". Jimbo Wales says that due weight is well determined by examining "commonly accepted reference texts". This dispute is basically about the application of due weight in the summary of the article Goths. Fresh reference texts on the Goths, published by one of the world's most prestigious publishing houses (Oxford University Press) and written by the world's foremost expert on the Goths (Peter Heather), is therefore a useful tool for the application of due weight in the summary of Wikipedia's article on the Goths. Krakkos (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean in practice though? I guess we all agree the source is potentially useful, and there should be due balance etc. The answer, as explained by you on the article talk page, is exactly what I have defined in terms of two "proposals". Your posts here seem to be trying to deny you made such demands, and still try to argue in an unclear way that these are indeed how you demand that the editors should proceed on that article, and even try to imply that others here agree?? Please clarify. Aren't your ideas about the article in agreement with these proposals I wrote for you? Can't we agree that so far these ideas have been rejected by everyone else who has commented?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• These are all RS so far as I can tell. Mark is not a great source, but sometimes broad tertiary sources are needed at Wikipedia. It should probably be used sparingly if at all. The book reviews are fine, but a little too specific for such a high-level topic as this. I can't imagine there is anything we need to say in this article that cannot be sourced from something better. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC also to be considered

As an aside, editors interested in this topic may also be able to make helpful input into an RFC about a book publication date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goths#RfC_on_publication_date --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Close

Andrew Lancaster writing proposals he claims are from Krakkos, then arguing[20][21][22] with him when Krakkos tries to express his own opinion is a pretty ridiculous approach. fiveby (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: with all due respect I think this intervention to break a discussion is unfortunate and unusual. Maybe I could have worked differently, though honestly it might not be as easy as it looks; BUT in the end...

Firstly, do RSN posts need to be posted only by editors whose RS claims are being questioned? The answer is obviously no.

Secondly, whether or not the proposals are "from Krakkos" is not necessarily important to the case. Again I think that is very common. Indeed, probably many discussions here end with one of the sides saying "you misunderstood me anyway" and that is not really a bad thing.

I came here to get clear feedback on record about whether certain positions are according with Wikipedia community consensus. That is the purpose of this forum. (I'd be happy to explain the background elsewhere.)

That feedback we already have will, fortunately, help future discussion, whether or not Krakkos accepts that those have been the position taken or not. At least that will then be clear. I wish you could have allowed this to go longer though.

Given this interruption now deliberately makes continuation of the discussion difficult, I will summarize what we have so far:

1. If "one editor" would announce to other editors that ONLY ONE SOURCE (one author in this case), even a VERY good source, may be used as in an article lead, AND as a basis to decide what topics should be allowed in the WHOLE of the article, that would NOT normally be acceptable.

2. If "someone" would argue that one of the most well-known and widely respected positions in a field may be reported ONLY by quoting negative and ridiculing snippets from a few review articles, that would NOT normally be acceptable.

Fiveby, you have a right to think, for example, that these two conclusions are obvious and can't possibly be needing discussion on RSN. Putting that aside, would you "in theory" agree with 1 and 2, imagining that such a position was ever taken by someone? I fully understand if you say that it is not believable that anyone would take these positions, but what harm can it be to answer me? (Indeed, what harm would there have been allowing the discussion?)

@Krakkos, Slatersteven, Srnec, Blueboar, and Pavlor: putting aside the question raised by Fiveby of whether anyone actually argues for these positions, are points 1 and 2 posted above correct in your opinion? The more clear we can make this, the more problems we can avoid.

To be clear, if Krakkos wants to say that 1 and 2 are nothing to do with anything proposed, which is certainly not what Krakkos has said so far, that would also be very useful and good news. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had, but here we go. The lede is a summery of the article, if its in the body it can go in the lede (sources are irrelevant to this question). The second point is harder, but we cannot just dismiss sources on grounds of an appeal to authority. So no an argument of "these are the only 2 sources we can use" is not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: it's a strawman propasal and appears designed for further bludgeoning in the current flood of Oxford vs. Toronto talk page posts. Don't try and tell me what I think, it's insulting. fiveby (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: perhaps you misread. I did not tell you what to think, so that is a misrepresentation and at first sight, a massive over-reaction. FWIW, the 2 points above are demonstrably the position Krakkos has taken, and if you read carefully also the position Krakkos took again above, while objecting to this discussion at the same time. But my point is that this does not even matter. This discussion will help, and to be honest, you really should not have disrupted and misrepresented such a normal good faith noticeboard post.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby and Slatersteven: I think I posted this above, but if not that would be my mistake. Here is a drafting discussion which Krakkos was involved in, where I explained my intentions and my understanding of the position. This came after 2 or 3 discussions where Krakkos had forbidden the mention of various information or use of certain sources (such as Walter Pohl who we have not yet gotten to), specifically because it was NOT in the 2 dictionary articles. So this is a real practical case, not a hypothetical. Note there was a long wait after I asked for corrections to my understanding, during which time Krakkos was active, and then when the posting was done here, an announcement was done there. The fact that Krakkos does not want demands discussed by the community should not be allowed to block me getting them discussed. I am kind of stunned at the outrage being expressed. Since when did every discussion here have the full support of all parties in an RS dispute? I certainly never pretended Krakkos liked me posting here, just that I needed an opinion discussed. What am I missing? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What has this to do with what I have said?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Strange question? How about you describing my RSN post as "misrepresenting what a user has said ... pretending to be an RSN notice made by Krakkos". I find that accusation a bit rough, but I have to admit that the water on the Goths talk page is very muddy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That was at a Arbcom request not here, and that is not entirely accurate either as I said "I am not sure" if this is the case, but it look a lot like it might be. Let me explain, you do not get the say what a user means, or what they have said. You can quote them as say "this read like they are saying X" you said "Krakkos proposes that Peter Heather as an author, and in particular these two relatively recent dictionary articles are not just among the best possible sources, but definitely THE best, and as a result:" Diff to where he says that?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The exact words chosen were mine, because Krakkos would not cooperate in letting this go to the community, or using (or confirming) clear words. What is wrong with that? Well, honestly I thought that was clear from the start, and that I gave diffs, but I do now understand your point. I failed. Krakkos is keeping me very busy, and I only now realized what a stupid mistake I made, not putting a diff. I probably also should have mentioned something about the disagreement. But let's be honest: you would have to think I am crazy to think I would deliberately try to pretend something like this in the situation that you know I have right now with Krakkos. The refusal to comment on my proposal already showed me what was going to happen. It is classic and predictable. I know I started looking for a diff to paste in, but I guess something else happened and distracted me. Best that I go back to writing longer posts? LOL.

Concerning diffs, I am scared to start posting a detailed rationale of my wording given the bludgeoning accusation being made above, and given that this discussion here is not going to achieve anything anymore, at least as an RSN discussion. So in some cases you might have to look up and down unfortunately to see that these are replies to comments often proposing to consider sources, but hopefully this is enough evidence and only some people will call it bludgeoning...

• [23] 13:25, 25 February 2020
• [24] 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (Another source still being allowed here in these early ones is Wolfram, but in later discussion I show how Wolfram also does not agree with Heather. Wolfram disappears from these comments.)
• [25] 14:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (Very clear: even doubts mentioned in other sources should not be mentioned if they are not mentioned in our foremost source. Jimbo Wales cited!)
• [26] 21:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (Note the circular argument about it being strange that Goffart...)
• [27] 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• [28] 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Very clear statement of the principle but this one suddenly includes a third article among the sacred dictionary "references".
• [29] 07:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC) To see how strong this statement is you maybe have to see what it is answering
• [30] 09:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• [31] 10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• [32] 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Astounding logic
• [33] 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• [34] 08:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Quite clear.
• [35] 11:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Again, getting quite clear and curt now

This perhaps explains why I might have been distracted away from trying to work out which diff to post? Anyway, I am quite disheartened more generally because there are dozens more issues which need more community input and if every case goes like this... I have spent the last few months reading about this topic and I guess I will never get to use all my new books on Wikipedia. I want to write content and not this crap.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Leafly

An opponent of medical cannabis is claiming leafly.com is 'some dodgy commercial site' rather than a reliable source because it contains (small) advertisments. I can't find anything in the guidelines that says advertisments are not allowed. All newspapers use advertisments and Leafly does not seem to be a blog either. However, the opponent claims we cannot use Leafly to source the fact that CBD is legal in most US-states except for Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota.

I have spent too much energy on this and will let the opponent have their way. But I still would like to know what the consensus on Leafly is. Does someone need to gather 49 more documents like this one or can they cite Leafly? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

It seems to be a commercial site, as such it may fail on neutrality grounds. It does not just contain "(small) advertisments" it is a place to "buy them from legal, licensed retailers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have launched a new website a few months ago (at most). It used to be just a platform that informed about the different strains of cannabis. They have a shop now on their main page, I did not notice that when I looked up the article (linked above). Now I'm not sure. Does their shop make the legal information they provide unreliable? This would also make many tv/entertainment and videogame sources unreliable. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, but it may make it biased. Thus (at best) it should be a case of attribution. But I wonder why not use a clearer RS, if they are the only source for a claim if legality (given the fact they are trying to sell something) that renders it (to my mind) in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If by biased you mean they are cannabis proponents, then yes a lot of the information is probably biased. The big shop on their homepage really bothers me, I'll personally not use them as a source after having noticed. But I've also looked at some more legal articles they wrote. None of them have any product advertised or promoted. If they've become an advertising platform, wouldn't it be very risky for them to provide biased or false legal information? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No I mean they sell stuff, thus whatever they say must take that into account "This weed (which by coincidence we just so happen to sell) is the best)" "you can buy great products form these (which just by coincidence have paid to advertise with us) these great shops". Without seeing what legal advice they give I cannot say if it might be illegal. But no it would not be dodgy for them to provide "false" or "illegal" information, its how they word it that counts "The following is a list of States where we think cannabis is legal to smoke, disclaimer wee claim no accuracy for this list".Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

From the site's terms of use: "LEAFLY DOES NOT ENDORSE, AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF, ANY OPINION, ADVICE, STATEMENT, OR OTHER INFORMATION MADE ON THE SITE OR SERVICES". Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a standard disclaimer, you will find those in the majority of cited sources.

For example, from foxnews site's terms of use:"COMPANY MAKES NO WARRANTY... THAT ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED... WILL BE ACCURATE, RELIABLE, TIMELY OR COMPLETE".

Are we going to ban them all or does a disclaimer say nothing about reliability? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If they are sales sites, yes. If however they have no vested interest in the accuracy of what they say no. The issue here is they have a financial interest in what you read.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

See also this list of strains. Leafly is used as the main source here. They are cited on many other wikipedia articles as well. As long as the information is not medical or politically biased I see no reason to remove all these citations. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Spammy, promotional source (see Leafly for how this company works) that fails WP:RS generally. You have to confirm that you're over 21 and specify which country you're from to enter the site and accept its T&Cs. According to the site there are two countries: the USA and Canada. Tells you all you need to know. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Informing does not equal promoting. If we follow your logic, we will have to remove all Christian sources from Wikipedia because they could possibly promote Christianity. The information on Leafly is accessible to anyone without confirming age or country. Confirming does not change the content or its reliability. Most websites have cookie disclaimers nowadays. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your link to archive.org also produces the "Are you allowed to be here?" dialog. Really this is pointless - we're not going to be using this source. If some knowledge is true and due it should be possible to find some un-shit source to cite. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is simply not true, webarchive does not show cookie walls. I have just checked this with TOR and noscript addon disabled using five different circuits. None of them gave the cookie popup. Anyone can check this. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We are already using this 'shit source'. Are you going to edit all these articles and start fights with longtime REGISTERED (non-IP) users? No you are not. Now stop stalking me please.31.161.148.196 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are only a handful of links to leafly.com, maybe because it's already been on the radar of WikiProject Spam.[36] Yes, these could probably usefully be cleaned out. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok boomer. Go ahead, start removing them without consent. I'm not getting involved. Once you start removing, you will probably face registred users who will either not agree or replace the links with other sources you don't like either. All cannabis will be legal within five years at most, so good luck removing facts you don't agree with. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

With that I ask for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If you close it there will still be no consensus. It will take more than three people briefly discussing it. I do agree with closing though, cause this is going in the wrong direction. There will simply be other sources (by other editors) if he removes Leafly sources without consent. He won't like those other sources either. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually that is not what wp:consensus says. So far two users have said no, and you disagree. At this time consensus is against you. I also note that at least one other edd (who has not yet commented here) has said this source is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

IN fact over at the edit war report a couple of other users say this site is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. The question here is not if we can use Leafly on the Cannabidiol article. It is wheter we can use it on wikipedia in general. You seem to be selectively reading again. You also seem to think that I am an employee of Leafly or in some other way connected to them (see my talkpage). Suggesting that I might be a single purpose account is a serious problem when it comes to finding consensus for something that would affect the entire project.

::: I suggest we either close this and agree that there is no consensus or we start an RFQ. The three of us should not decide if Leafly can or can't be used on the entire English Wikipedia. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think multiple users have said it is not an RS, that means across the whole of Wikipedia, but fine lets have a RFQ.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Leafly links will be replaced by other sources and opponents of cannabis will not like those sources either. These sources may even be an improvement. Are you going to seek removal for those sources as well? It will be time consuming and not worth your effort, given the recent developments. A real RFC should be up several days so the entire community can read about it (rather than asking friends in chat to help). 31.161.148.196 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That would depends on if they pass RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have removed all leafly.com links from en.wikipedia (except some at Budtender which seem harmless enough). I doubt very much there are alternative reliable sources for the "medicinal value"[37] of Afghanica so if nothing else this has been a useful exercise in chipping away some bad content. But oh my, it is also a reminder what a total frickin' mess our cannabis content is in, generally. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you forgot to look at the HTTPS search. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, Oh no! Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Commercial site, not a reliable source for the purpose requested. As an example, medical content should not even be sourced to Mayo Clinic's website, and Mayo is a non-profit; why would we source to a site that sells the products ? It is also unlikely to have any content that can't be found on cannabis products from non-commercial sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable in some cases. Leafly sources should not be banned from wikipedia, but viewed on a per case basis. Leafly sources should not be used to source medical information. This should be the same for any other website offering recreational cannabis or seeds for sale. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable for medical, legal, botanical, biological, or even historical content. Anon user, the fact that you specifically came here to request help from experienced users and then dismissed the help you were given with the now-cliche "OK, Boomer" does not reflect well on your request. The site is not merely pro-cannabis biased, as has been explained above, but it also has a unavoidable financial incentive to present information in a slanted and unreliable way. This is a conflict of interest. Specifically between their interest to sell its users product and our interest to present reliable information. It should only be used very sparingly and in limited contexts. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• How odd that I fell into this while cleaning up List of names for cannabis strains, where I found that an LA Times article was nothing more than a graphic representation of the Leafly catalog, and was used as an excuse to create a directory of non-notable names. I also removed a bunch of this Leafly stuff, until I got reverted by this same editor. A few rangeblocks later: we might have two weeks of peace and quiet from this bullshit. Favonian, thank you for alerting me to this. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ditto and also agree that it's not WP:MEDRS. On another note the list of names for cannabis strains is being discussed for a possible merge. ミラP 19:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

National Writers Press

• All pages with source code containing ""National Writers Press""

This is a bit of an oddity. https://nationalwriterspress.com/index.html suggests that it's halfway between a vanity press and a publisher. Not many inclusions so not an urgent problem, but is this actually a legit publisher? Guy (help!) 18:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in book publishing - it was inevitable. Wired wrote a bit about it a little over a year ago. I suggest looking closer at the credibility/reliability of the individual authors, and not be too quick to discount/deprecate them as self-published since there may be contractual terms with the publisher that are not shared publicly. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

  The article that Atsme linked only discusses fiction books. Both author and publisher need to be considered, but in this case I do not think it could be used unless it meets WP:SPS (author has a PhD in the subject from a reputable institution, etc.) buidhe 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

lenta.ru

• lenta.ru  

Lenta is deprecated due to events around 2014. Is it considered reliable for stories published before then? Guy (help!) 17:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The RSP entry says that it was depreciated according to a discussion in 2019, but links to a discussion [38] that does not mention Lenta.ru, but instead talks about (and depreciates) Newsfront, Veteranstoday, Veteransnewsnow and Southfront. Has this source actually been depreciated? If so, at least we need to point to a proper RFC rather than one that doesn't discuss it before people start mass removing it - and the same for other Russian sources such as Sputnik or RT. If it hasn't, then we need a proper discussion to see what it can be used for (even if it is a mouthpiece for Putin, can we treat it as press releases from the Russian government for non-controversial events?).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not deprecated in that discussion, and only @David Gerard: and @JzG: discuss that long list with no consensus to deprecate or blacklist any of the entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Added to the depreciated list here on 5 January and to WP:RSP here on 4 January 2020 - both appear to link to the discussion that does not mention Lenta.ru. This needs to be sorted one way or the other - people shouldn't be claiming consensus for removals if no-one has actually sought consensus, never mind actually demonstrated consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.stopfake.org/ identifies it as fake / propaganda, The Grauniad has several articles discussing the 2014 Russian Government takeover e.g. [39]. The article at lenta.ru backs this up: post-2014, it appears to be a propaganda site (se RAND Corporation report, for example). Guy (help!) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Rand report mentions Lenta.ru exactly once - talking about it running a false story, while there doesn't seem to be anything about Lenta.ru on the front page of stopfake.org - could you please point out actual references to Lenta.ru? (and is stopfake reliable here?. To make a judgement on how Lenta.ru can be used (if at all) needs better information on how bad it is, what the nature of any bias or false stories are is and how it compares to other Russian news organisations.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the RfC being referenced implements both deprecation and blacklisting for sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation. Examples of reputable sources discussed included mainstream media websites, Media Bias/Fact Check, and the East StratCom Task Force. While the RfC does not specifically discuss lenta.ru, it was originally motivated by this RSN discussion, which occurred at the same time. That discussion contains a list of sources, including lenta.ru, that was used in the initial set of sources classified as being affected by the RfC.

If we assume the classification is valid, then to answer the original question, it seems likely that lenta.ru was still reliable prior to the events of 2014. Actually, I would consider it straightforward enough to make confirming it here as an exception unnecessary. That said, presumably that means that at least the blacklisting should be lifted, unless said blacklisting is warranted for some other reason. Sunrise (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Lenta.ru before 2014

The entry on Lenta.ru says:

Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff in March 2014.

I've explicitly mentioned that this refers to the 2014-present period as I see the links to pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles are being removed. Alaexis_¿question? 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that this is about WP:RSP, not Lenta.ru. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've converted this discussion into a subsection of the other active Lenta.ru discussion, since they both discuss the same aspect of the same source. — Newslinger talk 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)​

Pre-2014 Lenta.ru articles links

Lenta.ru has been problematic since 2014 when it was taken over and its staff replaced by a pro-government one (see this Guardian article for details). However this means that the links to pre-2014 articles are being removed due to the domain being in the spam-list. Is there a technical possibility to filter only post-2014 articles? Or to ensure somehow that there are no large-scale removals of old lenta.ru links? Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've converted this discussion into a subsection of the other active Lenta.ru discussion, since they both discuss the same aspect of the same source. — Newslinger talk 05:57, 2 March 2020‎ (UTC)

Fortunately, since Lenta.ru includes the date of publication in the URLs of their articles, we are able to blacklist only post-2014 articles. In fact, we can pin this down even more precisely, and blacklist Lenta.ru articles that were published on or after 12 March 2014 with the following regular expression:

\blenta\.ru\/\w+\/20([2-9]\d|1([5-9]|4\/(1|0([4-9]|3\/([23]|1[2-9])))))

​— Newslinger talk 07:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

​ Thanks for combining this here. Could you change the black-list criteria? I'm not sure I understand the procedure... Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal CV of Cristina Alberini

• Article: Cristina Alberini
• Source: Microsoft Word - Alberini_CV.docx

I was reviewing the DYK nomination for Cristina Alberini, which had several unsourced statements (see Special:Permalink/941596340) when I reviewed it. Two sources were later added to the article to support the unsourced sentence; they did support her work with Eric Kandel at Columbia University, but not that she moved to the University of Brescia in 1987 or that she returned to the US in 1991. In other words, {{failed verification}} applies. I did a quick Google search for sources and I got Alberini's personal CV which confirms this. (Alternatively I can simply cite one journal article she wrote while at Brescia, but that won't be helpful with sourcing the duration of her tenure.) Two previous discussions did not reach a clear consensus on this issue. I personally think that my usage was OK, because it merely fills in the gaps between what other sources support. But I'd like other editors' thoughts on this. feminist (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An SPS, and how do we know this is her CV?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's from her personal website. feminist (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello? I would like more opinions on this for a March 8 DYK run. feminist (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment In general I don't consider a CV as a reliable source for any claim that a reasonable person might challenge. For purely uncontroversial claims it might be acceptable though I would still prefer something stronger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

National Herald

Is National Herald a reliable source for politics-related articles, given that it is clearly linked to a political party Indian National Congress? Bharatiya29 17:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

As much as any other news organ with clear links. Not RS for facts, RES for what claims are facts (in other words attribution).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable source by a mile. National Herald, Organizer or party journal of CPI are reliable. Just mention WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when we rarely use it. — Brihaspati (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

USS Nimitz UFO incident youtube interviews of witnesses

This Youtube channel: The Nimitz Encounters https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6i-se5IU8hRbPov5-ON1tw is dedicated to the events and includes raw interviews with 5 additional witnesses. The interviews have been reported on and are the source for a Popular Mechanics article among others that have verified the statements: e.g. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/

Can we use those videos as sources? Should we at least add them in the "external links" section or something similar? Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

no.14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

P.s. I am aware of WP:YOUTUBE and WP:SELFPUB but with another editor we are wondering if those primary sources which have been verified by independent reputable sources could be used as additional sources or useful links.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We would use the independent reputable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The elephant in the room - amazon.com

• amazon.com  

Tens of thousands of articles contain references to Amazon sales pages. Many more contain {{ASIN}}, which links to Amazon via an Amazon=specific product identifier. Many of these are used as sources for statements of fact.

I have always thought that if Wikipedia stands for one thing, it should be content neutrality. Linking to the sales pages of Amazon, a company whose ethics are questioned by many, seems to me to be a fundamentally bad idea. It seems to me that any of us who care could work together to craft a central RfC to deprecate and remove these. We should not be part of the process of driving independent or emergent sellers out of business by promoting their biggest competitor. I don't think any other vendor gets this kind of number of source links on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 21:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we need even an RfC? I remove them on sight. I'd be surprised if I've left any I've encountered. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that might make me pause is whether anyone is using the preview of books on Amazon like the preview view on Google books (which we do allow - and it could be argued have equally muddy business practices, and certainly will try and sell you things) - also note that we do link to Amazon (amongst others) every time we have an ISBN code - with the Special:BookSources page explicitly stating "Google Books and Amazon.com may be particularly helpful if you want to verify citations in Wikipedia articles, because they often enable you to search an online version of the book for specific words or phrases, or you can browse through the book (although for copyright reasons the entire book is usually not available)."Nigel Ish (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC or to remove them on-sight, we need to understand why they're being used. For instance, like a link to iTunes, they can be used to verify track titles (although AllMusic or another site is preferred), or other information that is not controversial including the aforementioned book previews. Knee-jerk responses like this are problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it probably needs contextualization. If the references are to information that actually appears on a product page (e.g. product description) then I agree that would for sure be a no-go, but if it is linking to a preview-able book then I don't see the problem, as it simply saves a step for anyone looking to verify the citation. I'm not really sure that it should matter to us whether or not it is "a company whose ethics are questioned by many", as that could be said about nearly any company or organization, and unless those ethics are related in some way to the reliability of the source (e.g. a news organization that lacks ethics as it relates to factual reporting) it seems to fall more into the category of righting great wrongs. All that really matters is if the information is reliable and verifiable, and if linking to a book via Amazon in the most expedient way to allow for that then I think it is fine. If independent or emergent sellers host similar previews of books then I don't see anything wrong with switching a link from Amazon to one of those sellers, but I don't think it is our business to worry about, or take a side on, whether or not citations inadvertently function as advertising. I think this would potentially open a whole can of worms about all citations inherently functioning as advertising to the cited source (be it Fox News, the NYT, WaPo, Al Jazeera, etc.), and whether or not that is ethical or fair. Personally I think that sources should be evaluated exclusively on their merits as it applies to reliability and verifiability. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I almost agree with the above, if I take it to mean "link to a page in a book preview".Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality, who's going to look at all 40,000 of them? If we don't come up with some reasonably broad-brush proposal, it will never get done. Guy (help!) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need Amazon pages at all. If a book is worthy of mention anywhere on Wikipedia, it will have an ISBN and be available in WorldCat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Reviews on Amazon (as they are user generated) would not establish notability. So in fact what is it useful for?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all reviews are user-generated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

​Do you have a counterexample? Amazon republishes reviews from sites such as Wirecutter for a small selection of products, and links them from search results pages, but those reviews can be cited to the original publisher if necessary. As far as I can see, all product reviews on the product listing (designated as "Customer reviews") are user-generated. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are "editorial" album reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Hits-Will-Rock-You/dp/B0002M5U88 https://www.amazon.com/Born-Die-Lana-Del-Rey/dp/B005QJZ5FA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether Amazon is evil or not. Such links should be removed on sight (which I do). If we have to use links to Amazon (or iTunes) to verify something, we're doing it wrong. The information should either be referenced to a reliable source, or left out. We don't need to link to book previews for anyone's convenience, as that is not our role. I agree with others that we don't need an RfC for something so obvious. - MrX 🖋 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• The first couple of links to Amazon that I checked were all links to book pages marked as "excerpt" or similar, directly helping with verifiability. If we don't want to link to Amazon (or Google for that matter, who also have purchase links on their book pages) from our articles, at the very least such links should be moved to the talk page instead of being simply bot-removed. Making our content easy to verify seems to be a more important goal to me than avoiding links to Amazon. So yeah, it is obvious that "remove all" is wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's our role to bend rules to make it easy to read a portion of a source, but if it were, then Google Books would be an option that would seem less likely to run afoul of WP:COPYVIO and WP:REFSPAM. - MrX 🖋 13:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental difference between linking to Google Books and linking to Amazon here. (I do see a difference, but not a fundamental one that would make one link always OK and the other link never OK). If we outlaw Amazon links, we should also outlaw Google Books links that contain "buy ebook" links or other invitations to spend money and give it to Google. —Kusma (t·c) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That comparison is nuts. We link to Google Books because it actually contains the content in the books and so assists us dramatically with article sourcing. Amazon provides us nothing of the sort. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Amazon very often contains readable excerpts too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, I am talking about pages on Amazon that actually contain the content in the books. —Kusma (t·c) 14:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As the previous RFC on the matter have made pretty clear, the solution is

a) replace Amazon links and ASINs with ISBNs and other neutral identifiers (OCLC, LCCN, etc...) when they can be found

b) if they can't be found, Amazon links and ASINs are fine as identifiers of last resort. Same for any other vendor out there (Wiley, Springer, CRC Press, etc...)

c) And also remember that these links are more-often-than-not added out of convenience, like <ref>See Gallagher 2005 <amazonlink></ref>, because it's much quicker to do that than insert a properly formatted {{cite book}}, and not out of desire to spam Wikipedia with commercial links.

So unless something changed from the last RFCs, I don't really see why we need to re-hash this again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion reflects one common problem in Wikipedia. Editors see a "bad" source, instinct is to remove without even thinking to replace with a good source. Mentioned above is WorldCat. If Amazon is cited to prove a book exists or its date, publisher, ASIN, etc., replace with WorldCat. Maybe a bot to do this throughout? Hyperbolick (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They do. Or at least I'm pretty sure that User:Citation bot does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• This isn’t something we can make a blanket determination on. We have to look at context (what is said in each article where Amazon is cited) and ask two questions: 1) Does the citation reliably verify the material in our article? 2) Is there is a BETTER, more reliable source that would verify that material?

If the answer is “yes” to the first question, and “no” to the second, then we should leave it as is. If the answer “yes” to BOTH questions, then we should replace the citation to Amazon with a citation to the better source. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Or tag as needing better. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see why Guy is concerned about this but I comments and a question. Presumably any reference to a book should contain all the information needed to identify the book without any Amazon links (Title, Author, Publisher, Year, page number for specific content). I see no reason why any of that material would ever need an Amazon link. However, sometimes editors feel a link is helpful. I agree when WP:V is in dispute and people don't agree that a source supports a specific claim. In that case editors often look for a links. We generally seem OK with links to Google.books. I can understand the concern about linking to a purely commercial link (Amazon). I don't see any copyright concerns here since the link is to publicly, legally allowed material. In that regard it's no different than linking to a NYT article. So the question is, if the link exists only to allow for ready verification that a particular book supports a certain claim should we remove it. My inclination is no. However, if the link is to the general page, I'm not OK with it. If it's to the specific page then I think it's reasonable. However, unlike Google scholar I'm not sure how to do that with the Amazon links. Springee (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Amazon previews allow you to link to a specific page? But regardless, I think linking to a sales page for the book is pretty inappropriate. As you say, the citation provided should allow a user to look it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So, how does a link to Amazon differ from a {{cite book}}? Should we stop using that? At least Amazon data can be clicked-through. With a physical book, you still have to find a physical copy to verify the data. All the same information is present in Amazon and no one is forced to purchase the book at the site: it's just data that the company has provided in the hopes that someone may purchase it one day.

In short, I get the feeling that people are reacting to the fact that it's a commercial site more than the fact that it's a useful site (tracking aside). Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, the ISBN handler does exactly that. Gives you a list of libraries and everything. For actual content, we can link archive.org or maybe Google Books. Guy (help!) 22:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And ISBN handler lists Amazon in multiple nations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, along with multiple other booksellers and free sources such as libraries. The question is whether preferring Amazon is consistent with Wikipedia policies an ethos. I would argue not. Guy (help!) 12:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And which policy is it against? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Stage 1 proposal

894 (log) warns on addition of vanity presses like Lulu and XLibris. When this is set to "Trigger these actions after giving the user a warning", requiring a second click to override, most additions are not committed. The filter prevents the majority of additions. As a first step, we could add a filter to warn on addition of links Amazon (and any other online seller we consider is an issue), potentially restricting to additions within a <ref> or {{cite}}. Guy (help!) 22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning against amazon links would be detrimental because users use those as shorthand for full citations. E.g <ref>See p. 5 in https://www.amazon.ca/Physics-5th-James-S-Walker/dp/0321976444/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=physics&qid=1583020734&s=books&sr=1-2</ref>. Are there better ways to do this? Of course, but we don't want to discourage the addition of material which fully meets WP:V, but which simply isn't presented in the platonically ideal way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What Headbomb said. I'm getting tired of material that is perfectly acceptable under WP:V getting whacked as part of overzealous applications of these discussions without regard to the contexts in which those sources are used. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I disagree. Warning is not preventing. The vanity press edit filter results in either no edit or a different source roughly 3/4 of the time, that seems like a decent outcome. Guy (help!) 12:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: As someone who monitors the AbuseLogs occasionally, I'd find this to be an extreme hindrance to that work unless there was a clear consensus that these sorts of edits should not normally be allowed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Types of links

There are a number of ways Amazon is used in enWP.

• The excerpt use case, e.g. Kitchen, James E., Alisa Miller and Laura Rowe, eds. Other Combatants, Other Fronts: Competing Histories of the First World War (2011) excerpt
• As a primary source for an Amazon-specific fact, e.g. Opening sales of the DVD along with on-line streaming orders placed The Revenant as number one in sales at Amazon. - which seems WP:UNDUE to me.
• As a reference to the book, e.g.: HTML 5 introduces elements and attributes that reflect typical usage on modern websites. Some of them are semantic replacements for common uses of generic block (<div>) and inline (<span>) elements, for example <nav> (website navigation block), <footer> (usually referring to bottom of web page or to last lines of HTML code), or <audio> and <video> instead of <object>. - this is clearly replaceable and should be replaced by {{cite book}} and an ISBN.
• Referencing a book as a primary source, e.g. Dark side adepts were referenced in passing in James Luceno's canon novel Tarkin.
• As a primary source, e.g. The Extended Edition was released in the United States in June 2011. or The pilot was released by Amazon Studios on January 15, 2015. - this is actually probably WP:OR since Amazon may get release before other sellers. I would argue that these references are inappropriate links to primary sources but in any case we should be using independent sources. If independent sources don't cover it then it's indiscriminate information (i.e. trivia), if they do, we should use them.
• As a reference for the existence of the thing, e.g. [...] and Marceline the Pirate Queen (February 26, 2019). - this also seems like an example of doing it wrong. "X exists, source, link to page where you can buy X" is not how I see the intent of WP:RS.

References

I think a lot of these are replaceable and it would be highly advantageous is a bot could replace at least the ones that should be {{cite}} with ISBN or other neutral reference. Guy (help!) 13:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)