Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 345←Archive 350Archive 351Archive 352Archive 353Archive 354Archive 355

Feminism in India

Is FII a reliable source for any content on Wikipedia? What about passage of WP:N?
  • Largely no - No visible editorial policy, a requirement of WP:NEWSORG. Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars. Not seeing any journalism awards. Etc. TrangaBellam (talk)
  • Disagree with your attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for this Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    AshLin, target? By !voting that they are indeed reliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's patently obvious that that random US site that you challenged and then defended was thrown in for precisely this purpose when your targeted attempt to purge media sources targeting Indian women was predictable questioned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    The Drover's Wife, SheThePeople isn't a US site and I don't think TrangaBellam is attempting to purge media targetted at Indian women, at least not intentionally. They seem misguided and unfamiliar with women's media, which is unfortunately a systemic issue on here. For example, FII is much more established and higher quality than SheThePeople (both are reliable), but the latter has an article on Wikipedia and the former doesn't which is what I suspect is the root of their assessment. Anyways, I'd vouch for them conduct wise, having seen them around and request for people to instead focus on discussing the sources, which might be a good thing in the long run for sourcing purposes. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    If you reiterate unsubstantiated accusations without knowing a damn about Indian media (random US site), you will be at WP:ANI for breach of WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. This organisation conducts serious research which indicates expertise in the situation of women in India. It will likely often require attribution as it clearly engages in advocacy, and therefore opinion, but its reliability looks good. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • How do you gauge the reliability? Is my claim of Zero citations (or discussion) by mainstream reliable sources or scholars false?
  • What about the specific case? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Very sorry, but you might have too many sites here. In my way of thinking, to have more than one is to strain other volunteering editor available time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable, it certainly has an editorial policy, is cited by reliable sources (e.g, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc) and employs subject matter experts. Reception from reliable secondary sources is also positive, Livemint describes their articles as "high quality" and Vogue describes them as an "award winning" organisation, among others. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Livemint is conflicted and for a seven year old media organization to accumulate four mentions in media don't inspire much confidence. Now I am not based in India and might be missing vernacular response.
    Tbh, I can't see a single case where their views would ever pass WP:DUE. Imho, The Wire, The Scroll, India Spend etc. do a far better job of feminist journalism without clutching at straws. The site is entirely filled with shallow ~< 500 word articles by post-grads. (1, 2 etc. for some of the strange ahistorical stuff they publish.)
    Anyways, how would you answer the specific question raised - do interviews in FII lend to notability?
    P.S. : Thanks for the first substantial argument. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    How is that Livemint article conflicted? I can also see dozens of secondary sources mentioning FII in 2021 alone. I can't say anything for that charecterisation other than that it's wrong, of course not all of their articles are useful on Wikipedia, some are opinion pieces like personal essays and advocacy calls which should be handled per WP:RSOPINION, i.e not used when written by post grads since as you say it would be undue. Otherwise their news articles are reliable, they have journalists (e.g; [6], [7]) and scholars (e.g; [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) among their authors and quality pieces from guest authors (e.g; [13], [14]).
    For history, news sources in general are not reliable and you can easily find low quality pop history pieces from any mainstream media. Some of the new digital media may be better on history but they are an exception and not the rule.
    I don't think interviews specific to FII need a separate assessment, if there is some secondary coverage (usually present as an introductory paragraph) of a person in an interview than it can contribute towards non trivial coverage. So with regards to the linked article in specific, very borderline for notability. They are reliable for opinions and views of the person being interviewed but isn't independent. Non-independent coverage can be used as primary sources for content. On its own, it wouldn't be enough to demonstrate notability but can add towards meeting WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Tayi Arajakate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Note- Few months ago, verified twitter account from feminism in India tweeted that they have opened multiple accounts in Wikipedia to edit Wikipedia articles related to females. But they did not mention which accounts. But thos COI accounts still exist in Wikipedia. Feminism in India is like some social organization and not some reliable source. While they can have notability to exist as an article in Wikipedia, but their own website articles can't be used to as an RS to write other articles. --2402:3A80:1C42:5063:F889:E64C:C252:4C57 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per Tayi Arajakate, and per the FII About section, "Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation has engaged FII Media Private Limited for the purpose of reporting and publishing stories of public interest. IPSMF does not take any legal or moral responsibility whatsoever for the content published by FII Media Private Limited on their website on any of its other platforms." Via the Media in India article and per The Indian Express this means it is funded by "the first concerted endeavour to fund online media ventures in a country where burgeoning mainstream print media and television firms are backed by corporate houses which is seen as a conflict of interest and antithetical to free and fair reporting", that also funds outlets including The Wire and The Caravan. As to the specific example, there is WP:SECONDARY commentary available in addition to the interview, so it supports WP:BASIC notability. As a side note, there is a pending Sulagna Chatterjee AfD nominated by TrangaBellam. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Beccaynr, IPSMF has also funded Swarajya, which has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. IPSMF funding proves or disproves nothing. User:Tayi Arajakate can add more details, probably. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, TrangaBellam, per WP:RSP and the IPSMF website - your statement in the AfD [15], FII is a glorified community-blog suggests their funding source could be a relevant consideration in this discussion. Also, FII was recognized for their work by the Digital Empowerment Foundation, received a Manthan Award, and an award from the WSA. Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it can tell us that the organsiations it has funded are journalistic endeavours with an editorial structure but not much more than that. Reliability for them in the end depends on what they do and a plethora of other possible factors, Swarajya for example is deprecated due to disinformation and malpractices such as doxxing, but sure it has journalists running it and it has an editorial hierarchy. Now FII hasn't been reported to have suffered from any similar issues (i.e misinformation) which would be detrimental to its reliability.
On a sidenote, IPSMF isn't really free of the influence of corporations. It's a non profit investment fund and has an independent board with journalists and academics on them but its backers are ultimately corporate actors. It's not unfeasible that they may be able to influence who the foundation funds even if they can't directly interfere in the editorial operations of the organisations themselves (or at least they haven't tried to do so yet, there are a number of lets say firewalls between them). Taking Swarajya again as an example, it has a fairly obvious (Kovai Media) connection to Infosys, one of the corps behind IPSMF though if there was intent behind this is speculative. Also note that some of the organisations it has funded have since disengaged from being their dependant, The Wire for example. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yahoo-Makers

In recent days, Yahoo India has collaborated with Makers to profile various women before eventually pulling out of India due to unrelated issues. Does these coverage count towards WP:N?
  • Ambiguous No - Their homepage read:

    MAKERS is a media brand that exists to accelerate the women’s movement through stories of real life experiences that ignite passion and action. MAKERS India acts as a catalyst for positive change for the women’s movement in India. We aim to create compelling change through inspirational, positive storytelling of real-life experiences.

    Does not inspire confidence. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm not even sure what the argument that it isn't is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam Could you maybe stop being so unpleasant to people? It is unlikely to be productive.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TodayIFoundOut.com

TodayIFoundOut.com is an "interesting facts" aggregation website. It is extensively used as a source on Wikipedia. How should we consider its reliability?

––FormalDude talk 08:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (TIFO)

  • Option 3. Use with caution. Some of the entries cite Wikipedia as a source (example, click on "Expand for References" at the bottom of any article), and some don't. For those that cite Wikipedia, we shouldn't consider those reliable. For those that don't cite Wikipedia, we need to make sure that the author of the piece isn't synthesizing different sources to reach a conclusion. One doesn't see any in-line citations like we use on Wikipedia, so it's hard to tell which statements came from which cited source. If a fact found in TodayIFoundOut needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it would be better to find the fact in one of the sources cited, instead of citing TodayIFoundOut. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4: well, let's start off by stating the obvious—something like this isn't a WP:MEDRS. Not all articles seem to have references—these are unusable. The ones which have references could be a good research starting point, but cite those references instead (after checking that they do verify the content you're writing, and that they're reliable). Based on this, most writers aren't going to be academics/experts in the topics they're writing about, which are very involved and complicated. Additionally, any kind of "random fun fact" website has a tendency to exaggerate, bend the truth and sensationalise in its presentation of material. Seeing that the exceptionally often wrong "Today I Learned" subreddit was an inspiration makes me concerned too. I can't see a case where I'd be happy to see this as a source. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per the above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 I don't foresee a situation where a fact is covered by TIFO and not covered by a better, more reliable source. They are a tertiary source that often times uses Wikipedia as a reference. It is full of BuzzFeed headlines and loaded language. ––FormalDude talk 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per the comments above. Sea Ane (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (TIFO)

Nimer Sultany

Nimer Sultany is an Israeli Palestinian native of Tira. He has two works specifically on Israeli Palestinian relations (2003)(2005) commissioned by the Haifa based Mada al-Carmel Arab Center for Applied Social Research. He later earned a Doctorate in Juridical Science (SJD) from Harvard Law School, reputedly the most advanced degree of its kind, and is now Reader in Public Law at SOAS. He is a regular contributor to the Guardian, and author of an award-winning book Law and revolution: legitimacy and constitutionalism after the Arab Spring (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Driveby editors mainly, almost none engaging on the talk page, are consistently reverting out an article by him in The Guardian where he correlated the crime problems in his native city to the effects of vast land confiscations. He is dismissed variously as 'an activist' (no evidence), 'not an expert on Israeli land issues', or on the grounds that it is POV-pushing to cite him. Several reliable sources on that page cite independently the fact that Tira lost two thirds of its land to Israeli expropriations, so all Sultany does is correlate social problems in his town with the effects of those historic confiscations. I believe his place of origin, his proven published work on Israel's Palestinian minority, and his acknowledged status as a legal scholar of the highest order justify citing him on this one point . The talk page discussions are here and [16]. Neutral third party input on his RS-ness would be appreciatedNishidani (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He is of course reliable for his own claims as everyone that writes something in the internet but he is not expert about crime in Arab Israeli population and in Land confiscations we have no way to verify his claims as he bring no sources to his claims.If his claims were correct there were no problem to find in it in peer reviewed publications in this situation we can not use publication that was printed in op-ed.
I want to note the source about alleged land confiscation is sourced to another activist Sabri Jiryis that not academic and cannot be considered reliable either. Shrike (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment Sabri Jiryis is demonstrably an academic. His page links to a bibliography of 10 papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, so, at best, Nimer Sultany citing Jiryis is an academic citing an academic. Being an activist and being an academic are not mutually exclusive, and the fact that an individual is an activist does not automatically impune their reliability. What is the evidence that Sabri Jiryis is unrealiable? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course Jiryis is an academic. He headed the Palestine Research Center in Beirut before its contents were confiscated, and the building destroyed by an Israeli car-bombing.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oped in Guardian's commentisfree. Not an article, an opinion only.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Even assuming that Nimer Sultany is stating pure opinion in his Guardian comments, the guidance at WP:RSOPINION is quite clear that statements of opinion ARE acceptable as long as it is clearly stated who the author is and that it is opinion. Nimer Sultany is still a notable academic, so referencing his opinion, while clearly stating it as such (as the page in question does), is totally acceptable. It is not self-published work, but is vetted by an editorial team at an independent news outlet considered reliable under WP:RS/PS. Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Expert opinion I have not been involved in that article but afaics "activist" appears derivative of WP:IDONTLIKEIT plus the usual shoot the messenger approach.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Opinion- from an OpED. Might be suitable for the article body, fully attributed and presented as an opinion, but not for unattributed statement of fact. Other than being an academic, what exactly makes him notable? Inf-in MD (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It was removed when the statement had attribution. Secondly these tamperings with the lead violate WP:MOS WP:LEAD summary style. We have a whole subsection on crime, and editors are removing its summary from the lead, simply because, among other sources, Sultany is used. I.e. pretext. Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
when I removed it, it was stated as fact in the lead: [17]. It is now attributed in the article body, which is fine, but the fringe opinion does not belong in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
On what basis do you call his opinion 'fringe'? To call an opinion fringe, which suggests that it is somehow marginal and readily dismissed, you need to have a body of evidence indicating that the truth is somehow otherwise, i.e.: here, that the crime, poverty etc. are not linked to decades of land confiscation. NB: crime is extremely strongly correlated with poverty, so if decades of land confiscation caused poverty, all of this would be sort of obvious in the first place. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Being a Reader, which denotes an appointment for a senior academic with a distinguished international reputation in research or scholarship, in law (the subject in question) at SOAS, a world-respected academic authority on the Middle East, makes him notable. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
There are literally hundreds of thousands of Readers or equivalent full professors in the academic word. The US alone has almost 200,000. Being one does not automatically make you notable.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
No one is trying to write an article about him. I don't need to prove his general notability. He is a professor who is qualified to voice opinions, particularly in the area of law and criminality, and have those opinions heard. And, as a legal professor at a respected institution of learning, he can be reasonably expected to speak reliably. Iskandar 323 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone is qualified to voice opinions, but when considering which opinions to include in article, we need to judge how notable they are. So again, what make him notable? He doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
He would appear to satisfy WP:GNG if you’re considering creating an article... Why jump to a secondary standard when the primary is met? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
How do you think he passes the general notability guideline? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Are you asking for a lecture on neuroscience? I’m not really qualified to tell you how I think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think he passes the notability guideline, and you have not explained why he does. have at it. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Did you mean why and not how then? If you had asked for that I would have explained why to you: I googled him, there appeared to be more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I googled him as well -he has less than 30,000 results, and most of these do not appear to be independent of him - his bio at SOAS, his twitter feed, articles that he's written for different outlets. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you have examples of that? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Expert opinion, this is an opinion and should not be used to support an unattributed statement of fact but as an opinion its usable. Sultany is certainly a subject matter expert, not really sure what the challenge to that is and his opinion is certainly notable or else The Guardian would not keep publishing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Expert opinion - included as an attributed for an academic expert. Notability has nothing to do with reliability, and per WP:SPS 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. Sultany is such an expert. nableezy - 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    No he's not. He's not an expert on the subject of Crime in Tira, nor has his work on this topic been published by independent reliable sources. Inf-in MD (talk)
None of the sources you introduced to write up a section on Crime in Tira (newspapers) are written by 'expert(s) on the subject of Crime in Tira'. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually the field is criminology and crime among Palestinians in Israel. And here is a paper published by Israel Studies Review that is focused on that topic. nableezy - 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and I didn't present them as such - they are mainstream newspapers and media outlets like the BBC, that are considered reliable for facts, unlike editorials. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sultany wasn't editorializing. The page shows (and will show with several more sources) that land confiscation was massive. Sultany meentioned a known fact, and as a legal scholar native to that city correlated the crime wave to the strangled ghetto imposed on its inhabitants who once were 3000 on 30,000 dunams of agricultural land, and now are 25,000 hemmed into 8,000 dunams. There is nothing odd about that inference,- scholars do that- especially coming from a scholar who, unlike journalists, knows the city's history intimately. The most recent police report by Israel is that it is connected to diffuse unemployment and lack of prospects. That is an inference, and we reported that, attributed, as we did with Sultany. Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please. His article is clearly labeled "Opinion", on the Opinion pages of a newspaper. The one Nableezy found now is a different matter - that might actually be usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please yourself. But I only took this here pro forma, since the answer is obvious. You are challenging the use of Sultany in The Guardian, where he states precisely what he states, in more theoretical detail in the article cited by Nableezy, i.e.,Nimer Sultany,The Making of an Underclass:The Palestinian Citizens in Israel Israel Studies Review, Volume 27, Issue 2, Winter 2012: 190ff. Now you say we might use the latter, but not the former. Huh? The only difference is, The Guardian mentions Tira. Everything else in the academic piece underlines what he states there, and three editors found intolerable to assert with regard to Israel, as opposed to everywhere else in the world, that poverty, land loss, correlates with crime. Since there is no difference, other than the use of Tira as a concrete article, it stands to reason that the Guardian article is usable precisely because it mentions the town our article deals with, as opposed to the theoretical article you prefer. Of course in this chess match, were one to accept your advice, and use Sultany 2012 and suppress the Guardian, an editor will then challenge the former, as you know well, on policy grounds, as WP:OR since it doesn't mention Tira. The games people play. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
and if you had produced this academic publication to begin with, instead of pretendign that an OpEd is not Opionion, or that any PHD or professor is automatcially an expert on any topic, we could have avoided this entire exchange. I think that publictaion is perfectly usable. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Accept the verdict of your peers. On four pages you have, virtually unsupported, exhaustively repeated your views, against a majority that can see no substance in them. This is tedious. Like replying to you that you expect me to scour everything Sultany has written 'to begin with' (I will add several sources presently to the page, which I have read and that took a half a day, while I have seen you quote nothing but googled newspaper clips 'Tira'+'crime'. This place is an encyclopedia, not a social forum or a screening medium to filter from view things one dislikes reading about.Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
So you were making things up when you said that he is not an expert in this field? Huh. nableezy - 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Quite, I'm now thinking that there should indeed be a dedicated page for Sultany expanding on his subject matter expertise and listing his full bibliography. Iskandar 323 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've sketched one, but with all of these extenuating challenges to the obvious ('stasis by attrition') I've had little time to work it in to shape. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

PoliticalGraveyard.com

I noticed this used as ref at Shirley Brown (Florida politician). Per "The Political Graveyard is created and maintained by Lawrence Kestenbaum, who is solely responsible for its structure and content." it seems to be WP:SPS. Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_190#Political_Graveyard, but it's used in quite a few WP-articles, though not necessarily in a BLP context.

Should it be considered RS for anything, and if not, should we do something about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think its really of any use to us, I don’t think we should treat it any differently from similar pet project grave finding or logging sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Dexerto

The last RS post on Dexerto was from two years ago so I thought it'd be worth for their reliability to be reassessed now.

The article in question is PewDiePie and his pescetarian diet. PewDiePie has repeatedly mentioned his pescetarianism in videos before, but linking his videos mentioning it wasn't deemed reliable, so I got the only article explicitly mentioning his pescetarian diet from Dexerto: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/pew-die-pie-marzia-have-first-post-marriage-fight-minecraft-934791/. Even though the last consensus concluded that Dexerto was unreliable, I think that for a small trivial piece of information of something that has been confirmed by the person in question themselves, the Dexerto article is a reliable source, at least in the context of PewDiePie's diet.

edit: I'm not sure if this helps, but Yahoo Finance also mentioned them in an article earlier this year as an 'industry leading site (in) award-winning esports, gaming and influencer coverage, including news, interviews, reviews, opinions, guides and tournament coverage' here: [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeFan10025 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gcn-announces-expanded-commercial-relationship-110000635.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Christopher Gunn

Is the following a reliable source on the topic of Armenian terrorist organizations in 1970s-1980s?

Gunn, Christopher. Secret Armies and Revolutionary Federations: The Rise and Fall of Armenian Political Violence, 1973-1993.

I would appreciate third party opinions. We've had a discussion with fellow editors here: [18] Outsider opinions would be really helpful. Thank you. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

How does it meet our criteria? Google Scholar gives 2 hits, one a dissertation and the other seems to be a collection of conference papers but I can't read the language and have no idea in what context it's mentioned. Where is it mentioned in scholarly books? What makes Gunn an expert? I think WP:UNDUE covers this, it isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say no, it really has to be a notably exceptional thesis to be used and I’m not finding anyone talking about it or referencing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." I note the author is now an associate professor at Coastal Carolina University. But as with any source, the situation matters. TFD (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
That is not where the period falls in that particular sentence, pretty sure its "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources.” Which isn’t exactly saying the same thing now is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • His research, from what I could see, exhibits pro-Turkish bias (this sentence says it all: It is significant that the first attack of a terrorist group allegedly dedicated to extracting an admission of guilt from the Turkish government for alleged crimes against the Armenian people would be directed towards the World Council of Churches in January 1975 - see paper), and, as he admits in his paper (p. 103-115), the interpretation he proposes on that specific phenomenon is not mainstream, as he tries to pinpoint (p. 110) what he sees as flaws in the dominant narrative about ASALA and the Justice Commandos (A re-evaluation of the accepted origins of these Armenian groups exposes inconsistencies in the standard narrative and invites an investigation into the “deeper roots” of Armenian terrorism suggested by earlier scholars.). His endorsement, sort of, by the Turkish MFA to discuss 1915 also makes me wary of him. Mention with attribution, conserving appropriate WP:WEIGHT (that is, the pro-Turkish standpoint). Please also find other sources mentioning the murder, which Gunn does not mention but whose interpretation is more prevalent. If you can't do that, better not cite it at all because of NPOV concerns. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Christopher Gunn is an Assistant Professor of History who focuses on Middle Eastern Studies and political violence. And @Szmenderowiecki:: having an alleged bias does not necessarily make someone unreliable if they are an expert, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It would be better to use formally published articles that stem from the dissertation work (individual chapters are often published as separate journal articles), such as perhaps this, this or this. Otherwise the dissertation could be probably used sparingly, so long as it is not used to verify outlandish claims, nor lend undue weight to any subject or opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    WP:BIASEDSOURCES does not cover the cases when said sources, explicitly or implicitly, engage in denialism. That's going more into WP:FRINGE territory, which is not covered by BIASEDSOURCES. Btw, since we strive to get the best sources available, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements"; I cannot vouch for this source's impartiality. The article, however, does not strictly discuss the events of the genocide, but rather one of the episodes inspired by the Turkish denial thereof, so yes, the paper is OK, but no, I can't allow it alone, because this view is, by author's admission, minoritarian.
    Strictly on the question of reliability of Gunn, I'd say: with reservations due to strong bias, therefore, attribution seems best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    I do not intend to use Gunn on the topic of Armenian genocide. But he does use the term "Armenian genocide" as well, for example in the sentence: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide..." But I'm looking for more sources to discuss individual terrorist acts, and in particular Assassination of Galip Ozmen. We know now that the assassination was perpetrated by Monte Melkonian. But his version, presented by his brother, is obviously aimed to present himself in a better light, i.e. he claims that he shot children by accident. This version is presented in the article. Gunn provides also a different view. Basically, there are 2 versions. Quote from Gunn: Melkonian claimed that he was unable to see who was in the car because of its tinted windows. The State Department report, based on eyewitness accounts, stated that assassin waited in front of Özmen’s home, watched the family get into the car, and then attacked. I cannot verify State Department report, entitled “Turkish Diplomat Assassinated in Athens; Armenian Secret Army Claims Responsibility,” ATHENS 08453, Aug. 1, 1980. If someone could, it would be really helpful. Alternatively, I wanted to attribute the claim to Gunn, but some editors objected. Which is why I decided to ask the community for their opinion. Grandmaster 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    This report is neither available to me, but if you want to cite the State Dept report via Gunn, I see no problems with doing that (but you might probably look for some AP reports, for example, as they might include some of the information). It is just I'm afraid that this source might be easily misused, as I outlined earlier.
    There must be more resources expanding on that murder - citing Melkonian's brother is OK but it would be better to supplement it with third-party scholars who analyse Melkonian's actions; and by that I don't mean Gunn only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is that Armenian terrorism is a very little researched topic. There are books like Francis P. Hyland. "Armenian Terrorism: The Past, The Present, The Prospects", 1991, or “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, by Michael M. Gunter, 1986, but Gunn's is the most recent research, which takes into account new information that emerged since 1990s, such as declassified CIA and FBI files, memoirs, etc. I cited AP and UPI reports, but they don't go into much detail. I think best would be to cite State Department with attribution to Gunn. Grandmaster 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    That wouldn't appear to be the case as Gunn talks about "the standard narrative", "earlier scholars" etc., which would imply that the topic is well-researched but that the author thinks the guys were wrong in the cause for the terrorist attacks. In any case, there's some more info on the murder: [19], [20], [21], [22]
    The topic is researched quite extensively in Turkish, but I don't speak it, and Turkish sources IMHO should be dealt with extra care due to the official position of Turkey of genocide denial, which tangentially influences how they speak of i.a. the activities of Armenian terrorist groups (i.e. terrorist attacks due to the will to revenge for Armenian genocide vs. terrorist attacks for claimed repressions and mass murders against Armenians in 1910s that never were, the latter of which seems to be Gunn's position). But for simple factual assertions, including for quoting the State Department documents, I see no reasons not to cite him. It's just any conclusions about the intent, or causes, that we should be careful about. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'm familiar with those sources too. They do not add anything new, because de Waal and Kiesling simply quote Melkonian's book, and Hyland is from 1991, and Feigl from 1986, and since then a lot of new information became available. As I said above, there were only 2 dedicated scholarly researches on the topic, and Gunn's work is the latest one. Others, like de Waal, only touch upon the terrorism in the context of general Armenian-Turkish relations. But I agree with you Gunn could be used to state facts about particular terrorist acts, and terrorists organizations. To me, the work appears to be very well researched, and peer reviewed too. Grandmaster 08:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As an involved editor in the discussion started here, I don't see a clear consensus that Gunn is even reliable or not to begin with, and OP is "thinking" that we should cite State Department with attribution to him? Gunn claims he quotes from the state department, if Grandmaster can cite those State department papers, go ahead and add please. Other than that, my opinion is that Gunn isn't a reliable source attributed or not, especially on contentious topics related to Armenia and Turkey: per this discussion, and per fellow editors in here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
They had three demands: recognition by Turkey of the genocide, compensation and Armenian independence. The fact that these were laudable goals or extensive support from the Armenian diaspora does not mean that one cannot question their methods or write about their activities. This is no different from writing about the IRA, PLO or Kurdish groups that engaged in terrorist acts.
The thesis is a reliable source, per policy, not because of who wrote it but because it was vetted by experts. That makes it more reliable than say an article by a reporter with a journalism degree.
When the author referred to alleged crimes, he was referring to a 1975 article in the New York Times that presumably used the term or similar wording. At that time the genocide had far less recognition than today. But he uses the term crimes without qualification in the Historiography section on p. 10.
TFD (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see your argument here. At least from my standpoint, they were terrorists for all intents and purposes. But the source he quotes in the paragraph in the research paper on the very similar topic, which I quoted and added emphasis to, says "Ibid., 12. See also Department of State Telegram, GENEVA 6267, USMISSION GENEVA to SECSTATE WASHDC 5186, and August 11, 1975" (ibid. refers to "Popular Movement for the ASALA, ASALA Interviews (Great Britain, April 1982)"). NYT does appear in the following paragraph but only to cite the number of Armenians emigrating from USSR, not to echo the tone of coverage at the time. Nor does the usage of word "crime" in the sentence was the successful transfer of responsibility for the crimes of 1915 to the entire, collective population of modern Turkey imply he recognises it, as the sentence sums up the few pages where he describes the efforts of Armenian diaspora to shift the genocide blame from the Ottoman govt to Turkey and the Turks (or that's what he writes). He does not say "yeah, the genocide happened, but the guys were evil and terrorists and so on".
I also don't agree with the argument below as it does not really answer the question about reliability for events in 1970s-80s, not 1915. Nevertheless, some quite evident bias is seen throughout his scholarship and not the one that could be justified by reasonable differences of interpretation of sources. He frequently cites Michael Gunter, who also holds non-orthodox views on the Armenian question (essentially, bothsideism), even as he is the go-to scholar for the Kurdish question. I don't believe Gunn's dissertation to be totally out of whack, however, at least not to the degree that would warrant its dismissal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Even for the research paper's topic, Gunn shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Gunn's writing is very sensationalist and more closely resembles yellow journalism than a research paper. Examples: "these death sentences came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (65), "it is now clear that Armenian activists cared very little about whether or not their targets were men, women or children, let alone whether or not possessed the capacity to defend themselves" (83), "the diaspora would now support the assassination of any Turk and that carrying out these death sentences made one an instant hero, whether or not the victim was a diplomat, spouse or even a child" (108), "Melkonian proved that the hate instilled by Armenian propaganda campaign was enough to justify the murder of Turkish children" (122), "including the targeting of children" (277), "death sentences for Turks came to be expected, and would extend even to the spouses and children of Turkish civil servants" (321).
For how much he tries to champion them, Gunn seems to have no problem residing in and accepting money from a country founded on the murders of millions of civilians, women and children included. But I digress. Unlike Turkey, ASALA never ordered the deaths of spouses or children, and Gunn provides no citations for any of these. He should also be aware of this if he's reading the sources he cites.
Gunn also blames the invasion of Cyprus entirely on Greeks and makes no mention of Turkish imperial ambitions. Ironically, Gunn even mocks someone for mentioning Turkish troops shooting women and children: "One Greek-American constituent of Rep. Mario Biaggi (NY) lamented the “’heroic’ exploits of the Turkish paratroopers, who upon landing in Cyprus opened their automatic weapons upon helpless women and children”" (123).
For someone like Stanford J. Shaw, who is universally discredited as a historian and openly known to have had connections to many Turkish institutions, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative". Yet Gunn calls George E. Danielson a "staunch, faithful and solid ally of Armenian nationalists" (122). When does a biased source cross the line to an unreliable one?
Gunn writes that Gourgen Yanikian was "deranged" (321) and makes no mention of him being a genocide denier who lost 26 family members. Gunn implies his motive was "adulation and glory" (321). This goes far beyond bias, it is outright falsification. His dissertation contains too much lies, bias, and distortions to be considered of any value even for 1973-1993. --Steverci (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm familiar with your opinion, which you expressed on talk. But none of the quotes above show any bias. It is quite obvious that ASALA resorted to indiscriminate violence, and would kill anyone who stood in their way. There cannot be any argument about that, it is enough to see terrorist acts like 1983 Orly Airport attack or Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack, the sole purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible, including children (who actually died in Orly). If someone plants a bomb at the airport or fires at passengers with machine guns, it is quite obvious that the perpetrators do not care who they kill, the only purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Yanikian being deranged is supported by official sources that Gunn quoted, which also show that his story is very dubious. I see no evidence that Gunn took money from the Turkish government. And you have no problem with citing Gunn selectively, like here: [23] You say you have no access to this source, but because Gunn quotes it is Ok to use. But when Gunn quotes the US State Department, he is unacceptable to you. How is that possible? The source is either reliable, or it is not, it cannot be used selectively to support only one narrative. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not the same thing as intentionally targeting children the same way as politicians were, as Gunn dramatically claims multiple times without evidence. I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously if you're going to claim the "sole purpose" of the bombs was to "as many civilians as possible" for the fun of it, never mind any Turkish crimes against humanity. Even Gunn doesn't make lies that outrageous. The example you linked is not comparable because we have an Armenian source (Melkonian) and Turkish source (Gunn) confirming he was a spy. This is why biased unreliable sources can still be useful in certain context. Just look at Gunn's Linkedin page to see who is paying Gunn. There is not a single reliable source making the "deranged" claim, which is exclusive to Gunn and possibly other Turkish sources, and there are more reliable sources saying otherwise. Officially, the court ruled that though he would permit evidence of "impairment of his mentality ... going to show a diminished capacity," he would not permit "any evidence of straight insanity". Further proving Gunn intentionally censored information that would hurt his Turkish jingoist narrative, further proving his unreliability. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how any crimes against humanity could justify planting bombs in airports and indiscriminately killing civilians, including children. And yes, that was intentional targeting of children by ASALA, because terrorists knew very well that there were children among passengers. I see nothing on Gunn's Linkedin that would indicate that he is being paid by Turkish government. And Yanikian being deranged is information taken from FBI files. He was clearly a sick individual, who killed innocent people. Grandmaster 07:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Provide a source that ASALA hoped the bombs would killed children, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Gunn admits he spent years in Ankara and Antyla and was supported by Turkish "academics" and politicians. All claims of insanity are obviously just Turkish slander in an attempt to 'delegitimize' genocide victims. The only sick individuals are the ones Yanikian shot. Quote the FBI files or it's just more of Gunn's propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not include in any article that ASALA hoped to kill children, it is just a fact that they killed many children. For example, in Orly they killed 2 French children, Melkonian shot Turkish diplomat's daughter, etc. Facts speak for themselves. When indiscriminate bombing and shooting is used, it is quite obvious that they deliberately endangered lives of children. There is no point in arguing about that. Studying Turkey requires traveling to Turkey, it is logical, and it does not mean that the researcher is not independent. And you can do your own research and check the files that Gunn quotes. You have no problem using him as a source when it supports your narrative. Grandmaster 08:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The subject wasn't those killed in bombings though, it was assassinations of diplomats and other politicians who were specifically targeted. Gunn uses sensationalist language to imply children were targeted too, when they weren't. If Gunn wants to use undue sources, then he should be treated as an undue source. Simple as that. Narrative has nothing to do with it. As Animalparty suggested, Gunn's only possible use could be for non-outlandish claims, if that. --Steverci (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable I wanted to point out that Gunn using the term "genocide" does not make him any less of a genocide denier and a negationist in the slightest. Gunn cites various well-known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw. On Shaw, Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative" which should leave no doubt Gunn is, like these predecessors of his, just another Turkish-funded propagandist pretending to be a scholar. Turkish historiography has become more sneaky in recent years, often trying to sneak in genocide denial more subtly, and feigning an innocent guise of "neutrality" when called out. From the words of a historian:
Again, after decades of being exposed for their lies, Turkish institutions made the decision to be more deceitful instead of being more truthful. Turkish sources that show the slightest hint of historical negationism should be immediately disqualified as reliable. --Steverci (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Once again, the source is not about genocide, it is about Armenian terrorism, and it is intended for use only in the articles dedicated to this particular topic. I haven't seen any real argument that could question the reliability of this source in connection with terrorism. Grandmaster 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please summarize/close this discussion? Do I get it right that the general consensus among uninvolved editors was Mention with attribution? Grandmaster 21:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that Gunn is a very biased source promoting almost entirely undue claims, and that the only way he could be cited is for things he wrote that aren't universally disputed, for which in most cases there are better sources that should be used instead anyway. --Steverci (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It would good if someone uninvolved closed this. Grandmaster 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Illuminerdi

What is the reliability status of The Illuminerdi? Their content includes interviews, reviews, and "exclusive" content (which is generally casting information from their "sources"). I have noticed that a lot of their content has been correct. For example, they revealed the casting of Jameela Jamil in She-Hulk hours before it was confirmed by The Hollywood Reporter. I wanted to know if it was reliable before citing it because its name seems a bit iffy. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MCURS states the site is not reliable. Not sure if there was a formal discussion somewhere, but that's probably the best place to look further. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for NewsBlaze.com

I am concerned about newsblaze.com, a website that is being used in an article. It seemed harmless at first, but when I went to its home page, today's headline stopped me cold: "Biden Administration Kills 10 Afghan Civilians Including 6 Children." Describing itself, the website writes "NewsBlaze is the alternative business and world news newspaper..." Regardless of one's politics (I have no political party affiliation), I find the content on this website truly biased. In a story on global warming, the website states "Sadly, Global Warming proponents have control over (America's) education system..." The website comments on religious issues, as well, saying American Jews are not like pre-Holocaust European Jews whom the website described as "defenseless and a prey to inculpable hate." It continues, "The Shield of David is the protector of the House of David. It is also fundamental to Judeo-Christian culture, embraced by the Founding Fathers, a part of Americanism." And, "Today, the Jewish kids are influenced by social media. They face BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) activists and anti-Semitic professors while others say nothing. To the people who founded Shield of David 'Never Again means Taking Action Now!' They are out to instil <sic> Jewish values of pride ... To share Judeo-Christian values. To come together under one big tent, one that the Biblical Jewish Patriarch Abraham personified and would be proud of." The website also had an article touting the voter fraud disinformation perpetuated in the U.S. presidential election. All of the quotes were taken from news stories, not opinions. Not every story is obviously biased, but it permeates through the site. I hope this is enough information to get you started on determining whether this source should be green-lighted, yellow-lighted or red-lighted. It does not bill itself as a right-wing or left-wing site, but claims to be a balanced news source, and that is only one of the reasons it causes me concern. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC below - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Query on AFK gaming

AFK Gaming, the website that provides eSports news, seems pretty reliable to me. Please provide clarification.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for Video games, i.e to the:

WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports
or maybe
WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming

Website URL: https://afkgaming.com/

VG/S is a WikiProject construction, so best to post on the WT project talk to update that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Resumen Latinamericano

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the Latin American left progressive news site Resumen Latinamericano, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Resumen Latinamericano (English), at https://resumen-english.org , is an online Latin American news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (RL)

  • Option 2 or 3. This seems to be a news aggregator, mostly. Most of the articles have a source listed at the bottom, indicating that the article is republished from somewhere else. In that regard, it would be best to go to the original source, and there is no need to cite Resumen Latinamericano (for example, this is sourced to Black Agenda Report so it would be best to use that source, not Resumen Latinamericano). An exception might be citing Resumen Latinamericano for the English translation of a good article published in a different language elsewhere (possible example). There are some articles that originate with Resumen Latinamericano (example) and those are decent sources that Wikipedia could cite when they consist of reporting and not opinion. There are examples of articles published elsewhere without disclosing the original place (for example, this on Resumen Latinamericano is identical to this on Dissident Voice as if the same author belongs to both publications), and these would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Most of the articles are from other blogs and do not cite any sources, Not reliable at all. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a news site, quoting sources, as would be expected in an academic article, would not usually be a requirement. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 The original magazine is in Spanish here, the English page is much newer and seems to be simply a small scale extension of the Spanish original. The original Spanish magazine is quite widely cited academically. The English site seems to have less content, but should be assumed to be similarly reliable until proven otherwise. Of course, both sources are opinionated sources, as is every news organisation which talks about politics, so we should always be aware of potential biases. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. As pointed out by Boynamedsue, the Spanish version of this publication is almost three decades old. and appears to fall under the category of reliable, as so many similar international publications are treated on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Pyrrho the Skeptic: But it isn't really a "publication", it's a re-publisher of other publications, mostly. They have some original content but that's a small proportion of it, as far as I can tell. Are you making a blanket judgment about all articles they republish regardless of the source, or are you referring to their own content? Their own original content does seem OK, from what I have seen. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    The site seems to be a small subsidiary of a Spanish website/magazine which is clearly RS. Even if it does republish articles from elsewhere, their selection should be assumed to have undergone the same checks that were necessary to publish in the Spanish site.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    That isn't a safe assumption. I am not seeing evidence that what they republish is being curated for reliability, particularly since they republish articles from outlets that are mouthpieces of authoritarian governments, which are generally regarded as unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3: Almost all its articles are aggregated or translated from elsewhere. If the originals are reliable, cite them; if not, don't cite. For instance, the most recent pieces are from alainet.org (Agencia Latinoamericana de Información es), DeWereldMorgen, People's Dispatch, REDH-Cuba, Cubadebate.cu and Granma. None of those are fake news sites, but they are all highly partisan and strongly affiliated with Communist parties and governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. At very least, clearly attribute to the original source, and acknowledge partisan positions and state links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Articles are translated, edited or written by RL staff. Most of them are translations from other sources, and are marked as such (see byline, and especially source at the end of the article). If an article is a translation, prefer a citation of the original article, assuming it's a reliable source. In short: in most cases you should be citing the original sources, but pieces directly written and edited by RL may be usable. MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RL)

Untapped New York?

Columbia University tunnels is fraught with non-RS, but the one I'm concerned with at the moment is untapped new york. Should UNY be considered a RS? We have a bunch of articles that cite it on various topics, so I'm interested in the general case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Could you explain [24]? tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is WP:RECENTISM because, the govenrnment had to backed down their decision as it back fired on them. Now chemical fertilizers can be used again. There is political opposition to that decision, therefore it might change when the goverment changes. Furthermore, theprint.in don't seems like a reliable source or a maintream media. The Hindu only briefly mentions the chemical fertilizer ban, nothing on biological agriculture policy. And Why a subsection needed for such small topic?--Chanaka L (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Chanakal: "Sri Lanka walks back fertiliser ban over political fallout fears". France 24. 5 August 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021. says the walk back is only partial: urea remains banned as fertilizer.
ThePrint is an online newspaper, that does not mean it is dodgy journalism. I do not know RSN precedents for it, I will search for them later. The Hindu is in green at WP:RSP.
About ThePrint I found this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248:

*Established and edited by reputed journalists, passes WP:RS per WP:NEWSORG.

  • Quite a lot of opinion pieces but objective reporting is equally abundant.
  • I note a clear distinguishing between opinion-pieces and objective-reporting.
  • Left-biased but as long as you avoid the opinion pieces, quite-well-enough to be used as a RS for meeting WP:V.If the opinion pieces are used, please abide by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBGconverse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Also reported at Jayasinghe, Amal (1 September 2021). "Sri Lanka organic revolution threatens tea disaster". Phys.org. Retrieved 6 September 2021. © 2021 AFP
Drawing the line: ThePrint, The Hindu, and AFP are 3 (three) mainstream news sources. Are we on the same page? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, this is primarily a content dispute about WP:due weight, and not about the reliability of the sources to support the information, as can be seen from User:Chanakal's edit summary and reply here. This should be discussed in the article's talk page first. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

OzRoads

Ozroads

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

Survey: OzRoads

Discussion: OzRoads

OzRoads appears to be a WP:SPS stating: Ozroads is purely a hobby site, created and maintained by myself. Is commonly used as a cite in articles in this category with its validity periodically questioned. Thought it prudent to have it assessed by uninvolved editors. Uaterlou (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't see that is qualifies as an RS. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Sportskeeda to Video Game sources

I believe the 12-13 year old sports and Esports news website Sportskeeda, should be included as a reliable source to WP:VG/S. The website is immensely reliable. I propose it to be added to

WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming, or
WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports

Website URL: https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports

Thank you for swift reply. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
No further arguments or discussions from my side. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

How reliable is the "Wiki" section of IGN?

I am currently editing Draft:List_of_Genshin_Impact_characters, but finding reliable sources has been a challenge. I resorted to using the "Wiki" section of IGN, as IGN is listed in the list of generally reliable sources for content relating to video games. However, I am not sure how much of IGN is considered reliable, and whether IGN's Wiki section is a reliable part of IGN or not. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

its a wiki, so no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, that's unfortunate. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Can't you use something like this? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! The website does look good and provides factually correct information, however I am not sure if "Androidcentral" is considered a generally reliable source here. --KingErikII (Talk page) 19:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe it is. It is listed as reliable here, and the publication has a full editorial oversight staff. Feel free to use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Good to know that! Thanks for your input. :) --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Github

Would github be considered a reliable source? My guess would be no because github is mainly user-generated content, but I just wanna make sure as someone requested a source to be added and the source was for github. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Github itself isn't a source, it's just a place for people to create accounts and upload code and other stuff. All content is entirely user generated. If it's GitHub documentation itself about Github as an entity or service, maybe, but otherwise no. The only reason I can think of is X provides the source code for Y on GitHub. Maybe A code does B, but I think that would be better to have a third party reliable source make the statement about what the code does rather than the, possibly, original research of reading the code and making the claim. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Does "someone" have a name and is it possible to say what the suggestion was? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
They don't have a name (as far as I know) because they're an IP. THe suggestion is on Talk:Genshin Impact Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No, that suggests there is some modifications being made by that code, makes a suggestion that there is a security concern but it's not evidence that one exists. Would need a reliable third party source, not someone's code on GitHub about a problem that may or may not be confirmed to exist. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright cool. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: pinging Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It depends on a given WP:RSCONTEXT. I would generally discourage its use unless you want to make very specific statements verifiable. I would also strongly recommend to read previous discussions concerning Github:[25] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It definitely depends on a given WP:CONTEXT and also the other criteria of RS, one can ignore the venue. I would suggest that some repos might have a good reputation within their technology niche or show the RS criteria of ‘editorial’ control and third party reputation - perhaps the MS Azure docs, or the Google flutter, or Redhat Ansible. Otherwise something might be a suitable RS dependent on the reputation of the author, or by third parties referring to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It is a reliable source for stating that some software exists, or a specific version was released on some date, or a change happened. It's not a RS to confer notability on software, or a coder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Markbassett: I agree with my fellow @Walter Görlitz. The Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) should be shown by sources of more higher quality in order to avoid violating WP:OR. At best, they shouldn't be first-hand reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Think this is confusing the question of whether something deserves an article WP:GNG with the question here of if something on GitHub is usable as WP:RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • GitHub is user-generated content repository, and most of its contents are "primary sources". It is sometimes a good source to add a reference to the release date of the latest stable version, for example. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I read of some interesting non-software uses, such as data visualization, legal postings and other documents, e.g. Obama campaign documents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of a Czech linux magazine and the Ubuntu Wiki

This is a RfC on two sources as per discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valknut_(software)_(2nd_nomination) The first source is https://www.linuxexpres.cz/ , with Gtranslate it claims that it is a magazine, but I would like your input. I used it for this verifiability[26].

The second source I support being a reliable source but would obviouly want your RfC, Ubunu Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com . It is only edited by people at Ubuntu and not open to general public. It is meant as an authorative guide for Ubuntu users and a guide for anything related. --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I didn't realize ubuntu wiki was openly editable, so I undid that edit. But could you guide me how you knew the other link was a blog(personal record) and not a news entry(it is not the directory name I assume). --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Greatder: The directory structure is what led me to their blog portal (please read the third paragraph of its lead section). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not a blog (ISSN 1801-3996). "The blog on our portal is not intended for those interested in blogging ... [It] is the way in which editors and authors communicate with readers, or inform them about what is happening around the portal." That is, the blog is a house organ which isn't subject to editorial oversight as are the articles; para. 3 explains the differences. The mag is looking for new authors [27]; it's a paid gig if you know a little Czech. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Wait, that was hasty. Linux Expres isn't a blog but it does include a blog, and Greatder is linking a blog post, not an article. The clue is "Blog" in the breadcrumbs (I assume that's what was meant by "directory structure"). Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as a reliable source

Not an RSN issue, so closing this. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

  1. Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website and specifically it's Russian version website in general

Specific pages:

  1. Article: request is to assess is RFE/RF is a reliable source in general; the article in which source is used is TASIS Switzerland
  2. Content: TASIS to be the school of Lida Slutskaya, where article contains photo with TASIS logo on a blouse. Photo title is:

A screenshot from Lida Slutskaya's TikTok account, where she appears in the uniform of The American School in Switzerland

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.100.1 (talk) 9:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, Its similar to BBC though government funded it have independent editorial policy as it host country have high freedom of press --Shrike (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this is a misleading request. The RFE article says absolutely nothing about TASIS Switzerland; the school name is not even in the article. The photo in question is being used by an IP (the OP, who is an IP-hopper) to make an insinuating claim about the school by adding a non-notable person as a "notable student" and then adding various negatives to the information [28]. Notable students/alumni should have their own wiki articles. This student does not. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The school name TASIS is used multiple times (specifically, 6) in the Russian version of the investigation linked in the reliability check request above. The English version of the investigation is shortened, uses older name of the school, directly referring with the "The American School" to the TASIS school website URL, quote:

In early August, she documented how she was preparing to take entrance exams for The American School in Switzerland, another $100,000-a-year boarding school near the lakeside city of Lugano.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.100.1 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter -- you still can't add a student's name to the article who does not have a Wikipedia article. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder to add signature. This request is to verify reliability of the source, let's only discuss reliability here. I believe I have provided enough evidence above to counter the statement "The RFE article says absolutely nothing about TASIS Switzerland" you made as a false claim.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
First, that's generally not a good idea to write from two different IP addresses at once, because that might be suspicious. Please try to stick to one address only.
Since there is only one American school in Lugano, and it is referred to as such multiple times in the post, I agree with the IP that the information is verified and does not constitute original research, and is published in a quite good outlet; but the fact that you were able to verify the information does not mean you should include it (see WP:VNOT. I know that children of politicians in post-Soviet countries are widely discussed and often despised for what is usually considered posh lifestyle that few can afford; but the fact that the father is a notable person does not confer notability to the daughter. She has to be someone more than a daughter of an MP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not always controlling IP address changes, I'm sorry. This request is to verify reliability of the source, let's only discuss reliability here, if still needed. I welcome your comments on Talk section of the TASIS Switzerland. Thank you.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment on talk page. Not a RSN issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible issue with W:NPOV, MOS:LABEL, WP:NOR, WP:V with "right-wing" allegation

One for the article talk page, not a question of source reliability - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

In the Ivermectin#COVID-19_misinformation section the second paragraph states "Ivermectin became a cause célèbre for right-wing figures promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment." I do not have issue with the label far right, but the fact that the sentence represents original research as the reference does not back up that sentence. Upon clicking the reference, the opening statement does indeed use the phrase "right-wing" but makes no mention of any right-wing individuals or organizations. Where is the basis for the phrase "cause celebre"? 10 individuals? 100? 1000? Who is the right-wing they are referencing in this matter? Also, you can see on my comments on the talk page that a quote from some random medical student hardly in my opinion meets the criteria of verifiability. I have been locked out of the discussion on that page thus raising the issue here. --Skarz (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "“there is a whole ivermectin hype … dominated by a mix of right-wing figures, anti-vaxxers and outright conspiracists”." does kind of say it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
So a quote from a medical student meets WP:V? --Skarz (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I would say it does when it is published in an otherwise-reliable source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thus is not an RS question, the source quotes them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: what do you mean? This is a RS for saying that "Jack Lawrence said such and such" but not a RS for stating it as a fact. JBchrch talk 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yep, we should go with attribution. But it is still an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
In my view, this sentence does not conforms to WP:RS. At best, we could have something like "Ivermectin has been promoted by rightwing figures as a cure for COVID-19". JBchrch talk 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer your version, for style, at least. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yep, seems a better fit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I still fail to see how that source substantiates the claim that the right wing has promoted the use of Ivermectin. Who is the right wing and why are there no prominent names or organizations listed, i.e. "popular radio host Alex Jones" or "podcast host Joe Rogan" etc. It's a very weak source. Some random medical student supposedly did a "comprehensive investigation" which is conveniently entirely left out, just a reference to anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia can do better. Skarz (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I am fine with the changes proposed above and below to how we phrase the sentence, but this response from Skarz is troubling. We don't require our sources to cite their sources. If the Guardian calls ivermectin, in it's own voice, "a drug being promoted by rightwing figures worldwide", then we can summarize and report on that reliable, secondary coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
sure, that's still accurate in my opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This isn't really a Reliable Sources question. The phrase "cause celebre" is one best avoided as a style issue. The broader statement, that Ivermectin has been promoted substantially and predominantly by right-wing figures, is so easily sourced that I cannot imagine it being a subject of dispute among good-faith editors. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If there are so many credible souces why is Wikipedia using the weakest and least verifiable out of all of them? Skarz (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It is being used to source one specific sentence (a quote in fact), not the claim. The section has more than one source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Pushed or promoted by right wing. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/23/media/right-wing-media-ivermectin/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/24/how-rights-ivermectin-conspiracy-theories-led-people-buying-horse-dewormer/

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-covid-ivermectin-medical-expert-treatment-debunked-conservative-media-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/ivermectin-covid-joe-rogan-anti-vaxx-b1915539.htmlSlatersteven (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, I hope to see those added to the article as sources. Skarz (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
See wp:overcite.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
See also, WP:PROVEIT. Skarz (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a matter best handled on the article's talk page, honestly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
As I said not an RS issue. I note as well there was a discussion, and it was closed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:V does not require every statement to be cited, but rather states that a source should exist for every statement. We have that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this source reliable for the American Descendants of Slavery claim in Head tie?

This article [29] doesn't mention ADOS at all. Nor does it say "Enslaved African women were required by law to cover their hair as this feature was considered sexually provocative", instead it says that "In 1786, the governor of Louisiana proclaimed that all free Black women must wear tignon to make them different from white women." so it appears that that the editor who added this, User:ADOS Pride, has also misrepresented the source. The source is the New York Historical Society.

What's more confusing is that the source is talking about a Tignon for which we already have an article. Until the same editor made theses changes[30] (which I've reverted because the removal of it being similar to a Head tie isn't explained and the addition of text that confines its use to ADOS women isn't sourced.

@Praxidicae, Smartse, and M.Bitton: you may have comments on this as ADOS pride has been editwarring with you. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Doug Weller: The source does not support the statement that the editor is attributing to it, therefore, its reliability (in this instance) is irrelevant. I have reverted ADOS Pride's last edit since they are clearly confusing Head tie with Tignon and adding content that isn't covered in the article's body to the lead section. Adding a section about the African-American head tie is probably a good idea, but it has to be done properly, using RS such as "Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time" (which is used by others and has a chapter about the origin of the African-American head wrap). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to understand what ADOS means. American Descendants of chattel slavery is a term that refers to people whose ancestors were brought from the continent of Africa and enslaved in the United States. That would include women whose ancestors were raped by Europeans and, therefore, had mixed African and European heritage. Those are the "women of color" to which one article refers. That also includes creole and mulatto women. Enslaved women already wore tignon, for the purpose of work. "Free women" means that they were Black/ADOS/African American because otherwise no one would have to reference their status as being free. All of these details can be found in the various articles of read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ADOS Pride (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Is The Telegraph a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese?

CLOSED
Strong consensus that The Telegraph is a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese. Closed early per WP:SNOW. ––FormalDude talk 08:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.


Source: Esnor, Josie (3 May 2021). "Meet the man China is desperate to silence". The Telegraph.

Source quote: "The fluent Mandarin speaker spent months pouring over thousands of documents from obscure corners of the Chinese internet to join the dots to create a fuller picture of what was happening in one of the most closely guarded places on earth."

Article: Adrian Zenz

On the relevant talk page, a discussion has been ongoing regarding whether a news piece in The Telegraph is considered to be a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese. I, as well as Horse Eye's Back argue that this is an ordinary fact that The Telegraph is reliable for, especially since the newspaper is a generally reliable news source. ButterSlipper appears to disagree. I figured that I'd bring this here to gather more input on this question. So, is this piece from The Telegraph a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi Mikehawk10. You are absolutely correct with The Telegraph being a reliable news organisation, but your conclusion that legitimises The Telegraph piece and says that Mandarin Chinese is essential to his academic work comes from original research and even if it weren't, the article you cite specifically says just Mandarin skills not fluency as The Telegraph claims. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:OR is out-of-scope here; we're evaluating reliability of The Telegraph for this, not inserting a citation to an article on Zenz's reading and writing abilities based off of my own analysis. And, while I understand that the article from The Atlantic says Mandarin skills are something that are needed for this work, but there's no need to be unnecessarily reductive. He seems to be regularly translating novel documents as a part of his work on a regular basis. My point in this is that, in the context of his other language skills, his ability to speak Mandarin seems like a rather natural thing, and exactly the sort of thing that a reliable newsorg could be used as a source for. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My bad, I misinterpreted your work libelling it as original research and I apologise, but when looking through the document (the one your provided) and finding its sources that were written in Chinese I was easily able to understand them using google translate meaning Zenz could've easily done that too. Him translating novel documents doesn't necessarily signify that he is a fluent speaker of Chinese when we don't know whether or not he did that by knowing the language or using other translators. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Dr. Swag Lord there is more to it. "I have skepticism with this source in this case specifically is because no other (found) reliable sources have made this claim, The Telegraph piece does not provide a primary source from which it extracted this info from, The Telegraph has a history of deception (as I source here[1]) and this is a biography of a living person so we have to make sure the facts are totally veritable and trustworthy. I suggest intext attribution or just excluding this until we can find more reason to state this as fact." [32] ButterSlipper (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    The Atlantic article provided by Mikehawk seems to basically corroborate The Telegraph's reporting since it states that people working in Zenz' field of work require "Mandarin skills." Zenz could use a translator, as you speculate, or the most likely answer is that an expert on China policy is fluent in Mandarin. No source is perfect. Even the best source makes erroneous claims from time to time. However, the community has determined that The Telegraph is generally reliable and our own article on The Telegraph states that the The Telegraph generally has a reputation for high-quality journalism, and has been described as being "one of the world's great titles." I appreciate your commitment to uphold BLP but I see no BLP violations with the edit. Do you happen to have a source that dismisses Zenz' Mandarin skills? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Swag Lord your reply is appreciated but not adequate. The article Mikehawk10 provided states that you need Mandarin skills which hints at the likelihood that Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese but does not confirm that he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese like The Telegraph reports. Yes my belief that Adrian Zenz could've used a translator is based on speculation but him being an expert on China does not demonstrate fluency in Mandarin Chinese (even though it could mean that) and despite "the community" determinating that The Telegraph has high-quality journalism it is incorrect to assume, like you said, that its reporting is unfalsifiable and in this context where other reliable sources have not picked up on this claim, this is a biography of a living person, The Telegraph does not provide a source or citation and the cited outlet has misled before, it is unreasonable to pick up this assertion without hesitation. My suggestion is to apply intext attribution since it's a questionable claim. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If you think that it's a WP:BLP violation to leave the statement in there that he speaks fluent Chinese (as you stated both on this noticeboard and on your user talk page), on the basis that such a statement is allegedly false, then in-text attribution wouldn't actually help solve the issue of bad information being in the piece; the remedy for false information isn't to keep bad info and attribute it to an unreliable source. This is one of those clear-cut factual things: either the source is reliable for this fact, or it's not. And, there's ample evidence to suggest that the source is indeed reliable, that the claim it's used to support is wholly extraordinary for someone with his education and occupation, and that it's fully appropriate to use the news source as the Zenz article does. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to mention that I only suggest intext attribution as a middleground if the consensus does not swing one way or another but you have only confirmed that you need Mandarin skills Mikehawk10 using that The Atlantic article not that his occupation requires fluency in Mandarin Chinese which is what we're trying to determine as that's what The Telegraph is reporting. We cannot spread rumours on a BLP of course. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. I read the entire article (which is behind a paywall; I have a Telegraph subscription, do others in this thread?), and there is no reason to doubt that assertion unless there is explicit counter-evidence elsewhere from this year. There appears to be ample evidence in the Telegraph article that he is indeed fluent in Mandarin.

    Believe it or not, Mandarin is not that unusual to study and be fluent in these days. Indeed, for the past 20 to 30 years, it's become something of a fad among activists, scholars, and researchers. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I disagree; there is ample evidence in the article that (A) The Telegraph did its due diligence, and (B) he is fluent in Mandarin. Did you read the entire article? If not, why are you so adamant that it is unreliable, incorrect, biased, unnecessarily presenting him as a hero, etc., etc.? Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide the ample evidence (quotes) that show the diligence of The Telegraph and how Zenz is fluent in Mandarin (other than the quote given by Mikehawk10) because I cannot read the article due to the paywall now being there and yes I do make those accusations correctly because I did read the article before. What you're saying is (in the non-legal sense) slander. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
(@Softlavender: As a minor point, it is fairly easy to get around newspaper paywalls these days, so most people here may indeed have read it without having to pay). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
My point is, ButterSlipper is lying about having ever read the article. All he has read is the headline and the short passage quoted at the top of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Softlavender you are making an astoundingly derogatory assumption of bad faith that's not even true because I have read the article and I am not lying. Please stop. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Softlavender you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable. Please cite an instance where I have pushed a "pro-Communist agenda" and please explain how this is relevant at all. I could go through every edit other uses have made and highlight the neoconservative, neoliberal, pro-war, western etc. biases of others and then absurdly assert that they're pushing a pro-[whatever that is] agenda but I don't because I respect my fellow Wikipedians and am working not to push an anti-[whatever that is] agenda but collaborate and build an encyclopedia. Yes, I am a new editor, but how does that invalidate the credibility of my statements? This is unacceptable Softlavender. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Softlavender you have not stated facts or evidence. You merely cited my user page, statistics about my editing and my contributions then irrationally came to the conclusion that I have a "pro-Communist agenda" and I already explained how I did not make any personal attacks [37] and Acroterion agreed with me and said that my block was not about personal attacks but me treating Wikipedia like a battleground (which I still did not do but I now accept the block). You are attacking me needlessly and frankly in a very rude way. I've tried so hard to build an NPOV encyclopedia and you're assumption of bad faith ignores my diligence. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Please corroborate. I am not trying to "discredit news reporting on China's ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses" this is literally about Adrian Zenz and whether or not he can speak Mandarin Chinese. Provide evidence for your extraordinary claim or do not make these ridiculous assumptions. This is one of the multiple times this has occurred that someone has assumed something libellous about me and I will not take it. This is inappropriate Only in death. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • How about you dont make the ridiculous assumption that a scholar, journalist & anthropologist with years of experience (going back to his dissertation) focusing specifically on China wouldnt be fluent in the language of the country that has dominated his life's work? Because I want to see reliable sourcing that he doesnt speak, read and write Mandarin at this point before I would entertain the idea that maybe the Telegraph has this wrong. Not the FUD of a clearly pro-Chinese editor. Re not taking it, you know where the door is. Dont let it hit you on the way out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You did not address anything I said. Just because he has studied China for very long does not mean that he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese (although it may hint at it) and your rude remark at the end is not in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Please do not contribute to this discussion if you're not going to constructively contribute. You are not the only editor here that has come assuming bad-faith too... my ridiculous assumption is not ridiculous or an assumption when you constructively take in my evidence and address my concerns. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ButterSlipper, a word to the wise: The more you rail against editors pointing out the obvious about your editing patterns, the more you paint a target on your own back and the more people will track your edits and comments and the more likely you are to be further reported and/or sanctioned for behavior contrary to Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't just picking up a pattern, its vulgar mudslinging ("pro-China", "pro-Communist" etc.) and contradictory to what you've asserted about my behaviour; it is you and this editor here that is making the violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are dragging me with provably false accusations and that would constitute a personal attack. Not in this reply or any others have you made the effort to actually validate these far-reaching claims of an agenda of mine. I do not want to report this but please look at WP:NPA (the part where it talks about false attacks on actions). ButterSlipper (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Come on, don't be ridiculous - that's not an extraordinary claim. Doubting someone's knowledge of Chinese because "only one newspaper directly said it" when it is expected for a person working with Chinese language documents to know at least some Chinese is essentially trying to assert that The Telegraph lied about his language skills. I haven't seen a shred of evidence of lying, despite lengthy attempts (failed IMHO) to refute the opposing point. If you have no direct or at the very least plentiful circumstantial evidence of lying grounded in RS and/or if you can't present it, at the very least don't waste other editors' time. Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It is an extraordinary claim because I brought up how other reliable sources have not picked up on it despite it being a pretty relevant fact and I am doubting whether he speaks it fluently Mikehawk10 did not include that in the title and I forgot to correct them. I also did not even consent to this operation, it was just done by Mikehawk10 although I agree it's a waste of time and it's very easy to determine that we should just add intext attribution or not include this. I do have plentiful circumstantial evidence as I provided in my first comment here and clarified more... and more in other replies. You do not have to comment at all if you're not going to constructively add to this discussion, the reason why this post even started is because the dispute got so controversial and sectarian. I mean this in the nicest way and I'm sure you're trying to educate me but please... it is not necessary. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"[O]ther reliable sources have not picked up on it" because it is neither noteworthy nor remarkable for someone who has devoted his life's work (all the way back to his university thesis) to China issues to be fluent in Chinese. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It does seem very important and noteworthy. Like you can't just assume a German-born Christian who has only been taught in english-speaking schools that they're fluent in Mandarin Chinese plus Mandarin Chinese is usually treated as an incredibly difficult language to learn and I assume even more so to learn fluently so it is in fact noteworthy and remarkable yet other reliable outlets have not picked up this fact. When you google whether or not Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese it only shows up with Wikipedia echoing the statement that is empty of verifiable fact and Chinese-state media who refuses to believe Adrian Zenz can speak or write. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think users are misbehaving report them do not derail RSN discussions with your accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Softlavender stop with this foulmouthed gossip. The only agenda I have is verifiable facts and information on a wikipedia page. There is not a "coordinated effort" to discredit Zenz I am a single individual. It would be quite the opposite because you are trying to coordinate other users into a clique of aggression against me libelling me and saying I have a pro-Communist agenda. These are personal attacks that you need to stop and I have already notified you on your talk page. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Slatersteven Gråbergs Gråa Sång I am assuming you're making an WP:APF and claiming that I have skepticism because of reddit but that is not true at all. I have skepticism because of the reasons listed in my first comment. You do not have to contribute if you're going to make impolite smears like this. And that may be the top for you, but when I google the top is Wikipedia and Chinese-state media so it shows the lack of coverage of this fact in reliable news outlets. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    Fwiw, I mentioned reddit because it was the top of my google-search and I wanted to note that the idea (doesn't know Chinese) was out there. At this point in the discussion, consider WP:BLUDGEON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable, also note that WP:RS are no longer in the habit of making passing mentions about language abilities for a number of reasons which aren’t worth getting into here. Its only mentioned if the source thinks that its both relevant and important. For example I am not able to find any sources which have mentioned, even in passing, that Zenz is fluent in either German or English because its neither relevant or important to the story being told. That makes me lean away from the argument that this is undue as a passing mention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot compare Mandarin Chinese to German and English for Zenz. It's demonstrably clear he is fluent in both those languages because he even tweets in those languages and he grew up in areas where he learnt that; unlike Mandarin Chinese that is extremely difficult (one of the most difficult in the world) to learn whether or not you study China. This is a pretty big remark made by The Telegraph to say that Zenz knows how to speak it fluently and there is no way to confirm what The Telegraph is reporting is true because they have not even provided a primary source and no other reliable sources have touched on this topic. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This really is a Snow close.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What is a snow close? ButterSlipper (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:SNOW. It's a explanatory supplement page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. No reliable sources dispute the claim, and the claim is not exceptional. Therefor, I see no reason not to consider The Telegraph reliable in this matter. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable We treat the Telegraph as generally reliable, and there are no contradictory sources to suggest that is not the case here. Furthermore, the assertion that he is a fluent speaker shouldn't need to be qualified with "according to the Telegraph;" that sort of label is more appropriate for subjective pronouncements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jaxsta for music credits

Jaxsta [39], or Jaxsta is a source for detailed music credits information, along the lines of an IMDb for music. Not sure how to treat its reliability, however. On the plus side, the credits aren't user-submitted, since the company is "getting direct feeds of metadata from the three major labels, the Merlin network of independent music companies and unions including the American Federation of Musicians and SAG-AFTRA," (Variety story on the company here) which would speak to the reliability of the data. On the negative side, subjects (or their reps) can sign up for a Pro account and "claim" their pages, allowing them to "customize each profile by adding a bio, image, contact details and links to social media/websites" and "Control how the world sees [their] work by prioritizing the order in which those credits appear on [their] profile". Doesn't sound like the artist/rep can add or change the credits, however. Any thoughts on whether this looks reliable enough to be a source for song credits for a musician or producer? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish I remembered exactly what the details were, but last year I was looking at Jaxsta credits as compared to other published credits, and I remember coming to the conclusion that Jaxsta was either incomplete or not getting all the info. Another source of credits fed by metadata is the streaming service Tidal; the credits version is available for desktop app users. I think these are similar.
I am holding the original 1986 CD in my hand of Steve Winwood's Back in the High Life, comparing it to Jaxsta, and the Jaxsta credits look legit. Both the CD liner notes and Jaxsta incorrectly credit Jason Corsaro as engineer on every track along with Tom Lord-Alge—the truth is that Corsaro left the project and the last song to be recorded, track 7 "Split Decision", has zero contributions from him. In this case Jaxsta matches the liner notes so that both are the same amount wrong. But Jaxsta misspells the name of Chaka Khan's brother Mark Stevens who was a backing vocalist, spelling it Mark Stephens. The liner notes spell it correctly. Everything else looks good for this album. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Reason.com

Is Reason.com generally reliable? The piece in question is [40] which is a critique on other media organisations’ covering of a specific event related to Ivermectin. At a skim of the piece my own alarm bells aren’t ringing but just wanted to make sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A previous discussion from April 2020: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reason Magazine and reason.com. Consensus then appears to be that it is generally reliable. — Goszei (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Its an editorial (almost everything Reason published is either an editorial or opinion piece) so anything sourced from it should be attributed and it isn’t necessarily due on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec)I wonder if there is a picture of Robby Soave on a dart board in the Rolling Stone offices? Reason is mostly opinion and analysis with very little original reporting. They would be a good source for the University of Virginia hoax and the Covington Kids articles, but only after looking back at some distance from the events. How could this article be used on WP? Offhand it doesn't seem important enough for content in Rolling Stone. fiveby(zero) 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the context you want to use this article for? Because so far what I essentially see is the criticism that MSM attributed the quote said on KFOR, which itself, according to the author, made a lousy-quality story around the quote with a clickbait headline. But such attribution is quite often done by the media, and I think Reason is no exception to that. Because I can hardly imagine a usage of the article, apart from "Criticism of the mainstream media" article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I think reliable for undisputable facts (who/what/when/where), but opinions (which may constitute a large portion of its content) should be cited to it and never presented in WP's own voice. In the Jacobin Magazine RfC [41], Jr8825 offered an adroit explanation of our approach in these cases which informs my position here. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecation Reason.com is a partisan and faulty source. It has a sharp conflict of interest as the Reason foundation (the parent of the Reason.com) has received more than millions (approximately $2,000,000 I believe) from the Koch Family Foundations and the Koch Family Foundation and the Reason Foundation remain with tight financial and ideological ties. Reason.com has fought against vaccine mandating (an absurd and dangerous position),[1] has pushed misleading and sensationalist titles like "Medicare is about to run out" while the article itself says that would be in 5 years[2] and again has agitated against "bureaucrats" based on unfounded logic and misrepresentations[3] when what they were fighting for was a label of a grotesque silhouette of a naked man.[4] In summary, the Reason.com and its parent foundation the Reason Foundation are polemic, liberatarian extremist projects to advance the interests of their grandparent Koch Family Foundations. This is not applicable for Wikipedia except for uncontroversial self-descriptions etc. and it must be deprecated. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. Reason, while it clearly has a libertarian streak, it's also a news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I've seen the Wall Street Journal take quotes from Reason interviews, the editorial page of the Washington Post seems to acknowledge that even Reason's critical reporting on WaPo has merit, the newsroom of Washington Post has taken quotes from Reason interviews, and it's got a competent editorial board that exerts editorial control and ensures fact-checking.
The reasons provided above for deprecation... plainly aren't reasons for deprecation and provide for a sloppy argument altogether. Its report on widely reported figures on the Medicare trust (see also: The Hill or the actual report that provides this timeline) doesn't appear to err on that fact, so I'm surprised that this was included. The criticism for its report on Biden's vaccine mandate is a naked government policy analysis rather than addressing the substance of the reporting itself (which actually appears to fully check out). The Alcohol Beverage Control board is plainly part of North Carolina's bureaucracy, and the story itself appears to be solidly sourced. The implication that it was attempting to obscure the content is rather silly; it even includes the image of the beer can design in the article! If the concern is political orientation, I'd suggest that the editor read WP:BIASED, which states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://reason.com/2021/09/09/biden-admits-he-cant-mandate-masks-why-does-he-think-he-can-mandate-vaccines/
  2. ^ https://reason.com/2021/09/08/medicare-is-about-to-run-out-of-money-democrats-want-to-make-the-program-cost-even-more/
  3. ^ https://reason.com/2021/09/08/north-carolina-banned-this-beer-because-bureaucrats-dislike-the-label/?itm_source=parsely-api
  4. ^ https://wtop.com/consumer-news/2021/09/maryland-brewery-sues-north-carolina-commission-over-label/
That WSJ used the fact Paul was interviewed by Reason is not an endorsement of Reason as a reliable source; your claim there doesn't connect in that way. I'm not seeing the cite to Reason in your Hill link either. You're not backing your claims of its newsorgish value. Using quotes from interviews doesn't make Reason an RS, any more than RSes using quotes from the Daily Mail (which they do) makes the DM an RS. You seem to be grasping at straws - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair point; the above wasn't a good affirmative justification. However, what is a good affirmative case involves WP:USEBYOTHERS considered more broadly. It is substantially used by fact-checkers such as PolitiFact as a source for facts (1 2 3 4), though articles in the Volokh subsection of the site tend to be attributed to the particular law professor writing them. USA Today has cited Reason as a source in its election-related fact checks, cited full-length interviews and leaked audio made public by Reason in news reporting, and cited it for non-quote facts in news reporting, as has CNN, Fox News, and ABC News. The Atlantic has given them credit for being the first to break a story and has used Reason-made analyses in its articles. I'm also seeing relatively broad use by a variety of academic disciplines. It's got a pretty wide use by others, which, in my mind, contributes significantly towards its general reliability.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reason is an obvious "Option 2" source: Considerations apply. Like Jacobin, they mostly aren't liars about checkable facts. However, it is a partisan source, funded to push partisan talking points - it is not at all a WP:NEWSORG. You could use Reason for facts, but it's entirely unclear that there's any fact you could use from Reason that you shouldn't find a much more solid source for. It doesn't fabricate to the point of deprecation, but the commenter suggesting deprecation sets out a list of excellent citations as to why it should at most be "considerations apply" - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Since Jacobin is rated as "Additional considerations apply", in the same way, so should be Reason. It's just two publications with opposite ideologies but essentially the same type of reporting, i.e., opinion-based, with little-to-none news input. There's no good reason to say Reason is more, or less reasonable than Jacobin, when we turn off ideology. That said, as with Jacobin, which I said is particularly valuable for socialist coverage, so is the case with Reason for libertarian POV coverage, so this should not be neglected. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Szmenderowiecki: Part of the reason for the Jacobin close was dubious sourcing from sources like The Grayzone, The Raw Story, and AlterNet for facts in articles. When we turn off ideology, I doubt that Reason cites from... The Grayzone. It wasn't simply that it was opinion-laden that got Jacobin an WP:MREL consensus in its RfC. If you can demonstrate similar sourcing issues, then I'd perhaps agree with you, but it looks to me like Reason does a lot more original reporting than Jacobin and isn't as dependent on lower-quality publications for its reporting. I'd personally be very comfortable using Reason interviews in a biography of a living person, and there were specific issues brought up about how Jacobin reports on living people. I understand that there's a parallel at a shallow level, but this is surely more complicated than Jacobin-is-WP:MREL-so-Reason-should-be-too. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional considerations apply e.g. it should be attributed wherever possible. Because it is difficult to distinguish Reason's factual reporting (of which I believe there is little) from its opinion/editorial pieces (of which there are many). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Reason is a generally good source but it's largely commentary, not straight reporting. I think their commentary is often good and worth including with attribution. Several have compared it to Jacobin. Yes, they are both heavy on commentary but it's worth reviewing Ad Fontes's media bias chart. Both sources are within what Ad Fontes calls "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". However, Reason's is reliability score is 37 vs 31 and more significantly, Reason's bias score of 8 is between "balanced" and "skews right". Jacobin's 22 is bumping into hyper-partisan left. Springee (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as per shibbolethink's rationale. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Generally reliable. It's mostly opinion based anyway. Its opinions and interviews have been cited in multiple RS so they can often be used with attribution. Loganmac (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those of you citing an option, this isn't an RfC with options. I'm seeing some people see "Option 2" as generally reliable, while others are using "Option 2" to mean additional considerations apply. Since there aren't actually defined options at the top of this discussion, could we try to affirmatively state what we mean by "Option 2" rather than to assume we mean "Option 2" of the the perennial 4-option RfC? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should use it for anything about Ivermectin at this time but it's generally comparable to other sources that we use (with attribution). I wouldn't mind deprecation but I just don't see it happening.Spudlace (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of the Mail & Guardian

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.
Bad RFC (and incidental consensus for option 1). There appear to be convincing arguments that there is no dispute here; so the RfC seems misplaced. In any case, it's clear that the source is reliable, but that was never in doubt. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


The Mail & Guardian is a weekly newspaper based in Johannesburg. How should we consider its reliability?

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (M&G)

Discussion (M&G)

Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. I also note that (unless I'm missing it) we do not appear to currently list any South African publications at RSP. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

When you have a hammer, many things look like a nail. After gathering low hanging fruit, move up the tree. If the fruit doesn't fall, shake it down with increased vigor. -- GreenC 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As a heads up, there is a list of South African publications as reference sources for use on Wikipedia that was compiled as part of Wiki Project Africa's sources list. It has not been updated in a while (two or three years now) and it could use more input from others to update/improve its accuracy and completeness.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Notified: WT:South Africa. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

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.
Closing as "the sources are reliable, but there was never any dispute about that", since that appears to be the most accurate summary of the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


As part of an effort to improve the links at {{Find sources}} (something I'll be seeking further input on here once it gets farther along), I have been looking at newspapers commonly described as a newspaper of record for various countries. For Australia, the two publications most frequently cited are The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, sister papers in Melbourne and Sydney that share some articles. However, they're currently missing from RSP. So, how should these be seen?

Please indicate in your !vote whether it applies to the SMH, The Age, or both. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Edited 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see comment at #20:18, 13 Aug for further explanation about why I am launching this RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (SMH/The Age)

  • Option 1 for both: never found any (systemic) issues with either, and they're as newspaper as record as you can get. I'm more familiar with SMH but have still encountered The Age multiple times. When writing content I have in my head that these are top-tier sources and I'll read and summarise them before anything except other top-tier sources like NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC: no evidence there's a particular Wikipedia article with a cite that's under dispute. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC, there appears to be no actual dispute to comment on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Bilorv. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 1. Agreed with Bilorv. Nothing wrong with an RfC about a source's reliability. We have those all the time, and it doesn't have to be tied to a particular dispute at a particular article. The purpose here (updating {{Find sources}}) is good and clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Clear Option 1 - although they are state-based papers they are based in large cities and have a long-standing national following as a reliable news source in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Clear Option 1. Having read the explanation, now I understand what it's being about. At least I saw no obvious reasons for their unreliability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The suggestion that these two excellent newspapers are anything but RS is ridiculous. If they change their standards, we could revisit this. At the moment they are about as good as it gets. If a news item says something, it has been checked for accuracy and on the rare occasions that an error is made it is promptly and prominently acknowledged. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 these are serious newspapers in major cities, with professional journalists and editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at all - ‘How should it appear’ is ‘not at all’. WP:RSP is supposed to for perennial topics, to capture what has already been *frequently* discussed here. This does not fit that, so should it not be listed in RSP. In the absence of any specifics being examined or past debates, nothing meaningful can be given. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

General discussion (SMH/The Age)

Notified: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Meta-discussion (SMH/The Age)

  • We absolutely do list The Australian at RSP. RSP isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of every countrys major newspapers, which are assumed to be generally reliable, only thosed that are frequently discussed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    Oops, self-trout about the The Australian. I edited out the comment I initially made that we don't list any Australian publications. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We should not be opening discussions just because a source doesn’t appear at RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This; RSP should only be sources that are common targets of debate as an RS (whether it clearly is one or isn't). That said, I see no harm in a separate page of listing the newspapers of note and reputability for major countries as an RS subpage/essay, as this is often a question asked. This doesn't necessarily that their reliability may be later brought into question if they aren't already listed at RSP, just that we can take these generally by default as good sources. --Masem (t) 17:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      I find this position really confusing, and I think it's rather particular to the regulars on this noticeboard. The ship has long since sailed on whether or not RSP is a listing of major publications—it very clearly is, and creating a separate page doing the same thing would be an extreme exercise in forking. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      If that ship has sailed I’m sure you can point to a relevant consensus or series of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      You're the one asserting that a rule exists about which discussions are appropriate to bring up here, so the impetus is on you to demonstrate consensus for that rule. I looked through the instructions at the top of this page before opening this thread and the others, and I found no such rule listed. The only thing approaching that is the advice to provide examples of disputes about a source. In this case, my note about module development fulfills an equivalent function of explaining why I'm seeking consensus about these sources.
      Another way to look at it, if you prefer, is that these publications have been brought here a bunch of times before (search the archives), just not in a formal enough way to justify an RSP listing. If we're willing to have a listing for The New York Times, then it seems very U.S.-centric to not allow listings on other countries' newspapers of record. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      You appear to be ignoring the “P” in RSP... The NYT has been discussed ad-nauseum (theres literally a discussion open right now just above this one), I would also note that unless theres been other discussions a single discussion won’t qualify a source for inclusion in RSP so I’m not really sure what the point of this is, you would have to do this sort of open question repeatedly for each source which just seems disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria, it states For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Given that, it seems we need to add RfC tags for the discussions here to count. I'll go ahead and do so. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
      Given that theres not actually a dispute here I don’t understand how you can make an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed with Sdkb on this. There are downsides to the growing reliance on RSP (just seen someone argue a gossip rag is reliable because it's not listed in red at RSP, only its parent newspaper is) but it's far and away better than before we had it, and it doesn't make sense to be omitting obviously reliable sources when as thorough a list as possible is useful to both people who are not familiar with the sources (because they're not from that country, say), and people not yet familiar with Wikipedia's standards in practice (because you can read WP:RS and WP:V 100 times but without seeing some examples, you can't actually tell where our line is). — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Was there ever any serious question about this? I'm not offhand familiar with The Age, but it seems to me it should be relatively uncontroversial to add at least The Sydney Morning Herald as a reliable source to the list. If someone objects to that and says it's unreliable, I guess then we need an RfC, but I don't see why we do at this point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Seraphimblade, the RSP rules state that an RfC is required to list a source unless it has been discussed multiple times before. An editor objected above to adding it to RSP, so the RfC tag here is necessary. Apologies for the bureaucracy, but this appears to be the necessary path to a listing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Can Sdkb please link the prior discussions which led to the RfC being launched? We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question, and I do not appear to see any evidence of this.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question. Is that a rule or just your opinion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been common practice here for a long while, and that's why it's the wording at the top of this page about when to launch an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • To iterate on my comment above, I think it would be good if we had a list of newspapers of note for each major country/region that we presume reliable. Some of those may already be listed on RS/P but the point of the RS/P list is to include entries that have a point of contentious (whether in good faith or not) from multiple discussions as to list them as RSP and avoid having the same discussion over and over again. It seems silly to have RFCs on new entries when there hasn't been a point of issue with these works before, so just that they can be added. But by having this other separate list, noting that unless the work is listed at RSP and thus confirmed to be reliable, that list is a presumption of reliability which could potentially be discussed later. So that we'd have one list, RSP, that are sources that have had reliability or lack thereof asserted through multiple consensus-based discussions, and then this other list that is generally safe to presume reliable until proven otherwise (unless already included on RSP) but have not had the consensus discussion to prove that all out. --Masem (t) 17:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Masem, I don't think any such thing exists as a publication that is so clearly reliable that we don't need to worry about it being challenged—any publication reliable enough to confront tough issues is necessarily going to generate controversy. We have the NYT listed but not other countries' papers of record because there are a lot more U.S. editors than those from any other country, but that's just systemic bias. Regarding the point of the RS/P list, it may have originally been intended only for keeping track of repeated disputes, but as Bilorv put very well above, it's very clearly now being used as a (non-comprehensive) list of what we think about the major sources of the world. I get that we don't want to allow editors to start launching giant discussions about the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner just because they can, but this really isn't that—these are publications used thousands of times across Wikipedia and that have been repeatedly mentioned on this noticeboard before. There is no need to drag heels just to cling to an antiquated idea of what RSP is. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment from Sdkb: @Peter Gulutzan, Horse Eye's Back, Hemiauchenia, Masem, Seraphimblade, and Spy-cicle: Okay, so I appear to have stepped into a hornet's nest regarding the issue of when it's appropriate to launch discussions here. That's largely on me for not explaining better why I'm seeking input on these publications, so here's a more complete explanation. I hope we can drop the pitchforks.
The {{Find sources}} template is used primarily on talk pages to help editors find relevant sources to improve pages. It currently has nearly 800,000 transclusions, which means that an extremely high level of consensus is needed to make changes to it. One problem with the template that has been raised several times on its talk page is that the only newspaper it links directly is the NYT, which works fine as a newspaper of record for the U.S. but doesn't really make sense for, say, an article about Australia. Myself and a few others are working on remedying that, building in the capacity for the template to automatically determine an article's country and provide an appropriate newspaper of record if we've identified one for that country. That work is still at an early technical stage, which is why I referenced it a little obliquely above. If you'd like to help out, please do; otherwise, just wait and we will be seeking consensus here and at other prominent venues before anything goes live. For the initial launch of the feature, we're planning to include nine of the major English-speaking countries. I want the list of publications to be as straightforward as possible, so that debate doesn't get snagged around the question of which publications to list. Having all of them greenlisted at RSP seems an appropriate way to achieve that, and the RSP instructions state that a single RfC is sufficient for a listing, so that's what I'm doing here for the four countries out of the nine whose newspaper of record isn't yet listed. Again, the publications we ultimately choose will be shown on hundreds of thousands of talk pages, so it's essential that we affirm that they are considered reliable sources, and this is the reliable sources noticeboard, so it is the place to do that. The discussion at the other three seems to be going fine and producing useful and actionable consensuses; I hope that we put all this meta stuff aside and do the same here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Restating the situation like this, this I would approve of, since you're talking being able to cementing the use of the known RSes in a well-used template. Assuring the community agrees these are RSes would prevent long-term arguments on that template that we're using sources unvetted by the community. I wouldn't agree that RSP should be used to fill in all good RSes on WP that otherwise haven't been the subject of perennial debates, but clearing ones that are to be used in a highly visible template makes a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 21:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If that is the case, you should ask directly whether a source deserves to be called a newspaper of record and should be put in the template, since that is a substantially higher bar than simply being an WP:RS (and would confuse editors less when you start asking that question for sources that seem plainly and uncontroversially reliable.) I think that that's a reasonable question for RSN (since it's a question about a source's reputation). An affirmative answer would probably lead to the source getting listed as green on RSP anyway, though. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: I think whether or not a publication is a paper of record is a different bar than whether it is reliable, not a higher bar. For instance, looking below, it seems that many editors feel that The Straits Times is the newspaper of record for Singapore but that it's not always reliable. As I said, I will certainly be asking about selections for the template once it reaches that stage of development, but those selections need to be both reliable and publications of record. Right now, I'm asking only about the reliability. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Times fashion reviews

I am considering using this for an AfC draft (Draft:Bossa Nova Civic Club) that I rejected because of its inadequate references to meet GNG. Is this article reliable? It is a fashion/popular culture review and appears more like a review for potential visitors than a journalistic article. The writing style is informal compared to the usual standard of the NYT. I am unaware of if these types of articles have editorial review. wikinights talk 19:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is from Boîte, their bar/club reviews section. All of the articles are available in print, and include photographs by professionals marked "for The New York Times", so everything points towards this falling under their standard editorial process. Think of it as equivalent to a music or restaurant review. Looking through the authors, they don't appear to be NYT staff, but they're all professionals as well. This author, Ben Detrick, has bylines at the NYT, The Ringer, GQ, The Village Voice, etc. I'd say that's it's an adequate source for claims about this club and to contribute to meeting GNG. Woodroar (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Are DNA results, published on Family Tree DNA's website, considered reliable sources?

Some time ago I was instrumental in the creation of the page on Mary Ann Mansel. Without going into too much boring detail, she was a secretive woman who went to great pains to cover her tracks (even hiding the truth in her will). Her secrets and lies have been exposed by the results of a DNA test done in May this year. Would the following entry be acceptable as a "Note" on her Wikipedia page? Dean Crowley is a cousin of mine, with whom I have communicated for the past two decades. He is as keen as I am for this matter to be proved beyond doubt.

On 3 May 2021 Dean Crowley, a direct descendant of Robert Mansel (1802–1879), had an autosomal DNA result on Family Tree DNA which matched him to Anne Ammundsen, a direct descendant of Charles Childs (1816–1884), their common ancestor being Mary Ann Mansel.

The DNA website used was: [42] where, I believe, anyone with access to their website (a sort of pay-to-view situation) would be able to search for the two people named to verify this submission. As an aside, I happen to know that there is someone who is keen to demolish Mary Ann's page, but this DNA result would stop them in their tracks. Anne (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are no articles on Dean Crowley, Robert Mansel, Anne Ammundsen or Charles Childs. So the unreliable referencing is only the first problem. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Part of the subterfuge used was to refer to General Robert Manners, related to the Duke of Rutland, and equerry to King George III, as Robert Mansel. He was really General Robert Manners. All this is clear on the Mary Ann Mansel page. Anne (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure it would have to be noted by an actual source, as its been proposed this strikes me as WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
With such a complicated situation, it is very difficult to be brief. Mary Ann's story, with regard to her illegitimate Mansel children, and her illegitimate Asgill child, is so interwoven with lies and deceit, and so open to being challenged (as I happen to know it is), that all I wanted to do was to prove that there is a link, DNA-wise, between Mary Ann and her Mansel children unequivocally linking her to Charles Asgill's child too. That puts all the lies and secrecy to bed once and for all. Robert Mansel and Charles Childs are not notable, but both appear by name in the Mary Ann article. Anne (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Such DNA tests are dubious in reality. For Wikipedia they are totally out of the question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing dubious about DNA, it is used by the likes of Professor Turi King to discover King Richard III in a car park, 400 years after his death. But if I am not allowed to use this reliable evidence, that is all I came here to ask, thank you. End of. Anne (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
What you appear to understand is that it is not a WP:RS and that being reliable evidence doesn’t make it WP:DUE. It may be true but understand that we aren’t an encyclopedia of all the true facts in the world. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing dubious about DNA, it is used by the likes of Professor Turi King to discover King Richard III in a car park Who is taking the role of Turi King in this case and in what reliable source has the result of the investigation been published? The answer to this question should hopefully clarify the major difference between the two scenarios (the WP:OR that is presented here vs Turi's results). M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Has a reliable secondary source discussed the purported DNA testing results? No? Then no. Were the evidence to be written up and published in a journal, then we would have that necessary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I was responding to the accusation that DNA is unreliable. I merely pointed out that Family Tree DNA (the company used to establish the unequivocal link between the children of Robert Manners and those of Charles Asgill was that company). It is used by Turi King in her investigations, and the police rely on DNA evidence all the time. Turi King has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue, other than, were she here to do so, she would recommend FTDNA as a company to use. This discussion is, surely, over now isn't it? None of it matters anyway, because the article on Mary Ann has been nominated for deletion as a consequence of this perfectly polite query I raised! Anne (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
It depends on who did the testing. The whole 'consumer accessible' DNA testing market is completely unregulated. Basically anything goes. If you cannot trace the provenance of the DNA test results, it should be assumed unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly DNA tests can prove or disprove relationships. However, we need to know that the samples were taken from the right people and that the lab is accurate. IOW we need an expert who can verify that the right people were sampled and that the lab is reliable, ie, someone like Professor Turi King. Then we need secondary sources to report the findings in order to establish weight. TFD (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Current state of officeholidays.com

How do we consider the website officeholidays.com? I see about 174 articles using it in citations. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

California Institute of The Arts

Does CalArts (https://blog.calarts.edu/) qualify as a reliable source? For example on the recent deaths pages. I used it as a reference for Fran Bennett's passing but it was rejected with the motivation that blogs are not reliable sources. I consider this as a news blog though and not a self publicized blog and newsblogs/magazine blogs are allowed and it's from a respectable major university. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is reliable for that type of information. As a newsblog of the school, it is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, but once notability has been shown (GNG or NPROF), then using the blog to affirm the death of one of their faculty seems absolutely reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Immigration to Sweden

There's a dispute on the Immigration to Sweden page where the editor User:1Kwords is edit-warring to scrub RS content (including peer-reviewed studies in prominent criminology journals) because the editor claims a single source is superior to all the other sources and thus the other sources should be scrubbed.[43] Is this consistent with Wikipedia's RS and NPOV guidelines? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no; long answer - incorporate the govt report in the structure of the article, because it is indeed relevant and about the newest info available on the article's subject. It does not trump whatever has been published prior to the report, including the socio-economic analyses. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans accuses me of edit warring and threatens to block me when I am nowhere near the 3RR rule. My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication. It can be questioned whether a publication from 2014 should take precedence if it uses data from 2005. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, you weren't breaching the 3RR rule, so that warning doesn't really seem warranted unless Snooganssnoogans decided to preempt a potential one, though I'm not sure if it can be done this way.
My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication That doesn't really matter and certainly it is not the reason to delete the rest of the research, because its findings might still have value as the information on crime is still relatively recent. I'm not really proficient in Swedish so I can't evaluate the way the government report has been integrated by EvergreenFir. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
My edit changed only the summary of the Crime section to use the most up to date information. Using the visual editor, if the sources were used elsewhere in the article they should simply be moved. Therefore it is not correct to say that my edit "deleted the rest of the research" from the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans is not an admin so it's fairly unlikely they threatened to block you. They may have warned you may or will be blocked if you edit war, which is accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but adding verified material from WP:RS isn't edit warring, that's how Snooganssnoogan's warning on my talk page can be perceived as intimidating and my edit was also misrepresented. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Removing material cited to WP:RS and pertinent to the article's topic without compelling reasons to do so can also be seen as disruptive. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@1Kwords: you're seriously mistaken. I strongly suggest you re-read WP:Edit warring if you want to continue to edit without being blocked. Edit warring is when editors repeatedly revert someone else's good faith change. It doesn't matter whether you're adding material or removing material although from what I saw you were doing both in your edit anyway, as highlighted by Szmenderowiecki, nor who's changes are right or wrong, nor whether your changes are sourced, and whatever else. Note it's obvious from this that it generally takes two to edit war, this is a well accepted maxim. Neither party to an edit war is generally considered right, again no matter who's changes may be right. Although generally speaking, per WP:BRD when there is a dispute regardless of sources etc, we keep the stable version before the disputed change pending discussion and consensus. But separately per WP:1AM etc, if one editor keeps making a change and multiple other editors are reverting them, the one editor is more likely to get into trouble. Per our policy it's only in cases like vandalism (which isn't good faith anyway), enforcement of overriding policies like BLP and edits from blocked/banned editors where it would not be edit warring, and none of this applied here. Also you've proven by your response that Snooganssnoogan warning was fully justified as you apparently did not even after the warning understand what edit warring was about. It's unfortunate you still did not understand, I suggest you pay attention to what you're being told rather than automatically dismissing such warnings because you think they're unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen stuff related to this source before; it seems to be a constant source of issues. As a source from the Swedish government, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) is a primary source for anything related to Sweden and should be used cautiously. It is particularly important to avoid using it in a way that implies interpretation or analysis, which leads the reader to a non-trivial, controversial, or WP:EXCEPTIONAL conclusion, or to try and "refute" the interpretation and analysis of secondary sources, since doing so is WP:OR. It is absolutely not the best source in this context - in the context of a highly controversial and politicized discussion, its primary status means that we have to be extremely careful when using it and should not cite it excessively. If the interpretation that 1Kwords is taking from it is mainstream and widely-accepted, it should be easy to find secondary sources backing that up. --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Clarification: Publishing the report is the source of controversy and a politicized discussion, its publication has been delayed repeatedly. The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
No, they are plainly controversial and a secondary source is unequivocally required in this case; if, as you claim, they are undisputed and uncontroversial, it should be easy to find a secondary source, but given the highly-contentious nature of the topic there is absolutely no circumstance under which you can cite Brå alone for any significant claims or conclusions regarding crime in Sweden - it should be removed on sight when used in that manner; using raw government statistics to argue a point is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. EDIT: Especially since, at a glance, some uses are clearly of the form "secondary source says X, BUT! An editor thinks that this line from the primary source refutes them!" That is blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Again, if you think the topic is uncontroversial, it should be easy for you to find secondary sources covering this. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Given the context I don’t think its possible to make the argument that "The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial.” with a straight face, you clearly appear aware that they are disputed and if you aren't aware consider yourself informed. Also I agree with Aquillion, there is no way to spin that in which it isn’t OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@1Kwords: your claim makes no sense. Perhaps the pure crime statistics are uncontroversial. But what you were trying to add made the claim that these statistics cannot be accounted for by other factors. This goes beyond the realms of pure statistics into complicated analyses which inherently tend to be controversial and disputed since accounting for confounding factors is incredibly difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The diff posted in the original post above shows very clear cherry-picking/WP:SYNTH from the primary source, and it is misleading to say the least to claim that this is "uncontroversial". The sourced information removed by 1Kwords should stay, together with the sources. It is concerning how many of 1Kwords' edits seem to be within this subject area, and always creating an anti-immigrant spin on facts. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • mmm 2021 government report versus 1974 paper.... User:Snooganssnoogans - this doesn’t seem a fair representation of the case or the cites involved. Your one edit being reverted is not suitable to call “edit warring” and come here, I suggest first try the article TALK page for discussion. Since User:1Kwords indicated in his edit comment that he views the WP:BESTSOURCES as the 2021 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention report, please consider for the discussion whether your mentioned peer-reviewed papers small publication and age being 1974 and 2013 may put them as needing scrutiny whether they are still DUE for citation use. Perhaps if this something from forty-six years ago is still used in secondary sources, cite those and if not then drop that one  ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing is sourced to a 1974 paper. Please refrain from commenting on issues that you are incapable or unwilling to do the minimum diligence on. This is precisely the kind of disruptive and obnoxious behavior that got you topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans Suggest you at least use the article TALK page and try to work it out, giving them a bit more credit because on just a brief look it doesn’t look like this deserves being called “edit war”, and looks like mostly cites are not “peer-review”, and the journal mentions are 2013 and maybe 1974 versus 2021 so looks like he has at least somewhat a case for BESTSOURCES. Just look at the facts ...
  • The revert with comment “unclear why peer-reviewed studies are being removed” was answered in their repost reinstatement with comment “removed because Swedish Council for Crime Prevention has released their 2021 report, per WP:BESTSOURCES.”
  • The cites seem mostly newspapers and France24, not entirely peer-review journals, but speaking to any sign of journal I see one, and two maybes. The first is May 2013 from the British Journal of Criminology. The second is July 2013 from the Journal of Race and Justice, maybe not a professional criminology venue. The third is an indirect reference in the last cite Krimilogen brief piece says “we have known this since 1974”, which seemed referring to older studies.
  • Their 2021 piece - recent and authoritative - has some WEIGHT of secondary responses, and availability to reading, so competes well vs cites to 2013 or 1974. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Jakarta Post article/opinion piece on Happy Science

Article under discussion: Happy Science.

Source under discussion: "Happy Science, a new cult offers celebrity guide to heaven", The Jakarta Post 22 July 2012. (archived version)

Statement to be supported: "Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science." (The source in question is only meant to support the "Indonesia" bit.)

There have been repeated and extensive attempts from representatives of the group to whitewash the article and remove all references to it being known as a cult. The article talk page archive has a lot of sealioning by sockpuppets. In this instance, the argument for removing this particular source is that the op-ed is not signed so the opinion can't be attributed to a person. To my mind, it would not be appropriate to include any names of journalists since that would make it look like this is just the individual opinion of that person – however, it might be the case that this one source shouldn't be used, and if so, we'd simply need to remove the reference to Indonesia. --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this anonymous source is not reliable.
As User:Politanvm said, the source is an opinion piece, which isn’t reliable for statements of fact.
Even though it has nothing to do with this case, User:Bonadea mentions the "behavior" of representatives of Happy Science, so I am compelled to mention the issue of his neutrality as well.
He insisted on putting the hatnote "The Gay Science" for years.
He claimed that it was necessary to avoid confusion because one of the translations of "The Gay Science", "The Joyous Science", is very similar to "Happy Science".
But the fact is, according to [this source], "The Joyous Science" had only 25 views in the past, while "The Gay Science" had 846,086 views.
To add to that, when I deny his claim based on some evidence, he even deletes the text and evidence, which is not neutral at all. A series of logs can be found on the talk page, so you can judge for yourself.
bonadea is collecting unreliable sources of information in order to prove that this organization is a cult.
I believe that we should not ignore reliability just to fulfill bonadea's wish to complete the sentence "It is a cult". Thank you all for your justice and consciences. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Reliable: yes; due for mention: no. The statement is international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science (italics added). There are two ways to support this statement. The best one is to bring up a reliable secondary source which explicitly states right that (viz. Happy Science is called a cult in media). A more shaky way is to bring up actual attestations, which however easily slips into cherry-picking and undue weight (in Wiktionary, we need three attestations to support that a word even exists).
Here, the Jakarta Post is among the most reputable newspapers in Indonesia, and arguably ranks as No.1 among local English-language media. So there it is baseless to dismiss Jakarta Post out of hand as an unreliable source. But is this attestation sufficient, especially when apparently there are only two instances of Indonesian quality media applying the term "cult" (or its Indonesian equivalent sekte)? I could only dig up the Jakarta Post piece using "cult", and a report in Suara using "sekte". That's about it, for the simple reason that Happy Science does not get much coverage in Indonesia anyway. So, no the bumpy road of attestations does not lead to inclusion with due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This Washington Post article covers your first example. It reads: In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. It seems like it makes sense to remove this Jakarta Post citation, and add this WaPo reference. For context, I wasn’t asserting that the Jakarta Post isn’t reliable, but that the article is in the Opinion section, rather than their journalism, and we wouldn’t typically cite from opinion pieces even if published by a reliable news agency (WP:RSOPINION). Politanvm talk 21:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Politanvm: I have to admit that I hadn't looked into the discussion in Talk:Happy Science before answering. So I was only referring to simplistic statement "this anonymous source is not reliable" by Cadenza025 here. The Washington Post article is indeed perfect to support a less specific version (without listing countries) of the disputed text. I fully support your arguments further below in this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The source is not Wikipedia but it's kind of circular reference: 'Source A says "Some source B says it's a cult"'. In this case, WaPo says "It's described in The NYT as a cult", in NYT, it says "Japan Times says it's a cult". The original statement is According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult". Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science. So, this statement is such like Not only Source C, Source A says 'Source B says "Source C says it's a cult". (WP:CIRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenza025 (talk • contribs)
WP:CIRCULAR is just about citing sources that themselves reference Wikipedia, so unless there’s reason to believe WaPo is referencing Wikipedia, it isn’t relevant here. There’s no need to overthink this. The WP article says that foreign media has described it as a cult, and we have a reliable source that says foreign media has described it as a cult. It’s a simple paraphrase of a reliable source. Politanvm talk 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the source is not Wikipedia, so I don't expect WP:CIRC to apply directly, but I do think this policy is helpful in thinking about sources. This is because, as you said, the statement we are focusing on now says "Not only the domestic Japanese press, foreign media has described it as a cult". In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". Despite the fact that there are only a few actual sources, the WP article misleads the reader into thinking that independent opinions are emanating from several different continents. It's not just a paraphrase. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not following how "foreign media" would be read as "domestic Japanese press". It seems clear that it's talking about press outside Japan, and it certainly isn't misleading, since it is coming from multiple continents. Are you suggesting that media can't write independently about organizations in other countries?
Or is the issue that we need to rephrase how the Wikipedia article talks about media describing Happy Science as a cult? We have an abundance of sources that either describe it a cult directly or talk about other media describing it as a cult, so it's certainly WP:DUE, but I suppose we could discuss how to phrase it more closely to what the sources say. If you're saying it's necessarily unreliable for a news source to say X is described by some media as Y, there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy to back that up. Basically, we just paraphrase what the reliable sources say, and a discussion about how we know better than reliable sources is creeping into original research. Politanvm talk 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree with the opinion that citing from The Jakarta Post is not appropriate. And, to avoid confusion, I will only focus on US sources here. Then,
Source Context Refs
WaPo In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. (Link to NYT article) NYT (or something unknown)
NYT “To many,” The Japan Times wrote in 2009, “the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult.” JT
JT For many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult *Original
In the above,
1. In the context of "cult", WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT / or something we never know / includes The Jakarta Post) and do not cover it themselves.
2. In the context of "cult", NYT cites JT and do not cover it themselves.
3. JT is not in the WP:RSP.
4. JT is not an international media.
Regardless of what these may conclude, let me first see if we can agree on these 4 facts. Because there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, there is still room for discussion. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Continue to focus on US sources here.
1. JT says HS as a cult, NYT and WaPo say "JT says HS as a cult".
2. Thus, Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the US have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science is not much appropriate.
My suggestion is below.
1. Because these three sources point to the same one source, this is enough:
According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT][WaPo]
2. Or simply exclude WaPo from this because its source is unclear:
According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT]
--Cadenza025 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Austronesier has already responded with a simple clarification below, but to put a final bow on my thoughts, I believe you are over-complicating this and doing original research. There is no reason to assume WaPo is only referencing NYT just because they gave one link with further information. I understand your analysis, but your facts and outcomes are not correct.
  1. WaPo is a generally reliable source with editorial standards. We don’t expect them to post citations for all of their research because we can generally trust that they’re not writing nonsense. Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say.
  2. There’s no reason to believe WaPo is only talking about the NYT article that quotes JT. Other non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult in their own words, including Vice and The Daily Beast among the others already cited in the Wikipedia article.
  3. Whether or not all of these other sources or reliable isn’t too important. The claim is that international media describes Happy Science as a cult. This claim is unambiguously true, and stated simply by WaPo. Whether or not it is a cult isn’t the question, just that it’s described as one.
In summary, it is clear that multiple non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult, and we have a reliable source to back it up. I’m open to rephrasing the laundry list of countries, but it is an unambiguous fact that “international media have described Happy Science as a cult”. I support Austronesier’s proposal below. Politanvm talk 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand. Since the subject this time is the reliability of The Jakarta Post's opinion piece, would you accept to drop Indonesia from the list of countries? Also, I will continue to suggest other sources if there is any doubt about them. Since the aggregation of these individual sources will affect the results, let's leave "international media have described Happy Science as a cult" for another discussion. Thank you for your patience. --Cadenza025 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see a couple of inadequate readings above:

  • In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". This has already been clarified by Politanvm. The WaPo article is a report about an event in Japan, and takes the geographical perspective of Japan: "local" is used to refer to Tokyo ("The support reflected controversial local movements, too. In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion"), and consequently "foreign" refers to media outside of Japan.
  • WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT [...]). No, WaPo does not–directly or indirectly—quote JT or NYT. Where do you read this? It says "the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult"; the media are not specified, which is not necessary in this context. I would put this statement into reasonable doubt if we weren't able to find any non-Japanese media that use the label "cult". But even a lazy search proves that doubt wrong.

Solely to attribute the label "cult" to JT and citations of JT completely ignores actual instances of usage in international quality media (cf. The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent[44]). My suggestion is only to use WaPo as source, and add an {{efn}} listing selected media (just to counter doubts that WaPo might have made up a baseless statement). –Austronesier (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be mentioned because it needs to be supplemented. As you can see in the table above, I am of course aware of the possibility that media is unknown, because WaPo does not specify the media as you say.　There are two main possibilities for the media that WaPo is targeting. One is the NYT, and the other is everything but the NYT (which means it is unknown as you say).
The reason I mention the NYT possibility is that immediately after the sentence in WaPo, there is a reference to a NYT article, so it is perfectly natural to assume that the first sentence is referring to a NYT article. In fact, it is hard to imagine that the WaPo editor did not anticipate that not a few readers would think that way. However, since it is not stated, it is impossible to prove. But if that is the case, then it becomes necessary to focus on the relationship between NYT, JT and WaPo. As Politanvm says, maybe I'm overthinking this, but I think it's an important point. This is not the subject of this article, so I would like to discuss it at another time. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
That's speculation, so you invite to discuss something which is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I won't enter into such a discussion. And note that your speculations will not unexist the attestations in The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast. Bottomline: we have multiple attestations of international media calling Happy Science a cult, and we have a reliable secondary source which states that Happy Science has been called a cult in international media. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is unverifiable part in this WaPo article. I'm sure there are more than a few readers who associate the NYT with the context. I would like to hear the opinions of several experts in this area. I am not doubting the reliability of such medias as The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast, etc., but if I have doubts about the content and think it is not appropriate in the context, I would like to clarify it. Thank you for your consideration. --Cadenza025 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The WaPo article is verifiable. We can see plainly with our own eyes that WaPo’s claim that “foreign media have described Happy Science as a cult” is true, by virtue of all the sources listed above.
I think we’ve settled all that need to be said on RS/N: The Jakarta Post opinion piece alone isn’t sufficient for that claim, but the Washington Post is. I agree with Austronesier’s proposal to cite WaPo and provide a footnote that lists the other individual sources. @Bonadea, if that sounds right to you, I can make those edits to the article. If not, this discussion should probably continue at Talk:Happy Science. Politanvm talk 18:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
No. If the conclusion is that The Jakarta Post opinion piece isn’t an appropriate source, we should not use it. And the sentence on which the article is based should also be excluded. --Cadenza025 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
What was said above is that the Washington Post is a reliable source for the claim. You expressed concern that WaPo was incorrect, so Austronesier proposed adding a footnote showing the multiple foreign sources describing Happy Science as a cult. There is no reason to remove the sentence altogether because we have a reliable source for it. Politanvm talk 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

[Proposition] By the Washington Post article, it can be drawn to the conclusion "foreign media describe the Happy Science as a cult".

[Facts] f1: WaPo's claim is "foreign media describe the Happy Science as a cult." f2: Immediately after the claim, it mentions the contents of the NYT article and links to the NYT article. f3: The NYT cites JT. f4: JT is not in the WP:RSP. f5: JT is not an international media.

[Guesses] g1: In the first half of the sentence, the author mentions all foreign media, including the NYT. Either the first half has nothing to do with the second half, or the second half is describing a single case. g2: The first half of the sentence is stated with the second half of the sentence describing the NYT article in mind. The second half of the sentence is stated as evidence for the assertion in the first half.

[Claims] The only facts that can be ascertained from the WaPo article are f1 and f2, and g1 and g2 are both just speculation. The problem here is that not only g2 but also g1, which you believe, is just a speculation. Whether g1 or g2 is correct is not the subject of the discussion. Only the writer knows that. It is, as Austronesier said, both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. The only thing we are discussing here is whether or not both g1 and g2 are speculations.

You draw your conclusion only by saying that "the string 'foreign media describe Happy Science as a cult' seen through our retinas and optic nerves is consistent with the proposition". But this is not correct. This is why I stated earlier that "there is an unverifiable part in this WaPo article".

[Conclusion] The proposition is False. It is only our speculations that are leading to the conclusion.

To add to this, whether g1 or g2 is correct will greatly affect the conclusion of another agenda item. Therefore, it is also wrong to view this as if it were a small problem. I myself believe that not a few readers will read it as g2 and professional writers are naturally aware of this, however, again, whether g1 or g2 is correct is not the subject of the current discussion. Whether or not both are speculations is the only issue.

What I would like to suggest is that instead of lumping them all together as "foreign media," we should explain what each media is claiming, and then carefully consider each claim. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Baba tells Bibi, Bobo and Bubu: "In and around Roma Termini railway station, there are lots of places where you can get hot coffee". Generally, all of them trust Baba. For Bibi, it is sufficient to have Baba as a reliable source of information, but Bobo and Bubu want to see for themselves. The three of them take a train to Rome, and indeed upon arrival they see lots of places where hot coffee is sold. Bibi just smiles and wants to see more of Rome. Bubu says: "Our trusted friend Baba was right, as usual!" But Bobo is still in doubt: "Ok, we can get hot coffee everywhere, but how can we be sure Baba was talking exactly about these cafes and vendors that we are seeing now when they said that in and around Roma Termini railway station, there are lots of places where you can get hot coffee?" Bibi and Bubu sigh and tell Bobo to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. –Austronesier (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I understand that it is difficult to verify everything, and Wikipedia has no function or role to verify the truth. However, BABA, BIBI, whatever, and you can make fun of it all you want, If you don't want to take it seriously, feel free to leave, still I cannot overlook the fact that lies are being perpetrated with impunity. Having said that, I respect the rules of Wikipedia, and I try to argue within the rules.
Media "A" says "B" because "C".
Media "X" says "Y" because "Z".
It's okay to write those things as they are. Whether they are true or not will be verified over time. In fact, there are many court cases where major Japanese media wrote false articles about Happy Science, and Happy Science filed lawsuits and were found to have no evidence or backing for their articles. What I am simply trying to say is that it is absolutely wrong to lump the word "cult" together and write it as if it is one conclusion without evidence and harden it as if it is an agreed decision. --Cadenza025 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@bonadea, you said that I wouldn't call the organisation "evil" even if they have been involved in some very controversial activities. I saw these words and thought I would trust you. However, calling a religion a cult is the same as calling it an evil. If people do a Google search for HappyScience, the word "cult" will be there. And we, the innocent, continue to be persecuted in this infosphere. Even if that's what the media does, and even if you don't intend to, you are supporting and amplifying their activities. At this very moment, you are hurting the faithful. You keep calling them "cult" without any reason. Just because the media says something, doesn't mean it's been properly corroborated. Is it enough that the editors of Wikipedia are convinced? Please stop hurting and respect the faithful of HappyScience. We don't need to rely on the media to do that. The media are not omniscient and omnipotent, so there is much they do not know. As you can see, I am one of the believers of Happy Science, and I think I fall under the category of WP:COI. So I'm not going to edit the article myself. I leave to you what I know. According to WP:ABOUTSELF, it is possible to write about things that only we know, right? happyScience is neither evil nor cult. --Cadenza025 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My parable is meant dead serious. And please learn to distinguish between WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g. Happy Science is a cult, which we do not do in the article) and citing media coverage (e.g. Happy Science has been described in international media as a cult, which is sufficiently sourced). This has nothing to do with being "convinced".
As for We don't need to rely on the media: oh yes, the content of WP is solely built on reliable sources, and these include the Washington Post. And please be careful when you equate WP reflecting the content of reliable sources with "persecution". –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I can see that you guys are just following Wikipedia's rules. I respect you all. But whether the word is "described" or whatever, even if you switch the word around and it follows Wikipedia's rules, the fact remains that it is actually hurting a lot of people for no reason at all. For no reason whatsoever.
Dear fellow editors, my only hope is that you will carefully clarify one by one who is saying what and for what reason, instead of simply lumping them together under the term "cult”. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please also see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Censoring or white-washing Wikipedia articles because you don’t like what the media says won’t solve this supposed harm. What @Austronesier proposed and what I support does exactly what you’re asking: Citing our reliable source (WaPo) and adding an explanatory supplement demonstrating exactly which sources are using the descriptor. Politanvm talk 03:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No. What I'm asking is neither censoring nor white-washing. I'm asking for all to be revealed, not summarized or omitted to hide something. At the very least, I mentioned that the sentence in WaPo that you are trying to cite stands on the basis of our speculation. Unless there is a clear refutation of that, the cite is inadmissible. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Needless to say, this does not mean that you should cite the entire article. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m going to take Austronesier’s advice and stop beating this dead horse, because anything that needs to be said has been said. We have a reliable source, and we can verify that source’s claim with our own eyes. There is no speculation from me or from WaPo. WaPo linking to another article that provides further reading in no way, shape, or form implies that the NYT is their sole source of information. When I have a few more minutes, I’ll implement Austronesier’s proposal (unless someone else gets to it first). Politanvm talk 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Your argument is unreasonable. No matter how much you think so,
In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. The group gained infamy last year for selling a “Spiritual Vaccine” that it claimed could cure covid-19 at a price of hundreds of dollars.
No one can prove that it is obvious that the first and second halves of this sentence are unrelated. It is just your wishful thinking from which you draw your conclusions. As I have said many times, this is an issue that greatly affects our conclusions, and you can't turn away from it. --Cadenza025 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I’ve attempted to implement Austronesier’s suggestion. If there’s any feedback or further edit suggestions, it’s probably best to discuss that at Talk:Happy Science, since no meaningful evidence has been shown here to change the reputation of The Washington Post as a reliable source. Politanvm talk 04:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Dignity Memorial

Is Dignity Memorial (operated by Service Corporation International) a reliable source for birth dates? I know that Find a Grave is UGC and thus unreliable, but I can't figure out whether Dignity Memorial is also UGC. Specifically, I want to know if it would be acceptable to use this as the source for Saul Soliz's DOB, as all secondary RS I have encountered thus far only report his death date and age at the time of death. Armadillopteryx 16:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The interesting thing here is, they're not technically the source, they're only posting the information the family is providing. That being said, I'm not sure why the DOB a family provides wouldn't be reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those cases in which I don’t think that the source is going to be incorrect per say but it just doesn’t meet any of our standards for a reliable source so I don’t really see many use cases for it. I do not think we could use it for a DOB. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we use photocopies of sources on Google drive ?

User:238-Gdn has used one here.[45]. And although "alleged" might be correct, I don't see how that can be shown in Yitzchak Ginsburgh's article vis a letter by him. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if we knew that the work was originally published elsewhere and cited that, but internally used the perhaps questionable copy on Google Drive for review, that's one thing we'd turn a blind eye to as long as you are vouching for the original publication and proper source. But to a source only published on a cloud drive without mention in wider sources? No way. No way to verify authorship, etc. --Masem (t) 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
How do we know it has not been manipulated?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with hosting it, but the moment someone raises a concern because they want further verification, then I'd say it's no longer acceptable. Similar to how we treat offline sources, or non English sources that are not easily verified by every editor who had questions/concerns. But till then, thank you for including a link even if informal. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The link seems to be a clear violation of WP:COPYVIOEL to me. It's okay to have convenience links for sources, but not when they're hosted by someone without permission of the copyright holder. (Archival links are considered acceptable provided it's an archive of content was published by the copyright holder.) Similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request editors could potentially share this privately to aide with verification but it should not generally be done publicly and especially not in articles.

But this is from May 17 1996 The Jewish Press page 88 so the link is irrelevant. We do not require a link for the source to be valid per Wikipedia:Offline sources.

However a letter to the editor is at most only usable to show the writer's POV. It's even worse than an opinion column or editorial since those may at least have some basic fact checking by whoever published it whereas I'm fairly sure most publishers just try to avoid anything which sounds too insane or will get them sued when it comes to letter to the editor and don't fact check them at all.

With reference to Slatersteven's point an issue here is the providence of the photocopy. If it came from the editor who wants to use it then I'm partially with Shushugah we should treat this like we do every other source. We generally trust other editors when it comes to what sources say and trust them to provide accurate copies if we want to verify the details ourselves. If for some reason people are extremely sceptical of some particular editor, it would probably be acceptable to seek out another copy and maybe even remove it in the interim but you really need to actively seek it out if you're going to challenge it IMO. If the editor doesn't know where the photocopy came from then IMO it's more reasonable to reject it outright even without seeking out another copy.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Scapin the Schemer

There's a bunch of listings of modern plays here, but the 1676 English translation by a notable playwright wasn't there until I added it. Should we lose all the focus on the 20th century English adaptations with no independent sources, or do you think there's good sources that just aren't used yet? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352&oldid=1045547566"