Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 308

Archive 305Archive 306Archive 307Archive 308Archive 309Archive 310→Archive 315

Reuters Institute Digital News Report

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


The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has released its 2020 Digital News Report conducted by YouGov. The survey seems to show that the general populace has different standards from Wikipedia editors. For example, have a look at the results for CNN and MSNBC which Wikipedia editors recently endorsed unanimously with what we call a snow close. The survey shows that 47% of Americans trust CNN and 37% don’t trust it which is at the lower end of the trust range. In addition, 49% of Americans trust MSNBC and 34% don’t trust it which is around the middle of the trust range. Burrobert (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing that Wikipedia has standards that don't depend on the opinions of random poll respondents, and instead has higher standards based on actual reliability of the sources. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I am sure that is what we would like to think about ourselves. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If we are going to, they have to be better standards than "polling random Americans" --Jayron32 17:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert:, firstly, the snow closes above aren't unanimous endorsements. They are reflections of a very clear judgment by a goodly number of experienced editors that those two sources are generally acceptable as reliable sources. The former is a blanket position, the latter is a much more limited recognition. Any citation of either source can always be challenged as not reliable or not useful or even flat-out wrong in a particular context and usage. Secondly, there has been a continuing propaganda campaign in the USA dating back to the Vietnam War to convince Americans not to accept what "mainstream" new reports for political reasons so the lack of trust is not at all surprising. I think the articles on CNN and MSNBC already adequately cover this aspect. Thirdly, even if we ignored the issues Jayron32 raises, it is not clear at all what we are supposed to do with this information. Do we now say: "We must deprecate CNN and MSNBC because a poll says so."? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes there were a lot of votes in the endorsements of CNN and MSNBC. Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public? Your explanation involves the existence of a propaganda campaign which is affecting the judgement of the general public but which Wikipedia editors are presumably immune to. There are other, less self serving, explanations.
  • Jayron’s explanation seems to be that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the average American.
  • Regarding what to do with the information - take it on board, ponder, ruminate.
Burrobert (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert:, you missed the point completely. The point wasn't that there were "lots of votes" the points was that those "lots of votes" weren't an "endorsement" of those outlets. If you don't understand that distinction, please re-read WP:SOURCEDEF and WP:RSCONTEXT. As to the propaganda campaign, I offer this book or this one or this one or, well, any of literally thousands of media studies, history and social sciences papers on the topic over the last 50 years. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia editors are "immune to" anti-media propaganda but they at least tend to be aware of its existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • My use of the term “endorsement” seems to have sent you off into the wilderness so I’ll rephrase my statement to “Yes there were lots of votes supporting the view that CNN and MSNBC are reliable sources. Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public?
  • Regarding this propaganda campaign of yours: when did you conduct your poll of Wikipedia editors to determine that “they at least tend to be aware of its existence” and that’s why they regard CNN and MSNBC as reliable more often than members of the public?
Burrobert (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Point #1: See point #2. Point #2: Spend 15 minutes reading the posts of the community members replying on this noticeboard (with certain glaring exceptions). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
My question was "Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general public?" Your answer is to read what Wikipedia editors write. In other words the view of Wikipedia editors is different from that of the public because they write things that are different from what the public would write. It sounds like circular reasoning but maybe there is something else in your argument that I haven't found. Burrobert (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert: See my comment below. Jr8825 • Talk 23:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"30% of Americans say they trust Trump to get facts right on coronavirus" Reality: Trump repeatedly spreads misinformation on coronavirus [1] [2][3] That's why we don't rely on polls of random US citizens to determine what is a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Have you conducted a poll of Wikipedia editors to get a comparison?
  • You consider that 30% of the public are wrong on that topic and you extrapolate that to conclude that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the public in general.
  • The Reuters Institute study looked at what sources people find trustworthy on COVID-19. 83% of people trust scientists and doctors. The national governments sit of 59% and 35% of people regard individual politicians as trustworthy. (p. 12)
Burrobert (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert: Nobody above is comparing the views of Wikipedia editors vs. those of the US population, or inferring anything about their relative value. They are pointing out that opinion polls are not a good way to judge the reliability of sources. Editors, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which Wikipedia uses (e.g. WP:RS). While individual editors' views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or innate trust. Jr8825 • Talk 22:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Nobody above is comparing the views of Wikipedia editors vs. those of the US population, or inferring anything about their relative value". What about "It's a good thing that Wikipedia has standards that don't depend on the opinions of random poll respondents, and instead has higher standards based on actual reliability of the sources" and "That's why we don't rely on polls of random US citizens to determine what is a reliable source"?
  • “They are pointing out that opinion polls are not a good way to judge the reliability of sources”. This seems to be another way of saying that the opinions of Wikipedia editors are better than those of the general public.
  • "The point is that editors, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which Wikipedia uses. While individual editors' views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or trust". What about this: "The public, acting in good faith, are attempting to judge sources against the standards of reliability which they use. While individuals’ views on media sources may influence how they make this judgement, ultimately it is about measuring evidence against criteria, not gut feelings or trust"?
Burrobert (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Burrobert: are you under the impression that all or most english language wikipedia editors are American? Our "general populace" is the global community of english speakers, not the American populace. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Are you pointing out the possible difference in populations that the two samples are drawn from - that the Reuters Institute poll that I quoted sampled from US residents only and the Wikipedia poll sampled from Wikipedia editors whose location is generally unknown? Yes, the question should be altered to: "Why is the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors so different from the view of the general US public?" Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a better question: "Why is the view of the general US public relevant to anything this board does in any way whatsoever?" Also, "Why is Burrobert clanging on about this and what do they think this achieves?" Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Its a massive actual difference rather than a possible difference, wikipedia is only 20% American editors. I will answer your new question with a question: "Why would we ever expect the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors to be the same as the view of a large sample of the the general US public?" Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Its a "possible" difference because we don’t know the background of the editors who voted on the reliability of CNN/MSNBC. It is possible that they are predominantly from the US even if the total percentage of editors who are from the US is say 20% as you state.
  • "Why would we ever expect the view of a large sample of Wikipedia editors to be the same as the view of a large sample of the the general US public?" I don’t expect anything and haven’t said anything about my expectations. I have asked a question to see if there is an explanation of an apparent anomaly. I’ll try to read between the lines of your question because you seem to be hinting at what you think the answer is. You are hinting that you are not surprised that the two groups have different views on the reliability of CNN/MSNBC because they are different groups. I think you have only shifted the question: what possible differences between that two groups would explain why they view the reliability of CNN/MSNBC differently?
Burrobert (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert:, what is the relevance of what you are saying to this board? Are you proposing some change, or just making conversation? Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This section seems ripe for a WP:NOTFORUM close. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

The Post Millenial

I would like to propose the deprecation of The Post Millenial as a source of information used on Wikipedia. There have been enough incidents now to show that the source is not reliable:

  • The site was posting United Arab Emirates propaganda from fake journalists. [4]
  • Multiple instances of presenting hoaxes as facts. For instance, most recently, the website claimed a murdered protester shot a car five times [5], a hoax and fabrication which later had to be corrected by them [6]
  • Site received criticism from Bellingcat [7]
  • Site employs controversial bloggers like Andy Ngo ("editor at large") who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information, according to outlets like OregonLive (added BeŻet (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

The site should not be treated as a reliable source of information, the same way The Daily Caller isn't. BeŻet (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent example ... MOST of the media covered this incident the exact same way. This is why we put huge warning tags on articles about recent events (and especially breaking news like in this example)... the press frequently gets it wrong for a few days.
The important question is: Does an outlet issue corrections once the facts become clearer? Reliable media sources do, unreliable sources do not. So, does Post Millennial issue corrections? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The consensus of past discussion is pretty clearly that it's a terrible source that shouldn't be used - the question is only if it should be more actively barred from being used. You're asking the question about corrections, do you have evidence to present that the answer is yes? Do you have, more generally speaking, fresh evidence that it isn't a terrible source, one given to fabrications and conspiracy theories, as documented in the previous discussions? - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • They do not issue corrections. In fact, per [8], after they were contacted about posting articles from fake personas, they were one of the ones whose reaction was:deleted their articles without any statement. That's almost a textbook way to be classified as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
BeŻet, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. They'd probably love it if we did it. Oh! The poor oppressed centrists who just want to speak the hard truth, cancelled by the left fascist cabal that runs Wikipedia. We'd be doing them a favour! Has thepostmillennial.com been used to support false claims? Not as far as I can tell. It's been used in 2018_Ontario_general_election to support the claim that they endorsed the PC, which they did. In Garnett Genuis it supports a claim that Genuis wrote something in the post millennial (he did). Its use in List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is unproblematic, but probably could have been sourced to something else. in Belinda Karahalios it support the claim that Tanya Granic Allen made an accusation (she did, in an opinion piece in the PM. In Marc_Kielburger it's one of three sources, and could probably be omitted. The writer makes the hilarious observation that "Canadaland has an obvious bias and activist bent to its publishing". Pot, meet kettle. In Barbara Kay it's pretty just linking to what Kay had to say about herself, and again, she did say those things. Same with Barbara Kay controversy she's used again, as a source in Edward Kruk for "national and international media have interviewed Kruk and quoted his research", and Kay does indeed say '"We ignore the problem of father absence to our peril," wrote Associate Professor Edward Kruk, from the University of British Columbia, in 2006.' That's a completely unnecessary quote used to inflate his importance, but the PM's use is is hardly controversial. I'm not a fan of the Post Millennial, nor of Andy Ngo, I just don't see how your proposal would do any good. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
10 uses in article space strikes me as 9 too many, frankly. What the deprecated source would think of being deprecated is in no way a consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Except the comment just proved it's not 9 too many by showing that those uses follow proper WP:ABOUTSELF policy. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Despite an evident conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[9]. There is a problem of consistency in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. The examples listed by the OP for why it is not reliable don't strike me as particularly compelling: one of them amounts to an ad hominem fallacy, another was an error that they corrected (errors happen all the time in news reporting — corrections are a positive sign for establishing reliability). I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The check you linked was last updated over 6 months ago, before bigger controversies emerged. BeŻet (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And "Media Bias Fact Check" is, itself, not authoritative or even all that respected. Per WP:RSP,There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bellingcat says they publish disinformation, thats the line we use and they’re over it. I also see no good reason to keep them around, at best they’re a fringe low quality biased source and past consensus has clearly been to hold them as unreliable. Deprecate away. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Bellingcat cites one incident they published fake information, not that they constantly publish it. It also notes that "their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars" and "did not botch the basic facts". According to the CBC[10], The Post Millenial has links to the Conservative Party of Canada. You think that's fringe, Horse Eye Jack? Jeesh, from how far the other side of the political spectrum are you looking at this to see that as fringe? --Pudeo (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the text of that article (entitled "Canadian news site The Post Millennial blurs line between journalism and conservative ‘pamphleteering’") supports the argument for deprecation. Unofficial links to a political party doesn't make a source non-fringe. BTW I’m an American conservative (center-right on a global spectrum) so thats a swing and a miss when it comes to guessing my political affiliation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Post Millennial

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.

Should The Post Millennial be deprecated? (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Opposed to deprecation. Deprecation should not be for borderline cases, and I think this falls into the “borderline” category. It has a reputation for bias, but also overall accuracy. Is it the most reliable of sources? No. But it is by no means the worst either. I would say we can use it, but with caution. Judge reliability on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as stated above. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation That's quite a non-issue with a source which is used just 9 times in the whole Wikipedia. Yes, they are WP:BIASED so anyone should be careful with due weight and attribution. I find many of the statements by the OP here to be exaggerations. I do recommend reading the pieces by the CBC and Bellingat. Neither article, while critical, is damning. Bellingcat says that they were more careful than other sources which were duped and that they did not "botch the basic facts", although they used the same framing as the fake articles elsewhere. The outlet was founded only in 2017 so it's possible they are improving, or then they will not. Either way this is jumping the gun and it's pointless to RfC a source that isn't even used. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think you'd need to show that they were improving to be convincing - merely stating it's a philosophical possibility without providing any evidence is adding text without substance - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I would flip that... for us to deprecate, you would need to show that it has gained a significantly poor reputation. Deprecation should be reserved for the worst cases, not relatively borderline ones. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The RSes describing and documenting the site as fabricating information have already been presented, so this has been done, and Pudeo would indeed need to present actual countervailing RS evidence of the site's alleged improvement before it counts as a substantive claim - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Bellingcat also calls their editor at large a "prominent individual within the disinformation ecosystem", and though it's a little more ambiguous appears to call them "disinformation". Loki (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation - it's already considered generally unreliable, its main line is controversial hot takes on others' stories, it propagates conspiracy theories, it fabricates information - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation per evidence above. It is quite clear that better sources will be always available, and given the history of posting hoaxes and fake news, we run into a risk of controversial content appearing in articles which would then require a case by case discussion; and it goes without saying that a strong bias is present, which seems to often get in the way of presenting facts in a neutral and understandable way. BeŻet (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - repeating my comments above, despite a conservative bias, its reporting is assessed as mostly factual[11]. There is some inconsistently in the quality of their stories, but it does appear that they engage in actual reporting, and are concerned with accuracy and fact-checking, even if not with neutrality in their selection of stories. I would recommend this be taken case-by-case, applying common sense, and being appropriately wary of the conservative editorial bias (just as we would be when dealing with very left-wing sources).TheBlueCanoe 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation per the support !votes above, on the general philosophy of getting out in front of a problem before it can become worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It should certainly be listed as generally unreliable , and I think nothing would be lost by outright deprecatation , though it may not be time for that quite yet. (There should probably be an RFC using the full "1-4 options" if this RFC specifically about option 4 does not reach consensus, or perhaps this RFC should be reconstituted to use the usual 1-4 options...?) They plagiarized even their "ethics" policy from other newspapers(!) and they've gone beyond merely being WP:BIASED into being inaccurate numerous times, as noted (with refs/links) a previous time the site was discussed on this noticeboard (and above). -sche (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is the first time I looked at the website. The site looks horrendous. I would advise all editors to avoid using it. However, there might be some editors out there who know more than me about the site and when it would be appropriate to use. For this reason, I will not deprecate the site (aka ban it). I will have faith when an editor uses this site that they had a good reason and they will attribute the source. Also it might in this case be useful if people who care about reliable source minutiae were informed of its use, so they could look with unbiased eyes whether the sites usage made sense. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation. I feel like we discussed this already? Here, at least. They plagiarized their ethics policy, for heaven's sakes:In fact, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. The quote from a journalism professor at the end in particular summarizes them asThey claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering. More generally, pretty much all the coverage of them is sharply negative - there's just no indication that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RSN requires. Anyone can start a blog to repost the news with their personal political spin on it, but there's no evidence that they do any sort of actual reporting or fact-checking at all, so I don't see how they're usable as a source - and the plagiarized ethics policy is particularly alarming because it implies that they are trying to appear to be reliable and respectable when they aren't. That's exactly the sort of source we ought to be depreciating. Also see [12], specifically the fact that when contacted about a clear error they did not issue a correction but insteaddeleted their [article] without any statement. This is not how an WP:RS behaves. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation. We have tons of reliable sources saying that they fabricate information. I don't know how anyone could oppose depreciation for a source like that. Loki (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Part of this is on principle I don't think we should reflexively deprecate sources. That is something that should be reserved for only rare cases and cases where otherwise the source might be widely used. That doesn't mean this is a quality source but that doesn't mean we should out right block it. No matter what some say, deprecation ends up being a out right ban on the use of the source. There is another issue here. This is a relatively new site. What if the issues are "growing pains" and we don't see the issues repeat? Well then we are taking a biased but "reliable" site off the table based on past sins rather than current performance. Note that so far these are rather universal arguments rather than specific to The Post Millennial. The concern about a early news source that might be making newbie mistakes is legit. The site is just 3 years old so we really don't have a long history to go on. If things are improving then 5 years from now we are going to prevent people from citing a possibly legitimate site for things they did when they just started. As for the specific issues, I find BeŻet's arguments far from convincing. The guilt by association with Andy Ngo is problematic and is not sufficient to prove the site should be deprecated. It is unfortunate that the news sources was deceived by a false source but a critical question is, did they correct? That the DailyBeast makes a fuss over this isn't surprising. The DB is on the muck raking side and is one of several sources that seems to go for click bait stories that make "the other side" look bad. Consider this line from The DailyBeast article in question, "The Post Millennial, founded by conservative writer Andy Ngo,". Is there any truth to that statement? The evidence offered by the DB is a 2019 story about Ngo leaving Quillette. Since the PM was founded in 2017 how does this work out? If Ngo founded the PM why isn't that mentioned in his BLP? This same source is telling us that PM removed embarrassing stories but they are making their own gross mistakes. CBC says the source blurs the line but that is true for many sources that we don't deprecate. Certainly this site hasn't earned a RS status but I think deprecating at this point is premature. Springee (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • While it's certainly a pretty new source, it's developed enough of a reputation already that other reputable sources are calling it "disinformation". Part of the problem with your logic is that disinformation websites tend to spring up very quickly in order to get as much shit past the fan as possible before people realize they're unreliable. But we're at a point in the cycle where that's firmly happened and so I don't think we should delay deprecation out of some notion of how long it "typically" takes for a news organization to be deprecated. Loki (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree new sites do pop up frequently. But why is it imperative to deprecate this one? Why not just mark it as questionable reliability - seen as too heavily biased to be a RS and leave it at that? Conversely, note that it has been criticized but if that criticism drops off that would indicate the quality is improving. Sadly there seems to be a lot of cases of information sources sniping at each other. It very much seems like the most important thing to CNN is proving Fox is lying to viewers and the opposite for Fox with respect to CNN. Still, so far the actual merit of the claims against the PM, per the opening of this RfC, are not very impressive. This seems like a combination of "we don't like what they want to talk about/their POV" + "we found proofthey lied" sort of stuff. I think it would be better to simply treat it on a case by case basis. The deprecation process seems like it is becoming an unpopularity contest rather than a last resort process. Springee (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment (I already expressed my opinion of the proposal, further up): given that this site has been discussed several times and that even the users who oppose deprecation often admit the site is generally unreliable, I would suggest that in the event there is not suport for the proposal which amounts to 'standard option 4' in other RfCs about reliability, the closer(s) of the discussion consider whether there is functionally support for option 3 (adding the site to WP:RSP as generally unreliable), or whether, in the interests of procedural formality, we need a second RfC on that question as soon as this one closes. -sche (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a "generally option 3" would make more sense here. I'm still a bit wary of that option in general since I think we are often more inclined to defer to that list rather than ask if the arguments/evidence in an article actually make sense. I'll take a very old example, Mother Jones Pinto Madness. This is an article that, to the discredit of the Pulitzer board, was a reward recipient. However, when one reviews the evidence and arguments as well as removes any ideological assumptions, the article really missed the mark. However, per our RS rules we would have to treat the outlandish claims in the article as accurate had it not been for later academic study that illustrated the errors in the work.[[13]] If the arguments are sound we shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss. If the source is really that poor then we won't have to worry about finding disagreements between the assessment of a specific article vs the RSP general assessment. BTW, I can only think of one time the PM was cited in an article. That article didn't survive AfD. Springee (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation. Unusable for facts on the basis of a history of publishing conspiracist claptrap, and unusable for opinion (its primary function) because its editorial policies do not invest the opinions with any weight of significance. We would include opinion pieces from the WSJ because there is a high bar to inclusion, even when the opinions are climate change denialist BS. With The Post Millennial there is no such bar: it's a dark money funded online "magazine", cheap to run and replete with Orwellian claims to be "Your Reaosnable Alternative". Its factual stories are not, as far as a sample I checked goes, the result of its own original reporting, and better sources will likely always exist; news articles seem to be basically spin added on to other people's reporting. Its opinion articles are not RSOPINION. It exists primarily to "flood the zone", and there is no redeeming quality that rescues it. We simply don't need obscurely-funded sources that exist solely to publish hot takes favouring one side or the other. Guy (help!) 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but list as generally unreliable. Note that I am a participant in several of the previous RSN discussions regarding this source. TPM has trash-tier reporting and is sufficiently partisan that its viewpoints often lack representation in reliable sources. However, compared with the short list of successfully deprecated sources, it lacks 1) those sources' history, and 2) the number of outside RS describing those sources as disinformation. Lacking the strength of history and sourcing that led to previous deprecations, I think deprecating TPM would considerably lower the standard required for deprecation too precipitously. This source is bad! But it's not as bad as those, and edge cases may exist where it is useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh no. This source occasionally cites (and attributes) wikipedia for really, really significant details like allegations of abuse of a minor and the definition of conservatism. Jlevi (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation on process grounds Deprecating a source ought to be treated as a very serious affair. It ought to be accompanied by solid research showing widespread problems (not simply a laundry list of anecdotes). The RFC statement itself doesn't even hint at relevant evidence. I recognize that this formal RFC immediately follows a more informal request, but that request started with a very short list of anecdotes (one of which I think is seriously misrepresented). Even if every single one of those anecdotes could be verified, that shouldn't be close to the bar for deprecation of the source. Many sources we rightfully except accept as reliable sources have that many problems every year.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation Thoroughly unreliable with no redeeming features I can think of. Hoaxes and fake news. Volunteer Marek 06:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation on process grounds: per S Philbrick, who summed it up perfectly. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation. The set of circumstances in which this could appropriately cited in an encyclopedia is virtually nil. Being cited even 10 times on Wikipedia is about 10 times too many. Neutralitytalk 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation for publishing blatant copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER), also it's hard to think of an appropriate and beneficial use of this source. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation - The fact they plagiarized their ethics policy means really shot themselves in the foot. It's 2020! We can compare and check text! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. The Post Millennial hosts batshit crazy anti-science opinion articles written by political activist John Carpay[14] who founded Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group trying to change Canada's constitution. The PM plagiarized their own ethics statement.[15] The PM published fake news items from the "Raphael Badani" group of fake accounts and then deleted them.[16] They used an article supposedly written by the fake author "Joseph Labba"[17] who had a computer-generated profile photo with telltale digital flaws.[18] The fake article said that Iraq protests were ceasing due to COVID-19, or perhaps not. On the topic, it quoted Sinan Antoon, seemingly commenting about COVID-19 and protests, but Antoon's words were from November, before the pandemic.[19] I don't think the PM can be trusted with any news. Certainly its opinion section is rife with falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided a source which says that the JCCF wants to change Canada's constitution or that wanting to change it is a bad thing. Connor Behan (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support deprecation has published falsehoods, repeatedly. It's a rubbish outlet, end of story. Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm still of the mind that this process is out-of-process and goes against WP:PAGs. We should not be deprecating entire sources - it is like rating porn - unless, of course, the website itself poses a threat to our privacy and security. We certainly should not be participating in a decision-making process that is based on our own POV which may be opposite the ideology supported by a particular source, or what we perceive to be truth, right or wrong, social justice, or that may be against what our own WP:PAGs prescribe per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia that is supposed to represent the sum of all knowledge from a NPOV - like it or not. When we deprecate and downgrade entire sources, we are limiting our access to the free press and all available published material - and that opens the door to WP:POV creep and censorship. That is what happens when governments control the people, not vice versa. We should not be forcing a particular POV on our readers; rather, our job is to provide all substantial views, and allow our readers to decide for themselves. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Well put. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deprecating a source is different from blocking it. BeŻet (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
lol, thanks that analogy made me laugh. To keep with the porn analogy...is it a porn film if there's no sex? No. Is it a reliable source if there's no reputation for accuracy or fact checking? No. It's not about POV's it's about being WP:reliable. I 'd like to point out a massive contradiction between what you've said here and your comments about Al Jazeera not being a reliable source on this same noticeboard. Bacondrum (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm surprised that after all the many debates in which you've participated here, you still miss the point. Deprecation creates only a presumption against using the source. That's clearly appropriate here: this is a source known only for opinions, many of which are egregiously incorrect because they draw in turn on crappy sources that we reject. The site provides nothing but right-wing spin, often by nobodies. No Wikipedian should be citing The Post Millennial. We should add it to the deprecated filter to remind people that you need a really good reason to use this source - exactly as applies to Occupy or The Gateway Pundit.
Wikipedia aspires to be a serious reference work not a news aggregator. The inclusions of opinions by professional opinion-havers in journals of opinion is fine in a news magazine, but we are not that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is a self-published book by Wakeel Allah a reliable source for Five-Percent Nation?

It's used 31 times in the article. Not just self-published but by a minister in the organisation (and I'm not sure he's notable enough for an article). Doug Weller talk 13:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's probably fine for uncontentious and directly attributed statements about the organization, per WP:ABOUTSELF. That is, I would start any passage cited to it with "According to Wakeel Allah..." In cases where his information is disputed or shown to be wrong, cite those too. --Jayron32 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Aboutself is only for basic, non-controversial info. A self-published source by a member of the organization should not be used 31 times in its own article (3 might be ok). We should rely on reliable secondary sources instead. (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with buidhe. It may be usable in a very limited capacity to fill some kind of gap, but we must ask ourselves - if reliable sources aren't talking about something, why on earth would we include it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
As above, only reliable for what Allah has to say and no real good reason to use it.--Hippeus (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.brasil247.com/

The site is linked to the juridical PT. 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:1832:D48A:CE8C:7E (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Stock photo captions — reliable or not?

I just removed citations to shutterstock and alamy from John Major, where they were used to support claims in the text. Check out shutterstock.com HTTPS links HTTP links, alamy.com HTTPS links HTTP links, gettyimages.com HTTPS links HTTP linksfor hundreds, possibly thousands, more of the same.

  1. Is this an inappropriate use of sources?
  2. Should shutterstock, alamy, getty and similar sources be considered generally unreliable for sourcing information in text? (t · c) buidhe 09:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I think questions of this nature should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This certainly seems to me to be a sculpted bust of John Major, as does this. I don't think we need a blanket rule on this. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Where captions are included (as in these examples), I think the stock image could be used if the stock company demonstrates editorial control and fact checking. Alamy says it does not edit contributors' photos and appears to rely on contributors to provide accurate captions, indicating there is no additional editorial scrutiny. I would treat Alamy as user-generated, although individual contributors may be reliable (the onus should be wholly on editors wanting to add such refs to demonstrate they should be white-listed). Shutterstock says they review "titles and keywords...for accuracy and relevance...", so they might be reliable. I am not convinced that such photos could be used to support notability or DUEness of a statement, however. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Captions are generally reliable for identifying the subject of an image, since we routinely allow Wikimedians to exercise WP:OR when identifying their own images. However, I wouldn't use them for sourced prose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Can the Qur'an be used as a reliable source on what it teaches?

I'm posting this question here as WP:RSPSCRIPTURE references discussions on this page. My question is whether the Qur'an can be paraphrased without any reliable secondary sources. The following example is being discussed at Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#More_original_research. Qur'an 2:223 says (Yusuf Ali's translation):

Grufo inserted:

I think a reliable secondary source is needed for such paraphrasing, especially the phrase[Quran 2:223] defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth". Grufo disagrees that a reliable, secondary source is required and believes the Qur'an is a sufficient source for this statement.

Grufo has argued that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE does not always require reliable secondary sources for summarizing scriptures. Grufo also seems to believe that WP:RSPSCRIPTURE only forbids "scriptural analysis" of the Qur'an but allows wikipedians to do "textual analysis" of the Qur'an without a reliable, secondary source. I strongly believe that any analysis of the Qur'an requires a reliable source and the Qur'an can't be considered a reliable source by itself.

A similar discussion recently happened at Talk:Islam_and_blasphemy#Periodic_vandalism with Eperoton, Grufo, myself and an IP. Given that this issue keeps popping up, I think a wider community discussion might be helpful.VR talk 18:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy texts and their translations are considered primary sources. Scholarly secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources like non-user-generated encyclopedias) should be cited to support text on any interpretation. —PaleoNeonate – 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The attempt to distinguish "scriptural analysis" as a different concept from "textual analysis" doesn't hold water. We should not be using religious scripture as anything other than a primary source to provide quotes to better contextualize the content highlighted by secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:RSPSCRIPTURE states “Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate” (emphasis mine). So it is clear that some discretion is left to the editor of the page to judge whether a POV has been added (in which case secondary sources are needed) or not. Furthermore Rape in Islamic law § Marital rape contains both the indirect quotation and the direct quotation right below. --Grufo (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: “We should not be using religious scripture as anything other than a primary source to provide quotes to better contextualize the content highlighted by secondary sources”: I believe that is exactly what the current version of the page does. --Grufo (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo, I'm stating my own opinion on this issue, not citing RSPSCRIPTURE, which is merely a record of prior consensus. In the most recent relevant discussion, if I recall correctly, the two main camps were editors who felt that scripture could be used as a direct source for uncontroversial summaries of narrative, with the key example at issue being the narrative summary at Exodus. I and other editors in the second camp argued that this opened the door for wikilawyering over interpretations (and that truly uncontroversial parts of scripture are few and far between, even when limiting oneself to pure narrative); this discussion vindicates that position IMO.
But, to address your wikilawyering head on: using the Quran directly here is not appropriate. Find a secondary source that paraphrases the text this way and cite that if you can. In my opinion, scripture should be cited as a supplement if and only if a reliable secondary source explicitly cites a passage. While a source in the article does cite Quran 2:223 on this issue, it does not provide the paraphrase that Grufo is advocating for. Including a Quran quote is appropriate; including parentheticals that attempt to interpret what the Quran is referring to is not, at least in the absence of a source that connects the same dots. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
“In my opinion, scripture should be cited as a supplement if and only if a reliable secondary source explicitly cites a passage.”: Rosguill, I would like that we focus on the current paragraph Rape in Islamic law § Marital rape (which is the version after my edit). Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (secondary source) uses Quran 2:223 in support of an argument. I then added the actual Quranic passage (2:223) and wrote a short introduction to it. What exactly do you think is not OK with what I have done? --Grufo (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo there is big difference in how Dar al-Ifta introduces that verse and how you introduce that verse. Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah says"The Islamic Shari’ah advised that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love and made such amicable conduct as a sign of piety. [Qur'an 2:223]". That's very different from you addingQuran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth".VR talk 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that everything after "intimacy and love" is unnecessary and borderng on OR. A better revision would read...intimacy and love, and cites Quran 2:223 to support this position. Depending on questions of how much weight al-Misriyyah's perspective deserves relative to the rest of the section (I have no opinion on this), it may be appropriate to cite the actual Quran verse, but the introduction ofwhich although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and invites him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand" suggests a framing through the use of "although" that is not directly attested in the secondary source (in addition to being ungrammatical and largely redundant with the quote itself). signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill Can we adjust the language of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE to prevent future wikilawyering? I propose removing the "generally" inContent that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources... VR talk 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, there's already a discussion related to this started at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#May_WP:RSPSCRIPTURE_discussion. I would love to simply cosign this version, but we do need to respect consensus when summarizing them, and I'm not sure your suggested change really reflects that consensus even if I personally agree with it and would advocate for it. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • On any topic that is contentious, a secondary source is absolutely necessary. Religious texts require both translation and interpretation, not just as to their content, but as to which sections are significant. Making arguments based on the primary source text is entirely inappropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (secondary source) uses Quran 2:223 in support of an argument (and this has been added to the page by Vice regent), I only added the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it. --Grufo (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
No you didn't. Look as this diff:[20] Search for the sentence that follows the words "which although defines". Leaving aside the question of whether the edit was appropriate, you clearly added a source that interprets the Qur'an, not just "the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: The secondary source (Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah) was added by Vice regent before the diff you mention, and in Vice regent's addition there was already Quran 2:223 used in support by Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah. I added only Quran 2:223 (the actual Quranic text) and an introduction to it. --Grufo (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. Just click on the diff[[21]] and search for "which although defines". If somebody else had added it that phrase would be found on the before and after sides. It isn't. It is only on the after side. therefor you added it. Please stop saying things that are not true. Did you think nobody would check? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, could you please confirm to Guy Macon that you have added to the page the text “Islamic law advises that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love; this is supported by Quran 2:223” and that before your addition there had never been a mention to Quran 2:223 in the page? This is just for the sake of clarity and for any question I have pasted our two different versions below. --Grufo (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, you have edited your comment, so my previous comment was an answer to the previous version of what you wrote. The answer to your new version of the comment instead is yes, starting from “which although defines” is all my addition. --Grufo (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo The secondary source, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah says"The Islamic Shari’ah advised that the sexual intercourse between man and wife should be conducted with intimacy and love and made such amicable conduct as a sign of piety. [Qur'an 2:223]". That's very different from you addingQuran 2:223, which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth".VR talk 21:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I advise waiting a while to see if any of the experienced editors at RSN respond to Grufo instead of instantly responding. If an hour goes by and nobody has responded, then post your response. Give the system time to work. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93 is correct. Any claims about scriptures -- even if they seem obvious to the editor -- should be supported by scholarly secondary sources. Treat WP:RSPSCRIPTURE as if it was scripture. (that last bit was a joke, but please interpret RSPSCRIPTURE strictly; a lot of thought went into it). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    So, endlessly fight over its interpretation while treating every single word choice as if it's filled with infinite significance and portent?signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To all: please stop pinging me. I am watching this thread and being notified again and again to look at something I am going to look at anyway is annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd go even a step further that quoting any of these holy books, which have gone through how many telephone games in terms of translations (albeit with care by theologians), that we should not be quoting the books directly but always using quotes as presented by the secondary sources so that we are relying on their selected translation and not the one we feel is correct in context. --Masem (t) 21:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Often secondary sources do not give directly their holy quotation, they just tell you the chapter and the verse where to look. --Grufo (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
If they don't feel the need to quote the work, neither should we. --Masem (t) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
According to this rule there would be basically no direct quotations from the scriptures on Wikipedia. And without primary sources in front for judging and balancing the secondary sources, the choice on what secondary sources to include will become even harder than it already is, and and we will have to make tertiary sources mandatory (since we will have no other means to discern). --Grufo (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Per PaleoNeonate, Rosguill and Vanamonde. Scripture is often hundreds - if not thousands - of years old, with language, cultural and geographic contexts far removed from ours. We cannot pretend to read it in an encyclopaedically-meaningful way without interpretation. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To make things clearer

Vice regent's version (revision as of 14:09, 16 July 2020):

Grufo's version (current):

P.S. I made a mistake by using “he” to refer to the Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah instead of using “it”, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. --Grufo (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The above does not, as you previously claimed, "just add the actual Quranic passage to the page, plus a short introduction to it". BTW, why did you cite the same source four times and two different ways? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph
"which although defines the man's wives as his own personal "tilth" and invites him to approach them "when or how [he] will", prescribes to "do some good act for [his and his wives'] souls beforehand"
is an interpretation of the passage from the Quran
"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe."
"As a tilth" does not equal "his own personal tilth". "So approach your tilth" does not equal "Invites him to approach them". "Your souls" does not equal "For [his and his wives'] souls". These may seem like reasonable interpretations to you, but everybody thinks that their interpretation of scripture is the only reasonable one. Please stick to the interpretations found in scholarly secondary sources rather than rolling your own. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, although I believe we are within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (see above). But, anyway, since I think I am minority at this point, I believe that I will keep only the verbatim Quranic quotation and remove the introduction to it. This answer also to Rosguill. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can the Qur'an be used as a reliable source on what it teaches? A good commentary is certainly needed, because many Qoranic verses have been abrogated (superseded) by others. Also, many verses have been modified or further explained by hadith, and you need to see the whole picture befrore you can interpret individual verses. Law students know that all law codes (especially civil law) possess voluminous commentaries, and it is impossible to learn or understand the law without them. The same holds true for religious codes, whether Bible or Qoran (actually Islamic law, only partly based on the Qoran). AFAIk there is no critical edition of the Quran comparable to critical editions of the Bible (but see Corpus Coranicum). Biblical scholarship is much older and wider disseminated than Islamic studies.
The issue here is not about individual verses, but the topic of women in Islam. I would recommend reading the article al-mar'a in the EI2 (Vol. 6), which answers many of the questions and uncertainties winding through this thread. --83.137.6.248 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hadiths and Quranic self-abrogations are all things that concern only Islam and say nothing about the Quran itself. As I already stated elsewhere, the Quran can also be reliably commented from a completely different perspective even by an atheist philologist (but of course an academic, not a Wikipedia editor) – exactly like it has happened with the Bible and other holy texts. --Grufo (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Given how much controversy and disagreement there is over religious texts, I would say that anything but the most uncontroversial and obvious of statements needs to be sourced to a secondary source; otherwise we're almost always going to be presenting interpretation or analysis. An added issue is that these are not in English, which means that translation is always required. And on top of that, I would be extremely skeptical about pulling out any text that isn't particularly well-known, especially if it's done in a way that makes it seem like it's making a particular point or presenting the faith in a particular way - those risk delving into WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. An added reason to emphasize this requirement is that many editors are going to feel that the personal reading of a religious text that they follow is "obvious" (it is a tenet of faith among some religious groups that their interpretations are axiomatically not interpretations but the only possible literal meaning of the text, even though from our perspective their beliefs obviously involve interpretation and numerous other people read it differently.) Especially in this context, where the editor is plainly connecting that line to Islamic laws about rape - there's absolutely no way that can be read as anything but inappropriate interpretation and analysis of a WP:PRIMARY source. A secondary source is required for that sort of implication to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of scholarly sources which discuss marital rape in Islam: Apparently it is allowed: (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Another source also states that most interpretations of Islam have no conception of marital rape because a wife's duty is to obey her husband (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

    • There are a fair number of recent statements and fatwas by religious authorities, covered by reliable news reports, that condemn violence against women in general including within marriage [22],[23], [24], [25]. I'd be a bit hard pressed to find sources that explicitly condemn r.a.p.e, just like I'd be to find those that explicitly condemn murder and I'm sure I can find Islamists who disagree as well. (The edit filter is going beserk) 39.37.159.63 (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
      Condemning violence against women isn't incompatible with not accepting the idea of marital rape, if your belief is that women are obligated to provide the husband with sex. I think you are also engaging in WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
        • It's important to actually read the sources in detail rather than just skim them for pull-quotes (part of the reason why reputable secondary sources are needed for this sort of thing is because they tend to provide full context.) Both the sources you quoted specifically state that the interpretations they cite are disputed and not universal. From Hajjar:However, such interpretations are neither universal across Muslim societies nor universally accepted even within societies where intrafamily violence is sanctioned on the basis of shari'a. I elaborate on these differences with examples from specific countries in the final section of this article. Here, I would stress the point that interpretations of religion are social and have a history. In this regard, the problem of domestic violence in Muslim societies and struggles against it are comparable to those in other societies, because they raise common questions about the relationship among religion and culture, the state, and women's rights. Moreover, in the contemporary era, the importance of comparative analysis is boosted by the ways that local contestations over women's rights are shaped and affected by the impact of global legal initiatives under the rubric of human rights to regulate and restrict violence. Note specifically that she says it's comparable to other societies, ie. most other major faiths have comparable religious authorities who likewise argue against the concept of martial rape. Since that source specifically says this issue in Islam is "comparable to other societies", it would be misusing the source to use it without that context in a way that presents this as a problem unique or specific to Islam, and outright misrepresenting it to present it as saying that that position is universal within Islam (I did not, at a glance, see where Hajjar says that "most" Islamic authorities allow martial rape - could you cite the specific quote? She seems to me to be saying the opposite, since she emphasizes that the interpretation she describes is contested.) Similarly, Tønnessen says thatThere are conflicting claims regarding women’s legal rights under Islam on the key issues of consent and obedience. Women activists advocate that marital rape should be criminalized in the Criminal Act and that the requirements for female obedience and male guardianship in the family law should be abolished. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
          OK, I did not read both sources in depth, I have a life outside of WP. One of the footnotes in Tønnessen states, "According to Lisa Hajjar (2004, p. 11), marital rape is “uncriminalizable” under dominant interpretations of Islamic law." And in Hajjar, p. 11 states, "Marital rape is another form of domestic violence for which justifica- tion on the basis of shari’a can be found. Although rape is a punishable crime in every Muslim society, nowhere is the criminal sanction extended to rape within marriage, because sexual access is deemed elemental to the marriage contract. Under shari’a, there is no harm-and thus no crime-in acts of sex between people who are married. Thus, marital rape is literally “uncriminalizable” under dominant interpretations of shari’a. For example, Sura 2, Verse 223, provides a Qur’anic basis for men’s unabridged sexual access to their wives. This verse stipulates that “your wives are ploughing fields for you; go to your field when and as you like.” Although other Qur’anic verses and hadith instruct men not to force themselves sexually upon their wives, this tends to be undermined by the principle of female obedience (see El Alami 1992; El Alami and Hinchcliffe 1996). Indeed, a wife’s refusal to have sex with her husband can be construed as “disobedi- ence,” thereby triggering legalistic justification for beating." That does not exclude alternative interpretations, which are stated to be minority interpretations by Hajjar. (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The first and fourth news reports above do seem to clearly condemn marital r.a.p.e [26][27] (the other two are about harassment) and the claim that they somehow sidestep the issue seems to be OR. We have some scholarly sources like Brown who make the same point as well.
        • Another problem I have with some of the sources is that some of the Feminist sources cited, like Ayesha Chaudhry, are Muslim themselves. I highly doubt that they would support blanket statements like "marital r.a.p.e is allowed in Islam", rather than a much more qualified point that, just like some interpretations of other religions, some traditional interpretations of Islam/Islamic sources/Sharia, which they regard as patriarchal and sexist, and which they (as Muslim scholars) oppose, allow for or ignore the existence of marital r.a.p.e, when defined under the terms of consent rather than harm. It's a fair bit lengthier but the nuance is kinda important here in capturing what the sources are saying. 39.37.174.170 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Grufo did something similar over at Islam and Blasphemy changing:
    • to:
    • Grufo's personal additions are found nowhere in any source and he admits as much, but he still maintains that his additions, which actually seem to contradict the citation, ought to be included and uses the same arguments he uses above. This OR should be removed or tagged too. 39.37.159.63 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Religious texts are notoriously open to interpretations and should never be presented without a secondary source explaining them. Of course it is fine to say when writing about religious people how they interpret scripture without mentioning other interpretations. We might say for example that a Christian sect preaches corporal punishment because Solomon said. TFD (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If the issue here is edits like this one, then that's pretty cut and dry. I'll admit that a newspaper is not necessarily the best source for theological claims, given the libraries that have been written on the subject, but it is a secondary source. We do not replace secondary sources with personal exegesis using primary religious texts.
Personally I would go a step further and say that we shouldn't generally be using primary religious texts even for direct quotes, where the selection and presentation of those quotes is not based on use in secondary sources. The sheer volume of primary religious texts, along with their many translations, is sufficient that merely the selection and presentation of even direct quotes can become an avenue for original research. GMGtalk 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
And what is your opinion of articles such as Psalm 1 which include the primary text of the Biblical passage, along with a centuries-old translation? Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_308&oldid=1141884929"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 308, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.